logobossnation

1. High Speed Broadband Connection
2. Satellite Broadband Mobile

. Table 1:. Table 2:.

Table 3:. Table 4:. Table 5:.

Table 6:. Table 7: (connections over 200 kbps in at least one direction, in thousands) The 2016 Measuring Broadband America Fixed Broadband Report (“the 2016 Report”) contains the most recent data collected from fixed Internet Service Providers (ISPs) as part of the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) Measuring Broadband America (MBA) program. This program is an ongoing, rigorous, nationwide study of consumer broadband performance in the United States. We measure the network performance delivered on selected service tiers of a representative sample set of the population. The thousands of volunteer sample panelists are drawn from subscribers of Internet Service Providers serving over 80% of the residential marketplace. The initial Measuring Broadband America Fixed Broadband Report was published in August 2011, and presented the first broad-scale study of directly measured consumer broadband performance throughout the United States. Including the 2016 Report, six reports have now been issued.

These annual reports provide a performance benchmark for fixed broadband Internet access services in the United States, and track progress towards the Commission’s continuing goal of improving the speeds and quality of broadband access commonly available to the American public. These reports present analysis of broadband information in a variety of ways and have evolved with changes to make the information more understandable and useful. The key findings of this report were: The maximum advertised download speeds amongst the most popular service tiers offered by ISPs have increased from 12-30 Mbps in March 2011 (when the program first launched) to 100-300 Mbps in September 2015. These increases are not uniform across access technologies and have been driven primarily by the cable industry, with smaller increases in fiber based systems. Average DSL speeds have increased only slightly over these years and satellite speeds, over a shorter time interval, have remained constant. The median speed across all consumers this year is 39 Mbps which represents a 22% increase to last year’s value of 32 Mbps, indicating that consumer speeds are continuing to increase.

For most of the major broadband providers that were tested, actual download speeds are 100% of advertised speeds or better. The exceptions are DSL providers (AT&T-DSL, CenturyLink, Frontier DSL and Windstream)) and one satellite provider (Viasat).

The overwhelming majority of ISPs performed within 10% of last year’s results. The exception for this was satellite ISPs. Hughes’ actual vs. Advertised speeds ratio went down from 203% to 152% while Viasat’s went down from 107% to 71%.

This is likely the result of increased subscribership and consumer usage of these services. Future proposed launches of more advanced satellites would likely reverse this trend. One of the key measures for ISP performance is the 80/80 speed consistency which is the speed that at least 80% of the subscribers experience at least 80% of the time over peak periods. Optimum, Charter, Time-Warner Cable and Verizon (FiOS) did well with values rising above 90% of the advertised speed. This ratio fell below 50% for AT&T (DSL), Frontier (fiber) and Viasat (satellite). These, and other findings, are described in greater detail within this Report. This 2016 report includes two changes affecting how data is statistically calculated and presented.

Past reports presented ISP broadband performance as the mean or average of broadband speeds experienced by panelists in specific service tiers. The 2016 report presents ISP broadband performance as the median of speeds experienced by panelists within a specific service tier.

This change also aligns the report’s analysis with the Open Internet Order of 2015 and the subsequent 2016 Guidance on Open Internet Transparency Rule Requirements that clarifies that fixed Broadband Internet Access Service providers may comply with the Open Internet Order transparency requirement disclosing either the median speed or a range of actual speeds that includes the median speed (e.g., 25th to 75th percentile). We had noted in the 2015 Measuring Broadband America Report our intent to align the Report with the policies underlying the Open Internet Order. Measurements used in the Report will continue to evolve with Commission policies. This change also improves the ability to compare the analysis of fixed and mobile broadband statistics. The reporting of median speeds and percentiles provides a harmonious and consistent reporting metric for use across all broadband technologies with transparency disclosure obligations under the rules for the Open Internet. For continuity and comparison’s sake, calculations based on means will continue to be included in our spreadsheet of statistical values which has traditionally accompanied this Report. To evaluate the impact of the shift from using mean speeds to median speeds both sets of values were computed and compared.

