Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
APPENDIX G
INTERNATIONAL BROADBAND DATA REPORT
Section I. Country List
Section II. Broadband Deployment Comparisons
Section III. Broadband Speed and Performance Comparisons
Section IV. Broadband Pricing Comparisons
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
2
I. COUNTRY LIST
1. The Commission must include “information comparing the extent of broadband service
capability (including data transmission speeds and price for broadband service capability) in a total of 75
communities in at least 25 countries abroad for each of the data rate benchmarks for broadband service
utilized by the Commission to reflect different speed tiers.”
1
We must choose international communities
comparable to various communities in the United States with respect to population size, population
density, topography, and demographic profile.
2
The Commission is required to include “a geographically
diverse selection of countries” and “communities including the capital cities of such countries.”
3
2. In the table below, we list the United States and the other 37 Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries for purposes of this International Broadband Data
Report (2022 IBDR) and identify the countries that are included in each section with an “X” mark.
4
We
refer to these countries as the “comparison countries.” For the fixed and mobile deployment
comparisons, we rely on 26 European comparison countries.
5
For the fixed and mobile speed and
performance comparison, we include 35 OECD Member countries.
6
For the fixed and mobile broadband
pricing comparisons, we rely on a smaller subset of 25 comparison countries.
7
1
47 U.S.C. § 1303(b)(1); see also Section 401 of the Repack Airwaves Yielding Better Access for Users of Modern
Services Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-141, 132 Stat. 1087 (codified at 47 U.S.C. § 163) (2018) (RAY BAUM’S
Act).
2
47 U.S.C. § 1303(b)(2).
3
Id.
4
For previous reports, see, e.g., Communications Marketplace Report et al., GN Docket No. 20-60, Report, 36 FCC
Rcd 2945, Appx. G: International Broadband Data Report (2020) (2020 International Broadband Data Report);
International Comparison Requirements Pursuant to the Broadband Data Improvement Act; International
Broadband Data Report, GN Docket No. 17-199, Sixth Report, 33 FCC Rcd 978 (IB 2018) (Sixth International
Broadband Data Report).
5
For the deployment section, we rely on data from the European Commission (EC) for European OECD countries
and FCC Form 477 data for the United States, but we do not have comparable data for other OECD countries to be
included in this analysis. Nevertheless, in section II.E, we report high-level summary statistics related to the
broadband deployment for some of these non-EC OECD countries, such as Colombia and Costa Rica, based on
available data.
6
Colombia and Costa Rica are the only OECD countries not included in the speed and performance ranking
comparisons because of the unavailability of data before they became OECD member countries in April 2020 and
May 2021, respectively.
7
The countries excluded from the pricing analysis are Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Hungary, Israel, Japan,
Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, and Turkey. Due to the time intensive nature of collecting both
fixed broadband and mobile broadband pricing data from multiple providers in each country, we limited the pricing
analysis to the same countries analyzed in the pricing analysis of the 2020 International Broadband Data Report.
See 2020 Communications Marketplace Report, 36 FCC Rcd at 3750, Appx. G-1: International Broadband Data
Report, para. 2.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
3
Country
8
Section II.
Deployment
Section III. Speed &
Performance
Section IV. Price
Australia (AU)
X
X
Austria (AT)
X
X
X
Belgium (BE)
X
X
X
Canada (CA)
X
X
Chile (CL)
X
Colombia (CO)
Costa Rica (CR)
Czech Republic (CZ)
X
X
X
Denmark (DK)
X
X
X
Estonia (EE)
X
X
X
Finland (FI)
X
X
X
France (FR)
X
X
X
Germany (DE)
X
X
X
Greece (GR)
X
X
X
Hungary (HU)
X
X
Iceland (IS)
X
X
X
Ireland (IE)
X
X
X
Israel (IL)
X
Italy (IT)
X
X
X
Japan (JP)
X
Latvia (LV)
X
X
X
Lithuania (LT)
X
X
Luxembourg (LU)
X
X
X
Mexico (MX)
X
X
Netherlands (NL)
X
X
X
New Zealand (NZ)
X
X
Norway (NO)
X
X
X
Poland (PL)
X
X
Portugal (PT)
X
X
X
Slovakia (SK)
X
X
Slovenia (SI)
X
X
South Korea (KR)
X
Spain (ES)
X
X
X
Sweden (SE)
X
X
X
Switzerland (CH)
X
X
X
Turkey (TR)
X
United Kingdom (GB)
X
X
X
United States (US)
X
X
X
8
Although Colombia and Costa Rica are not included in our systematic analyses, we provide high-level deployment
statistics for these countries in section II.E.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
4
II. BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT COMPARISON
3. In this section, we present fixed and mobile broadband deployment data for the United
States and 26 European comparison countries (EU 26),
9
and we report high-level summary statistics for
several non-European OECD countries as well. Similar to the Sixth International Broadband Data
Report and the 2020 International Broadband Data Report, we use the EC’s Broadband Coverage in
Europe 2021 report and data
10
to compare the broadband deployment of 26 European countries with that
of the United States, for which we rely upon FCC Form 477 data.
A. Comparison of European OECD Countries and United States
4. Below, we present various figures on fixed broadband deployment by technology and by
speed tier and on mobile deployment by technology, for individual countries and also for an aggregate EU
26 grouping of the 26 European OECD countries.
5. Figure 1 presents the percentage of total households during 2021 with access to fixed
broadband at a given download speed tier by country. Although most countries had extensive fixed
broadband coverage at lower download speed tiers, the variation of fixed broadband availability across
countries widened at higher download speed tiers. For instance, between 74.4% and 99.8% of households
had access to fixed broadband with a download speed greater than 30 Mbps. However, the percentage of
households with access to fixed broadband with a download speed greater than 1 Gbps ranged from a low
of 0.9% in Slovenia to a high of 95.9% in Luxembourg. Compared to its European counterparts, the
United States ranked highly in the percentage of households with access to fixed broadband at all
download speed tiers. The United States ranked 9
th
, 7
th
, and 5
th
out of 27 countries (excluding the
aggregate EU 26 grouping) in the percentage of households with access to fixed broadband with a
download speed greater than 30 Mbps, 100 Mbps, and 1 Gbps, respectively.
6. Figures 2 and 3 present the percentage of total and rural households,
11
respectively, with
access to fixed broadband using Fiber to the Premises (FTTP) technology by country over time. In
general, the percentage of households with access to FTTP increased in all countries over time, even in
rural areas. Figure 4 compares the percentages of households with access to FTTP in rural versus urban
areas by country in 2021. With the exception of Denmark and the Netherlands, where rural households
had slightly greater access to FTTP than urban households, the disparity in access to FTTP between rural
and urban areas remained substantial in all countries in 2021. In the United States, the percentage of total
households with access to FTTP increased from 29.3% in 2017 to 44.7% in 2021, and the percentage of
rural households with access to FTTP increased from 16.0% in 2017 to 28.0% in 2021. Compared to its
European counterparts in 2021, the United States ranked 18
th
out of 27 countries in the percentage of total
households with access to FTTP and 16
th
in the percentage of rural households with access to FTTP.
7. Figure 5 presents the percentage of total households with access to fixed broadband
through either DOCSIS 3.0 or 3.1 technology by country for the years 2017-2021, and Figure 6 presents
9
In all figures, EU 26 represents all 26 European OECD countries regardless of whether individual countries are
excluded from the figures due to no reported deployment in the country (i.e., the households for countries with zero
deployment are included in the EU 26 denominator).
10
See generally European Commission, Broadband Coverage in Europe 2021 (2022), https://digital-
strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/broadband-coverage-europe-2021 (Broadband Coverage in Europe 2021
Report/Broadband Coverage in Europe 2021 Data) (the report and associated data can be accessed by clicking on the
appropriate item listed under the “Downloads” sub header).
11
The Broadband Coverage in Europe 2021 Report defines rural areas using a methodology that incorporates “the
Corine land cover database” and “creates a database of population and land type in every square kilometre across
Europe.” Broadband Coverage in Europe 2021 Report at 22. Households “in square kilometres with a population of
less than one hundred” are classified as rural. Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
5
the percentage of rural households with access to fixed broadband through either DOCSIS 3.0 or 3.1
technology. Figure 7 compares the percentages of households with access to fixed broadband through
either DOCSIS 3.0 or 3.1 technology in rural versus urban areas by country in 2021, and Figure 8
presents a similar comparison by focusing only on DOCSIS 3.1 technology. Compared to its European
counterparts in 2021, the United States ranked 5
th
out of 27 countries in the percentage of total
households, and 4
th
out of 27 countries in the percentage of rural households, with access to fixed
broadband through either DOCSIS 3.0 or 3.1 technology.
8. Figure 9 presents the percentage of total households with access to mobile broadband
using 4G Long-Term Evolution (LTE) by country for the years 2017-2021, and Figure 10 presents the
percentage of rural households with access to 4G LTE. Figures 11 and 12 compare the percentages of
households with access to mobile broadband service through 4G LTE and 5G networks, respectively, in
rural versus urban areas by country in 2021. Although 4G LTE coverage was nearly ubiquitous, with the
lowest coverage occurring in the rural areas of Iceland still above 93%, 5G networks were deployed
mostly in urban areas. In comparison to its European counterparts, the United States ranked 5
th
out of 27
countries in the percentage of total households, and 2
nd
out of 27 countries in the percentage of rural
households, with access to 5G networks. In 2021, 99.3% of total households and 86.0% of rural
households in the United States had access to 5G networks.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
6
Fig. 1. Fixed Broadband by Download Speed Tier – Percentage of Total Households (2021)
Country
≥ 30 Mbps
≥ 100 Mbps
≥ 1 Gbps
Austria
93.3%
82.8%
45.4%
Belgium
99.1%
97.2%
69.0%
Czech Republic
98.1%
89.2%
38.1%
Denmark
97.7%
96.3%
90.7%
EU 26
90.5%
79.7%
59.4%
Estonia
89.2%
83.5%
36.7%
Finland
77.0%
65.0%
51.0%
France
74.4%
65.3%
63.8%
Germany
95.9%
89.6%
62.1%
Greece
96.6%
54.6%
19.0%
Hungary
94.9%
88.7%
44.8%
Iceland
98.8%
88.3%
85.6%
Ireland
90.1%
87.7%
67.4%
Italy
90.6%
77.6%
44.2%
Latvia
93.5%
90.7%
40.3%
Lithuania
84.6%
78.1%
78.0%
Luxembourg
99.8%
99.4%
95.9%
Netherlands
99.2%
98.5%
88.8%
Norway
91.7%
89.2%
86.5%
Poland
77.0%
69.2%
55.2%
Portugal
92.8%
92.8%
86.0%
Slovakia
82.3%
75.4%
28.0%
Slovenia
89.5%
85.5%
0.9%
Spain
96.2%
93.8%
92.5%
Sweden
88.9%
86.7%
82.5%
Switzerland
99.8%
98.6%
63.7%
United Kingdom
95.0%
63.2%
38.7%
United States
96.3%
93.4%
86.7%
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
7
Fig. 2. Fixed Broadband - FTTP – Percentage of Total Households (2017-2021)
Country
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Austria
12.4%
13.0%
13.8%
20.5%
26.6%
Belgium
0.8%
1.4%
3.6%
6.5%
9.7%
Czech Republic
25.9%
28.3%
29.3%
33.3%
35.8%
Denmark
62.7%
64.4%
66.9%
70.1%
74.1%
EU 26
24.8%
28.1%
32.7%
37.7%
44.8%
Estonia
50.7%
54.2%
57.4%
70.9%
73.4%
Finland
31.7%
31.4%
35.2%
37.7%
40.0%
France
28.3%
37.8%
43.8%
52.6%
63.4%
Germany
7.3%
8.5%
10.5%
13.8%
15.4%
Greece
0.4%
0.4%
7.1%
10.2%
19.8%
Hungary
29.8%
35.9%
42.6%
48.6%
64.2%
Iceland
72.3%
76.2%
80.4%
83.5%
87.6%
Ireland
8.3%
12.9%
35.4%
47.7%
62.2%
Italy
21.7%
23.9%
30.0%
33.7%
44.2%
Latvia
85.7%
87.8%
88.1%
88.1%
89.5%
Lithuania
54.4%
60.6%
61.0%
67.1%
78.2%
Luxembourg
57.2%
63.4%
67.5%
72.1%
75.2%
Netherlands
31.9%
32.2%
34.4%
35.6%
51.9%
Norway
51.9%
58.7%
71.4%
73.7%
75.3%
Poland
21.3%
29.1%
38.3%
44.6%
51.9%
Portugal
63.6%
70.2%
76.6%
82.3%
87.6%
Slovakia
41.2%
42.9%
44.3%
49.2%
62.3%
Slovenia
52.2%
61.1%
63.8%
65.6%
72.5%
Spain
71.4%
77.4%
80.4%
84.9%
88.9%
Sweden
66.4%
72.2%
77.1%
80.5%
82.5%
Switzerland
29.5%
30.3%
34.9%
39.7%
40.2%
United Kingdom
3.0%
3.8%
8.5%
14.5%
23.3%
United States
29.3%
33.8%
41.1%
42.4%
44.7%
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
8
Fig. 3. Fixed Broadband - FTTP – Percentage of Rural Households (2017-2021)
Country
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Austria
5.4%
5.9%
10.0%
10.6%
14.9%
Belgium
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.4%
0.7%
Czech Republic
5.3%
5.6%
5.9%
6.4%
6.9%
Denmark
54.8%
60.8%
65.8%
70.9%
77.8%
EU 26
9.4%
13.4%
17.5%
23.4%
30.2%
Estonia
16.8%
18.0%
19.8%
20.5%
21.1%
Finland
8.3%
9.3%
9.1%
9.4%
12.4%
France
4.3%
9.3%
12.4%
18.4%
28.8%
Germany
2.4%
3.6%
5.6%
10.6%
11.3%
Greece
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Hungary
6.8%
15.6%
28.9%
35.6%
37.9%
Iceland
29.1%
39.4%
54.7%
66.3%
78.4%
Ireland
1.2%
2.7%
13.5%
20.6%
43.1%
Italy
0.8%
0.8%
2.1%
8.4%
17.3%
Latvia
70.1%
73.6%
73.2%
73.8%
75.2%
Lithuania
19.5%
21.8%
22.5%
23.3%
41.1%
Luxembourg
35.1%
37.0%
41.5%
48.5%
51.1%
Netherlands
20.3%
22.7%
26.4%
27.2%
54.5%
Norway
22.9%
32.6%
44.8%
56.3%
64.0%
Poland
9.5%
13.7%
17.9%
24.1%
32.6%
Portugal
42.2%
48.2%
49.1%
51.2%
60.7%
Slovakia
9.2%
11.9%
15.3%
18.0%
21.6%
Slovenia
25.8%
34.3%
38.0%
39.0%
46.4%
Spain
20.9%
32.6%
46.4%
59.5%
68.9%
Sweden
22.2%
31.0%
40.6%
48.1%
54.3%
Switzerland
7.6%
8.2%
8.6%
20.4%
21.1%
United Kingdom
4.3%
5.9%
8.1%
11.9%
16.2%
United States
16.0%
17.4%
20.9%
23.9%
28.0%
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
9
Fig. 4. Fixed Broadband - FTTP - Percentage of Rural and Urban Households (2021)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
10
Fig. 5. Fixed Broadband – DOCSIS 3.0/3.1 – Percentage of Total Households (2017-2021)
12
Country
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Austria
51.8%
53.0%
53.2%
58.3%
59.3%
Belgium
93.9%
93.9%
93.5%
93.6%
96.5%
Czech Republic
38.8%
41.5%
41.1%
41.6%
41.9%
Denmark
68.8%
68.4%
68.4%
68.1%
67.5%
EU 26
44.1%
45.1%
46.0%
46.1%
45.3%
Estonia
55.6%
65.7%
67.4%
76.7%
78.5%
Finland
36.2%
36.1%
36.9%
37.8%
36.9%
France
27.8%
28.6%
27.0%
27.0%
23.1%
Germany
63.7%
63.9%
66.3%
66.9%
67.9%
Greece
0.0%
0.0%
0.5%
0.6%
0.0%
Hungary
68.3%
71.5%
74.5%
76.0%
78.2%
Iceland
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
0.3%
3.3%
Ireland
48.6%
48.7%
49.2%
49.8%
48.6%
Latvia
29.2%
29.4%
30.1%
30.1%
30.2%
Lithuania
17.1%
18.1%
17.9%
19.4%
27.1%
Luxembourg
73.2%
84.0%
83.9%
88.9%
90.2%
Netherlands
95.1%
95.1%
95.2%
95.2%
94.2%
Norway
51.3%
49.0%
45.1%
44.5%
40.3%
Poland
39.4%
40.0%
44.1%
43.4%
43.9%
Portugal
56.2%
56.3%
59.5%
59.4%
57.6%
Slovakia
29.7%
30.0%
32.2%
32.9%
39.4%
Slovenia
57.4%
59.9%
57.6%
58.7%
58.5%
Spain
48.8%
48.9%
48.9%
45.8%
38.4%
Sweden
36.8%
36.0%
35.7%
37.3%
35.8%
Switzerland
84.3%
84.3%
84.4%
84.3%
85.2%
United Kingdom
46.4%
50.1%
50.3%
50.3%
50.3%
United States
87.9%
88.4%
88.4%
88.3%
84.5%
12
The Broadband Coverage in Europe Reports from 2021, 2020, and 2019 indicate that Italy had no deployment of
DOCSIS 3.0/3.1 from 2017 to 2021. Broadband Coverage in Europe 2021 Report at 124; European Commission,
Broadband Coverage in Europe 2020 at 125 (2021), https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/broadband-
coverage-europe-2020 (Broadband Coverage in Europe 2020 Report) (the report and associated data can be accessed
by clicking on the appropriate item listed under the “Downloads” sub header); European Commission, Broadband
Coverage in Europe 2019 at 124 (2020), https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/broadband-coverage-europe-
2019 (Broadband Coverage in Europe 2019 Report) (the report and associated data can be accessed by clicking on
the appropriate item listed under the “Downloads” sub header). EU 26 includes all 26 countries, including Italy.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
11
Fig. 6. Fixed Broadband – DOCSIS 3.0/3.1 – Percentage of Rural Households (2017-2021)
13
Country
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Austria
19.9%
19.9%
20.4%
21.2%
12.6%
Belgium
45.2%
45.5%
48.3%
48.5%
54.6%
Czech Republic
2.4%
3.2%
3.4%
3.5%
3.6%
Denmark
5.6%
5.2%
5.9%
5.5%
5.3%
EU 26
9.2%
10.0%
10.7%
10.7%
10.5%
Estonia
12.7%
23.3%
23.5%
23.6%
23.7%
France
1.1%
1.3%
0.7%
0.7%
0.3%
Germany
15.0%
15.2%
16.9%
16.9%
17.5%
Hungary
25.3%
37.8%
47.1%
47.1%
46.9%
Iceland
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.0%
Ireland
3.4%
3.4%
3.7%
3.7%
3.8%
Lithuania
0.2%
0.3%
0.4%
0.5%
0.5%
Luxembourg
0.0%
32.6%
33.0%
62.9%
60.1%
Netherlands
66.2%
69.0%
74.0%
74.8%
81.4%
Norway
4.5%
2.6%
2.9%
1.5%
1.7%
Poland
1.4%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.6%
Portugal
43.1%
43.3%
43.5%
43.5%
43.3%
Slovakia
0.3%
0.5%
1.2%
1.7%
2.6%
Slovenia
20.6%
21.1%
19.7%
19.8%
19.3%
Spain
12.6%
13.1%
11.2%
10.8%
6.3%
Sweden
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
Switzerland
78.1%
79.7%
79.8%
79.6%
82.2%
United Kingdom
2.2%
3.1%
3.1%
3.1%
3.2%
United States
53.3%
54.7%
54.6%
54.6%
55.9%
13
The Broadband Coverage in Europe Reports from 2021, 2020, and 2019 indicate that Finland, Greece, Italy, and
Latvia had no deployment of DOCSIS 3.0/3.1 for rural households from 2017 to 2021. Broadband Coverage in
Europe 2021 Report at 92, 107, 124, 128; Broadband Coverage in Europe 2020 Report at 93, 108, 125, 129;
Broadband Coverage in Europe 2019 Report at 91, 107, 124, 128. EU 26 includes all 26 countries, including
Finland, Greece, Italy, and Latvia.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
12
Fig. 7. Fixed Broadband - DOCSIS 3.0/3.1 – Percentage of Rural and Urban Households (2021)
14
14
The Broadband Coverage in Europe 2021 Report indicates that Italy and Greece had no deployment of DOCSIS
3.0/3.1 in 2021; however, the report also indicates that Greece had some deployment in prior years. Broadband
Coverage in Europe 2021 Report at 107, 124. EU 26 includes all 26 countries, including Italy and Greece.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
13
Fig. 8. Fixed Broadband - DOCSIS 3.1 – Percentage of Rural and Urban Households (2021)
15
15
The Broadband Coverage in Europe 2021 Report indicates that Estonia, France, Greece, Italy, Lithuania, and
Slovenia had no DOCSIS 3.1 deployment in 2021. Broadband Coverage in Europe 2021 Report at 87, 97, 107, 124,
132, 169. EU 26 includes all 26 countries, including Estonia, France, Greece, Italy, Lithuania, and Slovenia.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
14
Fig. 9. Mobile Broadband – 4G LTE – Percentage of Total Households (2017-2021)
Country
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Austria
99.01%
99.46%
99.56%
99.97%
99.96%
Belgium
99.99%
99.99%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
Czech Republic
99.41%
99.41%
99.84%
99.79%
99.84%
Denmark
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
EU 26
98.28%
99.06%
99.40%
99.73%
99.77%
Estonia
98.45%
99.25%
99.42%
100.00%
99.69%
Finland
99.64%
99.98%
99.99%
99.99%
100.00%
France
97.99%
99.34%
99.54%
99.79%
99.92%
Germany
96.50%
97.50%
98.61%
99.71%
99.98%
Greece
93.98%
98.18%
99.12%
99.19%
99.50%
Hungary
99.20%
99.20%
99.21%
99.30%
99.74%
Iceland
98.56%
99.88%
99.92%
99.92%
99.67%
Ireland
97.16%
95.84%
99.00%
99.00%
99.00%
Italy
98.69%
98.87%
98.88%
99.31%
99.95%
Latvia
98.43%
98.60%
99.95%
99.95%
99.95%
Lithuania
99.08%
99.18%
99.96%
99.97%
99.98%
Luxembourg
98.60%
98.67%
99.79%
99.80%
99.80%
Netherlands
99.35%
99.35%
99.40%
99.50%
96.37%
Norway
99.72%
99.83%
99.90%
99.93%
99.98%
Poland
99.90%
99.95%
99.90%
99.90%
99.90%
Portugal
98.89%
99.21%
99.73%
99.85%
99.84%
Slovakia
96.29%
97.37%
98.40%
98.40%
98.40%
Slovenia
98.57%
99.51%
99.70%
99.93%
99.94%
Spain
97.22%
99.53%
99.77%
99.87%
99.91%
Sweden
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
Switzerland
99.80%
99.90%
99.94%
99.90%
99.99%
United Kingdom
99.50%
99.87%
99.87%
99.93%
99.91%
United States
99.81%
99.87%
99.90%
99.91%
99.62%
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
15
Fig. 10. Mobile Broadband – 4G LTE – Percentage of Rural Households (2017-2021)
Country
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Austria
92.72%
96.41%
96.60%
99.93%
99.74%
Belgium
99.74%
99.73%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
Czech Republic
95.84%
95.85%
99.82%
99.77%
99.83%
Denmark
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
EU 26
92.20%
96.73%
98.34%
98.69%
99.56%
Estonia
98.45%
99.25%
99.55%
100.00%
99.38%
Finland
99.99%
99.87%
99.92%
99.93%
100.00%
France
87.50%
99.77%
99.76%
99.15%
99.74%
Germany
87.90%
90.60%
96.74%
98.56%
99.93%
Greece
75.98%
93.50%
95.76%
96.08%
97.57%
Hungary
97.71%
97.70%
97.70%
98.16%
99.61%
Iceland
94.92%
98.65%
99.13%
99.13%
93.95%
Ireland
91.60%
92.70%
97.01%
97.41%
97.36%
Italy
89.19%
90.66%
95.01%
94.74%
99.94%
Latvia
94.40%
94.96%
99.81%
99.82%
99.80%
Lithuania
96.97%
97.28%
99.88%
99.90%
99.98%
Luxembourg
95.18%
95.94%
99.57%
99.60%
99.80%
Netherlands
99.35%
99.40%
99.28%
99.28%
98.64%
Norway
99.60%
99.61%
99.88%
99.90%
99.90%
Poland
99.79%
99.90%
99.90%
99.90%
99.90%
Portugal
93.54%
94.58%
98.16%
98.96%
98.94%
Slovakia
87.10%
90.86%
94.39%
94.39%
95.24%
Slovenia
95.07%
98.16%
98.81%
99.71%
99.76%
Spain
87.02%
97.53%
98.82%
99.28%
100.00%
Sweden
99.98%
99.99%
99.99%
99.99%
99.99%
Switzerland
99.38%
99.69%
99.79%
99.90%
99.95%
United Kingdom
95.41%
99.35%
99.35%
99.26%
99.01%
United States
99.08%
99.38%
99.53%
99.58%
98.17%
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
16
Fig. 11. Mobile Broadband – 4G LTE – Percentage of Rural and Urban Households (2021)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
17
Fig. 12. Mobile Broadband – 5G – Percentage of Rural and Urban Households (2021)
16
16
The Broadband Coverage in Europe 2021 Report indicates that Latvia and Portugal had no reported 5G
deployment in 2021. Broadband Coverage in Europe 2021 Report at 128, 157. EU 26 includes all 26 countries,
including Latvia and Portugal.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
18
B. Summary of Broadband Coverage in Europe 2021 Report Methodology
9. For the Broadband Coverage in Europe 2021 Report, a survey of national regulators and
broadband network operators was conducted and validated against other available data (e.g., market
reports, Internet service providers’ (ISPs) financial reports and press releases, etc.).
17
Survey respondents
were asked to submit the number of total and rural households passed in each nomenclature of territorial
units for statistics (NUTS) 3 region (regional units of 150,000 to 800,000 inhabitants) by technology or
set of technologies.
18
In addition, respondents were also asked to provide the number of households
passed by networks that are able to achieve download speeds of at least 30 Mbps, 100 Mbps, and 1
Gbps.
19
10. Survey respondents were provided with estimates of the number of total households and
rural households in each NUTS 3 region by using the NUTS 3 level population data and average
household size data published annually by Eurostat for each country.
20
To determine the number of rural
households in each NUTS 3 region, the report’s research team uses the Corine land cover database to
determine the population and land type of each square kilometer in Europe; households in square
kilometers with a population of less than 100 (i.e., a population density of less than 100 per square
kilometer) are classified as rural.
21
Based on the survey of regulators and providers and supplemental
research, data were integrated on a country-by-country basis by technology at the NUTS 3 level which
were then aggregated to the national level by technology.
22
The integration process accounted for areas in
which coverage of the same technology was provided by multiple operators to avoid double counting
households.
23
11. To estimate coverage by download speed tier, the survey included questions asking
respondents to report the number of households at the country-level that realistically could achieve actual
download speeds of at least 30 Mbps, 100 Mbps, and 1 Gbps.
24
For each speed tier, the set of
technologies capable of reaching the speed were specified and respondents were asked to exclude
connections that did not meet the criteria.
25
To qualify for the speed tier, the connection must be able to
achieve the minimum speed 75% of the time.
26
17
Broadband Coverage in Europe 2021 Report at 21.
18
Id. at 18.
19
Id. at 21.
20
Updated annual household values are not available for all relevant countries. Therefore, the Broadband Coverage
in Europe 2021 Report estimates annual number of households using NUTS 3 population and average household
size data and uses these estimates for all countries for consistency. See id. at 22.
21
Id. at 22.
22
Id. at 23.
23
Id..
24
Id. at 23-24.
25
For the 30 Mbps tier, the category included Very-high-bit-rate Digital Subscriber Line (VDSL, including VDSL2
Vectoring), FTTP, Fixed Wireless Access (FWA, including 4G TD LTE standard and 5G FWA), and DOCSIS 3.0
(including DOCSIS 3.1) cable broadband. See id.at 24. For the 100 Mbps tier, the category included VDSL2
Vectoring, FTTP, DOCSIS 3.0/3.1 cable broadband, and 5G FWA (if speeds higher than 100 Mbps are attainable
over 5G FWA). See id. For the 1 Gbps tier, the category included FTTP and DOCSIS 3.1 cable broadband. See id.
26
Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
19
12. Regarding 5G coverage, the EC’s research team used official regulatory data on 5G
rollouts in addition to reviewing information published by network operators on the cities and areas where
their 5G networks and services had been launched.
27
C. Summary of Methodology to Compare FCC Form 477 Data with Broadband
Coverage in Europe 2021 Data
13. For our comparative analysis of European OECD countries with the United States,
28
we
rely upon FCC Form 477 fixed broadband and mobile broadband deployment data.
29
Although the
Broadband Coverage in Europe 2021 Data and the FCC Form 477 data are collected under different
methodologies and definitions, we use the census block level FCC Form 477 data to recreate the statistics
by technology and speed tiers at overall and rural breakdowns for the United States. Below, we describe
our methodology for using the FCC Form 477 data to make the most accurate comparison with the EC
statistics as possible.
14. For fixed broadband comparisons, we use the FCC Form 477 data at five vintage
points—June 2017, June 2018, June 2019, June 2020, and June 2021. FCC Form 477 fixed broadband
data indicate whether a provider deploys a specific technology to at least one location in each census
block, along with the associated maximum download and upload speeds.
30
15. For figures presenting deployment by technology (or set of technologies), we identify
each block that is covered by at least one provider with the technology (or set of technologies),
31
and
assume that all households in the census block are covered.
32
Then, we aggregate block-level coverage to
the national level for total, urban, and rural
33
households and divide them, respectively, by total, urban,
and rural households to calculate the percentage of covered households.
34
27
Id. at 25.
28
Our analysis includes the 50 U.S. states and Washington, D.C. (i.e., we do not include any U.S. territories).
29
FCC, Form 477 Resources, https://www.fcc.gov/economics-analytics/industry-analysis-division/form-477-
resources (last visited Oct. 6, 2022). All FCC Form 477 data used in this 2022 IBDR have been certified as accurate
by the filers. We note that the 2022 IBDR’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. 6, 2022)
(describing quality and consistency checks performed on providers’ submitted data and explaining any adjustments
made to the FCC Form 477 data as filed).
30
Census block populations range from 0 to about 19,000, and households range from 0 to about 2,600.
31
We match the broadband technologies collected in the Broadband Coverage in Europe 2021 Report with the FCC
Form 477 technology codes described below. To match the EC Cable Modem DOCSIS 3.0 definition, which
includes DOCSIS 3.1, we use the FCC Form 477 technology codes 42 (Cable Modem – DOCSIS 3.0) and 43 (Cable
Modem DOCSIS 3.1), but do not include 41 (Cable Modem – DOCSIS 1, 1.1, and 2.0) or 44 (Cable Modem –
DOCSIS 4.0). To match the European FTTP definitions, we use the FCC Form 477 technology code 50 (Optical
Carrier / Fiber to the End User).
32
A block is defined as covered by a set of technologies if the block is covered by at least one of the technologies in
the set.
33
For the U.S. urban and rural classifications, we use the U.S. Census Bureau classifications of Urbanized Area and
Urban Clusters to identify each census block as urban, with non-urban blocks being classified as “rural.” U.S.
Census Bureau, 2010 Census Urban and Rural Classification and Urban Area Criteria (Oct. 28, 2021),
https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/guidance/geo-areas/urban-rural/2010-urban-rural.html.
34
Due to data unavailability, 2021 household estimates are calculated using 2020 data. See FCC, Staff Block
Estimates, https://www.fcc.gov/economics-analytics/industry-analysis-division/staff-block-estimates (Staff Block
Estimates) (last visited Oct. 6, 2022).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
20
16. For figures presenting deployment by download speed tier, we follow a similar approach
as described above for figures presenting deployment by technology or set of technologies. For download
speed tiers, the Broadband Coverage in Europe 2021 Report categorizes households by technology and
download speed so households with a particular technology deployed, but not at the download speed
threshold, are excluded from the household count; therefore, we use the technology codes to identify
blocks with the relevant technology (or set of technologies) deployed but exclude census blocks that do
not meet the download speed threshold.
17. For mobile broadband comparisons, we use the most recent version of FCC Form 477
Actual Area methodology deployment data dated June of each year between 2017 and 2021 to estimate
the number of households covered by at least one provider of the 4G LTE or 5G technology. For each
census block, we use the percentage of area covered and assume households are uniformly distributed
within the census block (i.e., if 10% of the census block is covered by at least one provider, we assumed
10% of households in that block are covered). For annual block level estimates of households, we use the
FCC’s Staff Block Estimates.
35
We then aggregate the data to the national level (total, urban, and rural)
to estimate the number of households covered by each mobile broadband technology.
D. Caveats to Broadband Coverage in Europe Data and FCC Form 477 Data
Comparisons
18. Given that the two data sources for the European and U.S. comparisons are independent
data collections undertaken by distinct entities for different purposes, the comparisons should be
interpreted carefully because definitions used by the two sources are not necessarily the same for various
elements of the data collections. For instance, the definitions of rural areas are different between the
Broadband Coverage in Europe 2021 Data and the U.S. data. As described above, the EC classifies a
household in Europe as rural if the square kilometer where the household is located has a population of
fewer than 100 persons, whereas the U.S. analysis uses the U.S. Census Bureau’s classification of “urban”
to define “non-urban” (i.e., rural) areas at the census block level. It is not clear how use of a consistent
definition of rural households would affect the deployment figures for the various countries. Also,
differences in the definitions of deployed technologies between the Broadband Coverage in Europe 2021
Data and the FCC Form 477 data may also make the comparisons imperfect. Similarly, the definition of
“households” may not be identical between the U.S. Census Bureau and the EC.
36
19. Despite these caveats, the comparisons between the European comparison countries and
the United States are the best possible given the available data on broadband deployment for the
comparison countries. Where possible, we have matched the national level statistics from the Broadband
Coverage in Europe 2021 Data by following the most similar definitions used by the U.S. data.
E. Non-European Comparison Country Highlights
20. This section presents high-level fixed and mobile broadband deployment summary
statistics for a number of non-European OECD countries. This section is not intended to be directly
compared to prior comparisons between European countries and the United States and is presented here
merely for informational purposes. The language used to describe the fixed broadband and mobile
broadband services is drawn directly from the source materials.
21. As of 2021, 99.9% of households in Australia could access fixed broadband services;
98.5% of premises could access fixed broadband speeds of at least 25 Mbps; and approximately 75.0% of
35
See generally Staff Block Estimates.
36
Eurostat, Glossary: Household – social statistics, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
explained/index.php?title=Glossary:Household_-_social_statistics) (last visited Oct. 6, 2022); U.S. Census Bureau,
Subject Definitions, https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/technical-documentation/subject-
definitions.html#household (last visited Oct. 6, 2022).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
21
premises could access fixed broadband speeds of at least 100 Mbps (compared to approximately 66.0% of
premises as of November 2020).
37
As of the end of March 2021, 99.3% of households in Japan could
access fixed fiber optic broadband services.
38
As of June 30, 2021, 97.5% of New Zealand’s population
could access 4G mobile broadband services.
39
Furthermore, as of the first quarter of 2022, 86.2% of New
Zealand’s population could access fixed broadband speeds of at least 30 Mbps.
40
22. As of 2020, 99.5% and 53.3% of the population in Canada could access mobile wireless
services using LTE and 5G technology, respectively.
41
Additionally, in 2020, 97.7% and 15.7% of the
population living in rural population centers in Canada could access mobile wireless services using LTE
and 5G technology, respectively.
42
Furthermore, 96.1% of households in Canada could access fixed
broadband services with download speeds of at least 25 Mbps in 2020.
43
Also, 99.7% and 82.2% of
households in Canada’s urban and rural population centers, respectively, could access such fixed
broadband services in 2020.
44
Finally, 87.0%, 85.5%, and 75.8% of households in Canada could access
fixed broadband services with download speeds of at least 100 Mbps, 200 Mbps, and 1 Gbps,
respectively, as of 2020.
45
37
Australian Government, Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications &
Bureau of Communications, Arts and Regional Research, Australia’s Broadband Performance – statistical
snapshot, (Mar. 4, 2022), https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/department/media/publications/australias-broadband-
performance-statistical-snapshot (to navigate to the statistics, click on the link to the pdf document); Australian
Government, Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications & Bureau of
Communications, Arts and Regional Research, Measuring Australia’s fixed broadband performance – compendium
at 7 (2020), https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/measuring-australias-fixed-broadband-
performance-compendium.pdf.
38
Press Release, Japanese Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Results of Survey on Broadband
Infrastructure Coverage Rate at End of FY2020 (Jan. 31, 2022),
https://www.soumu.go.jp/main_sosiki/joho_tsusin/eng/pressrelease/2022/1/31_01.html (scroll down and click on
“Attachment 1” under “Published Materials” subheading).
39
Commerce Commission New Zealand, Annual monitoring reports, https://comcom.govt.nz/regulated-
industries/telecommunications/monitoring-the-telecommunications-market/annual-telecommunications-market-
monitoring-report (last visited Oct. 6, 2022) (the percentage of the population able to access 4G mobile broadband
services can be accessed by navigating to the “Telecommunications industry questionnaire results” subheading,
clicking on the “2021 Telecommunications industry questionnaire results – 17 March 2022” excel file, and
reviewing row 153 of the “Mobile Network Operator” sheet).
40
Crown Infrastructure Partners, Quarterly Connectivity Update Q1: to 31 March 2022 at 5 (2022),
https://www.crowninfrastructure.govt.nz/wp-content/uploads/CIP-Connectivity-Quarterly-Update-Q1-March-
2022.pdf.
41
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, Current trends – Mobile wireless,
https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/publications/reports/PolicyMonitoring/mob.htm (last visited Oct. 6, 2022) (in order to obtain
the desired statistics, select the appropriate categories under the “Take a closer look at the availability of different
mobile speeds” sub heading).
42
Id.
43
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, Current trends – High-speed broadband,
https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/publications/reports/PolicyMonitoring/ban.htm (last visited Oct. 6, 2022) (in order to obtain
the desired statistics, select the appropriate categories under the “Take a closer look at the availability of different
broadband speeds” sub heading).
44
Id.
45
Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
22
23. As of March 2022, 61.4% of households in Chile could access fixed Internet services.
46
As of June 15, 2021, 100% and 99% of the population in Colombia and Costa Rica, respectively, had
access to mobile networks.
47
As of December 15, 2020, 91.0% of the population in Mexico had access to
mobile networks.
48
III. BROADBAND SPEED AND PERFORMANCE COMPARISONS
24. This section of the International Broadband Data Report presents a comparison of fixed
broadband and mobile wireless broadband performance metrics in terms of data transmission speeds
(download and upload speeds) and latency for the United States and 35 comparison countries. The main
analysis relies solely on Ookla Speedtest datasets for both speed and latency. For fixed broadband, we
consider any technologies reported in the Ookla Speedtest datasets, and for mobile broadband, we
consider 4G LTE and, for the first time, 5G. In this Report, we present an analysis of download and
upload speeds, as well as an analysis of latency, with a five-year time horizon for fixed broadband
services and mobile 4G LTE broadband services.
49
We rank speeds from the fastest (1
st
) to the slowest
(36
th
) and latency from the lowest (1
st
) to the highest (36
th
).
A. Fixed Broadband Speed and Latency Results
25. Figure 13 compares mean fixed broadband download speeds by country for the years
2017-2021. U.S. mean download speed ranking slipped to a ranking of 9
th
among the 36 countries in
2021, down from a ranking of 5
th
between 2018 and 2020. In 2021, the mean download speed for the
United States was 195.5 Mbps, which almost tripled the mean download speed of 70.1 Mbps in 2017.
Iceland had the fastest mean download speed in 2021 with a mean download speed of 253.1 Mbps.
26. Figure 14 compares mean fixed broadband upload speeds by country for the years 2017-
2021. U.S. mean upload speed rankings were relatively stable for the last five years, with the United
States ranking 18
th
of the 36 countries in 2021, and 17
th
in 2018-2020. The mean upload speed in 2021
for the United States was 72.9 Mbps, compared to the fastest mean upload speed of 250.6 Mbps in
Iceland.
27. Figure 15 compares mean fixed broadband latency by country for the years 2017-2021.
U.S. mean latency rankings slipped from appearing in the range of 24
th
to 26
th
in 2017-2019 to 30
th
in
2020 and 29
th
in 2021. The mean latency for the United States in 2021 was 21.3 ms, compared to
Iceland’s mean latency of 10.8 ms in 2021, which ranked the best out of the 36 countries.
28. Figure 16 compares mean fixed broadband download speeds by country and U.S. state
capital cities for the years 2017-2021. The mean download speed in Washington D.C. in 2021 was 185.9
Mbps, which ranked 38
th
among the 86 country and state capital cities. The highest ranked U.S. capital
city in 2021 was Dover, Delaware, which ranked 2
nd
with a mean download speed of 243.6 Mbps. Other
46
Ministerio de Transportes y Telecomunicaciones, Especial Analisis Nueva Tecnologia 5G en Internet Movil y
crecimiento Tecnologia Fibra en Internet Fija at 12 (2022), https://www.subtel.gob.cl/wp-
content/uploads/2022/06/PPT_Series_MARZO_2022_V0.pdf.
47
Instituto Federal de Telecomunicaciones, Indicadores por Pais,
https://bit.ift.org.mx/SASVisualAnalyticsViewer/VisualAnalyticsViewer_guest.jsp?reportSBIP=SBIP%3A%2F%2F
METASERVER%2Fshared%20Data%2FSAS%20Visual%20Analytics%2Freportes%2Findicadores%20Internacion
ales(Report)&page=vi124825&sso_guest=true&informationEnabled=false&commentsEnabled=false&alertsEnabled
=false&reportViewOnly=true&reportContextBar=false&shareEnabled=false (last visited Oct. 6, 2022) (the
percentage of the population able to access mobile networks can be accessed by clicking on the “Datos por Pais”
header, choosing the appropriate country from the dropdown menu, clicking on the “Servicio Movil de Internet” sub
header, and reviewing the “Proporcion de población con Cobertura de la Red Movil” table).
48
Id.
49
For the mobile – 5G analysis, we only present data as of 2021.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
23
U.S. capital cities in the top ten in 2021 included Salt Lake City, Utah (4
th
– 240.9 Mbps); Austin, Texas
(5
th
– 231.9 Mbps); Lincoln, Nebraska (6
th
– 230.2 Mbps); Providence, Rhode Island (7
th
– 229.5 Mbps);
and Salem, Oregon (8
th
– 229.4 Mbps).
29. Figure 17 shows the distribution of fixed broadband download speeds for each country in
2021. The top of each color bar represents the corresponding 25
th
, 50
th
, and 75
th
download speed
percentiles.
50
The 25
th
, 50
th
, and 75
th
percentiles of download speeds in the United States were 53.4 Mbps,
129.5 Mbps and 268.7 Mbps, respectively.
30. Figure 18 depicts mean fixed broadband download speeds in G7 countries and South
Korea from 2017 to 2021.
51
Following a similar trajectory as other G7 countries, U.S. mean download
speed increased from 70.1 Mbps in 2017 to 195.5 Mbps in 2021. South Korea had the fastest mean
download speed of these countries in 2021 at 208.0 Mbps.
31. Figure 19 presents a map of mean fixed broadband download speeds by country in
2021.
52
Mean download speeds in 2021 in North America ranged from 50.5 to 195.5 Mbps. The six
countries with the highest mean download speeds, including Iceland, Switzerland, South Korea,
Denmark, Chile, and Hungary, had a range of download speeds from 200.2 to 253.1 Mbps, whereas the
six countries with the lowest mean download speeds, including Turkey, Greece, Mexico, Australia,
Estonia, and Czech Republic, had a range of download speeds from 36.5 Mbps to 82.8 Mbps. Western
Europe and Scandinavia generally had higher download speeds than Eastern and Southern Europe.
32. Figure 20 presents a map of mean fixed broadband upload speeds by country in 2021.
53
Mean upload speeds in 2021 in North America ranged from 20.2 to 77.6 Mbps. The six countries with
the highest mean upload speeds, including Iceland, South Korea, Spain, Japan, Denmark, and France, had
a range of download speeds from 141.5 to 250.6 Mbps, whereas the six countries with the lowest mean
upload speeds, including Greece, Turkey, Mexico, Belgium, Austria, and Australia, had a range of
download speeds from 9.0 to 24.2 Mbps. Scandinavian and Western European countries generally had
higher upload speeds than Eastern European Countries.
33. Figure 21 presents a map of mean fixed broadband latency by country in 2021.
54
Mean
latency in 2021 was between 18.7 ms and 24.5 ms for North America. Mean latency in 2021 was the
lowest in Iceland, Luxembourg, and Denmark, which had latencies ranging from 10.8 ms to 13.0 ms.
34. Figure 22 presents the number of tests in the sample for each country, as well as the
number of cities with fixed broadband tests in each country, for the years 2017-2021. Test counts in the
United States decreased by 23% from 207.4 million in 2020 to 159.0 million in 2021. The number of
cities with fixed broadband tests remained roughly constant in the United States during the five-year time
horizon.
50
We calculate the country-level mean percentiles from the city-level percentiles using sample counts as weights.
Ookla defines a sample as an average across a set of tests from a single user/device for a given geography, time
period, platform, and technology. This methodology is employed to prevent any single user/device with a
disproportionate number of tests from having an outsized effect on the overall average.
51
The G7 or Group of Seven is an informal group of industrialized democracies whose leaders meet annually to
discuss various issues: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States. See
Council on Foreign Relations, Where Is the G7 Headed? (June 28, 2022), https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/g7-and-
future-multilateralism.
52
Each country’s mean fixed broadband download speed values are reported in Figure 13. See infra Fig. 13.
53
Each country’s mean fixed broadband upload speed values are reported in Figure 14. See infra Fig. 14.
54
Each country’s mean fixed broadband latency values are reported in Figure 15. See infra Fig. 15.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
24
Fig. 13. Fixed Broadband Mean Download Speed by Country (2017-2021)
Country
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Rank
Mbps
Rank
Mbps
Rank
Mbps
Rank
Mbps
Rank
Mbps
Australia
33
23.4
33
30.0
33
38.7
33
49.3
33
76.9
Austria
31
32.2
32
37.4
32
43.8
30
64.7
27
102.1
Belgium
18
51.8
21
59.1
23
72.2
25
87.6
25
110.9
Canada
13
60.6
10
81.9
7
114.3
10
136.0
10
173.8
Chile
30
32.8
26
48.9
19
77.2
13
124.6
5
200.9
Czech Republic
28
34.8
29
41.2
31
50.4
32
62.4
31
82.8
Denmark
10
66.4
13
81.0
12
103.3
3
154.5
4
207.3
Estonia
25
42.4
28
41.8
29
55.4
29
66.7
32
78.7
Finland
23
46.4
25
51.5
25
66.0
24
93.5
24
119.8
France
15
56.5
15
79.1
9
114.0
4
151.8
8
197.3
Germany
21
46.9
22
56.0
24
71.1
22
98.0
23
122.1
Greece
36
13.9
35
18.6
35
23.8
35
29.8
35
37.8
Hungary
6
77.0
3
102.3
3
124.3
6
149.6
6
200.2
Iceland
2
124.1
1
153.5
1
164.1
1
208.3
1
253.1
Ireland
20
50.7
20
59.6
20
76.4
23
93.9
22
122.4
Israel
26
40.6
18
62.2
21
76.3
20
105.9
16
155.6
Italy
32
25.5
31
38.3
30
52.2
31
64.7
29
95.6
Japan
7
72.3
11
81.5
13
97.7
15
116.8
12
168.3
Latvia
17
54.4
19
60.1
16
90.6
18
113.8
20
138.7
Lithuania
3
99.6
9
82.2
17
89.5
19
112.4
21
136.3
Luxembourg
16
56.1
14
79.6
10
109.1
12
130.3
13
164.5
Mexico
34
20.6
34
24.2
34
31.5
34
39.8
34
50.5
Netherlands
8
71.0
12
81.4
14
96.4
14
118.2
17
151.5
New Zealand
14
58.5
16
73.3
15
91.1
16
116.6
14
160.5
Norway
11
65.8
8
85.3
11
105.8
11
130.4
15
157.9
Poland
24
45.7
23
54.5
22
76.0
21
102.3
19
140.0
Portugal
19
51.8
17
69.4
18
88.4
17
115.9
18
150.5
Slovakia
27
38.1
27
45.1
27
58.6
26
80.4
28
101.3
Slovenia
29
33.1
30
39.8
28
57.4
27
77.1
26
103.6
South Korea
1
128.5
2
119.8
2
151.6
7
148.2
3
208.0
Spain
12
61.9
7
87.7
8
114.1
9
146.7
7
199.8
Sweden
4
81.6
4
96.9
6
118.4
8
147.3
11
170.1
Switzerland
5
77.4
6
92.1
4
120.6
2
164.8
2
211.7
Turkey
35
16.0
36
18.4
36
22.8
36
26.5
36
36.5
United Kingdom
22
46.6
24
52.6
26
61.0
28
71.3
30
93.2
United States
9
70.1
5
92.5
5
119.6
5
150.5
9
195.5
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
25
Fig. 14. Fixed Broadband Mean Upload Speed by Country (2017-2021)
Country
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Rank
Mbps
Rank
Mbps
Rank
Mbps
Rank
Mbps
Rank
Mbps
Australia
32
8.2
31
11.6
30
16.9
31
20.7
31
24.2
Austria
28
9.8
32
11.4
33
14.9
33
17.4
32
23.8
Belgium
26
10.4
29
13.0
32
15.8
32
17.5
33
21.3
Canada
21
18.6
18
30.9
16
46.4
16
60.1
17
77.6
Chile
34
7.1
34
10.1
25
20.5
18
56.0
10
128.3
Czech Republic
20
19.3
21
21.2
23
25.9
23
30.5
25
36.9
Denmark
8
49.0
8
61.1
8
80.1
7
115.8
5
147.6
Estonia
15
27.1
19
28.3
19
40.3
20
51.0
20
60.2
Finland
19
19.9
20
22.0
20
29.0
21
39.4
21
50.3
France
18
24.1
15
37.4
12
66.6
10
105.9
6
141.5
Germany
27
9.8
28
13.5
28
18.6
27
24.8
29
30.7
Greece
36
2.9
36
4.2
36
6.0
36
7.4
36
9.0
Hungary
13
29.6
14
39.7
13
61.4
13
77.3
14
101.0
Iceland
1
129.7
1
160.1
1
169.4
1
215.7
1
250.6
Ireland
22
18.3
22
20.8
21
26.9
24
29.7
27
33.7
Israel
33
7.5
27
13.5
29
16.9
29
22.1
28
32.6
Italy
31
8.4
26
13.8
26
20.1
26
25.8
23
39.8
Japan
4
73.9
3
91.5
2
108.9
3
130.6
4
148.7
Latvia
5
54.3
9
60.5
5
92.2
6
116.5
9
137.9
Lithuania
3
85.7
4
74.4
7
82.7
9
108.1
11
125.5
Luxembourg
12
33.2
11
47.6
11
67.9
12
81.1
13
101.2
Mexico
30
8.9
33
10.3
34
13.2
34
16.5
34
20.2
Netherlands
11
33.4
12
41.3
15
48.6
15
68.7
16
86.9
New Zealand
14
29.2
13
40.1
14
55.2
14
75.2
15
98.3
Norway
7
49.4
7
62.2
9
79.0
11
102.0
12
120.9
Poland
24
14.2
23
17.9
22
26.2
22
35.4
22
47.8
Portugal
17
25.7
16
36.6
18
45.0
19
53.1
19
65.5
Slovakia
23
14.7
24
16.2
24
21.3
25
28.9
26
36.5
Slovenia
25
11.9
25
14.1
27
18.8
28
24.6
24
37.7
South Korea
2
127.9
2
98.4
3
105.1
2
149.0
2
195.5
Spain
10
43.4
5
71.3
4
98.9
4
130.1
3
176.0
Sweden
6
53.3
6
68.3
6
87.9
5
117.7
7
139.6
Switzerland
9
43.8
10
58.0
10
77.1
8
108.7
8
139.5
Turkey
35
3.9
35
5.7
35
7.0
35
7.7
35
11.9
United Kingdom
29
9.7
30
11.9
31
16.5
30
21.1
30
27.2
United States
16
26.9
17
34.6
17
46.3
17
58.1
18
72.9
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
26
Fig. 15. Fixed Broadband Mean Latency by Country (2017-2021)
Country
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Rank
ms
Rank
ms
Rank
ms
Rank
ms
Rank
ms
Australia
31
40.0
32
32.3
30
24.7
28
23.1
31
21.5
Austria
26
29.6
27
28.9
28
24.2
18
20.7
22
19.2
Belgium
17
24.8
14
21.4
14
18.3
13
18.8
16
17.2
Canada
21
28.7
19
25.0
18
20.5
20
20.8
20
18.7
Chile
33
40.5
31
31.5
20
22.2
16
19.8
10
15.1
Czech Republic
15
24.0
15
22.4
16
19.4
15
19.2
19
18.6
Denmark
7
19.7
6
18.3
7
15.2
2
13.9
3
13.0
Estonia
8
20.3
17
24.2
12
16.7
10
15.6
12
15.1
Finland
19
27.3
24
27.2
27
24.1
22
21.3
24
19.5
France
32
40.4
35
38.7
34
31.6
32
27.3
34
24.3
Germany
27
29.8
21
26.3
23
23.6
25
22.3
26
20.9
Greece
34
43.8
36
40.4
36
36.8
36
34.0
36
28.5
Hungary
13
22.0
12
20.8
13
17.0
12
16.8
14
15.7
Iceland
1
13.6
1
12.9
2
14.4
7
15.1
1
10.8
Ireland
16
24.7
18
24.7
22
23.3
29
23.4
28
20.9
Israel
14
23.0
10
19.6
15
19.0
17
19.9
17
17.3
Italy
35
43.8
33
35.8
33
29.2
33
27.7
32
23.2
Japan
29
33.6
29
30.8
31
28.1
31
25.8
30
21.5
Latvia
4
18.8
7
18.3
1
14.2
9
15.6
13
15.4
Lithuania
3
17.2
3
17.5
3
14.5
1
13.1
5
13.2
Luxembourg
10
20.6
4
17.5
5
14.5
6
15.0
2
12.6
Mexico
36
44.0
34
38.0
35
32.3
35
29.7
35
24.5
Netherlands
5
19.0
5
18.2
6
15.2
5
14.5
6
14.2
New Zealand
22
28.9
20
25.4
19
21.9
19
20.8
21
18.8
Norway
9
20.4
11
20.0
11
16.6
4
14.2
9
15.1
Poland
20
28.2
23
26.8
26
23.8
24
22.2
23
19.3
Portugal
11
21.2
9
19.4
8
16.0
8
15.4
7
14.4
Slovakia
23
28.9
25
27.5
29
24.3
26
22.6
25
20.4
Slovenia
18
25.8
16
23.8
17
19.5
14
19.1
15
17.1
South Korea
2
15.7
2
15.6
4
14.5
27
22.8
8
14.4
Spain
30
36.3
28
29.4
25
23.7
21
21.0
18
18.4
Sweden
6
19.4
8
19.2
10
16.5
11
16.0
11
15.1
Switzerland
12
22.0
13
21.1
9
16.2
3
14.2
4
13.1
Turkey
28
32.6
30
30.9
32
29.0
34
27.7
33
23.5
United Kingdom
24
29.5
22
26.7
21
22.4
23
22.0
27
20.9
United States
25
29.6
26
28.4
24
23.7
30
23.6
29
21.3
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
27
Fig. 16. Fixed Broadband Mean Download Speed by Country Capital and U.S. State Capital Cities (2017-2021)
City, Country/State
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Rank
Mbps
Rank
Mbps
Rank
Mbps
Rank
Mbps
Rank
Mbps
Canberra, Australia
82
28.7
83
36.8
81
53.2
84
46.4
83
71.1
Vienna, Austria
76
39.1
80
41.6
82
51.7
75
86.8
67
138.8
Brussels, Belgium
72
41.7
76
49.3
79
61.4
78
79.4
79
101.0
Ottawa, Canada
36
65.0
20
101.5
8
147.2
24
151.6
43
182.8
Santiago, Chile
80
30.5
78
42.0
72
71.5
54
121.1
35
187.4
Prague, Czech Republic
69
43.4
75
50.1
78
62.6
80
76.8
80
99.4
Copenhagen, Denmark
32
67.6
39
83.1
35
113.1
15
169.5
9
227.3
Tallinn, Estonia
64
48.0
68
57.3
74
70.8
76
83.7
81
98.0
Helsinki, Finland
70
43.3
72
54.8
76
65.8
73
89.5
76
110.3
Paris, France
5
111.9
8
114.7
2
163.6
2
206.4
3
241.3
Berlin, Germany
71
42.8
65
61.2
65
84.2
65
106.6
66
139.4
Athens, Greece
86
14.0
86
18.4
86
23.5
86
28.9
86
37.3
Budapest, Hungary
14
87.4
10
113.8
18
132.3
22
161.7
21
208.4
Reykjavik, Iceland
3
127.2
1
159.1
1
169.5
1
214.7
1
262.0
Dublin, Ireland
46
57.8
63
64.6
63
87.1
66
106.2
68
134.7
Jerusalem, Israel
78
34.8
81
41.0
83
48.6
82
57.1
82
97.8
Rome, Italy
81
28.8
82
37.2
80
56.5
81
75.4
75
116.1
Tokyo, Japan
23
74.5
62
65.0
48
102.5
67
100.3
40
185.0
Riga, Latvia
45
58.2
52
71.5
45
105.1
42
134.4
54
162.0
Vilnius, Lithuania
1
146.5
19
102.3
47
102.7
52
126.0
61
150.3
Luxembourg City, Luxembourg
49
57.0
42
80.6
36
112.4
46
131.6
58
158.1
Mexico City, Mexico
84
26.3
84
32.1
84
40.7
83
47.9
84
61.9
Amsterdam, Netherlands
35
66.7
47
76.2
56
92.0
55
120.9
55
161.6
Wellington, New Zealand
15
83.1
24
97.7
31
118.1
32
146.6
26
199.0
Oslo, Norway
28
71.9
35
87.1
41
107.7
39
138.6
53
163.7
Warsaw, Poland
42
60.1
66
61.1
55
93.9
44
132.6
47
180.0
Lisbon, Portugal
55
52.3
60
65.4
59
90.4
64
109.8
69
134.3
Bratislava, Slovakia
39
63.2
48
73.4
62
88.8
57
115.0
65
139.4
Ljubljana, Slovenia
74
40.8
73
52.5
75
68.4
74
88.8
73
118.9
Seoul, South Korea
2
136.7
4
127.5
7
150.2
31
147.9
19
214.3
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
28
City, Country/State
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Madrid, Spain
20
77.0
9
114.5
11
140.8
20
162.9
10
224.9
Stockholm, Sweden
9
96.1
14
111.2
21
130.9
19
163.3
39
185.5
Bern, Switzerland
29
71.6
33
89.0
38
110.8
28
150.9
23
202.5
Ankara, Turkey
85
17.9
85
20.0
85
25.3
85
32.0
85
40.1
London, United Kingdom
68
45.1
74
51.8
77
64.3
79
77.6
77
106.6
Albany, NY
77
38.0
50
71.9
54
96.1
63
111.2
57
160.4
Annapolis, MD
21
76.5
13
111.8
20
131.0
18
164.0
29
195.6
Atlanta, GA
11
89.4
43
79.3
14
138.6
9
173.9
15
217.7
Augusta, ME
79
30.7
71
56.6
69
73.5
71
90.2
74
117.4
Austin, TX
4
115.9
2
136.4
4
154.5
5
184.5
5
231.9
Baton Rouge, LA
38
64.1
44
78.0
39
108.8
35
144.5
37
186.6
Bismarck, ND
27
72.2
22
99.9
28
122.4
37
143.0
46
180.4
Boise, ID
51
56.3
57
67.0
58
91.2
59
114.2
30
194.8
Boston, MA
13
87.6
7
115.8
9
142.8
14
169.6
20
211.6
Carson City, NV
59
50.9
61
65.1
66
83.3
56
115.8
63
144.6
Charleston, WV
52
53.5
32
93.5
42
107.4
50
127.8
50
169.4
Cheyenne, WY
67
45.2
58
66.6
61
90.1
68
99.8
71
127.6
Columbia, SC
73
41.3
69
57.2
60
90.2
60
112.1
59
157.7
Columbus, OH
57
51.3
54
69.3
51
98.4
49
129.2
45
181.4
Concord, NH
22
75.4
15
110.0
24
129.8
21
162.6
18
215.4
Denver, CO
30
71.6
34
88.9
37
111.7
23
153.0
36
187.3
Des Moines, IA
50
56.5
56
68.1
57
92.0
62
111.4
52
164.0
Dover, DE
10
93.0
6
120.5
3
155.7
4
189.8
2
243.6
Frankfort, KY
83
27.8
77
43.5
71
72.8
77
81.6
78
101.2
Harrisburg, PA
33
67.2
21
100.6
32
117.5
33
146.6
48
179.9
Hartford, CT
56
51.4
49
72.3
50
98.6
43
134.2
28
196.6
Helena, MT
75
39.8
59
65.9
68
77.0
69
97.2
70
131.3
Honolulu, HI
25
73.6
25
97.7
26
126.7
27
151.0
33
188.5
Indianapolis, IN
37
64.3
38
83.7
27
123.1
30
149.0
24
201.3
Jackson, MS
48
57.1
40
82.7
52
97.9
61
111.8
62
148.5
Jefferson City, MO
62
49.3
67
60.9
70
72.9
72
89.6
72
126.3
Juneau, AK
66
45.6
70
56.7
67
80.0
41
135.2
32
190.1
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
29
City, Country/State
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Lansing, MI
26
73.1
26
96.9
25
127.5
34
145.7
22
205.0
Lincoln, NE
44
59.2
16
109.4
6
151.1
3
191.7
6
230.2
Little Rock, AR
61
49.9
53
69.7
53
97.7
48
129.8
44
182.4
Madison, WI
60
50.8
36
86.3
34
113.2
38
138.6
41
184.9
Montgomery, AL
54
52.3
45
76.8
46
104.3
53
121.7
56
161.5
Montpelier, VT
65
46.7
79
42.0
73
71.1
70
94.9
60
155.9
Nashville, TN
12
88.4
18
108.0
15
138.1
10
173.0
14
218.3
Oklahoma City, OK
18
79.6
31
93.6
16
135.7
11
172.4
11
222.6
Olympia, WA
19
78.5
12
112.4
17
133.0
13
170.1
13
219.8
Phoenix, AZ
31
71.4
29
94.2
29
120.8
36
143.5
34
187.9
Pierre, SD
40
61.4
37
84.2
44
105.2
47
130.1
64
141.4
Providence, RI
41
60.7
27
95.1
23
129.9
12
172.0
7
229.5
Raleigh, NC
8
99.8
3
127.9
5
153.3
7
177.8
12
222.5
Richmond, VA
24
73.8
23
99.0
22
130.1
25
151.5
27
197.5
Sacramento, CA
34
67.1
30
94.1
19
131.2
17
165.1
16
216.2
Saint Paul, MN
43
59.5
41
80.7
43
106.7
58
114.3
49
170.2
Salem, OR
17
79.8
17
109.2
12
140.4
8
177.3
8
229.4
Salt Lake City, UT
6
109.6
5
120.7
10
141.5
6
181.5
4
240.9
Santa Fe, NM
47
57.8
55
68.5
64
85.9
51
126.1
51
169.0
Springfield, IL
53
52.9
64
62.0
33
115.6
26
151.1
25
200.0
Tallahassee, FL
63
48.7
46
76.7
40
108.8
40
137.3
31
190.2
Topeka, KS
58
51.0
51
71.6
49
101.6
45
132.6
42
184.2
Trenton, NJ
7
102.1
11
112.7
13
140.1
16
165.3
17
215.9
Washington, DC
16
80.8
28
94.9
30
119.6
29
149.4
38
185.9
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
30
Fig. 17. Fixed Broadband Download Speed Percentiles (2021)
Fig. 18. Fixed Broadband Mean Download Speed for G7 Countries and South Korea (2017-2021)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
31
Fig. 19. Fixed Broadband Mean Download Speed by Country (2021)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
32
Fig. 20. Fixed Broadband Mean Upload Speed by Country (2021)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
33
Fig. 21. Fixed Broadband Mean Latency by Country (2021)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
34
Fig. 22. Fixed Broadband City Count and Test Count by Country (2017-2021)
Country
Test Count (1000s)
City Count
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Australia
31,912
28,426
27,127
25,689
20,673
9,648
10,939
13,246
9,775
10,000
Austria
6,234
6,267
4,732
4,824
4,381
1,413
1,417
1,422
2,260
2,265
Belgium
5,940
4,996
4,814
6,135
5,637
606
608
612
603
607
Canada
31,334
30,081
29,883
35,078
30,620
2,830
2,895
3,225
3,246
3,287
Chile
9,458
9,558
7,902
13,786
12,114
231
260
267
1,070
1,518
Czech
Republic
5,140
5,267
4,870
5,170
4,940
5,941
5,984
5,955
5,897
5,884
Denmark
5,080
5,160
5,012
5,989
5,246
586
587
634
638
635
Estonia
996
1,359
1,163
1,126
981
1,893
3,514
3,629
3,319
3,374
Finland
3,967
4,170
3,989
3,421
3,362
83
83
330
1,361
2,189
France
25,845
23,568
21,586
26,725
26,133
35,131
35,104
35,309
34,422
33,996
Germany
37,897
37,737
37,640
43,713
40,624
11,632
11,617
11,642
11,563
11,591
Greece
6,924
7,761
7,984
10,154
10,092
6,233
6,878
7,775
7,668
7,709
Hungary
7,398
7,954
7,306
8,144
7,120
3,070
3,095
3,113
3,104
3,087
Iceland
274
276
235
232
183
99
95
106
106
103
Ireland
2,394
2,517
2,657
3,393
2,583
163
160
159
159
159
Israel
4,320
5,437
5,056
8,183
6,792
1,007
1,003
1,045
1,051
1,051
Italy
57,872
54,093
43,095
45,307
37,296
40,378
40,801
40,126
39,918
39,940
Japan
16,314
15,445
14,063
14,431
13,839
1,965
2,010
1,905
1,764
1,761
Latvia
1,260
1,121
1,093
1,231
1,408
1,257
1,229
1,305
1,260
1,318
Lithuania
1,586
1,418
1,303
1,438
1,420
2,722
2,854
2,760
2,501
2,581
Luxembourg
505
547
447
489
457
427
434
431
428
357
Mexico
39,054
42,458
44,245
64,283
51,291
9,083
10,138
11,034
13,846
14,478
Netherlands
17,843
15,760
15,106
16,517
14,789
2,458
2,457
2,458
2,457
2,455
New Zealand
4,460
3,994
3,551
3,044
2,973
2,223
2,252
2,268
2,236
2,200
Norway
3,486
3,447
3,212
3,449
2,692
741
755
1,941
2,193
2,195
Poland
13,248
12,608
12,537
14,648
11,969
3,995
4,015
9,734
14,692
14,424
Portugal
7,116
7,946
7,804
9,000
7,760
1,180
1,180
1,353
1,530
1,546
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
35
Country
Test Count (1000s)