The two sets of values were within 5% of each other which implies that the measured values were, in general, only slightly skewed. Details of the comparison between mean and median values are given in Appendix A. In past reports an aggregate mean representing an ISP’s performance across all service tiers was calculated as an unweighted average of the performance of all panelists for an ISP. This approach has the disadvantage of not explicitly recognizing that the market share for each service tier differs, with some tiers supporting more consumers than others. In discussion with the ISPs it was agreed that going forward, aggregate medians would be weighted to reflect the number of subscribers of each service tier; i.e., service tiers with larger numbers of subscribers would affect the overall values more than service tiers with fewer subscribers. This Report calculates the weighted median of an ISP’s performance by weighting the median for each service tier by the number of subscribers. In adopting this policy of calculating a weighted median, we have drawn upon two sources for determining the number of subscribers per service tier.

ISPs can voluntarily contribute their data per surveyed service tier as the most recent and authoritative data. Many ISPs have chosen to do so. When such information is not provided by an ISP, we draw from the FCC’s 477 data. All facilities-based broadband providers are required to file data with the FCC twice a year (Form 477) regarding deployment of broadband services. The 477 data provides an alternative source of information for the number of subscribers of an ISP’s service tier.

The shift from using unweighted means to weighted medians has had a minimal effect for most ISPs. The difference was generally within 5% (see Appendix A). The exceptions were for four ISPs (Optimum, Comcast, Mediacom and TWC), for whom the difference between unweighted means and weighted medians were between 8% and 20%. This suggests that for these companies, the number of panelists per service tier is not representative of the ISP’s customer base.

Using subscriber weighted medians corrects for this skewing. We expect to continue to report weighted medians in the future.

In addition, we are maintaining our unweighted mean calculations in our table of statistical values. As in previous reports, we continue to see significant growth in broadband speeds and their uptake by consumers, though results are not uniform across technologies. While fiber based systems continue to have the highest weighted median speeds, cable based ISPs are driving the growth in new high speed service tiers.

Spurred by the deployment of improved technologies such as DOCSIS 3, the maximum advertised download speeds among the most popular service tiers offered by ISPs using cable technologies have increased from 12-30 Mbps in March 2011 to 100-300 Mbps in September 2015. In contrast, the maximum advertised download speeds that were tested among the most popular service tiers offered by ISPs using DSL technology have, with some exceptions, changed little since 2011. We note that DSL technology is capable of attaining speeds comparable to cable and fiber technologies, but that improvements in DSL plant structure and electronic devices may be required, adding to overall expense of the service.

We have also been notified by some ISPs using DSL technology that they offer speeds significantly in excess of those surveyed in this report, though not in sufficient scale to be included under our methodology. Our focus in these reports is on the most common service tiers used by 5% or more of an ISP’s subscribers.

We find on this basis that there is a growing disparity in download speeds surveyed between DSL and cable and fiber technologies. This disparity has been growing since our initial Report.

Due to the characteristics of the industry, satellite broadband services are another area where performance growth is uneven. Put simply, performance increases for satellite technology are dependent upon the launch of new satellites which add capacity and can also increase attainable consumer speeds. The industry saw an approximate order of magnitude performance increase with the introduction of satellites operating in Ka-band frequencies beginning in late 2011. Performance from these satellites has declined as capacity limits are being reached.

Satellite companies are continuing to invest in technologies promising higher capacity and speed. Next generation Ka-band satellites are planned to be launched beginning in late 2016, and we will track how these newer generation of satellites affect overall consumer performance. Due to the characteristics of the industry, satellite broadband services are another area where performance growth is uneven. Put simply, performance increases for satellite technology are dependent upon the launch of new satellites which add capacity and can also increase attainable consumer speeds. The industry saw an approximate order of magnitude performance increase with the introduction of satellites operating in Ka-band frequencies beginning in late 2011. Performance from these satellites has declined as capacity limits are being reached.

Satellite companies are continuing to invest in technologies promising higher capacity and speed. Next generation Ka band satellites are planned to be launched beginning in late 2016, and we will track how these newer generation of satellites affect overall consumer performance. As in our previous reports, we found that generally actual speeds experienced by subscribers nearly meet or exceed those advertised by ISPs. However, the actual speeds experienced by subscribers of some ISPs using DSL were typically lower than the advertised “up-to” speeds for their respective providers. In addition, one satellite company (ViaSat) had a significant decline in performance from previous years in this regard with performance significantly below that of advertised speed; suggesting, as noted, that capacity limits are being approached for its current satellite constellation. ViaSat has indicated that future launches for additional capacity are planned in 2017.