City Count
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Slovakia
2,941
3,244
3,464
3,684
3,655
2,780
2,797
2,806
2,805
2,814
Slovenia
1,682
1,720
1,813
2,204
1,853
5,526
5,489
5,553
5,487
5,511
South Korea
2,686
2,971
3,062
2,891
3,053
161
162
162
162
162
Spain
15,392
14,399
12,943
12,609
10,799
13,739
14,201
14,169
13,930
14,039
Sweden
1,834
1,725
1,921
2,331
2,288
414
444
507
555
570
Switzerland
4,884
5,395
5,228
6,077
5,646
2,584
2,579
2,593
2,557
2,544
Turkey
12,025
14,058
13,806
19,348
17,338
4,500
4,652
4,767
8,923
9,267
United
Kingdom
47,236
53,479
51,881
62,628
55,331
6,417
6,511
6,624
11,323
11,305
United States
174,228
179,304
171,306
207,452
159,066
27,000
27,433
27,952
27,744
27,773
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
36
B. Mobile Broadband – 4G LTE Results
35. Figure 23 compares mean 4G LTE download speeds by country, for the years 2017-2021.
For mean download speeds, the United States ranked 23
rd
among the 36 countries in 2021, with a mean
download speed of 44.8 Mbps, increasing from 24.4 Mbps with a ranking of 34
th
in 2017. In 2021,
Norway had the highest mean download speed at 92.1 Mbps, whereas Chile had the lowest mean
download speed at 20.4 Mbps.
36. Figure 24 compares mean 4G LTE upload speeds by country, for the years 2017-2021.
For mean upload speeds, the United States ranked 36
th
among the 36 countries in 2021, with the speeds
slightly decreasing from 10.5 Mbps in 2020 to 9.9 Mbps in 2021. Iceland, the country with the fastest
mean upload speed in each of the past five years, had a mean upload speed of 19.0 Mbps in 2021—a
slight decrease from 20.0 Mbps in 2020.
37. Figure 25 compares mean 4G LTE latency by country, for the years 2017-2021. For
mean latency, the United States ranked 34
th
among the 36 countries in 2021, with a mean latency of 41.5
ms. Iceland ranked 1
st
in 2021 with a mean latency of 20.6 ms.
38. Figure 26 compares mean 4G LTE download speeds by country and U.S. state capital
cities, for the years 2017-2021. The mean download speed in Washington D.C. in 2021 was 58.4 Mbps,
which ranked 20
th
among the 86 country and state capital cities. The highest ranked U.S. state capital city
in 2021 was Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, which ranked 9
th
with a mean download speed of 65.7 Mbps. No
other U.S. state capitals were among the top ten ranked capital cities.
39. Figure 27 shows the distribution of 4G LTE download speeds for each country in 2021.
The top of each color bar represents the corresponding 25
th
, 50
th
, and 75
th
download speed percentiles.
55
The 25
th
, 50
th
and 75
th
percentiles for download speeds in the United States were 12.9 Mbps, 31.3 Mbps,
and 62.0 Mbps, respectively.
40. Figure 28 shows that mean 4G LTE download speed in the United States modestly
increased at a similar pace as that in other G7 countries during the past few years. Canada experienced
the fastest growth in mean download speed over the last five years, increasing from 44.8 Mbps in 2017 to
79.0 Mbps in 2021.
41. Figure 29 presents a map of mean 4G LTE download speeds by country in 2021.
56
Mean
download speeds in 2021 in North America ranged from 33.2 Mbps to 79.0 Mbps. The six countries with
the highest mean download speeds, including Norway, Iceland, the Netherlands, Canada, South Korea,
and Denmark, had a range of download speeds from 65.7 Mbps to 92.1 Mbps. The six countries with the
lowest mean download speeds, including Chile, Israel, Mexico, Japan, United Kingdom, and Spain, had a
range from 20.4 Mbps to 39.0 Mbps. All Scandinavian countries were in the top ten countries in terms of
download speeds.
42. Figure 30 presents a map of mean 4G LTE upload speeds by country in 2021.
57
Mean
upload speeds in 2021 in North America ranged from 9.9 Mbps to 14.3 Mbps. The six countries with the
highest mean upload speeds, including Iceland, Switzerland, Norway, Denmark, Turkey, and the
Netherlands, had a range of upload speeds from 16.2 Mbps to 19.0 Mbps, whereas the six countries with
the lowest mean upload speeds, including the United States, United Kingdom, France, Japan, Slovakia,
and Poland, had a range from 9.9 Mbps to 11.1 Mbps.
55
We calculate the country-level mean percentiles by taking the weighted average of the city-level percentiles using
sample counts as weights.
56
Each country’s mean 4G LTE download speed values are reported in Figure 23. See infra Fig. 23.
57
Each country’s mean 4G LTE upload speed values are reported in Figure 24. See infra Fig. 24.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
37
43. Figure 31 presents a map of mean 4G LTE latency by country in 2021.
58
Mean latency in
2021 was between 31.7 ms and 45.1 ms for North American countries. The lowest mean latency was
concentrated in Eastern European countries, such as Hungary, Latvia, Slovakia, and Slovenia.
44. Figure 32 presents the number of tests in the sample for each country, as well as the
number of cities with 4G LTE tests in each country, for the years 2017-2021. Test counts in the United
States decreased by 45% from 13.1 million in 2020 to 7.2 million in 2021. The number of cities with
tests in the United States decreased by about 500 cities during the same period. These changes are most
likely due to an increasing number of consumers testing on 5G networks instead of 4G LTE networks.
58
Each country’s mean 4G LTE latency values are reported in Figure 25. See infra Fig. 25.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
38
Fig. 23. Mobile Broadband – 4G LTE Mean Download Speed by Country (2017-2021)
Country
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Rank
Mbps
Rank
Mbps
Rank
Mbps
Rank
Mbps
Rank
Mbps
Australia
5
48.5
4
56.3
5
62.7
6
57.8
9
62.2
Austria
18
36.5
19
39.0
17
45.6
12
51.5
16
53.2
Belgium
11
40.7
7
50.4
10
50.3
11
52.4
12
57.5
Canada
6
44.8
3
59.2
3
71.3
2
77.5
4
79.0
Chile
36
20.9
36
20.0
36
21.2
36
20.8
36
20.4
Czech Republic
21
32.8
15
42.8
16
46.4
18
45.7
22
46.3
Denmark
9
42.2
11
46.9
11
49.4
10
53.4
6
65.7
Estonia
24
31.6
22
35.8
19
44.2
17
46.6
14
54.3
Finland
19
36.3
17
41.8
14
47.5
15
49.5
10
60.0
France
22
32.0
20
38.5
15
46.8
16
48.7
15
54.0
Germany
28
30.0
26
33.3
27
35.7
24
37.8
20
48.5
Greece
14
39.8
14
43.1
18
44.2
22
40.1
17
52.5
Hungary
3
50.5
8
50.2
20
43.2
20
41.2
27
40.9
Iceland
4
49.7
2
69.3
1
78.6
1
80.2
2
85.9
Ireland
25
31.0
29
30.5
32
31.7
33
33.1
28
40.7
Israel
31
26.3
33
26.9
34
27.8
35
24.9
35
30.6
Italy
17
37.6
23
35.3
26
36.6
25
37.8
26
42.1
Japan
35
22.1
34
26.7
33
31.7
30
35.0
33
36.7
Latvia
26
30.9
28
31.8
29
34.3
31
35.0
30
40.4
Lithuania
15
38.6
16
42.7
13
48.3
13
51.5
13
57.3
Luxembourg
10
41.5
9
47.6
12
48.4
14
50.9
11
59.2
Mexico
33
25.0
35
25.2
35
27.4
34
32.1
34
33.2
Netherlands
2
51.7
5
55.7
6
61.2
4
72.7
3
82.8
New Zealand
7
44.6
6
51.6
9
52.0
9
53.5
18
50.5
Norway
1
63.1
1
71.8
2
74.5
3
75.4
1
92.1
Poland
32
25.4
32
28.9
28
35.4
28
37.1
21
46.7
Portugal
30
29.4
25
33.5
23
37.7
21
40.6
19
48.7
Slovakia
23
31.6
27
33.3
30
34.2
26
37.3
29
40.4
Slovenia
27
30.1
24
34.5
22
38.5
23
39.9
24
43.2
South Korea
8
43.4
13
44.5
4
63.2
5
64.3
5
68.1
Spain
16
37.7
21
38.2
24
37.4
29
35.6
31
39.0
Sweden
12
40.5
10
46.9
7
54.3
7
55.2
7
64.5
Switzerland
20
35.7
12
46.3
8
52.1
8
53.8
8
62.7
Turkey
13
40.0
18
39.7
21
38.6
27
37.1
25
42.5
United Kingdom
29
29.6
31
29.5
31
33.4
32
33.4
32
36.8
United States
34
24.4
30
30.4
25
37.0
19
42.9
23
44.8
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
39
Fig. 24. Mobile Broadband – 4G LTE Mean Upload Speed by Country (2017-2021)
Country
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Rank
Mbps
Rank
Mbps
Rank
Mbps
Rank
Mbps
Rank
Mbps
Australia
10
15.8
10
16.0
7
16.9
21
13.6
26
12.7
Austria
21
14.1
18
14.4
17
15.3
11
15.0
12
14.5
Belgium
11
15.8
6
16.8
8
16.6
9
15.3
11
14.8
Canada
24
13.1
21
14.0
15
15.9
19
13.7
25
12.8
Chile
31
11.4
32
11.5
25
13.8
20
13.6
22
13.4
Czech Republic
14
14.9
8
16.4
6
17.0
7
15.7
8
15.4
Denmark
3
18.6
2
20.0
3
19.9
4
18.1
4
17.1
Estonia
30
11.6
26
12.6
24
13.8
23
13.4
21
13.4
Finland
12
15.7
11
15.8
10
16.3
10
15.2
7
16.0
France
34
10.3
33
10.6
33
11.4
33
10.6
34
10.5
Germany
29
11.7
27
12.5
27
13.3
29
11.8
29
11.9
Greece
22
14.0
20
14.1
19
15.1
17
14.3
9
15.3
Hungary
4
18.1
4
17.9
14
16.1
12
14.6
16
14.1
Iceland
1
21.5
1
23.0
1
22.6
1
20.0
1
19.0
Ireland
18
14.4
24
13.1
28
13.3
26
12.5
19
13.6
Israel
7
16.3
5
16.9
9
16.3
22
13.5
23
13.0
Italy
20
14.2
22
13.9
22
14.4
27
12.5
27
12.6
Japan
36
8.5
36
9.1
36
9.8
32
11.1
33
10.7
Latvia
23
13.3
25
13.1
29
12.9
30
11.6
30
11.6
Lithuania
17
14.4
17
14.9
21
14.9
18
13.8
17
13.9
Luxembourg
13
15.2
14
15.3
12
16.1
16
14.3
15
14.2
Mexico
8
16.0
19
14.2
23
14.0
14
14.4
14
14.3
Netherlands
9
15.9
13
15.6
13
16.1
5
16.0
6
16.2
New Zealand
6
16.3
12
15.7
11
16.3
8
15.6
13
14.5
Norway
2
19.6
3
19.7
2
20.3
3
18.6
3
18.6
Poland
33
10.6
34
10.4
34
11.3
36
10.3
31
11.1
Portugal
27
12.6
28
12.4
26
13.5
25
12.6
20
13.5
Slovakia
28
12.0
30
12.1
31
12.5
31
11.6
32
10.9
Slovenia
32
11.0
29
12.2
30
12.8
28
11.9
28
12.1
South Korea
19
14.4
15
15.2
16
15.7
15
14.4
18
13.7
Spain
16
14.7
16
15.1
20
15.0
24
13.2
24
13.0
Sweden
26
12.6
23
13.2
18
15.1
13
14.6
10
15.2
Switzerland
15
14.9
7
16.8
4
19.5
2
19.1
2
18.6
Turkey
5
16.8
9
16.3
5
17.1
6
15.9
5
16.7
United Kingdom
25
13.0
31
12.0
32
12.2
35
10.3
35
9.9
United States
35
9.0
35
9.7
35
11.1
34
10.5
36
9.9
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
40
Fig. 25. Mobile Broadband – 4G LTE Mean Latency by Country (2017-2021)
Country
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Rank
ms
Rank
ms
Rank
ms
Rank
ms
Rank
ms
Australia
11
29.3
13
28.2
17
29.6
20
30.4
21
29.6
Austria
10
28.8
11
27.3
12
27.4
7
25.9
8
25.4
Belgium
8
27.6
9
27.0
18
29.7
13
27.5
16
29.1
Canada
28
38.8
27
35.9
23
34.1
24
32.7
24
31.7
Chile
23
34.6
24
34.2
22
33.9
26
35.6
26
32.7
Czech Republic
13
29.5
8
26.7
8
26.4
16
28.5
18
29.3
Denmark
5
24.8
6
25.6
10
27.1
11
26.7
7
24.7
Estonia
6
25.3
5
24.2
4
24.9
8
26.0
13
27.5
Finland
7
26.7
7
25.7
5
25.3
5
24.9
3
22.9
France
31
40.9
30
41.3
30
41.5
29
37.5
29
36.5
Germany
32
41.7
28
38.1
28
38.2
27
37.1
27
33.2
Greece
21
32.0
12
27.3
11
27.4
12
26.8
10
26.1
Hungary
3
24.0
4
24.0
6
25.3
4
24.7
6
24.1
Iceland
4
24.4
1
21.0
1
21.1
1
20.3
1
20.6
Ireland
20
32.0
22
33.5
24
34.3
23
31.5
19
29.3
Israel
14
30.4
18
29.5
15
29.1
21
30.5
15
28.0
Italy
27
38.4
35
49.7
33
45.3
31
40.9
33
40.5
Japan
35
56.2
36
53.0
36
54.0
36
45.6
35
42.9
Latvia
1
21.3
2
22.5
2
23.4
3
23.9
4
23.5
Lithuania
9
28.3
10
27.2
7
26.3
6
25.9
12
27.3
Luxembourg
18
31.2
15
28.5
9
26.5
10
26.1
9
26.0
Mexico
36
60.1
34
49.2
35
50.0
34
41.9
36
45.1
Netherlands
12
29.4
17
29.1
20
31.0
18
29.2
14
27.6
New Zealand
26
38.1
29
39.3
29
39.4
28
37.2
30
36.6
Norway
24
34.7
26
35.4
27
37.6
25
34.0
28
33.2
Poland
25
35.6
23
33.9
25
34.5
22
31.3
23
30.3
Portugal
15
30.6
16
28.7
16
29.5
17
29.2
20
29.5
Slovakia
17
30.9
20
31.9
21
31.1
9
26.0
5
23.6
Slovenia
2
23.6
3
23.0
3
24.5
2
23.5
2
22.2
South Korea
29
39.3
25
34.5
26
35.4
30
38.3
25
32.1
Spain
33
47.5
32
45.3
32
43.6
32
41.1
31
39.3
Sweden
22
33.4
21
32.8
19
30.9
19
30.2
17
29.1
Switzerland
19
31.5
19
29.5
13
28.9
14
27.6
11
26.8
Turkey
16
30.6
14
28.4
14
29.0
15
27.8
22
29.9
United Kingdom
30
39.8
31
41.4
31
42.0
33
41.6
32
40.4
United States
34
50.4
33
46.4
34
46.7
35
44.1
34
41.5
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
41
Fig. 26. Mobile Broadband – 4G LTE Mean Download Speed by Country Capital and U.S. State Capital Cities (2017-2021)
City, Country/State
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Rank
Mbps
Rank
Mbps
Rank
Mbps
Rank
Mbps
Rank
Mbps
Canberra, Australia
7
43.6
11
49.2
4
65.7
9
61.7
7
70.9
Vienna, Austria
21
37.1
28
38.2
29
44.0
28
49.6
31
51.6
Brussels, Belgium
14
39.7
8
49.7
14
49.7
11
57.6
12
63.4
Ottawa, Canada
16
39.4
3
56.0
3
65.9
3
70.7
5
73.0
Santiago, Chile
68
20.0
84
18.9
86
20.2
86
19.2
86
18.7
Prague, Czech Republic
6
43.9
4
55.0
9
55.6
15
54.5
24
54.5
Copenhagen, Denmark
13
41.0
12
47.2
11
51.3
16
54.2
8
67.1
Tallinn, Estonia
25
34.8
26
39.6
20
48.5
24
51.3
16
60.3
Helsinki, Finland
18
38.0
16
44.4
18
49.0
26
50.6
11
64.4
Paris, France
27
33.0
21
41.1
15
49.3
19
53.1
21
57.3
Berlin, Germany
32
30.6
29
37.3
26
44.9
31
46.5
25
54.3
Athens, Greece
15
39.7
19
41.4
30
42.6
64
38.2
33
50.9
Budapest, Hungary
2
53.9
5
54.3
23
46.5
39
44.8
50
44.8
Reykjavik, Iceland
4
48.6
2
71.1
1
82.2
2
79.9
2
86.9
Dublin, Ireland
31
31.0
49
30.2
65
31.8
76
33.0
68
39.8
Jerusalem, Israel
48
25.3
48
30.2
81
24.2
85
21.2
85
27.2
Rome, Italy
19
37.3
36
34.8
52
36.7
65
36.7
72
38.9
Tokyo, Japan
55
23.2
60
27.0
73
29.1
71
34.7
78
35.0
Riga, Latvia
28
33.0
41
33.0
60
35.0
68
35.6
66
40.2
Vilnius, Lithuania
8
43.3
15
44.8
17
49.2
18
53.4
17
59.4
Luxembourg City, Luxembourg
11
42.6
10
49.3
22
47.1
14
54.9
14
61.4
Mexico City, Mexico
58
23.0
72
24.5
78
27.3
80
31.9
81
33.4
Amsterdam, Netherlands
3
50.7
7
53.5
6
58.0
4
69.2
3
81.9
Wellington, New Zealand
5
44.9
6
53.9
13
50.2
17
53.7
32
51.4
Oslo, Norway
1
64.6
1
72.2
2
74.2
1
80.3
1
97.2
Warsaw, Poland
39
27.9
47
30.4
54
36.5
63
38.3
41
47.0
Lisbon, Portugal
23
35.6
25
39.7
31
42.1
40
44.8
26
54.1
Bratislava, Slovakia
20
37.1
22
40.3
34
42.1
32
46.4
30
52.1
Ljubljana, Slovenia
22
36.3
23
40.2
43
38.2
62
38.6
60
43.0
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
42
City, Country/State
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Seoul, South Korea
12
42.3
17
43.7
5
63.3
5
67.5
6
71.6
Madrid, Spain
9
43.1
18
42.7
32
42.1
55
40.6
56
43.7
Stockholm, Sweden
10
42.9
9
49.5
7
57.7
8
62.3
4
78.9
Bern, Switzerland
24
35.6
13
45.4
10
52.8
12
55.8
10
64.9
Ankara, Turkey
17
39.4
24
39.7
50
37.1
67
35.9
62
42.7
London, United Kingdom
40
27.8
55
28.5
51
37.1
50
41.6
43
46.4
Albany, NY
64
21.0
64
26.6
61
34.6
51
41.6
48
45.4
Annapolis, MD
29
32.0
14
44.9
8
55.6
6
66.9
15
61.0
Atlanta, GA
38
28.3
32
35.9
21
48.4
29
49.0
36
49.7
Augusta, ME
78
17.8
78
22.1
79
26.1
83
29.7
71
39.2
Austin, TX
47
25.3
46
31.0
56
36.0
53
40.8
65
40.6
Baton Rouge, LA
59
22.5
58
28.2
57
35.8
38
45.1
51
44.6
Bismarck, ND
30
31.1
68
25.4
55
36.1
30
47.2
34
50.5
Boise, ID
69
20.0
44
31.4
41
38.7
47
42.8
46
45.9
Boston, MA
51
24.5
45
31.2
35
41.7
27
50.4
23
55.1
Carson City, NV
83
16.6
86
17.8
84
21.5
82
29.7
77
36.2
Charleston, WV
81
16.8
66
25.9
62
34.6
37
45.4
57
43.7
Cheyenne, WY
85
15.0
83
19.3
71
29.5
66
36.7
83
31.9
Columbia, SC
63
21.1
57
28.4
63
33.6
58
40.1
73
37.8
Columbus, OH
42
25.8
35
34.9
27
44.7
25
51.3
27
53.7
Concord, NH
82
16.8
82
19.8
83
23.3
75
33.5
75
36.7
Denver, CO
65
20.9
51
29.3
48
37.2
43
44.4
54
44.3
Des Moines, IA
53
23.7
71
24.7
74
29.1
74
33.8
64
40.6
Dover, DE
36
28.7
27
38.8
16
49.2
7
63.8
22
57.1
Frankfort, KY
66
20.4
65
26.5
38
40.2
41
44.6
42
46.9
Harrisburg, PA
54
23.6
33
35.7
28
44.6
10
58.4
9
65.7
Hartford, CT
57
23.1
43
31.7
53
36.6
46
43.9
35
49.7
Helena, MT
72
19.4
73
24.4
46
37.7
52
40.8
52
44.6
Honolulu, HI
71
19.8
67
25.5
67
31.4
60
39.4
67
40.2
Indianapolis, IN
35
29.1
37
34.6
36
40.9
44
44.4
39
48.4
Jackson, MS
80
17.0
76
23.1
80
24.6
84
27.6
84
29.2
Jefferson City, MO
75
18.4
77
22.3
68
30.9
78
32.9
80
33.6
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
43
City, Country/State
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Juneau, AK
77
18.3
85
17.9
85
21.2
69
34.9
76
36.6
Lansing, MI
34
30.2
31
36.7
39
39.0
33
46.3
29
52.9
Lincoln, NE
56
23.1
70
24.8
72
29.2
61
38.8
79
34.8
Little Rock, AR
41
26.9
34
35.4
33
42.1
36
45.9
37
48.6
Madison, WI
76
18.3
80
20.2
82
24.0
77
33.0
74
37.5
Montgomery, AL
37
28.3
52
29.1
64
31.9
57
40.4
70
39.6
Montpelier, VT
79
17.4
69
25.2
76
28.9
73
34.0
53
44.5
Nashville, TN
61
22.1
54
29.0
45
38.1
48
42.7
49
45.3
Oklahoma City, OK
73
19.3
75
23.3
77
27.4
79
32.6
63
41.4
Olympia, WA
74
19.2
74
24.2
69
30.4
59
39.6
69
39.7
Phoenix, AZ
62
21.2
63
26.8
42
38.7
35
46.0
44
46.4
Pierre, SD
43
25.7
62
26.8
58
35.8
81
30.8
28
53.0
Providence, RI
46
25.5
40
33.3
12
51.1
21
52.2
19
58.5
Raleigh, NC
50
24.6
50
29.5
47
37.4
45
44.0
38
48.4
Richmond, VA
52
24.4
42
32.2
40
38.9
49
42.5
47
45.5
Sacramento, CA
60
22.4
59
28.0
59
35.5
56
40.5
61
42.7
Saint Paul, MN
26
34.5
20
41.1
19
48.7
20
52.6
18
59.1
Salem, OR
33
30.4
30
37.0
37
40.9
42
44.5
55
44.0
Salt Lake City, UT
70
19.9
61
26.9
44
38.2
23
51.4
13
62.4
Santa Fe, NM
86
14.6
81
20.0
66
31.6
70
34.8
58
43.6
Springfield, IL
44
25.6
53
29.1
49
37.1
34
46.0
59
43.5
Tallahassee, FL
45
25.6
39
33.5
24
45.5
22
51.8
40
47.2
Topeka, KS
67
20.4
56
28.5
70
30.1
72
34.4
82
33.1
Trenton, NJ
84
16.4
79
21.8
75
29.0
54
40.7
45
46.3
Washington, DC
49
24.8
38
34.0
25
44.9
13
55.1
20
58.4
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
44
Fig. 27. Mobile Broadband – 4G LTE Download Speed Percentiles (2021)
Fig. 28. Mobile Broadband – 4G LTE Mean Download Speeds for
G7 Countries and South Korea (2017-2021)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
45
Fig. 29. Mobile Broadband – 4G LTE Mean Download Speed by Country (2021)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
46
Fig. 30. Mobile Broadband – 4G LTE Mean Upload Speed by Country (2021)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
47
Fig. 31. Mobile Broadband – 4G LTE Mean Latency by Country (2021)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
48
Fig. 32. Mobile Broadband – 4G LTE City Count and Test Count by Country (2017-2021)
Country
Test Count (1000s)
City Count
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Australia
2,567
3,310
3,711
2,992
1,497
10,240
11,139
12,240
9,762
9,351
Austria
872
912
872
847
470
1,396
1,402
1,398
2,203
2,144
Belgium
165
182
214
196
135
602
607
610
600
604
Canada
1,180
1,130
1,255
837
537
2,359
2,395
2,628
2,741
2,613
Chile
768
1,430
1,245
1,246
961
227
241
245
1,338
1,762
Czech Republic
187
211
313
337
238
4,838
4,974
5,333
5,369
5,081
Denmark
502
558
559
563
297
586
586
615
629
625
Estonia
184
239
200
185
112
1,965
3,388
3,510
3,536
3,323
Finland
1,733
1,823
1,838
1,679
966
85
83
396
1,720
2,485
France
3,649
4,209
3,187
2,867
1,943
27,016
28,838
29,598
30,696
29,942
Germany
1,971
2,634
2,907
2,901
2,152
10,470
10,679
10,865
10,992
10,803
Greece
408
477
510
678
671
4,649
5,283
5,960
6,245
6,468
Hungary
427
577
618
630
413
2,843
2,922
2,923
2,921
2,805
Iceland
22
30
20
15
8
80
82
100
99
98
Ireland
205
291
339
371
203
140
148
143
148
144
Israel
477
606
651
640
420
925
969
1,023
1,036
1,040
Italy
5,268
11,786
9,563
9,039
5,808
28,550
33,594
34,517
35,959
34,322
Japan
2,585
2,186
1,802
2,117
1,957
1,930
1,996
1,826
1,765
1,760
Latvia
216
219
247
240
162
1,084
1,171
1,242
1,271
1,218
Lithuania
156
171
202
187
135
2,207
2,340
2,390
2,515
2,338
Luxembourg
36
35
28
25
15
349
365
361
371
232
Mexico
1,498
2,230
2,244
2,200
1,639
3,855
4,958
6,018
7,579
8,213
Netherlands
802
850
880
760
420
2,404
2,429
2,428
2,415
2,384
New Zealand
140
138
159
139
88
1,326
1,465
1,574
1,599
1,536
Norway
245
235
209
203
122
682
685
1,619
2,055
1,884
Poland
2,235
2,213
2,013
1,842
1,178
3,791
3,856
7,913
12,833
11,641
Portugal
249
316
305
276
179
1,128
1,142
1,264
1,397
1,370
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
49
Country
Test Count (1000s)
City Count
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Slovakia
168
198
231
259
159
2,190
2,305
2,399
2,516
2,410
Slovenia
118
130
171
163
100
4,161
4,247
4,261
4,316
3,907
South Korea
159
272
387
172
122
162
162
162
162
162
Spain
663
698
727
766
509
7,833
8,677
9,639
10,729
9,668
Sweden
89
105
120
125
78
405
414
434
503
476
Switzerland
657
873
970
810
475
2,525
2,542
2,569
2,530
2,494
Turkey
1,097
1,513
1,702
1,736
1,164
2,208
2,784
3,428
7,042
6,754
United
Kingdom
3,464
3,772
4,199
3,916
2,310
6,331
6,407
6,494
10,645
10,254
United States
20,657
18,576
17,941
13,104
7,198
25,922
25,975
26,346
26,345
25,393
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
50
C. Mobile Broadband – 5G Results
45. Figure 33 presents the number of tests in the sample for each country in 2021, as well as
the number of cities with 5G tests in each country. In 2021, the United States had almost 8.5 million 5G
speed tests, and the downward trend in 4G LTE tests in the United States during the last several years
indicates that mobile Ookla app users were testing more frequently on 5G networks than on 4G LTE
networks. The United States had 5G tests recorded in over 20,000 cities which is about 80% of the
number of U.S. cities that recorded 4G LTE tests.