Consistency of speed may be more important to customers who are heavy users of applications that are both high bandwidth and sensitive to short duration declines in actual speed, such as streaming video. We therefore report on the consistency of service delivered to the consumer. We present statistics on the minimum actual speed experienced by at least 80% of panelists during at least 80% of the peak usage period (“80/80 consistent speed” measure) as well as the percentage of consumers achieving median speeds greater than 95%, between 80% and 95%, and less than 80% of their advertised speeds.

Although actual download and upload speeds remain the network performance metric of greatest interest to the consumer, we spotlight two other key network performance metrics in this report: latency and packet loss. These metrics can significantly affect the overall quality of a consumer’s broadband service. Latency is the time it takes for a data packet to travel across a network from one point on the network to another. High latencies may affect the perceived quality of some interactive services such as phone calls over the Internet, video chat, or online multiplayer games. Latencies among terrestrial-based broadband services are typically small and are unlikely to affect the perceived quality of applications. The higher latencies of satellite-based broadband services may negatively affect the perceived quality of such highly interactive applications.

Not all applications are affected by high latencies, for example, video streaming applications are tolerant of relatively high latencies. Packet loss measures the rate at which data packets in a stream of data fail to be delivered to the intended destination. Packet loss may affect the perceived quality of applications that do not request retransmission of lost packets, such as phone calls over the Internet, video chat, some online multiplayer games, and some video streaming. However, packet losses of a few tenths of a percent are sufficiently small so that they are unlikely to significantly affect the perceived quality of most such applications and normally occur in the transmission of data packets across a network. Packet loss is unlikely to directly affect the perceived quality of applications that do request retransmission of lost packets, such as web browsing and email. Reporting by ISPs on speed, packet loss and latency are required by the 2015 Open Internet Order and we therefore include them in this report. The Internet is continuing to evolve along multiple dimensions: architecture, performance, and services.

We will continue to evolve our measurement methodologies to help consumers understand the performance characteristics of their broadband Internet access service, and thus make informed choices about their use of such services. Most Popular Advertised Service Tiers As explained in more detail in the methodology section below, these reports focus on the most popular service tiers offered by each participating ISP, as shown in Table 1, which together constitute the majority of the broadband plans subscribed to by their consumers. Test Results Chart 1 (in section 2.A) above displayed the maximum advertised download speeds among the most popular service tiers for each participating ISP, during the years 2011-2015, grouped by the access technology used to offer the broadband Internet access service (DSL, cable, fiber and satellite). Chart 10 below displays the corresponding maximum advertised upload speeds. In particular, when DSL is used to provide broadband service, the maximum advertised upload speeds among the most popular service tiers has remained generally unchanged since 2011. In contrast, among cable-based broadband providers, the maximum advertised upload speeds among the most popular service tiers increased from 1-5 Mbps in March 2011 to 10-35 Mbps in September 2015.: Maximum advertised upload speed among the most popular service tiers Chart 3 (in section 2.B) showed the median download speeds experienced by each ISP’s participating subscribers from 2011 to 2015. Chart 11 below shows the corresponding median upload speeds.

The median upload speed this year across all consumers is 9 Mbps, slightly down from 9.5 Mbps last year. This drop is mainly an artifact of the shift in our using weighted median speeds this year instead of unweighted mean speeds (which we used for all previous years) as well as our exclusion of some of the higher service tiers this year due to lack of sufficient panelists. In general, there has been an upward trend in median sustained upload speed of a consumer over all the years from 2011 to 2015.: Median upload speeds by ISP, 2011 to 2015 However, the increases in actual download and upload speeds are not uniform across access technologies. Charts 12.1 and 12.2 show the actual download and upload speeds by technology, from 2011 to 2015. This year, cable technology median download speeds have increased significantly and the median download speed for cable technology is very close to that for fiber, 49 Mbps vs 52 Mbps.

Most recently, the speeds of satellite services have declined as capacity limits are being approached. Future satellite launches are expected to reverse this situation by bringing more capacity to the market through new satellite launches.