46. Figure 34 compares mean 5G download speeds, upload speeds, and latency by country in
2021. In 2021, the United States ranked 27
th
out of 36 countries with a mean download speed of 187.7
Mbps, and Lithuania ranked 1
st
with a mean download speed of 668.0 Mbps. For mean 5G upload speeds
in 2021, the United States ranked 31
st
with a mean upload speed of 23.5 Mbps, and Lithuania ranked 1
st
with a mean upload speed of 62.9 Mbps. For mean 5G latency in 2021, the United States ranked 33
rd
with a mean latency of 33.0 ms, and Iceland ranked 1
st
with a mean latency of 14.4 ms.
47. Figure 35 compares mean 5G download speeds by country and U.S. state capital cities in
2021. In 2021, the mean download speed in Washington, D.C. was 363.7 Mbps, which ranked 13
th
out of
86 capital cities from both countries and states. The highest ranked U.S. state capital city in 2021 was
Salt Lake City, Utah which ranked 2
nd
with a mean download speed of 613.7 Mbps. Three other state
capital cities ranked in the top ten: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania (3
rd
– 528.2 Mbps); Des Moines, Iowa (6
th
–
507.9 Mbps); and Little Rock, Arkansas (9
th
– 450.9 Mbps).
48. Figure 36 presents a map of mean 5G download speeds by country in 2021.
59
Mean
download speeds in North America ranged from 176.8 Mbps to 321.9 Mbps. The six countries with the
highest mean download speeds, including Lithuania, Turkey, South Korea, Norway, Iceland, and Sweden,
had a range of download speeds from 394.9 Mbps to 668.0 Mbps. The six countries with the lowest mean
download speeds, including Poland, Czech Republic, the Netherlands, Italy, Canada, and Germany, had a
range of download speeds from 103.9 Mbps to 181.9 Mbps. Several Northern European countries were
among the ten countries with the highest mean download speeds, whereas several countries in central
Europe, such as Germany, the Netherlands, and Poland, were among countries with the lowest mean
download speeds.
49. Figure 37 presents a map of mean 5G upload speeds by country in 2021.
60
Mean upload
speeds in North America ranged from 23.5 Mbps to 57.9 Mbps. The six countries with the highest mean
download speeds, including Lithuania, Turkey, Mexico, Sweden, Norway, and South Korea, had a range
of upload speeds from 48.1 Mbps to 62.9 Mbps. The six countries with the lowest mean download
speeds, including the United Kingdom, France, Poland, Italy, Chile, and the United States, had a range
from 20.3 Mbps to 23.5 Mbps.
50. Figure 38 presents a map of mean 5G latency by country in 2021.
61
Mean latency in
North America ranged from 23.8 ms to 33.0 ms. The lowest latency was generally observed in the Baltic
countries and in Southeastern European countries, such as Slovakia and Slovenia, along with Iceland and
Chile.
59
Each country’s mean 5G download speed values are reported in Figure 34. See infra Fig. 34.
60
Each country’s mean 5G upload speed values are reported in Figure 34. See infra Fig. 34.
61
Each country’s mean 5G latency values are reported in Figure 34. See infra Fig. 34.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
51
Fig. 33. Mobile Broadband – 5G City Count and Test Count by Country (2021)
Country
Test Count (1000s)
City Count
Australia
703
2,619
Austria
92
962
Belgium
12
266
Canada
268
1,001
Chile
18
187
Czech Republic
52
953
Denmark
135
596
Estonia
5.7
219
Finland
303
651
France
389
9,582
Germany
591
7,485
Greece
155
1,416
Hungary
45
328
Iceland
3.7
18
Ireland
56
109
Israel
81
513
Italy
452
10,878
Japan
279
1,232
Latvia
3.6
73
Lithuania
0.7
22
Luxembourg
8.1
48
Mexico
4.0
36
Netherlands
234
2,101
New Zealand
19.4
89
Norway
68.5
394
Poland
138
1,818
Portugal
24.0
444
Slovakia
13.8
176
Slovenia
17.8
664
South Korea
102
150
Spain
103
2,109
Sweden
24.6
108
Switzerland
273
2,358
Turkey
0.9
8
United Kingdom
1,357
3,766
United States
8,478
20,541
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
52
Fig. 34. Mobile Broadband – 5G Mean Download Speed, Upload Speed,
and Latency by Country (2021)
Country
Download
Upload
Latency
Rank
Mbps
Rank
Mbps
Rank
ms
Australia
8
314.9
25
28.2
21
22.5
Austria
30
182.1
26
27.4
24
23.8
Belgium
26
191.0
27
25.7
20
22.4
Canada
32
176.8
28
25.1
23
23.8
Chile
21
212.8
32
22.8
6
16.9
Czech Republic
35
123.9
14
34.9
22
23.0
Denmark
25
198.3
13
36.1
15
20.0
Estonia
22
207.7
15
33.7
5
16.6
Finland
10
269.7
22
30.9
10
19.0
France
18
227.1
35
20.4
32
31.3
Germany
31
181.9
21
31.4
27
26.7
Greece
12
261.5
17
32.2
11
19.0
Hungary
13
257.1
10
38.7
8
17.8
Iceland
5
424.5
8
41.4
1
14.4
Ireland
15
253.1
18
31.8
12
19.1
Israel
28
187.7
23
30.1
9
18.7
Italy
33
173.2
33
22.6
36
35.6
Japan
19
219.9
30
23.7
35
34.4
Latvia
20
213.9
29
23.9
4
16.2
Lithuania
1
668.0
1
62.9
7
17.0
Luxembourg
14
255.7
12
36.7
25
24.6
Mexico
7
321.9
3
57.9
30
30.1
Netherlands
34
152.0
11
38.6
18
21.4
New Zealand
9
304.9
19
31.6
28
28.1
Norway
4
465.3
5
51.2
19
21.7
Poland
36
103.9
34
22.1
26
25.6
Portugal
11
268.5
9
38.8
16
20.3
Slovakia
29
184.9
16
32.7
2
14.6
Slovenia
17
234.2
20
31.6
3
15.8
South Korea
3
496.2
6
48.1
17
21.2
Spain
23
205.2
24
28.9
31
30.2
Sweden
6
394.9
4
51.8
13
19.4
Switzerland
16
242.4
7
42.8
14
19.8
Turkey
2
562.6
2
58.7
29
29.6
United Kingdom
24
202.4
36
20.3
34
33.9
United States
27
187.7
31
23.5
33
33.0
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
53
Fig. 35. Mobile Broadband – 5G Mean Download Speed by Country Capital
and U.S. State Capital Cities (2021)
City, Country/State
2021
Rank
Mbps
Canberra, Australia
24
299.3
Vienna, Austria
49
201.3
Brussels, Belgium
54
179.6
Ottawa, Canada
56
174.8
Santiago, Chile
42
218.5
Prague, Czech Republic
64
135.9
Copenhagen, Denmark
36
253.1
Tallinn, Estonia
38
250.2
Helsinki, Finland
29
278.0
Paris, France
32
270.6
Berlin, Germany
45
207.8
Athens, Greece
34
263.9
Budapest, Hungary
37
252.7
Reykjavik, Iceland
10
420.1
Dublin, Ireland
28
281.8
Jerusalem, Israel
55
175.7
Rome, Italy
50
200.8
Tokyo, Japan
46
207.2
Riga, Latvia
40
244.5
Vilnius, Lithuania
1
681.3
Luxembourg City, Luxembourg
31
272.6
Mexico City, Mexico
12
372.8
Amsterdam, Netherlands
60
148.9
Wellington, New Zealand
21
308.0
Oslo, Norway
7
502.0
Warsaw, Poland
69
94.8
Lisbon, Portugal
23
299.8
Bratislava, Slovakia
51
199.0
Ljubljana, Slovenia
27
282.9
Seoul, South Korea
4
522.1
Madrid, Spain
35
254.8
Stockholm, Sweden
8
493.0
Bern, Switzerland
39
246.2
Ankara, Turkey
5
514.4
London, United Kingdom
48
202.0
Albany, NY
59
150.7
Annapolis, MD
58
156.9
Atlanta, GA
20
315.2
Augusta, ME
83
66.0
Austin, TX
57
160.7
Baton Rouge, LA
72
89.0
Bismarck, ND
71
91.7
Boise, ID
33
270.0
Boston, MA
19
319.9
Carson City, NV
86
55.3
Charleston, WV
82
73.1
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
54
City, Country/State
2021
Cheyenne, WY
80
75.2
Columbia, SC
15
354.8
Columbus, OH
25
293.0
Concord, NH
78
78.7
Denver, CO
17
332.6
Des Moines, IA
6
507.9
Dover, DE
66
126.2
Frankfort, KY
65
127.6
Harrisburg, PA
3
528.2
Hartford, CT
30
276.6
Helena, MT
67
98.1
Honolulu, HI
63
137.7
Indianapolis, IN
14
362.9
Jackson, MS
79
76.8
Jefferson City, MO
73
88.9
Juneau, AK
85
56.4
Lansing, MI
61
142.0
Lincoln, NE
74
85.5
Little Rock, AR
9
450.9
Madison, WI
76
83.7
Montgomery, AL
77
79.7
Montpelier, VT
70
93.7
Nashville, TN
22
305.1
Oklahoma City, OK
44
213.3
Olympia, WA
81
74.3
Phoenix, AZ
47
204.4
Pierre, SD
62
138.3
Providence, RI
18
322.2
Raleigh, NC
16
334.6
Richmond, VA
11
413.7
Sacramento, CA
26
291.3
Saint Paul, MN
41
239.5
Salem, OR
53
182.1
Salt Lake City, UT
2
613.7
Santa Fe, NM
75
85.2
Springfield, IL
68
96.0
Tallahassee, FL
52
183.1
Topeka, KS
84
65.1
Trenton, NJ
43
214.0
Washington, DC
13
363.7
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
55
Fig. 36. Mobile Broadband – 5G Mean Download Speed by Country (2021)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
56
Fig. 37. Mobile Broadband – 5G Mean Upload Speed by Country (2021)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
57
Fig. 38. Mobile Broadband – 5G Mean Latency by Country (2021)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
58
D. Data and Analysis
51. Data. The FCC obtains aggregated fixed broadband and mobile broadband speed and
latency datasets from Ookla for the United States and the 35 comparison countries. The annual fixed
broadband datasets are aggregated to the city-platform level, whereas the annual mobile broadband
datasets are aggregated to the city-platform-technology level.
62
Prior to aggregating the data, Ookla
applies a set of cleaning and filtering rules to ensure the quality of the data and to remove invalid test
results.
63
The Ookla Speed Test data are user-generated, meaning the users manually choose to run each
speed test. Therefore, the results from these tests may represent nontypical situations (e.g., when the user
is experiencing congestion issues). Because the tests are not taken randomly, they may not represent
consumers’ typical broadband experience.
52. Analysis. In our analysis, we consistently aggregate the data to higher levels using
sample counts as a weight.
64
First, we aggregate over platforms for fixed broadband, mobile – 4G LTE
broadband, and mobile – 5G broadband at the city-level. Then, we aggregate data over cities to the state-
level or country-level. Ideally, we would prefer having an observation for each broadband subscriber or
at least a representative sample of all broadband users. But as subscribers choose to opt-in to Ookla’s
service, this is unlikely to be the case. For example, if the ratio of Ookla users relative to broadband
subscribers is greater in urban areas compared to rural areas, it may produce an urban bias in the dataset at
the country-level.
53. Our city-level and country-level results are not directly comparable to city-level and
country-level results published by Ookla because Ookla applies its aggregation methodology to the given
level of aggregation before calculating statistics, whereas we weigh the lower level of disaggregation by
sample count to aggregate the data to higher levels.
IV. BROADBAND PRICING COMPARISONS
54. Congress directed the Commission to compare broadband pricing in “communities of a
population size, population density, topography, and demographic profile that are comparable to the
population size, population density, topography, and demographic profile of various communities within
the United States.”
65
To meet this directive, we first collected a comprehensive sample of advertised
prices and terms for over 1,000 fixed and mobile broadband plans from the largest broadband providers in
the United States and 25 other countries.
66
We then ranked the countries by fixed and mobile broadband
62
By platform, we refer to the testing platform such as the Android App, the iOS App, a web browser, or other
Ookla testing platforms.
63
For the 2018 and 2019 mobile - 4G LTE data, Ookla adopted additional minor changes to its cleaning and filtering
methodology. For more information regarding Ookla’s methodology, see Brian Connolly, How Ookla Ensures
Accurate, Reliable Data: A Guide to Our Metrics and Methodology (Updated for 2020) (Apr. 28, 2020),
https://www.speedtest.net/insights/blog/how-ookla-ensures-accurate-reliable-data-2020/.
64
As in the Sixth International Broadband Data Report and the 2020 International Broadband Data Report, this
2022 IBDR used sample counts as weights when aggregating. Earlier IBDRs relied on test counts for the weights
because sample counts were not available. See generally Sixth International Broadband Data Report; 2020
Communications Marketplace Report, 36 FCC Rcd at 3749, Appx. G: International Broadband Data Report.
65
47 U.S.C. § 1303(b)(2); see also RAY BAUM’S Act of 2018.
66
We analyzed the same 26 countries as in the 2020 International Broadband Data Report. The Sixth International
Broadband Data Report included three additional comparison countries: Chile, Japan, and South Korea. These
countries were excluded from the 2018 CMR International Broadband Data Report and 2020 International
Broadband Data Report due to resource limitations and the difficulty of collecting information from the websites of
providers in Japan and South Korea. See Sixth International Broadband Data Report, 33 FCC Rcd at 981, para. 6;
Communications Marketplace Report et al., GN Docket No. 18-231 et al., Report, 33 FCC Rcd 12558, Appx. E:
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
59
prices from the least expensive (1
st
) to the most expensive (26
th
) according to two different
methodologies. The first method calculates weighted average prices for a set of fixed broadband products
based on download speeds and for a set of mobile broadband products based on data usage allowances.
67
These two weighted average prices are then used to calculate an overall average price, and countries are
ranked by this measure.
68
55. To better account for differences in the characteristics of the comparison communities
and their broadband offerings, the second method constructs hedonic fixed and mobile broadband price
indexes from a regression of broadband prices on broadband product characteristics and country-level
variables to control for differences in broadband market conditions.
69
The hedonic method seeks to better
assess how U.S. broadband prices compare to prices in other countries after accounting for the types of
country-level cost and demographic differences identified by Congress that likely affect broadband
pricing, including population density, topography, income, and education levels. The hedonic price index
also adjusts for observable differences in broadband plan characteristics across countries (e.g., speed and
usage limits) and generates prices for a set of standardized broadband plans to facilitate pricing
comparisons across countries. The results of our fixed and mobile broadband pricing analyses
demonstrate that accounting for these country-level differences in cost, demand, and quality factors
provides a substantially different assessment of the competitiveness of the U.S. broadband market.
70
A. Overview and Data Highlights
56. Comparing broadband prices across countries presents several challenges. One difficulty
is that broadband product offerings are complex and vary widely across countries. Among other aspects,
the plans may differ with respect to: (1) download and upload speeds; (2) types of technology used to
deliver broadband services; (3) limitations on use, including limits on upload and download volumes; (4)
contractual conditions; (5) additional services included; and (6) consequences of exceeding usage limits,
with some plans reducing speeds, imposing surcharges, or shutting off service. In addition, broadband
service is also frequently purchased as part of a discounted bundle of services, making it difficult to
identify the price of the broadband service. Finally, differences across countries in the quality of
(Continued from previous page)
International Broadband Data Report (2018); 2020 Communications Marketplace Report, 36 FCC Rcd at 3750, Appx.
G-1: International Broadband Data Report, para. 2.
67
The data were collected between February and July of 2022. The data we use for these comparisons contain the
terms and advertised prices for select fixed and mobile broadband plan offerings available on the websites of the
largest broadband providers in each country.
68
Our broadband price index measures the dollar amount that U.S. broadband subscribers would need to have added
or subtracted from their incomes to purchase the same basket of broadband services under the pricing structures in
other countries. Quantity weights for the price index are the share of broadband subscribers in the United States
that, for fixed broadband, are from each of the three broadband speed tiers and, for mobile broadband, are from each
of the three data usage tiers in the analyses.
69
A hedonic regression provides an empirical summary of how prices vary with the characteristics of a good (e.g.,
download speed). In this Report, the hedonic regression builds on the price index method by allowing for the
adjustment of prices for quality, cost, and demographic differences across countries and then predicting broadband
prices for each country at the average U.S. values of these variables.
70
A 2021 study by Israel, Katz, and Keating reached similar conclusions regarding the importance of accounting for
quality differences, bundling, as well as supply and demand factors in order to provide meaningful comparisons of
broadband prices across countries. The same logic they apply led us to implement our current price comparison
approach in the Sixth International Broadband Data Report. Mark Israel, Michael Katz, & Bryan Keating,
International Broadband Price Comparisons Tell Us Little About Competition and Do Not Justify Broadband
Regulation (2021), https://www.ncta.com/sites/default/files/2021-05/international-price-comparisons-paper-11-may-
2021.pdf.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
60
networks deployed, cost factors (e.g., population density and topography), and demand factors (e.g.,
demographics and content quality), would be expected to affect pricing, all else equal. Our hedonic price
index analysis accounts for these differences, with the intention of producing comparisons that are
meaningful for the purposes of assessing which countries have broadband policies that foster competition
and provide the greatest consumer benefits.
71
1. Fixed Broadband Pricing Results
57. Broadband Price Index Results. This analysis compares broadband prices across
countries by calculating weighted average prices within each fixed broadband download speed tier and
then aggregating these prices into an overall average fixed broadband price measure.
• For broadband service purchased on a standalone basis, we find that the United States ranks
24
th
out of the 26 countries in our broadband price index, not adjusting for cost, quality, and
demand factor differences across countries.
72
• For broadband service purchased in a bundle with video service, we find that the United
States ranks 24
th
out of the 26 countries, not adjusting for cost, quality, and demand factor
differences across countries.
• Overall, we find that the United States ranks 24
th
out of the 26 countries, not accounting for
cost, quality, and demand differences across countries.
58. Hedonic Price Index Results. The hedonic price index adjusts broadband prices for
differences in broadband demand factors (e.g., demographics) and network cost profiles across countries
using a hedonic regression framework. The hedonic regression also adjusts for observable differences in
broadband plan characteristics across countries (e.g., the speed and usage limits of each plan) and
generates prices for a set of standardized broadband plans in every country to facilitate pricing
comparisons. Based on the predicted prices for these standardized plans, we then calculate a hedonic
price index to serve as our pricing comparison measure across countries. This index estimates what the
average U.S. consumer would expect to pay for service in each country if those countries had similar
demand characteristics, network cost structures, and broadband offerings as the United States.
73
• After adjusting for differences in cost and demographic factors across countries, as well as
differences in broadband plan characteristics, our hedonic price index estimates that the
United States ranks 13
th
out of the 26 countries.
74
• The U.S. ranking remains unchanged at 13
th
after adjusting for our measure of fixed
broadband network quality.
71
Using standard discrete choice consumer demand models, it is simple to construct examples where consumers in a
country with higher broadband prices receive greater consumer surplus (i.e., are better off) from their broadband
services, compared to consumers in a country with lower prices. Similarly, higher prices may not indicate that one
market is less competitive than another in terms of the economic profits earned by broadband firms. As such, simple
broadband price comparisons may not be appropriate for comparing the effectiveness of competition and regulatory
policies across countries.
72
See infra Fig. 41.
73
The country rankings would not change if, instead of using the United States as our baseline country, we predicted
prices at the values of the country-level variables for any other country or at the average of these variables across all
countries. The only difference in our results would be in the levels of the predicted prices. Due to the provider-level
random coefficients in the hedonic model, changing the values of the plan characteristics used to predict prices
would change the country rankings.
74
See infra Fig. 43.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
61
• After further price adjustment for measures of broadband content quality, the United States
ranks 5
th
among the 26 countries.
2. Mobile Broadband Pricing Results
59. Our mobile broadband pricing comparison methodology is the same as our fixed
broadband pricing comparison methodology with two exceptions. First, because most mobile broadband
plans are sold by data usage allowance rather than speed, we classify mobile broadband products by data
usage allowances rather than by download speeds.
75
Second, we account for bundling in this sector by
analyzing multi-line data plans (i.e., family plans) rather than the video and broadband bundling that is
more common in the fixed broadband market.
60. Broadband Price Index. This analysis compares countries by calculating weighted
average prices for mobile plans that fall within specified data usage tiers and then aggregates these prices
into an overall average mobile broadband price.
• The United States ranks 24
th
in single-line plan pricing and 24
th
in multi-line pricing out of
the 26 countries, not adjusting for cost, quality, and demand factor differences across
countries.
76
• Overall, we find that the United States ranks 24
th
out of the 26 countries in our mobile
broadband price index, not adjusting for cost and demand factor differences across countries.
61. Hedonic Price Index Results. As in our fixed broadband analysis, we calculate a hedonic
index that estimates what the average U.S. consumer would expect to pay for her level of mobile
broadband service in each country if that country had similar demand characteristics, network cost
structure, and broadband plan characteristics as the United States.
• After adjusting for differences across countries in the cost and demographic factors, as well
as differences in mobile broadband plan characteristics, our hedonic price index estimates
that the United States ranks
13
th
out of the 26 countries.
77
• Adjusting for mobile network quality measures, the United States ranks 12
th
out of 26
countries.
• After we further adjust the mobile hedonic price index for our measures of content quality,
the United States ranks 8
th
out of 26 countries.
62. Combining Fixed and Mobile Hedonic Price Index Rankings. Typical consumers in the
United States subscribe to both fixed and mobile broadband services, so we also measure overall
broadband price by calculating the average monthly cost that U.S. consumers would pay to subscribe to
both services in each country.
78
After accounting for differences in costs, demographics, and broadband
plan characteristics, we find that the United States ranks 15
th
overall by this measure, at $121.16 per
month for a mobile and fixed broadband connection.
79
Adjusting for network quality measures, the
Unites States ranking improves to 12
th
.
80
After accounting for additional differences in content quality,
75
In some countries, providers have begun to differentiate plans based on maximum download speeds, especially for
various tiers of unlimited data plans, in addition to differentiating plans based on data usage allowances.
76
See infra Fig. 44.
77
See infra Fig. 46.
78
We do not account for discounts for bundling of fixed broadband and mobile broadband services that are offered
by some providers.
79
See infra Fig. 48.
80
Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
62
the United States ranks 3
rd
overall by this measure, at $121.59 per month for a mobile and fixed
broadband connection.
81
B. Data
63. For our fixed broadband data analysis, we collected fixed residential broadband plan
prices and terms from 84 providers in 26 countries, including the United States, between April and July
2022. To determine which providers to sample in each comparison country, we used the TeleGeography
GlobalComms Database to select providers with broadband market shares of at least 10% nationally as of
December 2021.
82
This threshold was chosen to balance data collection costs against the desire to obtain
a representative sample of broadband pricing for each country.
83
For each provider, we collected plans
from 10 randomly selected addresses in the country’s capital city.
84
These addresses were then entered
into providers’ websites to determine the product offerings at each address. While many providers’
websites displayed general “promotional splash page” plan offerings, entering an address allowed us to
capture the variation in product availability within a city, as well as more detailed pricing information.
85
Where we could not collect address-level plan data, we collected “promotional splash page” plans (i.e.,
we assume the plan is available for at least one address in the city).
86
64. We also collected mobile broadband plan prices and terms from 84 providers from 26
countries, including the United States, between February and April of 2022 for providers in each country
with a national broadband market shares of at least 10% as of September 2021.
87
Given the wide scope of
offerings by mobile providers, we limited the collection to 4G and 5G postpaid smartphone plans that
allowed unlimited voice calling and texting for up to four lines (when adding lines provided a discount).
88
However, where providers did not offer plans with unlimited minutes or unlimited text messages, we
collected plans with the highest number of minutes and text messages for a particular data allowance and
the maximum download speed combination.
81
Id.
82
TeleGeography, TeleGeography GlobalComms Database, http://www.telegeography.com (last accessed Oct. 6,
2022) (navigate to Company Statistics, then choose Fixed Broadband within the GlobalComms Database).
TeleGeography GlobalComms Database is subscription-only. We obtained these data as of February 2022. There
is one exception to the 10% rule: Verizon is estimated to have a national broadband market share below 10% in the
United States, but it was sampled as it is the largest FTTP provider as well as the second largest Incumbent Local
Exchange Carrier.
83
On average, our sample covers about 82% of all broadband subscribers over all 26 comparison countries. The
lowest total market share is about 48% while most countries have over 80% total market share covered in our
sample.
84
In some cases, a provider did not offer service in the capital city which required collecting some providers’ plans
from another city.
85
If we were able to collect address-level plans, we only collected plans that were available for at least one address.
Therefore, plans that were advertised on “promotional splash pages” may not have been collected if these plans were
not available at any of the 10 sampled addresses.
86
Some providers do not provide an option to enter an address to check available plans but instead require
customers to call or e-mail to receive more information about availability of plans.
87
We obtained these data as of February 2022. See
TeleGeography, TeleGeography GlobalComms Database, http://www.telegeography.com (last accessed Oct. 6,
2022) (navigate to Company Statistics, then choose Mobile within the GlobalComms Database).
88
By postpaid plans, we refer to plans that are paid after usage (i.e., not prepaid or “pay-as-you-go” plans). By
smartphone plans, we refer to plans that have a data component.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
63
C. Methodology
1. Fixed and Mobile Broadband Price Index Calculations
65. To compare broadband pricing across countries, we need an estimate of “the price” of
broadband in each country. Our approach is to follow well-established practices in the price index
literature. Price indexes calculate measures of price changes for goods and services by comparing the
prices in a base period to those in a comparison period. One such index is the U.S. Consumer Price Index
(CPI), calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor.
89
While the CPI
involves measuring price changes across time periods, our application to price changes across countries is
analogous with the two periods now corresponding to two different countries.
66. Both our broadband price index and hedonic price index are Laspeyres broadband price
indexes.
90
In the Laspeyres index calculation shown below, p
j,t
represents the price of product j in
comparison country, t, p
j,0
is the price of product j in the base country, and q
j,0
is the market share of
product j in the base country. The index is therefore the ratio of the weighted average price of all of the j
broadband products sold in the comparison country to the weighted average price of these same products
in the base country, where the weights are the percentage of broadband consumers who choose each
product in the base country.
91
67. Ideally, the price index would be calculated over every broadband plan offered in every
country. However, there are at least two difficulties in doing so. First, we would need to know the
number of households that subscribe to each base country plan, but we do not have these data. Second,
the broadband products available in each country are not the same. Even if we had such quantity weights
for the base country, they would not be applicable in the comparison countries. To deal with these issues,
we classify all available broadband plans into j = 6 products for our mobile and fixed price indexes. For
fixed broadband, we classify products by download speed tier ranges for which we have information on
the share of U.S. fixed broadband households that subscribe to the speed tier.
92
We define three
89
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index Frequently Asked Questions,
https://www.bls.gov/cpi/questions-and-answers.htm (last modified Mar. 23, 2022) (last visited Oct. 6, 2022).
90
The Laspeyres price index yields an upper bound for the average compensating variation from a price change.
Compensating variation measures the dollar amount by which a given consumer would need to have their income
adjusted to obtain the same level of utility, or well-being, under the comparison prices and product choice set. See
Ariel Pakes, A Reconsideration of Hedonic Price Indexes with an Application to PC’s, 93 American Economic
Review 1578 (2003).
91
The United States is used as the base country for several reasons. First, the focus of this Report is to evaluate how
the prices of broadband products purchased in the United States compare to those of other countries. Second, we
have better estimates of the subscriber quantity weights for the United States than for any other country. Finally,
this index ensures that U.S. broadband consumers would be at least as well-off as in higher ranked countries by
measuring the dollar amount that U.S. broadband subscribers would need to have added or subtracted from their
incomes to purchase the same basket of broadband services under the pricing structures in the other countries.
92
Aggregating products in this manner is common in the differentiated products demand model literature. See
Steven Berry, James Levinsohn, & Ariel Pakes, Automobile Prices in Market Equilibrium, 63 Econometrica: Journal
of the Econometric Society 841 (1995); Aviv Nevo, Measuring Market Power in the Ready-to-Eat Cereal Industry,
69 Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society 307 (2001); Austan Goolsbee & Amil Petrin, The Consumer
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
64
standalone fixed broadband products classified by the following download speed tiers: less than 100
Mbps; at least 100 Mbps but less than 250 Mbps; and at least 250 Mbps. We also define three additional
products when these speed tiers are purchased in a bundle with video service.
93
68. For mobile broadband, we classify products by data allowance rather than download
speed
94
and define the three bundled products as multi-line data plans (i.e., “family plans”), rather than by
bundles of telecommunications services as we do for fixed broadband.
95
Cisco estimates that 79% of U.S.
subscribers obtain their mobile service through multi-line data plans.
96
These bundled plans are offered at
greatly discounted rates and need to be properly accounted for to reflect the prices that consumers actually
pay for their mobile services. We therefore define three standalone mobile broadband products (i.e.,
single line plans), which are classified by the following monthly data usage limits: less than or equal to
10 GB per line; greater than 10 GB but less than or equal to 25 GB per line; greater than 25 GB per line.
97
We also have three additional multi-line products when these products are bundled with additional lines.
a. Fixed and Mobile Product Shares
69. Fixed Product Shares. To calculate the U.S. quantity weights for each of the six products
in our fixed broadband price indexes, we use the FCC Form 477 data
98
to estimate the share of U.S.
households that subscribe to each of the three broadband speed tiers and an estimate from S&P Global
that about 61% of all U.S. broadband households purchase their service in a bundle.
99
The resulting
broadband products and their estimated U.S. market shares are shown in Figure 39 below.
(Continued from previous page)
Gains from Direct Broadcast Satellites and the Competition with Cable TV, 72 Econometrica: Journal of the
Econometric Society 351 (2004).
93
By video service, we limit the scope to traditional linear TV plans and do not consider over-the-top (OTT)
streaming services from the provider or from a third-party (e.g., Netflix bundled with broadband service).
94
Relative to the mobile broadband pricing data collections in the Sixth International Broadband Data Report and
the 2020 International Broadband Data Report, we encountered more providers differentiating plans by download
speed and/or technology (e.g., 4G vs. 5G), particularly for unlimited data plans.
95
In some countries, providers offer mobile broadband bundled with fixed broadband. We do not consider this type
of bundling in our analysis.
96
Cisco, Annual Internet Report (2018-2023) White Paper, (Mar. 9, 2020),
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/executive-perspectives/annual-internet-report/white-paper-c11-
741490.html. We are treating the share of “shared data” plans as equivalent to the share of “multi-line” plans in the
United States. While we were not able to incorporate a more recent estimate of single-line vs. multi-line plans in
this Report, we do not have reason to believe that the shares have substantially changed in two years.
97
Given the trend in higher mobile data usage and providers offering more higher data cap and unlimited data plans,
we have redefined our data usage tiers with respect to mobile products as compared with the 2020 International
Broadband Data Report.
98
FCC, Form 477 Resources, https://www.fcc.gov/economics-analytics/industry-analysis-division/form-477-
resources (last visited Oct. 6, 2022). All FCC Form 477 data used in this Report have been certified as accurate by
the filers. We used preliminary December 2021 FCC Form 477 subscription data for these calculations. We note
that the year-end FCC Form 477 data are subject to corrections, as appropriate, by the service provider, and the final
data will be published in due course by the Commission. We further note that the 2022 IBDR’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. 6, 2022) (describing quality and consistency checks performed on
providers’ submitted data and explaining any adjustments made to the FCC Form 477 data as filed).
99
S&P Global, Estimated broadband-only homes as a percentage of wireline broadband homes, Q1’19-Q4’21 (last
accessed July 18, 2022) (S&P Global). We do not provide URLs for S&P Global articles and data throughout this
section because it is a paid subscription service that cannot be publicly accessed.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
65
Fig. 39. Fixed Broadband Product Shares
Product
Download Speed Tier
Bundle
Share
Speed Tier
Share
Product
Share
Plans
1
Standalone: 0 < Mbps < 100
38.67%
28.30%
10.95%
122
2
Standalone: 100 ≤ Mbps < 250
38.67%
33.47%
12.94%
104
3
Standalone: 250 ≤ Mbps
38.67%
38.22%
14.78%
232
4
Bundle: 0 < Mbps < 100
61.33%
28.30%
17.36%
133
5
Bundle: 100 ≤ Mbps < 250
61.33%
33.47%
20.53%
117
6
Bundle: 250 ≤ Mbps
61.33%
38.22%
23.44%
252
Source: S&P Global; December 2021 FCC Form 477 data.
70. Mobile Product Shares. To construct our mobile broadband price indexes, we need to
estimate the percentage of U.S. consumers who subscribe to each of the six mobile products defined by
data usage allowance and number of lines. We follow the same approach as the 2020 International
Broadband Data Report of estimating product shares based on the estimated distribution of mobile data
usage in the United States, but we adjust for the continued growth in mobile broadband data usage.
100
In
Figure 40 below, we calculate the product shares for each of the six standardized mobile broadband
products.
101
The column “Data Usage (Per Line) Share” provides the estimated percentage of all
subscribers that consume an amount of data within the corresponding ranges of data usage and number of
lines on the plan. For example, 46% of all single-line plans in the United States are estimated to consume
between 0 and 10 GB of data per line (product 1), while 58% of multi-line plans would be expected to
consume this amount of data per line (product 4).
102
We then multiply these estimated single-line and
multi-line data usage shares by the percentage of all U.S. plans that are single versus multi-line to arrive
at the final mobile product shares.
103
100
See 2020 Communications Marketplace Report, 36 FCC Rcd at 3797, Appx. G-3: International Broadband Data
Report, para. 23.
101
See infra Fig. 47 (estimated log-normal parameters and distribution).
102
We use the terms “shared plan,” “multi-line plan,” and “family plan” interchangeably in this Report. However,
some multi-line plans may have shared data among the lines, whereas some other multi-line plans have separate data
allowances for each line. We do not distinguish between shared data and separate data allowances for multi-line
plans.
103
In a change from the 2020 International Broadband Data Report, we include all multi-line plans in the three
categories of multi-line products (i.e., we do not limit the multi-line product definition to a specified number of
lines).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
66
Fig. 40. Mobile Broadband Product Shares
Product
Lines
Data Allowance
Tier (Per Line)
Bundling
Share
Data Usage Share
(Per Line)
Product
Share
Plans
1
1
0 < GB ≤ 10
21%
46%
9.7%
99
2
1
10 < GB ≤ 25
21%
30%
6.3%
79
3
1
GB > 25
21%
24%
5.0%
218
4
2-4
0 < GB ≤ 10
79%
58%
45.8%
373
5
2-4
10 < GB ≤ 25
79%
26%
20.5%
313
6
2-4
GB > 25
79%
16%
12.6%
719
Source: Cisco, Annual Internet Report (2018-2023) White Paper (Mar. 9, 2020),
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/executive-perspectives/annual-internet-report/white-paper-c11-
741490.html; Ericsson, Ericsson Mobility Visualizer, https://www.ericsson.com/en/reports-and-papers/mobility-
report/mobility-visualizer?f=1&ft=2&r=2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9&t=1,2,3,4,5,6,7&s=4&u=1&y=2021,2027&c=3 (last visited
Oct. 6, 2022) (Ericsson Mobility Visualizer).
b. Product Price Calculations
71. Calculating comparable prices for each of the six broadband products for each country is
more difficult. To calculate such prices using the Laspeyres index formula mentioned above, we follow
two common approaches in the price index literature. The first approach estimates a price for each of the
six products in a country by calculating the weighted average price of all plans that fall within that
product category. The second approach estimates a hedonic regression model and then uses this model to
predict the prices for each of the six fixed and mobile broadband products.
72. Broadband Price Index Prices. In our broadband price index calculations, we first
calculate simple unweighted average prices for each provider’s offerings that fall into each of the six
product categories. We then use the market share of each provider to calculate a country-level weighted
average for each of the six broadband products from these provider-level prices.
104
Finally, we calculate
an average broadband price for each country by weighting these six product-level prices by the estimated
percentage of consumers in the United States that subscribe to each product category. The prices we
calculate using this methodology for our fixed broadband price index are shown in Figure 41, and the
mobile price index prices are shown in Figure 44 below.
73. Hedonic Price Index Prices. Many studies compare advertised prices for “similar”
telecommunications services, as we have done in our broadband price index calculations.
105
While such
price comparisons are appropriate for descriptive assessments of price levels, they are less useful for
identifying which countries have industry structures and policies that produce the greatest broadband
consumer benefits.
106
The challenge in comparing prices across markets is that the supply and demand
104
If a provider does not offer any plans in the product category, that provider’s market share is distributed
proportionally to the providers that do offer plans in the product category (i.e., the logit assumption). If no providers
in the country offer the highest standalone (bundled) product, we assign the next highest available standalone
(bundled) product price to the highest missing product price(s). See infra para. 74.
105
For example, see Carol Corrado & Olga Ukhaneva, Hedonic Prices for Fixed Broadband Services: Estimation
across OECD Countries, (Oct. 20, 2016), https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/5jlpl4sgc9hj-
en.pdf?expires=1603997556&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=1D0A776B692D8F368F8A696A24A0E702.
106
In the language of economics, price indexes are positive analyses that describe what the price differences are
across countries or what the typical consumer would be expected to pay for broadband in each country. However,
cross-country price differences are frequently used to normatively rank countries and are interpreted as meaningful
differences in industry performance or regulatory policies. In order to provide a more normative assessment, our
analysis also accounts for potentially exogenous supply and demand differences across countries that would result in
price differences regardless of broadband policy differences. However, given the limited number of country-level
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
67
factors which generate different broadband prices and offerings vary widely from one market to the next.
An analysis that seeks to make normative comparisons (i.e., how well a country is doing relative to
others) of broadband prices across countries would, at a minimum, need to account for: (1) the different
costs of deploying and operating broadband networks; (2) demographic differences that affect demand for
broadband service; (3) multi-product bundling in broadband pricing; (4) different product offerings in
each country; and (5) the availability and quality of complementary content and applications. Rankings
that account for these factors are necessary to inform government competition and regulatory policy
because the exogenous determinants of price that are outside the scope of competition policy (e.g., terrain
and population density) may differ across countries and distort comparisons.
107
74. A hedonic regression provides an empirical summary of how prices vary with the
characteristics of a good and is a standard technique used to adjust prices for differences in quality in
price indexes such as the CPI.
108
Our approach extends the standard hedonic framework by also
controlling for country-level cost and demand factor differences, instead of only controlling for product
characteristics (e.g., download speed).
109
We estimate four hedonic regression models and then use the
predicted prices from these models to construct hedonic price indexes. While the details of the hedonic
modeling are contained in section IV.F.2, we summarize the basic approach here. For both fixed and
mobile broadband price estimates, the first model regresses the logarithm of broadband plan price on the
plan characteristics to account for how plan characteristics explain differences in plan prices across
countries. The second model builds upon the first by adding country-level variables that likely affect
broadband deployment costs (e.g., population density) and broadband demand (e.g., income per capita).
The third model adds controls for network quality and investment. The final model adds a proxy measure
for availability and quality of content that is complementary to broadband and would be expected to raise
broadband demand (e.g., websites and video content availability).
75. To calculate the hedonic price index, we predict provider-specific prices from the
estimated hedonic regression for six standardized broadband plans. For these price predictions, we set the
product characteristics and country-level variables at typical U.S. values and use the estimated provider-
specific coefficients on product characteristics to predict prices for each provider in each country. This
procedure effectively estimates what each provider’s price would be for each of the six standardized
broadband products in each country if broadband demand, cost, network quality, and content quality were
at the levels observed in the United States.
110
We then aggregate these provider-specific price predictions
(Continued from previous page)
variables that we can include in the analysis, our results should still be interpreted with caution when comparing
country rankings.
107
The Sixth International Broadband Data Report described in detail how each of these factors would be expected
to affect international price comparisons and why these should be accounted for when comparing prices across
countries. See Sixth International Broadband Data Report, 33 FCC Rcd at 980-81, paras. 5-6; see also id. at 1023-
27, paras. 7-13.
108
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quality Adjustment in the CPI, https://www.bls.gov/cpi/quality-
adjustment/home.htm (last modified Sept. 15, 2022) (last visited Oct. 6, 2022).
109
In a standard hedonic broadband pricing analysis, a country fixed effect would be included to account for
country-level differences in cost and demand factors. However, since the country fixed effect is used to predict
prices, these cost and demand differences remain in the predicted price levels. Our approach differs by
decomposing the fixed effect into observable cost components and an unobserved random effect to remove the
effect of exogenous country-level observable cost and demand differences from predicted prices.
110
Fixed broadband product prices are predicted at the following download speeds for both standalone and bundled
plans: 100 Mbps, 250 Mbps, and 1 Gbps. All other fixed broadband plan characteristics are the same in order to
make prices comparable across countries. The other features of the plans used to predict prices are as follows: no
contract, no fixed voice service, symmetric upload and download speeds, and an unlimited data usage allowance.
The mobile broadband products are predicted at the following data allowances for both single-line and multi-line
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
68
for each of the six products by using U.S. product share weights and the previously described Laspeyres
price index formula, to arrive at the price that U.S. consumers would have to pay in each country for their
broadband services if those countries had U.S. broadband cost, quality, and demand conditions.
D. Fixed Broadband Pricing Analysis and Results
76. Fixed Broadband Price Index. In Figure 41 below, we present country rankings based on
the fixed broadband price index, as well as this index divided by the average monthly data usage per
subscriber to calculate a unit price measured in dollar per gigabyte of data consumption ($/GB).
111
The
United States ranks 24
th
out of 26 countries in standalone pricing, and the ranking is also at 24
th
for
broadband bundled with video service.
112
Combining standalone and bundled pricing, the overall ranking
of the United States is 24
th
out of 26 countries. On a price per GB of data consumed basis, the United
States ranks 7
th
out of the 22 countries for which we have usage data.
113
(Continued from previous page)
plans: 10 GB, 25 GB, and 50 GB per line. For the multi-line products, the 10 GB and 25 GB plans have two lines
each and the 50 GB plan has three lines. The other plan features for the price predictions are as follows: no
contract, no download speed restrictions, unlimited minutes, and unlimited texts.
111
All reported prices for the broadband index are adjusted using a measure of Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) to
make the results comparable to the income-adjusted hedonic index results. Figure 41 presents the weighted average
prices in each country for the indicated products. The Laspeyres index for each country would be calculated by
dividing the given country’s weighted price by the U.S. weighted price. See infra Fig. 41.
112
To calculate the price of broadband for each bundled offering, we first calculate the bundle discount as the
difference between the total price of the standalone offerings for each service and the bundle. We then assume that
this bundle discount is allocated to each component of the bundle in proportion to the standalone costs of each
component. In this manner, we remove the video component price from the broadband bundle price. We also note
that the bundle and standalone pricing measures are not strictly comparable in Figure 41 because the plans that are
included in each calculation may be different. See infra Fig. 41. For this reason, the bundle price in a country may
be higher than the standalone price. See infra Fig. 50.
113
Dividing monthly price by data usage may not be appropriate because data consumption affects broadband
pricing and broadband pricing also likely affects data consumptions. In other words, data consumption is
endogenous with price. See 2020 Communications Marketplace Report, 36 FCC Rcd at 3791, Appx. G-3:
International Broadband Data Report, para. 16.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
69
Fig. 41. Fixed Broadband Price Indexes (PPP Adjusted)
Country
Standalone
Bundled
Overall
$/GB
Mean
Rank
Mean
Rank
Mean
Rank
Mean
Rank
Australia
68.30
21
68.30
21
68.30
21
0.23
12
Austria
53.58
9
53.58
12
53.58
11
0.29
19
Belgium
59.27
15
56.75
14
57.73
14
0.24
14
Canada
80.96
25
80.96
25
80.96
25
0.24
15
Czech Republic
51.52
7
48.67
6
49.77
6
0.23
11
Denmark
43.47
3
43.47
3
43.47
3
0.13
3
Estonia
68.14
20
67.66
20
67.84
20
Finland
54.41
11
52.82
9
53.43
10
0.41
22
France
46.66
4
46.66
4
46.66
4
0.19
6
Germany
49.47
5
48.29
5
48.75
5
0.23
13
Greece
62.14
18
58.21
15
59.73
16
0.40
21
Iceland
73.18
22
73.18
22
73.18
22
0.18
4
Ireland
61.86
17
61.74
18
61.79
18
0.26
17
Italy
42.78
2
42.78
2
42.78
2
0.22
10
Latvia
38.27
1
34.53
1
35.98
1
0.10
1
Luxembourg
67.14
19
67.14
19
67.14
19
Mexico
74.19
23
74.19
23
74.19
23
Netherlands
58.11
13
53.01
10
54.98
12
0.31
20
New Zealand
60.98
16
60.98
17
60.98
17
0.21
8
Norway
101.97
26
99.40
26
100.39
26
Portugal
58.45
14
58.45
16
58.45
15
0.27
18
Spain
50.94
6
50.94
7
50.94
7
0.19
5
Sweden
53.96
10
52.63
8
53.15
8
0.21
9
Switzerland
55.94
12
55.94
13
55.94
13
0.25
16
United Kingdom
53.38
8
53.08
11
53.19
9
0.12
2
United States
76.46
24
75.98
24
76.17
24
0.20
7
Source: TeleGeography, GlobalComms Database (last accessed Feb. 9, 2022); Ofcom, International
Broadband Scorecard 2021: Interactive Data, https://www.ofcom.org.uk/research-and-data/telecoms-
research/broadband-research/eu-bbroadand-scorecard/international-broadband-scorecard-2021-interactive-
data (last visited Aug. 31, 2022); International Telecommunication Union, World Telecommunications/ICT
Indicators Database 2022 (26
th
Edition/July 2022) (last accessed Sept. 16, 2022).
Note: To make the results comparable to the income-adjusted hedonic analysis, prices are reported in PPP-
adjusted U.S. dollars.
77. Fixed Broadband Hedonic Price Index. The estimated coefficients for the four fixed
broadband hedonic models are shown in Figure 42 below.
114
Before reviewing the estimates, we first note
that the estimated coefficients in our models are reduced form estimates of how prices are correlated with
product characteristics and country-level factors, so they should not be given a causal interpretation for
how we would expect price to change if, for example, the income level of a country increased. Despite
this issue, the coefficients generally align with expectations and are often statistically significant.
114
The estimated random coefficient variances are provided in Figure 52. See infra Fig 52.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
70
78. The model estimates that higher speed plans cost more, and the rate of increase in price
(i.e., slope) is higher for plans at a higher speed tier.
115
Bundling broadband with other services is
estimated to lower the price of the broadband service by approximately 2.3% on average across all
countries.
116
The inclusion of unlimited data usage allowance is estimated to increase price by about 3%
in all models. For the country-level control variables, we find that the per capita income in a country has
a large and statistically significant effect on prices. Population density has a negative coefficient as
expected and is statistically significant, while educational attainment has a positive coefficient as
expected but is not statistically significant. Our other broadband cost proxy variable, terrain ruggedness,
has a large but statistically insignificant effect on fixed broadband prices. In Model 4, we estimate that a
1% increase in terrain ruggedness increases broadband prices by 11%, and this is statistically significant
at the 5% level. Finally, as observed in Model 4, the proxy variable for content availability and quality
also has a strong positive effect on broadband prices, and this is also significant at the 1% level.
115
The effect of download speeds on broadband prices is estimated as a piecewise linear spline with three download
speed cutoffs. A linear spline allows the estimated coefficients to be different for the range of download speeds
between each cutoff. For example, our estimated coefficients imply that the price of fixed broadband increases more
steeply for plans with download speeds above 250 Mbps compared to those below 100 Mbps.
116
When a dependent variable is measured in logarithmic form, the percentage change in the dependent variable for
a change in a dummy variable from 0 to 1, or a logged continuous independent variable, is calculated as
100[exp(β) – 1]. A dummy, or indicator, variable refers to a binary variable that can take only the values 0 and 1.
See, e.g., James H. Stock & Mark W. Watson, Introduction to Econometrics 145 (4th ed. 2019).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
71
Fig. 42. Fixed Broadband Hedonic Regressions
Log Average Monthly
Price (in U.S. dollars)
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Model 4
Coef.
SE
p
Coef.
SE
p
Coef.
SE
p
Coef.
SE
p
Spline: 0 < Mbps < 100
0.109
0.011
0.000
0.109
0.011
0.000
0.109
0.011
0.000
0.109
0.011
0.000
Spline: 100 ≤ Mbps < 250
0.091
0.038
0.016
0.080
0.038
0.036
0.080
0.038
0.035
0.079
0.038
0.040
Spline: 250 ≤ Mbps
0.258
0.026
0.000
0.257
0.026
0.000
0.257
0.026
0.000
0.257
0.026
0.000
Symmetric Speeds Dummy
-0.041
0.025
0.105
-0.051
0.025
0.044
-0.051
0.025
0.045
-0.048
0.025
0.058
Bundle Dummy
-0.023
0.009
0.009
-0.023
0.009
0.009
-0.023
0.009
0.009
-0.023
0.009
0.009
Fixed Voice Dummy
0.148
0.042
0.000
0.129
0.040
0.001
0.128
0.040
0.001
0.120
0.039
0.002
Unlimited Data Dummy
0.030
0.026
0.255
0.028
0.026
0.287
0.028
0.026
0.288
0.029
0.026
0.263
Log Gross National
Income (GNI) Per Capita
0.522
0.088
0.000
0.528
0.092
0.000
0.476
0.082
0.000
Log Non-Rural Population
Density
-0.123
0.039
0.002
-0.122
0.040
0.002
-0.100
0.036
0.005
Educational Attainment
1.273
0.704
0.070
1.280
0.705
0.070
0.992
0.634
0.118
Log Terrain Ruggedness
Weighted by Population
0.088
0.055
0.107
0.088
0.055
0.108
0.111
0.049
0.024
Coverage (% Households
with > 100 Mbps)
-0.081
0.310
0.793
0.066
0.273
0.808
Content Quality (1
st
Principal Component)
(Standardized)
0.093
0.035
0.008
Constant
3.196
0.093
0.000
-1.916
0.832
0.021
-1.929
0.835
0.021
-1.515
0.740
0.041
Number of Observations
960
960
960
960
Log Likelihood
289.1
308.4
308.5
311.5
Likelihood Ratio Test vs. Linear Model
P-Value
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Note: The estimated random coefficient variances and measures of goodness of fit are provided in Figure 52 of section IV.G.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
72
79. The resulting country rankings under each model are shown in Figure 43 below. This
figure reports the overall rankings that aggregate over the three standalone and three bundled products in
each country. In Model 1, after adjusting for only broadband plan characteristics, we find that the United
States ranks 23
rd
out of the 26 countries in our sample, with an average broadband price of $69.86.
Countries with lower average incomes, like Latvia and the Czech Republic, rank near the top before we
correct the price levels for per capita income. In Model 2, after we correct price levels for differences in
income, terrain, education, and population density, we find that the United States ranks 13
th
. The change
in ranking from the first model is due to the United States having relatively high income and educational
levels and more rugged terrain compared to the other countries in our sample.
117
Model 3 includes the
percentage of households with access to download speeds of at least 100 Mbps, and the ranking of the
United States remains at 13
th
. Model 4 adds our content quality proxy variable into the hedonic
regression, and results in the United States ranking 5
th
least expensive out of the 26 countries.
Fig. 43. Fixed Broadband Hedonic Price Indexes
Country
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Model 4
Price
Rank
Price
Rank
Price
Rank
Price
Rank
Australia
77.22
24
85.03
20
83.38
19
100.26
18
Austria
58.10
16
87.24
21
86.72
21
107.49
20
Belgium
60.23
18
83.89
19
84.20
20
112.23
21
Canada
82.91
25
102.40
25
102.15
25
115.52
22
Czech Republic
32.08
3
66.19
11
66.51
11
81.52
11
Denmark
47.00
10
59.15
6
59.24
6
78.45
10
Estonia
54.88
15
90.20
22
90.23
22
119.43
23
Finland
52.92
13
61.15
8
59.95
7
85.97
13
France
32.27
4
52.56
4
51.64
4
69.00
4
Germany
43.12
8
64.28
9
64.23
9
83.19
12
Greece
45.44
9
94.17
24
92.13
24
121.76
24
Iceland
68.30
22
74.13
15
73.78
15
94.02
15
Ireland
51.01
12
67.79
12
67.29
12
76.22
8
Italy
25.61
2
49.46
2
49.13
2
62.12
2
Latvia
20.71
1
45.16
1
45.43
1
60.70
1
Luxembourg
59.39
17
50.88
3
51.02
3
69.80
6
Mexico
39.56
7
150.42
26
149.74
26
175.84
26
Netherlands
49.30
11
79.41
17
79.69
17
106.95
19
New Zealand
63.55
21
64.54
10
64.47
10
74.34
7
Norway
118.60
26
92.25
23
91.96
23
124.05
25
Portugal
37.14
6
78.44
16
78.99
16
98.38
16
Spain
33.77
5
61.08
7
61.47
8
77.45
9
Sweden
62.03
19
73.24
14
72.93
14
99.27
17
Switzerland
62.84
20
52.66
5
52.70
5
67.57
3
United Kingdom
54.60
14
82.81
18
80.97
18
92.72
14
United States
69.86
23
69.34
13
69.36
13
69.68
5
117
See infra Fig. 59.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
73
E. Mobile Broadband Pricing Analysis and Results
80. Mobile Broadband Price Index. In Figure 44 below, we present the country rankings,
including an index for single-line plans, another for multi-line plans, and an overall index that is a
weighted average of the single- and multi-line plan indexes.
118
The United States ranks 24
th
out of the 26
countries in single-line plan pricing at $72.88, and ranks 24
th
for multi-line pricing at $49.73 per line.
Italy ranks 1
st
in single-line plan pricing and 2
nd
in multi-line pricing, at $19.10 per line per month and
$18.25 per line per month, respectively. Combining single-line and multi-line data plan pricing, the
overall ranking of the United States is 24
th
. Finally, due to the relatively high data usage of U.S.
subscribers, on a dollar per GB basis, the ranking of the United States improves to 21
st
.
119
118
The product prices by country that were used in the mobile broadband price index calculations are presented in
Fig. 56 of section IV.G and adjusted using a measure of PPP.
119
The same caveat regarding the potential problems with dividing price by data usage also applies to mobile
broadband. However, the plans are now sold by usage allowances. Thus the endogeneity problem may be even
worse.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
74
Fig. 44. Mobile Broadband Price Indexes (PPP Adjusted)
Country
Single Line
Multi-Line
Overall
$/GB
Mean
Rank
Mean
Rank
Mean
Rank
Mean
Rank
Australia
38.35
16
31.39
17
32.85
17
3.55
11
Austria
35.14
14
29.62
14
30.78
12
1.20
2
Belgium
33.37
11
30.20
15
30.87
14
9.05
22
Canada
81.09
26
73.66
26
75.22
26
21.99
26
Czech Republic
37.91
15
35.67
19
36.14
19
11.40
24
Denmark
26.27
6
20.45
3
21.67
4
3.01
9
Estonia
23.66
5
20.68
4
21.30
3
1.33
4
Finland
39.36
19
39.36
20
39.36
20
1.27
3
France
26.42
7
24.70
7
25.07
7
2.58
8
Germany
47.90
21
26.43
9
30.94
15
6.77
18
Greece
52.46
23
44.58
23
46.24
23
13.44
25
Iceland
29.06
8
24.84
8
25.73
8
1.54
5
Ireland
34.43
12
33.74
18
33.88
18
3.56
12
Italy
19.10
1
18.25
2
18.43
2
1.89
6
Latvia
23.32
3
21.73
5
22.07
5
0.96
1
Luxembourg
34.44
13
29.09
13
30.22
11
4.83
14
Mexico
31.13
10
26.92
10
27.80
9
6.14
16
Netherlands
29.69
9
27.44
11
27.91
10
7.52
20
New Zealand
39.27
18
30.94
16
32.69
16
7.11
19
Norway
47.18
20
40.10
21
41.59
21
5.74
15
Portugal
49.85
22
44.17
22
45.37
22
10.19
23
Spain
20.12
2
16.95
1
17.61
1
3.24
10
Sweden
38.49
17
28.74
12
30.79
13
2.57
7
Switzerland
73.43
25
67.91
25
69.07
25
6.57
17
United Kingdom
23.61
4
22.96
6
23.09
6
4.37
13
United States
72.88
24
49.73
24
54.59
24
7.67
21
Source: OECD, Broadband Portal, https://www.oecd.org/sti/broadband/broadband-statistics/ (last visited
Oct. 6, 2022).