We find that over the course of our reports, the annual average increase in download speeds by technology has been 47% for cable, 14% for fiber, 21% for DSL, and -9% for satellite. The corresponding change in upload speeds by technology has been 43% for cable, 25% for fiber, 11% for DSL, and -14% for satellite.: Median download speeds by technology, 2011 to 2015: Median upload speeds by technology, 2011 to 2015 Chart 4 (in section 2.B) showed the ratio in September 2015 of the median speeds of each ISP’s subscribers (across both geography and time) to advertised speeds. Charts 13.1 and 13.2 below show the same ratio for each ISP from 2011 to 2015.

The median speeds of most ISPs’ subscribers (across both geography and time) have been close to, or have exceeded, the advertised speeds during most of this time period. However, as noted above, some DSL broadband ISPs continue to advertise “up-to” speeds that on average exceed the actual speeds experienced by their subscribers and some satellite services have shown decline in download speeds due to capacity issues.: The ratio of median download speed to advertised download speed, 2011 to 2015: The ratio of median upload speed to advertised upload speed, 2011 to 2015 As noted, median speeds experienced by consumers may vary based on location and time of day. Chart 5 (in section 2.C) showed, for each ISP, the percentage of consumers (across the ISP’s service territory) who experienced a median download speed (over the peak usage period) that was (a) greater than 95%, (b) between 80% and 95%, and (c) less than 80% of the advertised download speed. Chart 14 below shows the corresponding percentage of consumers whose median upload speed fell in each of these ranges.: The percentage of consumers whose median upload speed was (a) greater than 95%, (b) between 80% and 95%, and (c) less than 80% of the advertised upload speed Even though the median upload speeds experienced by most ISP’s subscribers are close to or exceed the advertised upload speeds, for each ISP there are some subscribers whose median upload speed falls significantly short of the advertised upload speed. Relatively few subscribers to cable, fiber, or satellite broadband service experience such shortfalls. However, the data suggest that most DSL broadband service subscribers often experience median upload speeds that fall substantially short of advertised upload speeds. We note that AT&T IPBB dropped in performance from last year with less than 65% of subscribers receiving upload speeds greater than 95% of advertised speed versus 83% in 2015.

In contrast, Verizon DSL performance for subscribers receiving 95% or greater of advertised speed increased from 57% in 2015 to 73% in 2016. It should also be noted that ISPs using cable technology show more consistency in service than fiber based ISPs.

We can learn more about the variation in network performance by separately examining variation across geography and across time. We start by examining the variation across geography within each participating ISP’s service territory. For each ISP, we first calculate the ratio of the median download speed (over the peak usage period) to the advertised download speed for each panelist subscribing to that ISP. We then examine the distribution of this ratio across the ISP’s service territory.

Charts 15.1 and 15.2 show the complementary cumulative distribution of the ratio of median download speed (over the peak usage period) to advertised download speed for each participating ISP. For each ratio of actual to advertised download speed on the horizontal axis, the curves show the percentage of panelists subscribing to each ISP that experienced at least this ratio. For example, the Cox curve in Chart 15.1 shows that 90% of Cox subscribers experienced a median download speed exceeding 78% of the advertised download speed, while 70% experienced a median download speed exceeding 96% of the advertised download speed and 50% experienced a median download speed exceeding 102% of the advertised download speed. Curves that fall steeply around near 100% of the advertised download speed, like that of Cox, indicate that a high percentage of subscribers experience a ratio near 100%. In contrast, curves that fall slowly, like that of AT&T DSL’s download ratio, indicate that there is a wider range of performance within the service territory.: Complementary cumulative distribution of the ratio of median download speed to advertised download speed: Complementary cumulative distribution of the ratio of median download speed to advertised download speed (continued) The curves for cable-based broadband and fiber-based broadband are steeper than those for DSL-based broadband and satellite-based broadband. This can be more clearly seen in Chart 15.3, which plots aggregate curves for each technology. Approximately 80% of subscribers to fiber- and cable-based technologies experience median download speeds exceeding the advertised download speed.

In contrast, only approximately 50% of subscribers to DSL-based broadband experience median download speeds exceeding the advertised download speed. In 2015 about 82% of satellite subscribers had median speed performance exceeding advertised speed. : The ratio of median download speed to advertised download speed, M-F 2 hour time blocks, satellite ISPs Chart 6 (in section 2.C) Illustrated, for each ISP, the ratio of median download speed that was experienced by at least 80% of panelists for at least 80% of the peak usage period (“80/80 consistent download speed”) to advertised download speed, and for reference the ratio of median download speed to advertised download speed shown previously in Chart 4. We expand on the theme of consistent speed in the following charts. Chart 18.1 illustrates information for 80/80 consistent upload speed. The results for this year are quite similar to that of last year.: The ratio of 80/80 consistent upload speed to advertised upload speed.