Note: To make the results comparable to the income-adjusted hedonic analysis, prices are reported in PPP
adjusted U.S. dollars.
81. Mobile Hedonic Price Index. The estimated coefficients for the three mobile broadband
hedonic models are shown in Figure 45 below.
120
The three models presented in this section mirror the
models in our fixed pricing analysis with the exception that the network quality variable now includes
measures of both network availability and download and upload speeds. Increasing the number of lines
from one to two is expected to decrease the expected price per line by approximately 6.3%. For mobile
broadband, the estimated effects of the country-level variables on broadband prices differ from the
patterns we observed in our fixed hedonic analysis. Surprisingly, the estimated effect of income (i.e., Log
gross national income (GNI) per capita) on mobile broadband prices is negative, but this result is not
statistically significant in any specification. However, educational attainment, a measure closely related
to income, is found to increase expected mobile broadband prices, and this result is significant at the 5%
120
The estimated random coefficient variances and measures of goodness of fit are provided in Fig. 57 of section
IV.G.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
75
level in Models 2 and 3. Population density is found to have negative and statistically significant effect in
Model 3 on mobile broadband prices, while terrain variation in a country has a negative but statistically
insignificant effect in Model 2 on mobile broadband prices. As we would expect, higher network quality
is associated with higher prices.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
76
Fig. 45. Mobile Broadband Hedonic Regressions
Log Average Monthly Price Per
Line (in U.S. dollars)
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Model 4
Coef.
SE
p
Coef.
SE
p
Coef.
SE
p
Coef.
SE
p
Number of Lines
-0.019
0.006
0.001
-0.019
0.006
0.001
-0.019
0.006
0.001
-0.019
0.006
0.001
Family Plan Dummy
-0.044
0.028
0.124
-0.044
0.028
0.122
-0.044
0.028
0.121
-0.044
0.028
0.122
Log Data Cap
0.254
0.024
0.000
0.250
0.025
0.000
0.250
0.025
0.000
0.253
0.024
0.000
Unlimited Data Dummy
-0.356
0.090
0.000
-0.357
0.088
0.000
-0.357
0.087
0.000
-0.358
0.088
0.000
Log Download Speed
0.035
0.023
0.131
0.013
0.024
0.590
-0.002
0.025
0.951
0.016
0.023
0.499
Unlimited Download Speed
Dummy
0.058
0.042
0.165
0.067
0.041
0.104
0.074
0.041
0.070
0.072
0.040
0.076
5G Technology Dummy
0.111
0.020
0.000
0.108
0.019
0.000
0.108
0.019
0.000
0.106
0.019
0.000
Unlimited Minutes Dummy
-0.254
0.285
0.373
-0.199
0.281
0.480
-0.191
0.279
0.494
-0.175
0.278
0.527
Unlimited Text Messages
Dummy
0.115
0.085
0.177
0.110
0.085
0.196
0.105
0.085
0.215
0.103
0.085
0.227
Log GNI Per Capita
-0.064
0.269
0.812
-0.294
0.236
0.214
-0.435
0.242
0.072
Educational Attainment
3.919
1.651
0.018
3.754
1.270
0.003
3.077
1.300
0.018
Log Country Population Density
-0.199
0.073
0.006
-0.194
0.064
0.002
-0.117
0.070
0.095
Log Terrain Ruggedness
Weighted by Population
-0.107
0.148
0.468
-0.287
0.129
0.026
-0.133
0.133
0.316
Network Quality (1
st
Principal
Component) (Standardized)
0.315
0.106
0.003
0.398
0.117
0.001
Content Quality (1
st
Principal
Component) (Standardized)
0.178
0.089
0.045
Constant
2.548
0.302
0.000
2.927
2.690
0.277
5.296
2.397
0.027
6.624
2.433
0.006
Number of Observations
1801
1801
1801
1801
Log Likelihood
175.0
180.8
183.5
185.2
Likelihood Ratio Test vs. Linear Model
P-Value
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Note: The estimated random coefficient variances and measures of goodness of fit are provided in Fig. 57 of section IV.G.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
77
82. Our hedonic price indexes based on the four estimated hedonic regressions are provided
in Figure 46. For mobile broadband service, adjusting for cost and demographic factors does not have as
large of an impact on the ranking of the United States as we observed for fixed broadband service. In
Model 1, before adjusting for income, terrain, educational attainment, and population density factors, the
United States ranks 23
rd
among the 26 countries in mobile broadband pricing. Correcting for these factors
in Model 2 changes the U.S. ranking to 13
th
. Adding the network performance measures in Model 3
improves the U.S. ranking to 12
th
. And finally, the United States ranks 8
th
in mobile broadband pricing
after adding the content quality proxy measure in Model 4.
Fig. 46. Mobile Broadband Hedonic Price Indexes
Country
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Model 4
Price
Rank
Price
Rank
Price
Rank
Price
Rank
Australia
35.22
16
28.85
4
29.19
4
42.14
4
Austria
40.39
19
124.64
25
163.20
26
198.63
26
Belgium
43.68
21
59.20
16
58.89
17
89.90
21
Canada
74.00
25
59.61
17
51.78
13
68.74
13
Czech Republic
37.92
17
85.60
23
63.94
20
73.09
15
Denmark
22.81
4
33.63
7
25.66
3
37.17
3
Estonia
26.90
7
33.45
6
33.74
6
49.34
5
Finland
30.38
13
35.17
9
33.95
7
52.98
9
France
27.36
8
60.93
21
72.42
22
100.96
23
Germany
29.62
12
59.82
18
59.02
18
82.35
18
Greece
38.21
18
61.62
22
69.45
21
86.91
20
Iceland
30.97
14
25.38
2
24.93
2
37.08
2
Ireland
19.57
1
24.07
1
39.67
9
58.40
12
Italy
19.91
2
60.62
20
74.92
23
93.13
22
Latvia
24.73
6
28.73
3
29.96
5
49.43
6
Luxembourg
41.75
20
58.76
15
63.02
19
85.55
19
Mexico
53.43
24
126.00
26
152.25
25
179.36
25
Netherlands
28.61
9
37.68
11
21.70
1
32.58
1
New Zealand
33.52
15
37.03
10
44.39
11
56.12
11
Norway
51.49
22
60.46
19
52.17
14
73.28
16
Portugal
29.57
11
54.32
14
56.66
15
71.05
14
Spain
22.59
3
45.02
12
58.29
16
78.14
17
Sweden
28.97
10
34.28
8
34.27
8
55.10
10
Switzerland
74.03
26
97.54
24
99.67
24
118.73
24
United Kingdom
23.56
5
31.85
5
40.73
10
50.52
7
United States
51.89
23
51.82
13
51.66
12
51.91
8
F. Data and Methods Technical Details
83. This section provides the technical details of how the pricing data were collected and
constructed and how other data sources and analysis variables were constructed, along with the
mathematical formulas for the empirical estimation of the hedonic broadband price index.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
78
1. Data Collection and Variable Construction
a. Fixed Broadband Pricing Data Collection
84. For each fixed broadband provider, we recorded each combination of download speed,
upload speed, data usage allowance, and technology. For example, if a provider offers (1) a fiber-based
plan with 100 Mbps download, 100 Mbps upload, and no data cap; (2) a fiber-based plan with 100 Mbps
download, 50 Mbps upload, and no data cap; and (3) a cable-based plan with 100 Mbps download, 100
Mbps upload, and no data cap, we record three separate plans.
121
We collected both standalone broadband
plans as well as double play packages of broadband bundled with multichannel video services.
122
With
some exceptions, we did not collect information on “triple play” bundles of fixed voice phone, Internet,
and video because the extent of the bundle discount received did not tend to increase with the addition of
phone service, and doing so would have greatly increased the data collection burden.
123
In cases where a
provider only offered Internet service to customers who also subscribed to fixed voice phone services, we
collected Internet bundled with fixed voice phone service plans and any relevant bundled plans of
Internet, fixed voice phone service, and television.
124
In such cases, we collected triple play bundles from
the provider that included the particular phone plan to isolate the bundled broadband price using the
methodology described below. Finally, if the provider did not offer video service, bundle discounts, or
standalone TV plans, we did not collect bundled plans for the particular download speed, upload speed,
data usage allowance, and technology combinations for the provider.
85. Given the large number of countries, providers, and plan offerings, we limited the scope
of the collection along several additional dimensions. First, we assumed customers were new to the
provider and did not receive any special discounts that were not available to all new customers (e.g.,
student discounts). Second, we only recorded information for the combination of features that resulted in
the lowest price for a given plan.
125
For example, we did not include optional add-on features (e.g., HBO,
security software, etc.), always chose the lowest priced equipment required for the plan, and assumed
consumers were willing to sign up for a two-year contract if this offered the lowest price.
126
Also, we did
not include any plans with spectrum-based technologies (e.g., fixed wireless, satellite, 4G).
86. We collected three types of data for each plan: (1) general information, (2) pricing data,
and (3) non-pricing data. General information captures information such as the name of the plan, date of
collection, and the currency used for the collected prices. For pricing data, we collected all pricing
information available on the provider’s website including promotions, equipment fees, installation fees,
and rebates to calculate the total cost of the broadband service plan over a two-year time horizon. Non-
pricing data includes information such as download and upload speeds, data usage allowances, number of
121
Prior data collections for the 2020 International Broadband Data Report did not collect plans with download
speeds greater than 1 Gbps. For this Report, we have recorded such plans when available.
122
By multichannel video services, we mean linear television packages usually offered using cable, satellite, or
Internet with regularly scheduled programs. OTT services, which stream programs to specific users, that are
bundled with a broadband plan are not considered in our analysis and thus are unobserved product characteristics if
they are included in any plans.
123
Additionally, we did not collect fixed broadband plans bundled with mobile voice and data services.
124
In cases where fixed voice phone plans are bundled in the plan, we always chose the lowest priced fixed voice
phone package and indicated that fixed voice phone service is included in the bundled plan.
125
Essentially, if a provider offered multiple plans that would have appeared identical within our data framework,
we recorded the lowest priced plan. This approach would exclude any optional add-on services that do not affect
download speed, upload speed, or data allowance.
126
More generally, if a provider offered the same plan with different contract length options with discounts for
longer contracts, we chose the longest contract length available (up to 24 months).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
79
channels (if applicable), and contract length. A unique plan is defined by country, city, provider,
broadband plan, TV plan, phone service, technology, download speed, upload speed, and data allowance.
87. Data Review and Cleaning Process. Upon completion of the data collection, we
reviewed the data for accuracy and completeness. When the variables essential for the analysis were
unavailable, we made the following assumptions to impute the missing data:
• When generally advertised download speeds were not reported, but providers displayed
address-specific download speeds, we used the average download speed across sampled
addresses for which the plan was available.
• If upload speeds were not advertised, we assumed that the upload and download speeds were
asymmetric.
127
• If the provider’s website did not list a data allowance, we assumed the plan offered an
unlimited data allowance.
128
• If a plan advertised a promotional price without specifying duration, we assumed the
promotion lasted one month.
• If the regular monthly price was not found, we assumed that the last available promotional
price stayed in effect for the remaining period.
• If equipment prices were not available, we assumed the relevant equipment was included.
129
• If activation fees, installation fees, and other recurring and non-recurring fees and rebates
were not listed clearly on a provider’s website, we assumed that these fees were included or
did not apply to the plan.
• For Canada and the United States, if taxes were not explicitly stated as included in the list
prices and not reported separately, we added a percentage to the total pre-tax prices.
130
For all
other countries, we assumed taxes were included.
131
88. We also made two other assumptions that apply to only two specific providers:
• For one of the providers in Iceland that did not display download speeds, we assumed the
same download speed as all of the plans offered by two other providers in Iceland (i.e., 1
Gbps). In Iceland, plan prices varied by data usage allowance, not download speed.
127
For plans with known download and upload speeds, we consider plans with upload speeds that are at least 80% of
their download speeds as being effectively symmetric when defining the symmetric speeds dummy variable for the
hedonic analysis.
128
We top coded monthly data allowances to 2000 GB so that any plans with at least 2000 GB per month were
considered unlimited.
129
Equipment refers to a modem/router for broadband service and a set top box (STB) for television service, if
applicable.
130
International Telecommunication Union, World Telecommunications/ICT Indicators Database 2020 (24th
Edition/July 2020) (last accessed Aug. 31, 2022). We do not provide URLs for ITU data throughout this section
because it is a paid subscription service that cannot be publicly accessed.
131
With the exception of the United States and Canada, most providers in other countries note that list prices
included taxes such as value added taxes (VAT). Providers in the United States and Canada generally displayed
prices that did not include taxes. In some cases, taxes were not included in prices but were reported separately, in
which case we were able to add the reported tax (i.e., we did not apply a percentage of the pre-tax total price to
estimate the tax).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
80
• For one of the providers in Greece that did not advertise speeds for its Asymmetric Digital
Subscriber Line (ADSL) plan, we assumed the same download speed as the ADSL plan of
another provider in Greece (i.e., 24 Mbps).
89. Fixed Broadband Price Calculation. After cleaning the data, we calculated the total cost
of each plan over the first 24 months. A 24-month price was selected to produce a comparable pricing
measure across plans that accounted for all promotional and regular pricing and to amortize one-time fees
over a sufficiently long-term horizon. This total 24-month price was calculated using the formula below.
90. We then divided this price by 24 months to calculate the average monthly price. We
converted all currencies to U.S. dollars using PPP for the broadband price index and Currency Exchange
Rate conversion factors for the hedonic price index.
132
91. As noted above, U.S. consumers often purchase fixed broadband and video service in a
bundle at discounted rates. Furthermore, it is very difficult to compare multichannel video products
across countries. The product offerings in terms of channels included are completely different across
countries, and the same content may be highly watched in some countries (e.g., American football in the
United States) but not of great interest to most viewers in another country (e.g., American football in
Europe). Therefore, unlike broadband, where a download speed of 25 Mbps is a product characteristic in
which more of the characteristic is always better (i.e., vertical characteristics), there is no standardized
video product that would be comparable across countries by holding consumer utility fixed. Given that
many studies attempt to control for video quality differences based on observable product characteristics
and because we do not believe the observable measures adequately capture quality differences across
countries, we therefore calculate a bundle discount and allocate this across the standalone component
pricing to isolate the price of broadband when purchased in a bundle.
92. To calculate this bundled discount, we matched all bundled plans with their
corresponding standalone Internet and standalone video component plans to calculate a bundle discount
percentage. The formula below calculates the bundle discount percentage based on the standalone
Internet price , the standalone video price , and the bundle price . For many bundled plans, we
were able to collect the exact corresponding standalone Internet and video component plans.
93. After calculating the discount percentage from the standalone Internet and standalone
video prices for each bundled plan, we applied the percentage equally to the standalone broadband and
video component plan prices to arrive at the implied price of broadband when purchased in a bundle.
133
To illustrate, suppose the standalone prices for a particular video and Internet broadband plan are $100
and $50, respectively, but the two can be purchased in a bundle for $120. Then the bundle discount
132
OECD, Purchasing power parities (PPP), https://data.oecd.org/conversion/purchasing-power-parities-ppp.htm
(last visited Oct. 6, 2022); OECD, Exchange rates, https://data.oecd.org/conversion/exchange-rates.htm#indicator-
chartt (last visited Oct. 6, 2022). The hedonic index already corrects for income and price level differences across
countries through the inclusion of a country income variable in the regression and does not need further adjustments
for purchasing power parities.
133
Allocating the bundle discount percentage equally to each of the standalone components is equivalent to
allocating the bundle discount amount in proportion to the standalone component prices.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
81
percentage is 20% and the implied price of the video plan when purchased in a bundle is $80, while the
implied price of broadband when bundled is $40. This implied broadband price when bundled and the
associated broadband characteristics would then be included as a plan in the dataset. In this manner, our
analysis does not compare video and broadband bundles across countries but rather isolates an implied
price of broadband when bundled to avoid video product comparability issues across countries.
94. However, for bundled plans without corresponding standalone Internet plans and for
standalone Internet plans without corresponding bundled plans, we created “synthetic plans” with the
same product characteristics but with a price to set the bundle discount equal to zero. Synthetic plans that
correspond with collected bundled plans may represent bundled plans that could be available without a
bundle discount (i.e., add-on pricing).
95. In Figure 49, we present country-level average bundle discounts over all bundled plans
(including synthetic plans). First, we take a simple unweighted average of the bundle discount and bundle
discount rates over all plans for each provider’s product categories. Then, we aggregate over providers,
weighted by their market shares. Finally, we aggregate over country-level products using the download
speed tier shares to arrive at our bundle discount estimate for each country. The results of this analysis
confirm that bundling discounts vary widely across countries, and therefore accounting for product
bundling is important in order to accurately reflect the prices actually paid by consumers for broadband
services in each country.
b. Mobile Broadband Pricing Data Collection
96. We collected mobile plan information in three broad categories: (1) general information
including country, provider, plan name, and date of collection, (2) pricing information including all types
of recurring and non-recurring costs such as promotional prices, activation fees, and rebates, and (3) non-
price information, such as data usage allowance and number of minutes and text messages (if not
unlimited).
134
We only collected plans available online and to new customers without any special
discounts (e.g., student discounts). A unique plan is defined by the country, provider, technology, data
allowance, maximum download speed, number of lines, number of minutes, and number of text
messages.
135
97. We sought to collect pricing information excluding the cost of handsets due to both the
complexity that handsets introduce in measuring price and the fact that most providers allow customers to
bring their own devices. Generally, providers either sold handsets separately from the service plan and/or
allowed customers to bring their own devices (i.e., customers received a SIM card from the provider).
Although handsets are a significant portion of the cost of mobile broadband services, we chose not to
consider these costs to keep prices comparable across countries.
98. One of the most important price factors for mobile broadband service is the data usage
allowance.
136
We recorded the monthly data allowance for each plan.
137
In general, providers set a “soft”
134
All price variables are recorded as the total for all lines for the plans (i.e., not on a per-line basis).
135
Regarding contract durations, one minor change in the mobile pricing collection for this 2022 IBDR from the
Sixth International Broadband Data Report and the 2020 International Broadband Data Report is that this 2022
IBDR only collected the least expensive (usually the longest) contract (up to 24 months) option per plan. These
prior data collections for the Sixth International Broadband Data Report and 2020 International Broadband Data
Report recorded separate plans for different contract durations (e.g., month-to-month, 12-month, 24-month
contracts). This 2022 IBDR, as well as the Sixth International Broadband Data Report and 2020 International
Broadband Data Report, did not collect all possible mix-and-match combinations of plans. For example, a provider
may offer a 5 GB plan that can be combined with a 2 GB plan for a discount, but the Reports only collected multi-
line plans of identical data allowances.
136
We only consider data that can be consumed within the customer’s country. In some cases, particularly the plans
offered by providers in Europe, customers can use the main data allowance in several countries and/or have a
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
82
data allowance per month before the provider imposes a consequence for exceeding the usage
allowance.
138
If a customer exceeds the allowance, the provider may decrease mobile broadband speeds
for the remainder of the month, charge overage fees (i.e., a consumer pays for additional data use), or stop
service entirely (i.e., a “hard” data limit). The structure of the data allowance policies varies by provider
and can be quite complex; therefore, we no longer collect the data cap consequence variable in our data
collection.
139
99. We encountered a few issues unique to a small number of providers that required making
assumptions about customer preferences. For providers that offered a plan with a set number of units to
allocate between talk and text messages, we split these equally across the services and recorded the
exchange rate among the services (e.g., 1 unit = 1 minute = 1 text).
140
If a provider offered multiple plans
that would appear identical within our data framework, we recorded the least expensive of these plans.
141
100. Since the 2020 International Broadband Data Report’s Mobile Broadband Pricing Data
collection, several trends in plans have emerged that we attempt to address in our latest data collection
and analysis. Although many providers continue to offer plans that are generally differentiated by data
allowances, some providers now offer plans differentiated by maximum download speeds, video
streaming quality restrictions, streaming services, or other product characteristics. Also, with the
introduction of 5G networks in many countries, some providers differentiate plans by restricting access to
5G to more expensive plans.
142
Similarly, more and more providers are differentiating plans by maximum
download speeds, for both limited data plans and unlimited data plans.
143
To address these trends, we
collected the technology (e.g., 4G or 5G) associated with the plan, the maximum download speed (if any),
and the video streaming quality limit.
101. Data Review and Cleaning Process. After completing the data collection, we reviewed
the data for any issues. When certain essential variables were missing, we made the following
assumptions to complete the analysis:
• If a provider advertised some but not all plans as 5G plans, we assumed that the plans not
marketed as 5G were restricted to the provider’s 4G network. If a provider did not explicitly
advertise plans as 4G or 5G, we relied upon Opensignal 5G availability data to indicate
(Continued from previous page)
separate international data allowance included in the base plan. International data allowances are not considered in
our analysis because each provider has different policies regarding international data usage.
137
We do not consider promotional (i.e., limited time) data allowances unless the data allowances are included
indefinitely.
138
In our analysis, “unlimited” is reserved for plans that have at least 50 GB per line per month before there is a
consequence imposed.
139
For example, some providers have several data allowance thresholds with different consequences for exceeding
each one, while other providers limit the amount of extra data a customer can buy. Some providers allow customers
to choose from various data allowance consequences, thus there is no clear default data cap consequence.
140
Providers in Luxembourg typically have this structure for units of minutes and text messages.
141
For example, a provider may offer an Unlimited Talk/Text plan with 50 GB of data with varying levels of
international data or with or without a streaming service included. As we do not have variables for international
data or other services, we recorded the least expensive of these plans.
142
The mobile pricing data collection of prior International Broadband Data Reports explicitly did not collect plans
marketed as 5G plans, given that deployment of 5G networks was very limited across countries and within countries.
143
See 2020 Communications Marketplace Report, 36 FCC Rcd at 3812, Appx. G-3: International Broadband Data
Report, para. 62 (discussing plans with explicit download speed restrictions in the prior mobile pricing data
collection).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
83
whether the provider had deployed 5G or not and assumed that either all plans were restricted
to 4G or all plans could access 5G where available.
144
• If a provider did not explicitly advertise a maximum download speed restriction for some or
all plans, we assumed that the provider allowed consumers to achieve the maximum possible
download speed for these plans, potentially before exceeding the data cap.
145
If providers
listed a general expected maximum download speed for all plans or all plans on a given
technology, we recorded that maximum download speed for all such plans.
146
• If a plan did not include any text messages (i.e., pay-as-you-go), we set the number of text
messages equal to one.
147
• If a plan advertised a promotional price without specifying the duration, we assumed the
promotion lasted one month.
• If the regular monthly price was not found, we assumed that the last available promotional
price stayed in effect for the remaining period.
• If activation fees, access fees, other recurring and non-recurring fees, and rebates were not
listed clearly on a provider’s website, we assumed that these fees were included or did not
apply to the plan.
• For Canada and the United States, if taxes were not explicitly stated as included in the list
prices and not reported separately, we added a percentage to the total pre-tax prices.
148
For all
other countries, we assumed taxes were included.
149
102. Mobile Broadband Price Calculation. After cleaning the data, we then calculated the
total cost of each plan over the first 24 months. A 24-month price was selected to produce a comparable
pricing measure across plans that accounted for all promotional and non-promotional pricing and to
amortize one-time fees over a sufficiently long-term horizon. This total 24-month price was calculated
using the formula below:
144
Of the eight providers where unknown technology was recorded for all plans, we used Opensignal data to set
seven providers’ plans to 4G plans and one provider’s plans to 5G. See Opensignal, Market Insights,
https://www.opensignal.com/market-insights (last visited Oct. 6, 2022) (navigate to a specific country’s page within
the Opensignal website and click on “Mobile Network Experience” or both “Mobile Network Experience” and
“Mobile 5G Network Experience” to obtain data for that country’s providers).
145
The three providers in the United States restrict video streaming quality of their less expensive unlimited data
plans. Since these providers do not have explicit maximum download speeds but do restrict video streaming quality
(with video streaming being the most data intensive use for most consumers), we use the providers’ video streaming
quality limits as a proxy for maximum download speeds for such plans. For plans that are restricted to Standard
Definition (SD) video streaming, we set the maximum download speed to 3 Mbps; for plans restricted to 720p video
streaming, we set the maximum download speed to 8 Mbps. The plans that displayed higher video streaming quality
(e.g., 4K Ultra High Definition (UHD)) were set to have no maximum download speed restriction.
146
We top coded the maximum download speed to 1 Gbps and also top coded data usage allowances to 500 GB per
line per month and classified any speeds and allowances as unlimited.
147
Two of the providers in Spain did not include any text messages with their plans and required pay-per-text.
Generally, we top coded both the number of text messages and the number of minutes to 10,000 per month per line.
148
International Telecommunication Union, World Telecommunications/ICT Indicators Database 2020 (24th
Edition/July 2020) (last accessed Aug. 31, 2022).
149
In many countries, providers explicitly stated that taxes (e.g., VAT) were included in prices.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
84
103. Next, we divided the price by the number of lines in the plan to get the total 24-month
price per line. Then, we divided the price per line by 24 months to calculate the average monthly price
per line. We converted all currencies to U.S. dollars using PPP for the broadband price index calculations
and Currency Exchange Rate conversion factors for the hedonic price index.
150
104. Similar to our fixed broadband analysis, we also created mobile broadband synthetic
plans from collected plans when a provider did not offer a particular plan at a discounted price for
bundling additional lines, up to four lines.
151
The simplest example is when a provider offers only a
single-line plan without any discounts for bundling more lines; in this example, we would create a 2-line
synthetic plan, a 3-line synthetic plan, and a 4-line synthetic plan with the same product characteristics
and price per line (i.e., no bundle discount relative to the single-line plan). As a slightly more complex
example, suppose a provider offers a plan as a single-line plan and a 2-line plan but offers no discount for
three or four lines. In this example, we create a synthetic 3-line plan with the per line price set to a
weighted average of the single-line and 2-line plan prices (i.e., the total price of purchasing a 2-line plan
and a single-line plan divided by three) and a synthetic 4-line plan with the per line price set to the per
line price of the 2-line plan (i.e., the total price of purchasing two 2-line plans divided by four). We made
other similar synthetic plan calculations for plans that are not available with bundle discounts, with up to
four lines, but in all cases synthetic plans are plan combinations that consumers are able to purchase from
the provider.
152
105. In Figure 54, we present country-level average mobile broadband bundle discounts
(relative to single-line plans).
153
The calculations include all plans (including synthetic plans), except for
plans that do not have a single-line option. We calculated the bundle discount relative to the
corresponding single-line plan, and then we took a simple unweighted average of the bundle discount and
bundle discount rate over all plans for each provider’s product categories. We then aggregated over
providers, weighted by their market shares. Finally, we aggregated over country-level products using the
bundled data usage product shares. We again find that bundle discounts vary widely across countries and
must be accounted for to properly measure the prices that consumers are paying for their mobile services
150
OECD, Purchasing power parities (PPP), https://data.oecd.org/conversion/purchasing-power-parities-ppp.htm
(last visited Oct. 6, 2022); OECD, Exchange rates, https://data.oecd.org/conversion/exchange-rates.htm#indicator-
chart (last visited Oct. 6, 2022). The hedonic index already corrects for income and price level differences across
countries through the inclusion of a country income variable in the regression and does not need further adjustments
for purchasing power parities.
151
To count as the same plan (ignoring the number of lines), the provider must clearly indicate that each line on the
plan receives the same services on a per line basis. If a plan includes shared minutes, text, or data, then the plan
would be counted as a different plan since the per line minutes, text, or data decrease per line with additional lines.
Less common plans where per line data increase with more lines (e.g., bonus data for bundling lines) count as
different plans.
152
In some cases where a provider does not offer a single-line plan, we cannot calculate some combinations of the
number of lines. For example, if a plan was only offered as a 2-line plan, then we would calculate a 4-line plan
price with the same per line price as the 2-line plan, but we would not have corresponding single-line and 3-line
plans.
153
In some cases, a plan may change data usage tiers (and thus product definition) as the number of lines increases.
For example, if a provider offers a 12 GB single-line plan that allows a customer to add lines to the plan and share
the data allowance, we classify the single-line plan with 12 GB in the 10 to 25 GB data usage (per line) tier and the
2-line plan with 6 GB per line in the 0 to 10 GB data usage (per line) tier.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
85
in each country. Many countries, such as the United States, offer large bundle discounts when multiple
lines are purchased, but some other countries offer no discounts.
c. Variable Construction
106. Fixed Product Shares. To calculate the U.S. quantity weights for each of the six products
in our price indexes, we use the FCC Form 477 data to estimate the share of U.S. broadband subscribers
that subscribe to each of the three broadband download speed tiers and an estimate from S&P Global that
about 61% of all U.S. broadband subscribers purchase their service in a bundle.
154
The resulting
broadband products and their estimated U.S. market shares are shown in Figure 39 above.
107. Mobile Product Shares. In the 2020 International Broadband Data Report, we used the
Cisco White Paper to estimate the mobile product shares by assuming that data usage follows a log-
normal distribution and using Cisco’s estimates of data usage per line for single line and multi-line
plans.
155
Because Cisco has not released more recent data, in order to update the mobile product shares,
we assume that the shape (standard deviation) of the log-normal distribution has not changed but that the
distribution has been translated to the right due to an increase in average data usage over time. To
estimate how far the distribution has been translated, we use the Ericsson Mobility Visualizer data usage
estimates for North America to calculate the percentage change in mobile data usage between 2020 and
2022.
156
We then apply this percentage change to the previous Cisco estimates of data usage per line on
single-line and shared data plans to recalculate the mean of the log-normal distribution using our previous
methodology.
157
108. The log-normal distribution has been shown to approximate consumer usage over nearly
every communications network, including broadband.
158
This simplifies the estimation of the distribution
of data usage because a log-normal distribution is entirely determined by only two parameters: a location
parameter that pins down the mean and a scale parameter that determines the shape of the usage
distribution.
159
Another important property of the distribution is that percentiles are preserved if the mean
154
S&P Global, Estimated broadband-only homes as a percentage of wireline broadband households, Q1'19-Q4'21,
(last accessed July 18, 2022). We use preliminary FCC Form 477 subscriber data as of December 2021 for these
calculations. We again note that the year-end FCC Form 477 data are subject to corrections as appropriate by the
service provider, and the final data will be published in due course by the agency.
155
2020 Communications Marketplace Report, 36 FCC Rcd at 3814-15, Appx. G-3: International Broadband Data
Report, paras. 69-70, Fig. G-31.
156
Specifically, Ericsson reports an increase of North American smartphone monthly data usage from to 12.09 GB
in 2020 to 18.87 GB in 2022, which is an increase of 56%. See Ericsson, Ericsson Mobility Visualizer,
https://www.ericsson.com/en/reports-and-papers/mobility-report/mobility-
visualizer?f=1&ft=2&r=2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9&t=1,2,3,4,5,6,7&s=4&u=1&y=2021,2027&c=3 (last visited Oct. 6, 2022)
(to view the specific data, choose mobile data traffic per device per month for North America for smartphones only).
157
Cisco reports that the overall North American Tier 1 operator average monthly mobile data usage in May 2019
was 12.25 GB, the single-line average mobile data usage was about 14 GB, and for 2-line, 3-line, and 4-line plans,
the average monthly data usage was about 10 GB. Based on the 56% increase between 2020 and 2022 reported by
the Ericsson data, we estimated that the overall mobile data usage is 19.11 GB; 21.84 GB for single-line plans; and
15.6 GB for multi-line plans.
158
Ioannis Antoniou et al., On the log-normal distribution of network traffic, 167 Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena
72 (2002).
159
See George S. Ford, Approximating the Distribution of Broadband Usage from Publicly-Available Data, 12-03
Phoenix Center Policy Perspective 1 (2012). A random variable is log-normally distributed if the logarithm of the
variable is normally distributed.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
86
of the distribution is shifted up or down.
160
Combining the Cisco data with a log-normal distribution
assumption, we are able to estimate the percentage of subscribers in the United States that have usage
between the data usage allowances of our standardized mobile broadband products. The parameter
estimates of this approach are summarized in Figure 47 below.
Fig. 47: Mobile Broadband Data Usage Shares Parameter Estimates
Distribution Parameters
Plan Type
Mean (GB)
Mu
Standard Deviation
Overall
19.11
2.29
1.15
Individual
21.84
2.42
1.15
Shared
15.60
2.09
1.15
109. PPP. To convert pricing data collected in local currency (LCU) to U.S. dollars, we use
the OECD’s 2021 PPPs which are defined as “the rates of currency conversion that try to equalize the
purchasing power of different currencies, by eliminating the differences in price levels between countries.
The basket of goods and services priced is a sample of all those that are part of final expenditures: final
consumption of households and government, fixed capital formation, and net exports.”
161
110. Exchange Rates. To convert pricing data collected in LCU to U.S. dollars, we also use
the OECD’s 2021 exchange rates which are defined as “the price of one [country’s] currency in relation
to another country’s currency.”
162
111. Gross National Income Per Capita. The GNI per capita data are used as a demographic
control variable in the hedonic regression models and are from the World Bank.
163
We use 2020 values
for each country because 2021 values are not available for Luxembourg. The World Bank defines GNI as
the “sum of value added by all resident producers plus any product taxes (less subsidies) not included in
the valuation of output plus net receipts of primary income (compensation of employees and property
income) from abroad” and converts it to U.S. dollars using a special Atlas method of conversion used by
the World Bank.
164
112. Educational Attainment. These data are used as a demographic control variable in the
hedonic regression models and are from the OECD.
165
We used the 2020 percentage of 25 to 64-year-olds
with Bachelor’s (or equivalent education), Master’s (or equivalent education), or Doctoral (or equivalent
education) degrees to account for educational attainment, except for Denmark where the most recently
available values were from 2019.
160
See George S. Ford, Approximating the Distribution of Broadband Usage from Publicly-Available Data, 12-03
Phoenix Center Policy Perspective 1 (2012).
161
OECD, Purchasing power parities (PPP), https://data.oecd.org/conversion/purchasing-power-parities-ppp.htm
(last visited Oct. 6, 2022).
162
OECD, Exchange rates, https://data.oecd.org/conversion/exchange-rates.htm#indicator-chartt (last visited Oct. 6,
2022).
163
The World Bank, GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$),
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GNP.PCAP.CD (last visited Oct. 6, 2022).
164
The Atlas method applies a conversion factor that averages the exchange rate for a given year and the two
preceding years, adjusted for differences in rates of inflation between the country and countries in the Euro area,
Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The World Bank, GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$),
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GNP.PCAP.CD (last visited Oct. 6, 2022). The World Bank uses this
method to account for exceptionally large margins from the official exchange rate and the rate actually applied in
international transactions. Id.
165
OECD, OECD.Stat, https://stats.oecd.org/ (last visited Oct. 6, 2022).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
87
113. Non-Rural Population Density. For the fixed broadband hedonic analysis, we construct a
measure of non-rural population density by using four OECD datasets: (1) National Population
Distribution (NPD),
166
(2) National Area Distribution (NAD),
167
(3) land area, and (4) population. The
NPD is the percentage of the population living in three categories of population density: urban,
intermediate, and rural areas. The NAD is the percentage of the area in three categories: urban,
intermediate, and rural. The NPD and NAD data are from 2014; therefore, we multiply the percentages
by the 2014 population and 2014 land area, respectively, to obtain the total population and total land area
in each category. Then, we divide the total population in the three population density categories by the
total land area in that category. Non-rural population density is the sum of urban and intermediate
population divided by the sum of urban and intermediate land area.
114. Population Density. For the mobile broadband hedonic analysis, we calculate the overall
national population density by using the OECD’s population and land area datasets.
168
We divide the
most recently available national population (2020) by the most recently available land area (2019) to
obtain 2020 overall population density.
169
115. Fixed Coverage. For the fixed broadband hedonic analysis, we include a variable
measuring the percentage of households with access to broadband with download speeds of greater than
100 Mbps in each country. For the 21 European comparison countries, we use data presented in the
Broadband Coverage in Europe 2021 Report on the percentage of households in areas where broadband
with a download speed of greater than 100 Mbps was deployed as of June 2021.
170
For the United States,
we rely on FCC Form 477 data for the same measure, as of June 2021.
171
For Canada, we use the
percentage of households with fixed broadband service of at least 100 Mbps available as of 2019.
172
116. For the remaining three countries, we relied on proxy measures of coverage. For
Australia, the Australian government reports that 66% of premises were able to access fixed broadband
services with download speeds greater than or equal to 100 Mbps as of September 2020.
173
For Mexico,
we use data from Instituto Federal de Telecomunicaciones - Banco de Informacion de
Telecomunicaciones, which reports the percentage of access by technology as of June 15, 2021; we
assume that Fiber and Cable Coaxial are the only technologies that could achieve a download speed of
100 Mbps and that DSL, Satellite, Fixed Wireless, and Other Technologies are below this threshold.
174
166
OECD, National population distribution, https://data.oecd.org/popregion/national-population-
distribution.htm#indicator-chart (last visited Oct. 6, 2022).
167
OECD, National area distribution, https://data.oecd.org/popregion/national-area-distribution.htm#indicator-chart
(last visited Oct. 6, 2022).
168
OECD, OECD.Stat, https://stats.oecd.org/ (last visited Oct. 6, 2022).
169
Land area rarely changes from year to year in the dataset, and when it does, the changes are minimal. Therefore,
we believe it is reasonable to use 2019 land area with 2020 population data.
170
See generally Broadband Coverage in Europe 2021 Report; see also supra Fig. 1.
171
FCC Form 477 Data as of June 30, 2021; see also infra Fig. 59.
172
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, Communications Monitoring Report 2020 at
105 (2020), https://crtc.gc.ca/pubs/cmr2020-en.pdf (navigate to Fig. 4.7 Broadband service availability by speed (%
of households)).
173
Australian Government, Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications &
Bureau of Communications, Arts and Regional Research, Measuring Australia’s fixed broadband performance -
compendium at 7 (2020), https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/measuring-australias-
fixed-broadband-performance-compendium.pdf.
174
Instituto Federal de Telecomunicaciones, Indicadores por Pais,
https://bit.ift.org.mx/SASVisualAnalyticsViewer/VisualAnalyticsViewer_guest.jsp?reportSBIP=SBIP%3A%2F%2F
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
88
For New Zealand, we rely on data from the country’s Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment
related to their Ultra-Fast Broadband (UFB) initiative.
175
In particular, we use the percentage of the
population in New Zealand with access to at least 100 Mbps download and 50 Mbps upload speeds for
the second quarter of 2021.
176
117. Mobile Network Quality Variable. To construct the mobile network quality measure used
in our hedonic regressions, we perform a principal components analysis of the four network quality proxy
variables (download speed, upload speed, 4G availability, and 5G Availability), using the provider-level
data from Opensignal. We keep only the first principal component from this analysis, which explains
about 56% of the variation in the four network quality measures.
177
We then standardize the first principal
component so that the mean value is zero and the standard deviation is one across the 84 provider-level
values. This standardized first principal component is then used as a proxy measure for network quality
in both the fixed broadband and mobile broadband hedonic analyses.
118. Mobile Download and Upload Speeds. For the mobile broadband hedonic analysis, we
use most recently available provider-level overall download speeds based on Opensignal reports.
178
Because Opensignal does not report data for Iceland or Luxembourg, we impute values for the providers
in these countries by running a simple regression of Opensignal’s overall download speed at a country-
level (weighting provider-level download speeds by market share) on Ookla’s
179
2021 country-level
overall download speeds and predicting country-level download speeds for Iceland and Luxembourg.
180
We perform the same analysis to predict upload speeds for Iceland and Luxembourg.
119. Mobile 4G Availability and 5G Availability. For the mobile broadband hedonic analysis,
we use OpenSignal’s provider-level measure of 4G Availability which is defined as “the proportion of
time Opensignal users with a 4G device and a 4G subscription – but have never connected to 5G - had a
4G connection.”
181
5G Availability is similarly defined as “the proportion of time Opensignal users with
a 5G device and a 5G subscription - had an active 5G connection.”
182
For each country, we use the most
(Continued from previous page)
METASERVER%2FShared%20Data%2FSAS%20Visual%20Analytics%2FReportes%2FIndicadores%20Internacio
nales(Report)&page=vi124825&sso_guest=true&informationEnabled=false&commentsEnabled=false&alertsEnable
d=false&reportViewOnly=true&reportContextBar=false&shareEnabled=false (last visited Oct. 6, 2022). The data
can be accessed by clicking on the “Datos por Pais” header, then clicking on the “Servicio Fijo de Internet” header.
175
Crown Infrastructure Partners, Quarterly Connectivity Update Q2: to 30 June 2021 at 5 (2021),
https://www.mbie.govt.nz/dmsdocument/16538-quarterly-connectivity-update-q2-to-30-june-2021.
176
UFB NZ, Glossary, https://ufb.org.nz/terms/ (last visited Oct. 6, 2022).
177
Principal components analysis is a standard method used in statistics for reducing a large set of variables into a
smaller set of variables that retain most of the information contained in the larger variable set.
178
Opensignal, Market Insights, https://www.opensignal.com/market-insights (last visited Oct. 6, 2022).
179
Ookla SPEEDTEST intelligence data, © 2022 Ookla, LLC. All rights reserved. Published with permission of
Ookla.
180
The imputed download and upload speeds for Iceland and Luxembourg are constant across providers for these
countries because we do not have a reasonable way to predict provider-level download and upload speeds for the
providers in these countries. The country-level Ookla download speed data are the same data used in section III, but
the overall country-level download speeds and upload speeds include all technologies. Also, in the simple
regression for imputing country-level download and upload speeds for Iceland and Luxembourg, we use the other 34
comparison countries presented in that analysis.
181
Opensignal, Understanding mobile network experience: what do Opensignal’s metrics mean? (Mar. 24, 2022),
https://www.opensignal.com/2022/03/24/understanding-mobile-network-experience-what-do-opensignals-metrics-
mean.
182
Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
89
recent Market Insight report(s) available,
183
except for Iceland and Luxembourg for which Opensignal
does not report data. We impute country-level 4G Availability and 5G Availability values for these two
countries by, again, relying upon country-level Ookla Speedtest data.
184
Specifically, we calculate the
2021 percentage of all speed tests on 4G LTE technology. Then, we calculate the country-level 4G
availability by weighting the provider-level values by market share and regressing Opensignal 4G
availability on the percentage of tests on 4G LTE networks to predict values for Iceland and Luxembourg.
We follow the same approach to impute the 5G availability values for Iceland and Luxembourg.
185
120. Fixed Data Usage. For the fixed broadband calculation of average monthly data usage,
we rely on three different sources: (1) the TeleGeography GlobalComms Database, (2) the 2022 ITU
Database, and (3) Ofcom.
186
The TeleGeography GlobalComms Database’s Fixed Data Traffic Volume
dataset has a monthly average representing a period of several months in either 2021 or 2022.
187
We
divide monthly averages from the TeleGeography dataset by the total number of fixed broadband
subscribers from OECD data to obtain the monthly fixed broadband data usage per subscriber.
188
The
2022 ITU Database reports the total annual data usage (in exabytes) by country.
189
We rely on Ofcom
data for fixed broadband data consumption per capita.
190
We multiply these values by OECD population
totals and then divide them by the total number of fixed broadband subscribers from OECD in order to get
the monthly fixed broadband data usage per subscriber.
121. Mobile Data Usage. For the mobile broadband analysis, we use average monthly data
usage reported by the OECD as of 2020.
191
122. Terrain Roughness (Weighted by Population). Our measure of terrain roughness is a
population weighted terrain ruggedness index.
192
The index is constructed by calculating the terrain
ruggedness index for each 30 by 30 arc-second cell using elevation data across the surface of the Earth.
Let denote the elevation at the point located in row and column of a grid of elevation points. The
183
Opensignal, Market Insights, https://www.opensignal.com/market-insights (last visited Oct. 6, 2022).
184
The imputed 4G Availability and 5G Availability values for Iceland and Luxembourg are constant across
providers in these countries because we do not have a reasonable way to predict provider-level values for the
providers in these countries. Also, in the simple regressions for imputing country-level 4G Availability and 5G
Availability values for Iceland and Luxembourg, we use the other 34 comparison countries presented in section III.
185
All three of the providers in Luxembourg advertise 5G plans, and one of the three providers in Iceland advertises
5G plans.
186
For a given country, if we have values from multiple sources, we take the average of these values.
187
TeleGeography, TeleGeography GlobalComms Database, http://www.telegeography.com (last accessed Oct. 6,
2022) (navigate to Data Traffic within the GlobalComms Database). Fixed data traffic covers the number of bytes
of data traffic originating on fixed broadband networks (xDSL, Cable, FTTx, WiMAX, etc.) within a given country.
These volumes include download and upload traffic wherever possible.
188
OECD, Broadband Portal, https://www.oecd.org/sti/broadband/broadband-statistics/ (last visited Oct. 6, 2022).
189
International Telecommunication Union, World Telecommunications/ICT Indicators Database 2022 (26th
Edition/July 2022) (last accessed Sept. 16, 2022). We do not provide URLs for ITU data throughout this section
because it is a paid subscription service that cannot be publicly accessed.
190
Ofcom, International Broadband Scorecard 2021: Interactive Data, https://www.ofcom.org.uk/research-and-
data/telecoms-research/broadband-research/eu-bbroadand-scorecard/international-broadband-scorecard-2021-
interactive-data (last visited Oct. 6, 2022).
191
OECD, Broadband Portal, https://www.oecd.org/sti/broadband/broadband-statistics/ (last visited Oct. 6, 2022).
192
Nathan Nunn & Diego Puga, Ruggedness: The Blessing of Bad Geography in Africa, 94 The Review of
Economics and Statistics 20 (2012).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
90
terrain roughness index (TRI) calculates the sum squared elevation change of the cell relative to adjacent
cells:
123. These values are then weighted by the share of the country population in each cell to
calculate the weighted average terrain ruggedness index for the country. The values calculated are
reported in 100s of meters.
193
124. Content Quality Variable. In Figure 61, we report various proxy measures for content
quality as well as each country’s primary language. The number of websites in top-level domains (TLDs)
shows the count of all domains in each country’s main TLD (e.g., Germany uses .de) according to
DomainTools.com. For the United States, we aggregate over several major domains: .com, .net, .org,
and .us. Similarly, we use the same TLDs to report the number of web pages in the TLDs by searching
Google’s search engine (“site:.de”) and recording the number of search results. We divide the number of
domains and the number of webpages by the country’s population to get per capita measures. Also, we
report each country’s English Proficiency Index (EPI) score as a measure of access to English language
content.
194
Another proxy measure is the percentage of the top 10 million websites in each country’s
primary language.
195
From these data, we find that English-based websites represent over 60% of the top
10 million websites. Although these statistics are not perfect measurements of content quality, they
demonstrate that English language content is the dominant form of content available to broadband
subscribers.
125. To construct the content quality measure used in our hedonic regressions, we perform a
principal component analysis of the four content quality proxy variables (webpages by TLD per capita,
domains by TLD per capita, EPI, and content language percentage), using the 26 country-level
observations. We keep only the first principal component from this analysis, which explains about 52%
of the variation in the four content quality measures. We then standardize the first principal component
so that the mean value is zero and the standard deviation is one across the 26 country-level values. This
standardized first principal component is then used as a proxy measure for content quality in both the
fixed broadband and mobile broadband hedonic analyses.
126. Domains by Top-Level Domains Per Capita. First, we determine the TLD(s) for each
country, and then aggregate the counts of all domains in each TLD over the country’s TLD(s).
196
Next,
we divide the total domains by the country’s population to get the domains per capita.
197
Figure 61
reports the TLD(s) assigned to each country.
127. Webpages by Top-Level Domains Per Capita. Using the same TLDs for each country,
we determine the number of webpages using Google’s search engine for each TLD (for example,
193
Nathan Nunn & Diego Puga, Data and replication files for ‘Ruggedness: The blessing of bad geography in
Africa’, https://diegopuga.org/data/rugged/ (last visited Oct. 6, 2022).
194
Education First, The world’s largest ranking of countries and regions by English skills,
https://www.ef.com/wwen/epi/ (last visited Oct. 6, 2022).
195
W
3
Techs, Usage statistics of content languages for websites,
https://w3techs.com/technologies/overview/content_language (last visited Oct. 6, 2022).
196
DomainTools, Domain Count Statistics for TLDs, https://research.domaintools.com/statistics/tld-counts/ (last
visited Oct. 6, 2022).
197
OECD, OECD.Stat, https://stats.oecd.org/ (last visited Oct. 6, 2022). The most recently available country
population data are dated 2020.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
91
“site:.com”). Then, we aggregate over TLDs for each country and divide the total webpages for each
country by the country’s population to get the webpages per capita.
128. English Proficiency Index. We use a measure of a country’s English proficiency from
Education First, called the EPI.
198
In the most recent EPI report, Education First reports an EPI score for
each country except Australia, Canada, Iceland, Ireland, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the
United States. With the exception of Iceland, we assume that these countries are all native English-
speaking countries and set the EPI score to 100% for our analyses. For Iceland, we assume a “Very High
Proficiency” and set the EPI score to the average EPI score of other sampled countries in this category.
199
129. Content Language. For both the fixed broadband and mobile broadband hedonic
analyses, we use the percentage of websites with different content languages.
200
A content language is
defined as the natural language of the text on a website. The primary language spoken in each country is
shown in Figure 61.
d. Price Index Construction
130. We use the same general methodology to calculate the fixed broadband and mobile
broadband price indexes in Figure 41 and Figure 44, respectively. The supplementary figures of
broadband prices by product referenced here are available in section IV.G below.
131. Step 1. We calculate the unweighted average price of all plans for each provider within
each product category.
201
Therefore, each provider has up to six product prices.
132. Step 2. Next, we calculate a weighted average price of each product category across
providers, using provider market shares as the weight. If a provider does not offer any plans in a
particular product category, it carries zero weight; and, the weights of remaining providers are
proportional to only those providers that do offer a product in the given product category.
202
Figure 51
and Figure 56 display the country-level product prices for fixed broadband and mobile broadband,
respectively.
133. Step 3. There are cases in which no provider in a country offers plans in a product
category, thus we make assumptions about missing country-level product prices. First, if a bundled
product price is missing, we replace it with the corresponding standalone product price (i.e., setting the
bundle discount to zero).
203
Next, if the highest tiered product(s) is not offered, we set the missing
product price(s) to the next available product price. For example, if no providers in the country offer
product 1, then we set its value equal to the price of product 2. If both products 1 and 2 are not offered,
then we set both product values to the price of product 3. Finally, for any remaining missing product
198
Education First, EF English Proficiency Index at 6-7 (2021),
https://www.ef.com/assetscdn/WIBIwq6RdJvcD9bc8RMd/cefcom-epi-site/reports/2021/ef-epi-2021-english.pdf.
199
In Iceland, English is the “first” foreign language in the Icelandic National Curriculum for compulsory schools.
See Iceland Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, The Icelandic National Curriculum Guide for Compulsory
Schools – with Subjects Areas at 50 (2014), https://www.government.is/library/01-Ministries/Ministry-of-
Education/Curriculum/adalnrsk_greinask_ens_2014.pdf.
200
W
3
Techs, Usage statistics of content languages for websites,
https://w3techs.com/technologies/overview/content_language (last visited Oct. 6, 2022).
201
This calculation includes “synthetic plans.”
202
If only one provider in a country offers plans in a product category, that provider’s unweighted average price
would represent 100% of the country-level product price.
203
Specifically, we set the price of product 4 to the price of product 1; the price of product 5 to the price of product
2; and the price of product 6 to the price of product 3.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
92
prices, we set these to the next highest available product price.
204
For example, if providers in a country
only offer products 1 and 3, then the price of product 2 is set to the price of product 3.
134. Step 4. Finally, we calculate the price indexes using the full set of country-level product
prices from Step 3, and the product shares in Figure 39 for fixed broadband and Figure 40 for mobile
broadband.
205
For fixed broadband, we calculate the overall standalone price and overall bundled price by
using the download speed shares in Figure 41. For mobile broadband, we calculate the overall single-line
price and overall multi-line price by using the data usage shares in Figure 44. To calculate the overall
broadband price, we use the bundle shares to weight the overall standalone price and overall bundle price.
135. Step 5. To produce price per GB rankings, we divide the overall broadband price
calculated in Step 4 by the average monthly data usage in each country.
206
2. Hedonic Regression Model
136. The classic hedonic framework involves adjusting for changing product quality over
time, and accounting for product quality differences across firms and countries is analogous. In the
equation below, we present a standard linear hedonic regression of prices on product characteristics.
207
137. The dependent variable, , is the logarithm of the price of plan i in country k, X
i
is a
vector of plan characteristics, and
is a scalar idiosyncratic error term. Under this approach, the
country specific intercepts, ,
estimate the differences in the average quality-adjusted price levels across
countries. This framework has been widely used in making temporal and spatial price comparisons;
however, it is not ideal for cross-country broadband pricing comparisons because it assumes that
coefficients on product characteristics (the slope parameters ) are the same for each country.
208
While it
is plausible that the supply and demand conditions that generate the coefficients could be similar in
adjacent time periods, or even cities within the same country, it is highly unlikely that these conditions are
similar across countries. If broadband cost structures, determinants of demand (e.g., demographics),
product offerings, ownership structures, regulatory conditions, subsidies, or other conditions that impact
prices vary across countries, then we would expect the slope parameters to reflect these differences.
138. We estimate a more flexible model that allows the slope coefficients for certain
characteristics to differ across providers. However, due to sample size limitations in our pricing data, we
204
This assures that U.S. consumers are at least as well-off with the product provided as they would have been with
the product available in the United States.
205
See supra para. 66 (price index formula). See also
TeleGeography, TeleGeography GlobalComms Database, http://www.telegeography.com (last accessed Oct. 6,
2022); International Telecommunication Union, World Telecommunications/ICT Indicators Database 2020 (24th
Edition/July 2020) (last accessed Aug. 31, 2022).
206
For fixed broadband, we only have monthly average usage per subscriber data for 18 of the 26 countries.
TeleGeography, TeleGeography GlobalComms Database, http://www.telegeography.com (last accessed Oct. 6,
2022) (navigate to Data Traffic within the GlobalComms Database); Ofcom, International Broadband Scorecard
2021: Interactive Data, https://www.ofcom.org.uk/research-and-data/telecoms-research/broadband-research/eu-
bbroadand-scorecard/international-broadband-scorecard-2021-interactive-data (last visited Oct. 6, 2022). For
mobile broadband, we rely on OECD monthly average usage per subscriber data. See OECD, Broadband Portal,
https://www.oecd.org/sti/broadband/broadband-statistics/ (last visited Oct. 6, 2022).
207
See Zvi Griliches, Hedonic Price Indexes for Automobiles: An Econometric Analysis of Quality Change, The
Price Statistics of the Federal Government 173 (1st ed. 1961).
208
See W. Erwin Diewert, Saeed Heravi, & Mick Silver, Hedonic Imputation versus Time Dummy Hedonic Indexes,
Price Index Concepts and Measurement 161 (1st ed. 2009).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
93
do not estimate all of the j possible slope parameters for each product characteristic at the provider-level
but rather use multilevel modeling techniques similar to those recently proposed in broadband price
hedonic work at the OECD.
209
The multilevel model recognizes that plans are nested within providers
which are nested within countries, and that prices are likely correlated within these nests. Rather than
estimating separate parameters for each provider and product characteristic, the model assumes normally
distributed zero-mean random coefficients on some product characteristics at the provider-level and then
estimates the variance of each random coefficient. The model is therefore more parsimonious because it
estimates a single unknown variance parameter for each product characteristic rather than a separate slope
parameter for each provider by product characteristic combination.
139. To explain why prices may differ across countries, we also include some exogenous
supply and demand shifters into the model that we expect to explain why broadband quality-adjusted
price levels may differ by country. In the standard model, these factors are absorbed in the country fixed
effect, so instead of including this fixed effect, we parametrize the more traditional country effect as a
random effect plus country-level supply and demand factors that we expect to be correlated with average
price levels. This allows us to remove the effect of these country-level supply and demand conditions
when predicting prices rather than including them in the price predictions as they would in a fixed effect
specification.
140. Our base multilevel hedonic pricing equation is as follows:
, where
• is the price for plan i, offered by provider j, in country k;
• is a vector of plan characteristic variables;
210
• is a vector of unknown fixed coefficients;
• is a vector of country characteristics (e.g., measures of income and population density) for
the country in which the given plan is offered;
• is a vector of unknown, fixed coefficients for the country characteristics;
• is a subset of the variables in for which the coefficients will be treated as random
realizations for each provider in each country;
• is a vector of random coefficients for the variables included in . These random
coefficients apply to all plans of provider j. We assume that
;
211
209
See Carol Corrado & Olga Ukhaneva, Hedonic Prices for Fixed Broadband Services: Estimation across OECD
Countries, (Oct. 20, 2016), https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/5jlpl4sgc9hj-
en.pdf?expires=1603997556&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=1D0A776B692D8F368F8A696A24A0E702.
These models are also called “random effects models,” “hierarchical linear models,” and “mixed models.”
210
The plan characteristics included in X
i
for fixed broadband are three splines of download speed, a dummy
variable for whether the plan is bundled with video service, a dummy variable for whether fixed voice is included, a
dummy variable for whether more than 2000 GB of data is included (i.e., unlimited data), and a dummy variable for
whether download and upload speeds are symmetric. For mobile broadband, they include the number of lines, a
family plan dummy indicating whether more than one line is included, the logarithm of the data cap per line, an
unlimited data dummy, an unlimited minutes dummy, an unlimited text messages dummy, the logarithm of the
maximum download speed, and a dummy if the plan allows access to a provider’s 5G network. Since the inclusion
of too many variables can result in the statistical problem of “overfitting” the data, we did not include all observed
product characteristics in the model and limited the random coefficients to only those we determined were key
product characteristics that likely had the greatest impact on consumer choices.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
94
• is a random coefficient applying to all plans offered by provider j;
• is a random coefficient applying to all plans offered in country k; and
• is an idiosyncratic error term.
141. The multilevel model is estimated by maximum likelihood estimation (MLE). In matrix
form, the model can be written as:
212
142. The n × 1 vector of errors is assumed to be normally distributed mean-zero multivariate
with variance-covariance matrix I
n
. We also assume that is mean zero, orthogonal to , and has
variance-covariance matrix G. This implies the following:
143. Letting be the combined error term, we see that ln(p) is normally distributed
multivariate with mean and the following variance-covariance matrix:
144. Letting be a vector of the unknown variance components of G, we have the following
likelihood function that is used to find the unique vectors , , and that maximize this likelihood of
observing our data sample.
213
145. Following estimation of the model, we predict broadband prices for each provider for a
set of standardized plans. Since the random effects are not directly estimated, we calculate them post-
estimation by using the following best linear unbiased estimator of the random effects, where variables
with ^ denote estimated objects from the MLE:
146. The predicted price for any one of the six standardized plans used to compare prices
across countries is then given by the following formula:
147. The random coefficients on product characteristics measure how each provider’s pricing
of the characteristic differs from the pricing of the average provider in the sample as measured by the
(Continued from previous page)
211
The model does not estimate the random coefficients , , or , but instead estimates the diagonal variance
elements of the variance-covariance matrix G, known as the variance components. The off-diagonal covariances are
assumed to be zero. When predicting prices for each provider, we use the best linear unbiased predictors of the
random coefficients based on the estimated variance components.
212
In the matrix representation, the provider and country random effects are now included in the vector of random
coefficients .
213
We use the Stata mixed command to estimate the model. For further details on the maximum likelihood
estimation routine, see StataCorp LP, STATA Multilevel Mixed-Effects Reference Manual Release 13,
https://www.stata.com/manuals13/me.pdf (last visited Oct. 6, 2022).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
95
coefficient .
214
In our fixed broadband hedonic models, the product characteristics with provider random
coefficients are three download speed splines and a dummy for symmetric download and upload
speeds.
215
In our mobile broadband hedonic models, there are country random coefficients on a family
plan dummy, a logarithm of data cap per line, an unlimited data cap dummy, and the logarithm of
maximum download speed.