Charts 18.2 and 18.3 illustrate similar consistency metrics for 70/70 consistent speeds, i.e., the actual speed experienced by at least 70% of panelists during at least 70% of the peak usage period. The ratios for 70/70 consistent speeds are higher than the corresponding ratios for 80/80 consistent speeds. In fact, for many ISPs, the 70/70 consistent download speed is close to or in one case (Frontier- fiber) higher than the advertised download speed.: The ratio of 70/70 consistent download speed to advertised download speed.: The ratio of 70/70 consistent upload speed to advertised upload speed. Chart 19 shows the variations among the four U.S.

Census regions (Northeast, South, Midwest, and West) in the advertised download speed and median download speed, weighted amongst panelists in each region. Ken binmore. While no single technology was the fastest in all regions, for cable- and fiber- based broadband, both the average advertised download speed and the average median download speed among the most popular service tiers exceeded 25 Mbps in each region.: Advertised download speed and median download speed, by region and by technology D.

Latency Chart 7 (in section 2.D) illustrates the weighted median latency for each participating ISP. We observed that weighted median latency depends primarily on the technology used by the ISP. Chart 20 below shows the weighted median latency, by technology and by advertised download speed. For a given technology, latency varies little with advertised download speed.

Latency metrics continue with roughly the same distribution pattern as last year. DSL service has typically higher latency than cable and fiber (as seen in Chart 7 as well). Due to the large differences in latencies of more than a magnitude between satellite and terrestrial technologies, the results for each class of technology are shown in separate charts for scaling purposes.

The results for satellite ISPs are shown in Chart 7b.: Latency for Terrestrial ISPs, by technology and by advertised download speed As shown in Charts 21.1-21.6, peak usage period performance varied by service tier among ISPs included in this study during the September 2015 test period. On average, during peak periods, the ratio of median download speed to advertised download speed for all ISPs are 71% or better, and 90% or better for the majority of ISPs.

However, the ratio of median download speed to advertised download speed varies among service tiers. : Average webpage download time, by ISP (30-50 Mbps): Average webpage download time, by ISP (60-300 Mbps) The program’s methodology and sampling plan is designed to measure ISP performance by census region in order to provide statistics at a national level. While the sampling plan was not designed to provide first order inferences by region or state geography, in some cases the subscriber counts and data do support some aggregated statistics by technology and region, and statistics by state. In order to calculate statistics for more specific levels of regional and state geography, measurements must be aggregated across ISPs and technologies to ensure that an adequate number of measurements are available.

Table 5 displays the aggregate performance of all ISPs and technologies across all service tiers in 2015. However, as Table 6 indicates, some states do not have a sufficient number of samples and are excluded. For states with sufficient number of aggregated samples, Table 5 shows the Weighted Median Download Speed and the Weighted Median Tier Speed (computed from all advertised download speeds). Appendix A: Changes in Measurement Methodology from Previous Reports As described in the Executive Summary, the 2016 Report included two major changes related to the way the broadband speed data is statistically calculated and presented; i.e. (a) a shift from using the mean or average value to a median value in representing the speed of each ISP tier and (b) a shift from using unweighted averages to an weighted average of the medians for determining the composite ISP speeds taken over all the reported tiers. This Appendix presents what effect these changes had on the calculated broadband speeds and latencies used in this report.

The shift to using median values instead of mean values was the result of aligning the MBA Report statistics to that specified by the Open Internet Order of 2015 and the subsequent 2016 Guidance on Open Internet Transparency Rule Requirements which specified the use of median values in reportage of the ISP speeds. Chart A.1 below shows a comparison between unweighted mean values and unweighted median values for ISP download speeds. As can be seen there is not much difference between the two values. The percentage differences for nine of the ISPs were below 1%. The ISP with the largest deviation between mean and median was Mediacom, where the median was about 8% higher than the mean. All other ISPs had mean and median within 5% of each other.

A similar result was seen when weighted means and weighted medians were compared. This suggests that the speed distributions are only slightly skewed.: Comparison of Unweighted Mean and Unweighted Median Download Speed at peak hours (in Mbps) The difference between the unweighted mean value of latency and unweighted median value of latency is shown in Chart A.2. We show the satellite ISPs separately from those of terrestrial ISPs since their latencies are a magnitude higher. As can be seen in Chart A.2, there is very little difference between the mean and median values of latency for almost all the ISPs except CenturyLink and Frontier (DSL) and even these are within 10% of each other.: Comparison of Unweighted Mean and Unweighted Median Latencies at peak hours (in ms) shown separately for terrestrial-based and satellite-based ISPs In calculating the composite speed for each ISP over all its tiers we have, in the past, used unweighted averages. The unweighted averages assumed that the proportion of panelists in each tier matched with the actual subscribership distribution for these tiers. The FCC and SamKnows attempted to create a panelist base that was similar in proportion to the actual subscribership to individual tiers as given in the FCC 477 data. This approach is not easily scalable due to the number of white boxes that would be required to continue to match the 477 data, and as the number of tiers and ISPs have increased over the years there has been growing discrepancy between the panelist numbers and the ISP subscribership numbers.

This year a decision was made to shift to a much more scalable method of computing the composite ISP download and upload speeds, i.e. Through the use of a weighted median where the weights are determined by either the ISP’s actual subscribership numbers or the subscribership numbers that they have filed with the FCC (Form 477). This year we calculated the ISP composite speed using both the older unweighted average method as well as the new weighted average method. Chart A.3 below shows a comparison between unweighted mean values and weighted median values for ISP download speeds.: Comparison of Unweighted Mean and Weighted Median Download Speed at peak hours (in Mbps) Chart A-3 shows that the use of weighted medians compared to the unweighted means did not result in significantly different results except for four companies. The most noteworthy of these was Optimum, which experienced a 31% reduction in speeds, from 65 Mbps to 45 Mbps; Comcast had an 25% reduction, from 72 Mbps to 54 Mbps; Mediacom had a 27% reduction, from 48 Mbps to 35 Mbps; and TWC had an 18% reduction from 45 to 33 Mbps. These results suggest that the number of panelists for the tiers within each of these ISP networks did not closely match the proportions of their actual subscribership.

We emphasize that these results represent a change in the FCC’s methodology and may not reflect changes in performance. Chart A.4 compares the unweighted Mean and Weighted Median values of latencies for both terrestrial-based ISPs as well as satellite-based ISPs. Once again the correlation between the unweighted mean and the weighted median values for latency is very high.: Comparison of Unweighted Mean and Weighted Median Latencies at peak hours (in ms) for both terrestrial-based and satellite-based ISPs All the charts shown till now compare the mean and median values for 2016. A comparison of the unweighted mean value of download speed in 2015 and the weighted median value in 2016 is shown in Chart A.5. Generally, ISPs saw improvement between the 2015 mean speeds and the 2016 weighted median values. The decline in speeds demonstrated in the results for some companies may be explained by changes in the number of subscribers for tiers that were measured with whiteboxes during the first few releases of the report.: Comparison of 2015 Unweighted Mean and 2016 Weighted Median Download Speed at peak hours (in Mbps for all ISPs) Chart A.6 shows a similar comparison for latency; with ISPs separated into terrestrial-based and satellite-based.

The latencies are, except for Frontier (DSL) and Windstream, unchanged for the two years.: Comparison of 2015 Unweighted Mean and 2016 Weighted Median Latency at peak hours (in ms) shown separately for terrestrial-based and satellite-based ISPs Going forward, the FCC plans to continue using weighted median values (with the weights based upon the subscribership numbers for each ISP tier as provided by the ISP to the FCC) since they are more accurate. It is important to note some limitations on the results contained in this Report.

Generally, only the most popular service tiers among an ISPs’ offerings were tested (i.e., those that constitute greater than 5% of the total subscriber base of the ISP), even though some service providers may offer other tiers not represented by volunteers contributing data to the program. We note that a particular ISP may offer faster service tiers either throughout their territory or in specific portions of their territory that are not as popular as the service tiers we tested. Starting in the previous report, we breakout AT&T’s IPBB (IP BroadBand) service from their older ATM based DSL services per its request. It should be noted that the IPBB service is more popularly known as U-Verse.