216
148. In an imperfectly competitive market such as broadband, there is no meaningful
interpretation of the hedonic regression coefficients. Under perfect competition, the coefficient vector
estimates both the marginal consumer value and marginal production costs for each product
characteristic.
217
However, in markets like broadband with substantial fixed costs, the coefficient also
includes the markup over cost for that characteristic, and these markups are complex functions of the
characteristics of competing products, firm costs, consumer preferences, and market structure.
218
As such,
in imperfectly competitive markets, hedonic coefficients should only be considered as a reduced-form
description of how prices (costs plus markups) vary with changes in product characteristics. The focus
should not be on the particular value, sign, or precision of any one coefficient but rather on how
predictive the hedonic pricing function is of provider prices in each country.
219
We therefore follow a
standard hedonic approach, except we correct price levels for exogenous country-level factors that we
expect to be correlated with costs and markups by predicting prices for all countries at the U.S. values of
.
G. Supplementary Figures
149. Following are our supplementary figures that provide additional data and information.
214
See infra Fig. 52, Fig. 57 (fixed and mobile broadband, respectively, estimated variances of the random
coefficients).
215
We control for download speeds using a linear spline in the logarithm of download speed with knot points at the
top-end of our speed categories used to define the six broadband products (i.e., knots at 100 and 250 Mbps).
216
We control for data allowances using a linear spline in the logarithm of the data allowance with knot points at the
top-end of our data allowance categories used to define mobile broadband products with the three highest data
allowances (i.e., knots at 10 and 25 GB).
217
See Sherwin Rosen, Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Product Differentiation in Pure Competition, 82
Journal of Political Economy 34 (1974).
218
See generally Pakes; Robert C. Feenstra & Gordon H. Hanson, Foreign Investment, Outsourcing and Relative
Wages (1995), https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w5121/w5121.pdf; Diane Bruce Anstine, How
Much Will Consumers Pay? A Hedonic Analysis of the Cable Television Industry, 19 Review of Industrial
Organization 129 (2001). Even if the broadband market is competitive in a country, pricing will still need to be
above marginal cost for firms to recover their fixed deployment costs.
219
See generally Pakes (2003).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
96
Fig. 48. Fixed Broadband and Mobile Broadband Combined Hedonic Price Indexes
Country
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Model 4
Price
Rank
Price
Rank
Price
Rank
Price
Rank
Australia
112.44
22
113.88
12
112.58
9
142.40
9
Austria
98.50
18
211.88
25
249.92
25
306.12
25
Belgium
103.91
21
143.09
19
143.10
20
202.13
23
Canada
156.91
25
162.01
24
153.93
23
184.26
20
Czech Republic
70.01
7
151.79
21
130.44
18
154.61
12
Denmark
69.81
6
92.77
3
84.91
2
115.61
2
Estonia
81.78
12
123.65
16
123.97
15
168.76
17
Finland
83.30
13
96.32
4
93.91
3
138.95
7
France
59.63
4
113.50
11
124.06
17
169.95
19
Germany
72.74
9
124.10
17
123.25
14
165.54
16
Greece
83.65
14
155.78
23
161.58
24
208.67
24
Iceland
99.28
19
99.51
5
98.71
4
131.10
5
Ireland
70.57
8
91.86
2
106.96
6
134.62
6
Italy
45.52
2
110.08
10
124.05
16
155.25
13
Latvia
45.44
1
73.89
1
75.39
1
110.13
1
Luxembourg
101.15
20
109.64
9
114.04
10
155.35
14
Mexico
92.99
16
276.43
26
301.99
26
355.20
26
Netherlands
77.91
10
117.09
14
101.40
5
139.54
8
New Zealand
97.07
17
101.57
6
108.86
8
130.46
4
Norway
170.08
26
152.71
22
144.13
21
197.33
22
Portugal
66.70
5
132.76
18
135.65
19
169.43
18
Spain
56.36
3
106.09
7
119.76
11
155.59
15
Sweden
91.00
15
107.52
8
107.20
7
154.37
11
Switzerland
136.87
24
150.19
20
152.37
22
186.30
21
United Kingdom
78.16
11
114.65
13
121.70
13
143.24
10
United States
121.76
23
121.16
15
121.02
12
121.59
3
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
97
Fig. 49. Fixed Broadband Average Bundle Discounts and Discount Rates (PPP Adjusted)
Country
Discount
Discount
Rate
Australia
Austria
Belgium
49.79
37.2%
Canada
Czech Republic
16.62
17.1%
Denmark
Estonia
10.98
15.4%
Finland
3.96
4.6%
France
Germany
13.84
17.9%
Greece
5.82
7.0%
Iceland
Ireland
3.17
2.9%
Italy
Latvia
7.23
10.7%
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
23.51
26.1%
New Zealand
Norway
18.54
12.6%
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
7.13
6.9%
Switzerland
United Kingdom
12.24
14.4%
United States
26.80
11.3%
Note: Prices are reported in PPP adjusted U.S. dollars.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
98
Fig. 50. Fixed Broadband Unweighted Average Prices by Product (PPP Adjusted)
Country
Standalone
Bundled
0 < Mbps < 100
100 ≤ Mbps < 250
Mbps ≥ 250
0 < Mbps < 100
100 ≤ Mbps < 250
Mbps ≥ 250
Mean
Count
Mean
Count
Mean
Count
Mean
Count
Mean
Count
Mean
Count
Australia
50.18
9
73.07
3
50.18
9
73.07
3
Austria
39.80
3
48.63
3
67.61
6
39.80
3
48.63
3
67.61
6
Belgium
40.39
2
60.57
4
81.22
4
40.39
2
52.59
4
74.51
4
Canada
64.13
20
78.27
7
101.44
20
64.13
20
78.27
7
101.44
20
Czech Republic
41.18
7
49.92
3
50.80
7
35.59
13
45.63
5
49.76
9
Denmark
41.62
8
40.04
3
52.06
6
41.62
8
40.04
3
52.06
6
Estonia
41.82
10
54.06
4
102.13
7
41.14
10
52.25
4
102.13
7
Finland
48.76
2
45.30
2
65.51
3
48.76
2
43.94
2
62.67
3
France
35.86
3
48.58
9
35.86
3
48.58
9
Germany
40.81
7
44.70
4
50.78
6
39.31
7
43.58
4
48.25
6
Greece
46.87
8
63.64
7
46.07
12
59.66
15
Iceland
73.46
8
73.46
8
Ireland
58.40
2
67.85
9
58.40
2
67.42
9
Italy
38.68
5
48.93
7
38.68
5
48.93
7
Latvia
33.57
2
45.59
3
30.97
4
36.58
8
Luxembourg
51.04
1
63.52
2
84.96
5
51.04
1
63.52
2
84.96
5
Mexico
34.38
2
52.40
11
112.75
8
34.38
2
52.40
11
112.75
8
Netherlands
49.67
3
56.97
4
66.01
4
42.12
4
56.97
4
52.68
7
New Zealand
57.65
5
61.58
8
57.65
5
61.58
8
Norway
95.42
7
119.78
17
92.76
7
112.99
17
Portugal
53.57
6
56.20
6
66.10
9
53.57
6
56.20
6
66.10
9
Spain
47.88
1
55.55
9
47.88
1
55.55
9
Sweden
35.27
11
42.67
16
70.00
47
35.27
11
42.65
17
69.06
51
Switzerland
50.32
2
62.77
4
50.32
2
62.77
4
United Kingdom
42.12
11
48.97
3
66.32
4
40.91
11
48.97
3
66.32
4
United States
61.79
4
69.72
3
89.05
22
61.79
4
69.72
3
86.03
28
Total
122
104
232
133
117
252
Note: Prices are reported in PPP adjusted U.S. dollars.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
99
Fig. 51. Fixed Broadband Weighted Average Prices by Product (PPP Adjusted)
Country
Standalone
Bundled
0 < Mbps < 100
100 ≤ Mbps < 250
Mbps ≥ 250
0 < Mbps < 100
100 ≤ Mbps < 250
Mbps ≥ 250
Mean
Count
Mean
Count
Mean
Count
Mean
Count
Mean
Count
Mean
Count
Australia
55.88
9
73.21
3
55.88
9
73.21
3
Austria
39.82
3
48.68
3
68.07
6
39.82
3
48.68
3
68.07
6
Belgium
38.32
2
56.48
4
77.23
4
38.32
2
52.64
4
74.00
4
Canada
60.32
20
78.95
7
98.01
20
60.32
20
78.95
7
98.01
20
Czech Republic
42.29
7
50.57
3
59.19
7
39.74
13
47.70
5
56.14
9
Denmark
41.05
8
40.10
3
48.20
6
41.05
8
40.10
3
48.20
6
Estonia
41.82
10
54.84
4
99.26
7
41.34
10
53.83
4
99.26
7
Finland
48.76
2
46.52
2
65.51
3
48.76
2
45.00
2
62.67
3
France
38.37
3
49.93
9
38.37
3
49.93
9
Germany
42.73
7
47.59
4
56.11
6
41.43
7
46.76
4
54.71
6
Greece
48.52
8
67.52
7
47.12
12
62.58
15
Iceland
73.18
8
73.18
8
Ireland
59.17
2
66.20
9
59.17
2
65.90
9
Italy
38.82
5
49.18
7
38.82
5
49.18
7
Latvia
33.57
2
45.87
3
30.97
4
40.28
8
Luxembourg
51.04
1
63.77
2
82.01
5
51.04
1
63.77
2
82.01
5
Mexico
36.32
2
55.73
11
118.38
8
36.32
2
55.73
11
118.38
8
Netherlands
49.01
3
56.97
4
65.85
4
41.86
4
56.97
4
57.80
7
New Zealand
55.03
5
63.32
8
55.03
5
63.32
8
Norway
89.86
7
121.53
17
87.74
7
118.24
17
Portugal
51.51
6
56.36
6
65.41
9
51.51
6
56.36
6
65.41
9
Spain
47.88
1
55.88
9
47.88
1
55.88
9
Sweden
42.33
11
45.16
16
70.29
47
42.33
11
43.86
17
67.95
51
Switzerland
51.06
2
63.82
4
51.06
2
63.82
4
United Kingdom
45.03
11
48.24
3
64.08
4
43.94
11
48.24
3
64.08
4
United States
57.83
4
79.74
3
87.40
22
57.83
4
79.74
3
86.14
28
Total
122
104
232
133
117
252
Note: Prices are reported in PPP adjusted U.S. dollars.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
100
Fig. 52. Fixed Broadband Estimated Variances of Random Coefficients and Likelihood Ratio Tests
Random Effect Parameters
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Estimate
SE
Estimate
SE
Estimate
SE
Country: Variance(Constant)
0.142
0.046
0.015
0.010
0.015
0.010
Provider: Variance(0 < Mbps < 100)
0.001
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.001
0.000
Provider: Variance(100 ≤ Mbps < 250)
0.068
0.015
0.070
0.015
0.070
0.015
Provider: Variance(250 ≤ Mbps)
0.030
0.007
0.030
0.007
0.030
0.007
Provider: Variance(Symmetric Speeds Dummy)
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
Provider: Variance(Constant)
0.032
0.009
0.031
0.009
0.031
0.009
Variance(Residual)
0.017
0.001
0.017
0.001
0.017
0.001
Likelihood Ratio Tests
1 vs. 2
2 vs. 3
P-Value
0.000
0.794
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
101
Fig. 53. Fixed Broadband Country Random Coefficients
Country
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Australia
0.333
0.048
0.041
Austria
-0.038
-0.004
-0.004
Belgium
0.037
0.000
0.004
Canada
0.454
0.202
0.204
Czech Republic
-0.419
-0.056
-0.051
Denmark
0.200
0.042
0.045
Estonia
-0.288
-0.099
-0.097
Finland
0.055
-0.072
-0.080
France
-0.253
-0.085
-0.092
Germany
-0.141
-0.064
-0.063
Greece
-0.377
-0.027
-0.037
Iceland
0.262
0.015
0.015
Ireland
0.109
0.020
0.019
Italy
-0.436
-0.096
-0.098
Latvia
-0.734
-0.136
-0.135
Luxembourg
0.221
-0.102
-0.100
Mexico
-0.614
0.133
0.134
Netherlands
0.034
0.055
0.059
New Zealand
0.451
0.073
0.075
Norway
0.742
0.098
0.100
Portugal
-0.119
0.125
0.131
Spain
-0.384
-0.088
-0.084
Sweden
0.157
-0.026
-0.026
Switzerland
0.284
-0.060
-0.058
United Kingdom
0.083
0.082
0.072
United States
0.380
0.021
0.024
Overall
0.000
0.000
0.000
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
102
Fig. 54. Mobile Broadband Average Discount Rates by Number of Lines Relative to Single-Line Plan (PPP Adjusted)
Country
2-Lines
3-Lines
4-Lines
Discount
Discount Rate
Discount
Discount Rate
Discount
Discount Rate
Australia
-0.03
-0.1%
-0.06
-0.1%
-0.08
-0.2%
Austria
-0.21
-0.3%
-0.27
-0.4%
-0.31
-0.4%
Belgium
-0.72
-1.9%
-0.72
-1.9%
-0.72
-1.9%
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
-1.65
-4.5%
-2.20
-6.0%
-2.48
-6.8%
Estonia
-0.51
-1.1%
-0.69
-1.5%
-0.77
-1.7%
Finland
France
Germany
-17.88
-27.0%
-20.20
-31.3%
-21.36
-33.4%
Greece
Iceland
-0.39
-0.6%
-0.52
-0.8%
-0.58
-0.9%
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
-1.06
-2.0%
-1.06
-2.0%
-1.06
-2.0%
Luxembourg
Mexico
-0.48
-1.0%
-0.54
-1.2%
-0.57
-1.2%
Netherlands
-0.20
-0.5%
-0.14
-0.3%
-0.20
-0.5%
New Zealand
-3.17
-6.5%
-4.23
-8.7%
-4.44
-9.0%
Norway
-2.59
-5.3%
-3.45
-7.0%
-3.88
-7.9%
Portugal
-6.58
-9.1%
-8.77
-12.1%
-9.86
-13.6%
Spain
-2.05
-5.9%
-2.74
-7.9%
-3.08
-8.9%
Sweden
-4.21
-9.0%
-5.65
-12.1%
-6.35
-13.6%
Switzerland
United Kingdom
-0.07
-0.3%
-0.09
-0.4%
-0.11
-0.4%
United States
-4.34
-6.3%
-9.89
-14.0%
-11.40
-15.7%
Note: Plans that are not available as Single-Line Plans are not included. Prices are reported in PPP adjusted U.S. dollars.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
103
Fig. 55. Mobile Broadband Unweighted Prices by Product (PPP Adjusted)
Country
Single Line Plans
Multi-Line Plans
0.2 < GB ≤ 10
10 < GB ≤ 25
25 < GB
0.2 < GB ≤ 10
10 < GB ≤ 25
25 < GB
Mean
Count
Mean
Count
Mean
Count
Mean
Count
Mean
Count
Mean
Count
Australia
31.27
1
45.44
13
23.63
1
28.32
7
42.18
51
Austria
22.70
1
40.43
21
59.15
17
22.70
3
39.44
66
56.94
54
Belgium
24.48
4
41.23
4
54.41
3
24.48
12
39.72
12
52.39
9
Canada
76.65
3
97.26
7
64.47
7
78.59
39
103.58
24
Czech Republic
49.49
6
65.98
3
82.25
8
49.49
18
65.98
9
82.25
24
Denmark
22.60
1
32.47
12
16.71
2
20.50
6
26.71
43
Estonia
23.78
5
35.21
4
62.92
5
23.78
15
35.21
12
59.42
15
Finland
40.22
12
40.22
36
France
20.61
3
43.39
17
20.61
9
43.39
51
Germany
39.36
5
62.33
4
66.51
8
28.00
19
33.08
20
51.86
24
Greece
67.04
4
96.80
1
83.60
3
54.99
28
83.15
5
87.50
11
Iceland
14.85
6
24.26
3
43.65
7
15.56
22
22.94
22
36.73
28
Ireland
37.56
5
36.81
21
Italy
20.62
1
25.01
1
31.40
12
20.62
3
25.01
3
31.40
36
Latvia
32.86
7
39.48
1
50.41
4
32.86
21
39.48
3
46.01
12
Luxembourg
13.58
4
39.64
2
61.45
3
13.58
12
39.64
6
61.45
9
Mexico
33.17
7
64.24
6
117.87
6
33.17
21
62.51
18
117.87
18
Netherlands
23.81
8
32.99
4
45.67
4
23.81
24
32.60
13
42.30
13
New Zealand
24.67
3
40.36
3
59.20
5
24.67
9
32.99
9
44.00
19
Norway
26.77
10
40.50
7
59.70
7
26.24
30
37.20
21
49.79
21
Portugal
73.74
6
64.65
18
Spain
17.51
3
22.26
1
50.27
9
16.49
9
22.26
3
41.05
30
Sweden
26.39
5
38.61
5
55.56
9
24.43
37
30.76
23
39.14
29
Switzerland
35.44
3
71.45
7
35.44
9
71.45
21
United Kingdom
19.81
11
23.98
4
33.26
20
21.72
45
26.65
16
33.13
72
United States
64.48
3
81.17
9
42.35
17
57.28
30
Total
99
79
218
373
313
719
Note: Prices are reported in PPP adjusted U.S. dollars.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
104
Fig. 56. Mobile Broadband Weighted Prices by Product (PPP Adjusted)
Country
Single Line Plans
Multi-Line Plans
0.2 < GB ≤ 10
10 < GB ≤ 25
25 < GB
0.2 < GB ≤ 10
10 < GB ≤ 25
25 < GB
Mean
Count
Mean
Count
Mean
Count
Mean
Count
Mean
Count
Mean
Count
Australia
31.27
1
48.80
13
23.63
1
29.51
7
47.92
51
Austria
22.70
1
38.11
21
69.43
17
22.70
3
35.50
66
63.09
54
Belgium
26.88
4
42.51
4
53.64
3
26.88
12
40.79
12
51.16
9
Canada
76.65
3
95.36
7
64.68
7
78.54
39
98.56
24
Czech Republic
49.14
6
66.75
3
87.45
8
49.14
18
66.75
9
87.45
24
Denmark
22.60
1
32.82
12
16.71
2
21.32
6
26.67
43
Estonia
21.64
5
38.73
4
62.58
5
21.64
15
38.73
12
58.48
15
Finland
40.11
12
40.11
36
France
21.79
3
38.48
17
21.79
9
38.48
51
Germany
41.30
5
56.41
4
77.93
8
25.47
19
30.62
20
46.27
24
Greece
65.96
4
96.80
1
89.97
3
57.04
28
83.15
5
88.14
11
Iceland
14.81
6
24.13
3
43.52
7
15.43
22
23.16
22
37.32
28
Ireland
36.96
5
36.22
21
Italy
20.62
1
25.01
1
32.04
12
20.62
3
25.01
3
32.04
36
Latvia
32.99
7
39.48
1
49.71
4
32.99
21
39.48
3
43.08
12
Luxembourg
13.58
4
39.64
2
66.94
3
13.58
12
39.64
6
66.94
9
Mexico
33.35
7
64.32
6
117.47
6
33.35
21
62.27
18
117.47
18
Netherlands
24.49
8
34.33
4
46.00
4
24.49
24
33.90
13
44.49
13
New Zealand
24.14
3
40.36
3
58.93
5
24.14
9
33.69
9
41.66
19
Norway
30.32
10
44.93
7
60.26
7
29.34
30
40.62
21
50.18
21
Portugal
73.74
6
65.34
18
Spain
20.22
3
22.26
1
46.90
9
18.52
9
22.26
3
40.12
30
Sweden
26.37
5
40.14
5
57.23
9
24.51
37
30.72
23
38.12
29
Switzerland
40.20
3
78.26
7
40.20
9
78.26
21
United Kingdom
19.96
11
24.99
4
33.74
20
19.96
45
27.92
16
32.86
72
United States
63.52
3
80.84
9
45.21
17
55.97
30
Total
99
79
218
373
313
719
Note: Prices are reported in PPP adjusted U.S. dollars.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
105
Fig. 57. Mobile Broadband Estimated Variances of Random Coefficients and Likelihood Ratio Tests
Random Effect Parameters
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Estimate
SE
Estimate
SE
Estimate
SE
Country: Variance(Family Plan Dummy)
0.014
0.005
0.014
0.005
0.013
0.005
Country: Variance(Log Data Cap)
0.013
0.004
0.014
0.004
0.014
0.004
Country: Variance(Unlimited Data Cap Dummy)
0.146
0.054
0.137
0.051
0.137
0.050
Country: Variance(Log Download Speed)
0.007
0.003
0.009
0.003
0.011
0.004
Country: Variance(Constant)
0.244
0.103
0.067
0.054
0.004
0.045
Provider: Variance(Constant)
0.099
0.020
0.097
0.020
0.096
0.020
Variance(Residual)
0.034
0.001
0.034
0.001
0.034
0.001
Likelihood Ratio Tests
1 vs. 2
2 vs. 3
P-Value
0.021
0.020
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
106
Fig. 58. Mobile Broadband Country Random Coefficients
Country
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Australia
0.073
0.069
0.068
Austria
0.058
0.058
0.057
Belgium
0.045
0.049
0.053
Canada
0.126
0.124
0.123
Czech Republic
0.069
0.075
0.069
Denmark
-0.080
-0.079
-0.081
Estonia
0.037
0.035
0.034
Finland
0.064
0.062
0.060
France
0.069
0.070
0.070
Germany
-0.342
-0.338
-0.337
Greece
0.021
0.023
0.023
Iceland
0.016
0.012
0.010
Ireland
0.034
0.031
0.034
Italy
0.063
0.068
0.074
Latvia
0.038
0.037
0.037
Luxembourg
0.058
0.057
0.057
Mexico
0.057
0.058
0.058
Netherlands
0.051
0.050
0.047
New Zealand
-0.109
-0.110
-0.109
Norway
0.002
0.004
0.004
Portugal
-0.037
-0.036
-0.036
Spain
-0.065
-0.067
-0.068
Sweden
-0.142
-0.142
-0.142
Switzerland
0.061
0.057
0.050
United Kingdom
0.076
0.075
0.075
United States
-0.243
-0.241
-0.230
Overall
0.000
0.000
0.000
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
107
Fig. 59. Summary Statistics for Independent Variables
Australia 1.44 1.33 300 9.3 53,680 155 9 37.5% 0.18 66.0%
Austria 0.77 0.85 187 25.8 48,360 686 280 19.0% 1.15 82.8%
Belgium 0.74 0.85 240 3.4 45,810 1,093 984 41.8% 0.26 97.2%
Canada 1.25 1.25 335 3.4 43,540 190 11 34.4% 0.37 86.0%
Czech Republic 12.92 21.68 219 3.2 22,130 368 359 24.8% 0.58 89.2%
Denmark 6.59 6.29 323 7.2 63,010 751 377 35.5% 0.19 96.3%
Estonia 0.55 0.85 16.0 23,040 89 79 35.9% 0.19 83.5%
Finland 0.83 0.85 131 31.0 50,080 232 47 38.2% 0.27 65.0%
France 0.73 0.85 241 9.7 39,500 440 319 24.8% 0.50 65.3%
Germany 0.74 0.85 209 4.6 47,520 822 616 30.7% 0.41 89.6%
Greece 0.55 0.85 150 3.4 17,950 464 215 31.2% 1.29 54.6%
Iceland 150.64 126.99 404 16.7 62,410 540 9 38.7% 0.56 88.3%
Ireland 0.79 0.85 238 9.5 65,750 3,695 187 42.8% 0.28 87.7%
Italy 0.65 0.85 193 9.8 32,380 655 521 20.1% 0.75 77.6%
Latvia 0.51 0.85 367 23.0 17,900 168 79 34.2% 0.14 90.7%
Luxembourg 0.85 0.85 6.3 81,110 560 634 46.5% 0.58 99.4%
Mexico 10.04 20.27 4.5 8,530 607 170 18.9% 0.82 69.5%
Netherlands 0.77 0.85 180 3.7 51,070 1,297 1,342 40.6% 0.04 98.5%
New Zealand 1.49 1.41 293 4.6 41,480 44 50 36.0% 0.45 85.0%
Norway 9.67 8.59 7.3 77,880 122 38 34.3% 1.25 89.2%
Portugal 0.57 0.85 218 4.5 21,810 775 291 28.1% 0.97 92.8%
Spain 0.62 0.85 266 5.4 27,360 382 245 27.6% 0.81 93.8%
Sweden 8.71 8.58 250 12.0 54,290 319 66 34.8% 0.34 86.7%
Switzerland 1.10 0.91 224 10.5 82,620 800 566 45.3% 1.45 98.6%
United Kingdom 0.69 0.73 436 5.3 39,970 893 718 39.9% 0.21 63.2%
United States 1.00 1.00 383 7.1 64,140 252 93 39.1% 0.33 93.4%
Analysis Both Both Fixed Mobile Both Fixed Mobile Both Both Fixed
Source OECD OECD Various OECD World Bank OECD OECD OECD Nunn & Puga Various
Year 2021 2021 Most Recent 2020 2020 2014 2020 Most Recent 2000/2001 Most Recent
Unit LCU/USD LCU/USD GB/Month/Subscriber GB/Month/Subscriber Current USD (Atlas) People/Mile2 People/Mile2 Percentage 100s Meters Percentage
TRI (Weighted by
Population)
Country
PPP
Exchange
Rate
Fixed Usage
Mobile Usage
GNI/Capita
Non-Rural
Pop. Density
Pop. Density
Educational
Attainment
Fixed
Coverage
Note: See supra section IV.F.1. Data and Methods Technical Details for discussion of data sources, variable construction, and details of data issues.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
108
Fig. 60. Mobile Network Quality Variables
Country
First Principal
Component
Download
Speed
Upload
Speed
4G
Availability
5G Availability
Australia
0.23
51.0
8.6
94.4%
14.4%
Austria
-0.16
39.6
10.83
89.7%
11.6%
Belgium
-0.19
39.7
11.6
91.7%
0.0%
Canada
0.62
63.3
10.4
93.6%
12.2%
Czech
Republic
0.69
42.9
16.8
92.9%
7.7%
Denmark
1.32
70.0
17.6
93.7%
0.0%
Estonia
-0.24
42.4
10.8
91.2%
0.0%
Finland
0.72
50.7
13.7
93.7%
14.4%
France
-0.51
42.0
8.2
86.8%
14.5%
Germany
0.17
44.6
11.7
92.5%
8.6%
Greece
-0.45
34.3
9.9
88.1%
13.1%
Iceland
1.19
71.0
15.0
91.8%
12.0%
Ireland
-1.92
25.9
8.8
70.9%
8.4%
Italy
-0.58
30.0
9.9
89.0%
9.7%
Latvia
-1.08
28.6
8.9
86.3%
0.0%
Luxembourg
0.86
56.0
13.6
94.5%
13.6%
Mexico
-1.42
21.2
8.2
85.0%
0.0%
Netherlands
1.71
75.3
15.6
96.9%
13.9%
New
Zealand
-0.58
37.7
10.3
87.5%
2.5%
Norway
1.66
77.8
15.8
97.3%
6.5%
Portugal
-0.05
43.0
11.9
87.7%
13.1%
Spain
-0.69
29.0
9.6
88.4%
8.5%
Sweden
0.29
46.2
12.9
93.5%
3.2%
Switzerland
1.22
57.2
17.1
93.5%
13.8%
United
Kingdom
-1.12
28.0
7.0
86.9%
7.1%
United
States
0.31
43.1
8.1
97.7%
21.3%
Analysis
Mobile
Mobile
Mobile
Mobile
Mobile
Source
Opensignal
Opensignal
Opensignal
Opensignal
Year
Most Recent
Most Recent
Most Recent
Most Recent
Unit
Standardized
Mbps
Mbps
Percentage
Percentage
Loading
Factor
0.6143
0.5602
0.5165
0.2052
Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-103
109
Fig. 61. Content Quality Variables
Australia 1.50 22.84 0.13 .au 10.0% 61.8% English
Austria -0.54 30.17 0.16 .at 64.1% 3.0% German
Belgium -0.62 23.03 0.14 .be 62.9% 1.2% Dutch
Canada 1.38 17.31 0.08 .ca 10.0% 61.8% English
Czech Republic -0.47 33.08 0.13 .cz 56.3% 0.3% Czech
Denmark -0.40 28.15 0.25 .dk 63.6% 0.3% Danish
Estonia -0.26 80.48 0.11 .ee 58.1% 0.1% Estonian
Finland -0.69 27.67 0.09 .fi 61.8% 0.2% Finnish
France -0.63 17.97 0.06 .fr 55.1% 2.9% French
Germany -0.46 21.64 0.20 .de 61.6% 3.0% German
Greece -0.81 13.73 0.04 .gr 59.1% 0.2% Greek
Iceland -0.02 102.60 0.21 .is 62.9% 0.1% Icelandic
Ireland 1.35 19.83 0.06 .ie 10.0% 61.8% English
Italy -0.62 20.02 0.05 .it 53.5% 1.4% Italian
Latvia -0.69 19.94 0.07 .lv 56.9% 0.1% Latvian
Luxembourg -0.43 35.53 0.16 .lu 60.4% 3.0% German
Mexico -0.57 2.80 0.01 .mx 43.6% 3.8% Spanish
Netherlands -0.28 27.75 0.33 .nl 66.3% 1.2% Dutch
New Zealand 1.51 20.81 0.14 .nz 10.0% 61.8% English
Norway -0.47 50.19 0.15 .no 63.2% 0.1% Norwegian
Portugal -0.86 17.67 0.04 .pt 62.5% 0.9% Portuguese
Spain -0.62 18.10 0.04 .es 54.0% 3.8% Spanish
Sweden -0.60 29.17 0.14 .se 62.3% 0.4% Swedish
Switzerland -0.13 36.47 0.28 .ch 57.5% 3.0% German
United Kingdom 1.53 16.85 0.16 .uk 10.0% 61.8% English
United States 2.89 111.32 0.56 .us / .com / .net / .org 10.0% 61.8% English
Analysis Both Both Both Both Both Both Both
Source Google Domain Tools Education First W3Techs
Year 2022 2022 2021 2022
Unit Standardized Webpages by TLD Per Capita Domains by TLD Per Capita Percentage Percentage
Loading Factor 0.2225 0.3332 -0.6385 0.6571
First Principal Component
Country
Webpages by TLD Per Capita
Domains by TLD Per
Capita
TLD
EPI
Content
Language
Language
Assumed