Due to the recent merger of Cablevision with Altice and the rebranding of the broadband service as Optimum, we have changed references to Cablevision to Optimum in this report and will continue in succeeding reports. Starting two years ago, Verizon began advertising a speed range for each tier of their DSL broadband service rather than an “up-to” speed. In 2014, the acquisition of Qwest by CenturyLink resulted in CenturyLink offering a 40Mbps DSL-based broadband service subscribed to by a substantial number of its subscribers.

The September 2012 decline in Verizon’s maximum advertised DSL speed included in our survey largely derives from customer transitions from DSL to Verizon FIOS (fiber) service as well as Verizon’s sale of service territories to other carriers. Frontier acquired a number of service territories from other ISPs in 2011 and again in November 2014. Consequently, in this Report we omit metrics for Frontier (DSL) for prior years as they as are not comparable.

It should be noted that (1) the temporary drop in 2013 in Optimum’s actual download speed was the result of the exclusion of its 50 Mbps tier (at the request of Optimum) since it was transitioning this tier to the 101 Mbps tier; and (2) the change in median download speed from 2014-2015 reflects the use (for the first time in this Report) of statistical weighting, not a change in the actual speeds delivered by Optimum as a percentage of advertised speeds nor the unavailability to Optimum customers of higher speed tiers. See, e.g., Charts 4, 5, 6, 13.1, 13.2, 16.1, 16.2, 21.4, 21.5, 21.6 and Table 2. These increases were calculated in previous years as weighted averages based on the number of participants.

This year the weighted medians are based on the number of subscribers for each ISP tier. We did not include AT&T (DSL) from 2011-2014 due to its reclassification in 2015 into a separate IPBB service that had been considered in the past MBA Reports as part of the AT&T (DSL) service. We also omit metrics for Frontier (DSL) from 2011-2014 since it acquired a number of services from other carriers during these years. SamKnows, working with AT&T, was unable to obtain enough volunteers for AT&T’s 1.5 Mbps DSL service tier in time to permit this service tier to be included in the 2016 report. Therefore Chart 6, the aggregate service consistency chart, does not include data for the 1.5 Mbps service tier for AT&T. AT&T requested that we include their following statement regarding this situation: “AT&T was unable to validate the results in Chart 6 for AT&T DSL services. For example, the estimate shown for such services does not include the consistency of the 1.5Mbps speed tier.

The exclusion of all data for 1.5 Mbps resulted from an insufficient number of volunteers recruited for this speed tier. The exclusion of this speed tier substantially underestimated the performance of AT&T’s DSL network. Industry Analysis and Technology Division Wireline Competition Bureau, Internet Access Services: Status as of June 30, 2015, Report (rel. 2016), (Internet Access Report). Table 8 reproduces only the information for States and technologies included in Table 6 from Internet Access Report for connections by technology by state as of June 30, 2015 for connections over 200 Kbps in at least one direction, in thousands. Data for satellite connections was withheld in the Internet Access Report to maintain firm confidentiality.

Types of Broadband Connections Broadband includes several high-speed transmission technologies such as:. The broadband technology you choose will depend on a number of factors. These may include whether you are located in an urban or rural area, how broadband Internet access is packaged with other services (such as voice telephone and home entertainment), price, and availability. Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) DSL is a wireline transmission technology that transmits data faster over traditional copper telephone lines already installed to homes and businesses. DSL-based broadband provides transmission speeds ranging from several hundred Kbps to millions of bits per second (Mbps). The availability and speed of your DSL service may depend on the distance from your home or business to the closest telephone company facility. The following are types of DSL transmission technologies:.

Asymmetrical Digital Subscriber Line (ADSL) – Used primarily by residential customers, such as Internet surfers, who receive a lot of data but do not send much. ADSL typically provides faster speed in the downstream direction than the upstream direction.

ADSL allows faster downstream data transmission over the same line used to provide voice service, without disrupting regular telephone calls on that line. Symmetrical Digital Subscriber Line (SDSL) – Used typically by businesses for services such as video conferencing, which need significant bandwidth both upstream and downstream. Faster forms of DSL typically available to businesses include:. High data rate Digital Subscriber Line (HDSL); and.

Very High data rate Digital Subscriber Line (VDSL). Cable Modem Cable modem service enables cable operators to provide broadband using the same coaxial cables that deliver pictures and sound to your TV set. Most cable modems are external devices that have two connections: one to the cable wall outlet, the other to a computer.

They provide transmission speeds of 1.5 Mbps or more. Subscribers can access their cable modem service by simply turning on their computers, without dialing-up an ISP. You can still watch cable TV while using it. Transmission speeds vary depending on the type of cable modem, cable network, and traffic load.

Speeds are comparable to DSL. Fiber. Fiber optic technology converts electrical signals carrying data to light and sends the light through transparent glass fibers about the diameter of a human hair.

Fiber transmits data at speeds far exceeding current DSL or cable modem speeds, typically by tens or even hundreds of Mbps. The actual speed you experience will vary depending on a variety of factors, such as how close to your computer the service provider brings the fiber and how the service provider configures the service, including the amount of bandwidth used. The same fiber providing your broadband can also simultaneously deliver voice (VoIP) and video services, including video-on-demand. Telecommunications providers sometimes offer fiber broadband in limited areas and have announced plans to expand their fiber networks and offer bundled voice, Internet access, and video services. Variations of the technology run the fiber all the way to the customer’s home or business, to the curb outside, or to a location somewhere between the provider’s facilities and the customer. Wireless. Wireless broadband connects a home or business to the Internet using a radio link between the customer’s location and the service provider’s facility.

Wireless broadband can be mobile or fixed. Wireless technologies using longer-range directional equipment provide broadband service in remote or sparsely populated areas where DSL or cable modem service would be costly to provide. Speeds are generally comparable to DSL and cable modem.

High Speed Broadband Connection

An external antenna is usually required. Wireless broadband Internet access services offered over fixed networks allow consumers to access the Internet from a fixed point while stationary and often require a direct line-of-sight between the wireless transmitter and receiver. These services have been offered using both licensed spectrum and unlicensed devices. For example, thousands of small Wireless Internet Services Providers (WISPs) provide such wireless broadband at speeds of around one Mbps using unlicensed devices, often in rural areas not served by cable or wireline broadband networks. Wireless Local Area Networks (WLANs) provide wireless broadband access over shorter distances and are often used to extend the reach of a 'last-mile' wireline or fixed wireless broadband connection within a home, building, or campus environment. Wi-Fi networks use unlicensed devices and can be designed for private access within a home or business, or be used for public Internet access at 'hot spots' such as restaurants, coffee shops, hotels, airports, convention centers, and city parks. Mobile wireless broadband services are also becoming available from mobile telephone service providers and others.

These services are generally appropriate for highly-mobile customers and require a special PC card with a built in antenna that plugs into a user’s laptop computer. Generally, they provide lower speeds, in the range of several hundred Kbps. Satellite Just as satellites orbiting the earth provide necessary links for telephone and television service, they can also provide links for broadband.

Satellite broadband is another form of wireless broadband, and is also useful for serving remote or sparsely populated areas. Downstream and upstream speeds for satellite broadband depend on several factors, including the provider and service package purchased, the consumer’s line of sight to the orbiting satellite, and the weather. Typically a consumer can expect to receive (download) at a speed of about 500 Kbps and send (upload) at a speed of about 80 Kbps. These speeds may be slower than DSL and cable modem, but they are about 10 times faster than the download speed with dial-up Internet access. Service can be disrupted in extreme weather conditions. Broadband over Powerline (BPL) BPL is the delivery of broadband over the existing low- and medium-voltage electric power distribution network. BPL speeds are comparable to DSL and cable modem speeds.

BPL can be provided to homes using existing electrical connections and outlets. BPL is an emerging technology that is available in very limited areas.

Satellite Broadband Mobile

It has significant potential because power lines are installed virtually everywhere, alleviating the need to build new broadband facilities for every customer. Capture The Phone Numbers Using Your Camera Phone If you have a camera and a 2D matrix code reader on your mobile phone, you can capture the FCC Phone numbers right to your phone by following these three easy steps: Step 1: Take a photograph of one of the codes below using the camera on your mobile phone. Step 2: Use your phone's Datamatrix or QR Code reader to decode the information on the photograph. Please note, these code readers are device specific and are available to download on the internet. Step 3: Store the decoded address information to your phone's address book and use it with your Maps or GPS application.