|Statistics :: Broadband|
| Navigation Links:
:: Home :: Feedback ::
:: Disclaimer :: Sitemap ::
See Subscriber Charts: Internet Subs by Physical Network
"Broadband technologies are currently being deployed by the private sector throughout the United States. According to the latest FCC data on the deployment of high-speed Internet connections (released July 7, 2005), as of December 31, 2004, there were 37.9 million high peed lines connecting homes and businesses to the Internet in the United States, a growth rate of 17% during the second half of 2004. Of the 37.9 million high speed lines reported by the FCC, 35.3 million serve homes and small businesses. The FCC found at least one high speed subscriber in 95% of all zip codes in the United States. While the broadband adoption rate stands at approximately 35% of U.S. households, broadband availability is much higher. The FCC estimates that roughly 20 percent of consumers with access to advanced telecommunications capability actually subscribe. According to the FCC, possible reasons for the gap between broadband availability and subscribership include the lack of computers in some homes, price of broadband service, lack of content, and the availability of broadband at work.
"According to the International Telecommunications Union, the U.S. ranks 16th worldwide in broadband penetration (subscriptions per 100 inhabitants as of December 2004). Similarly, data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) found the U.S. ranking 12th among OECD nations in broadband access per 100 inhabitants as of December 2004. By contrast, in 2001 an OECD study found the U.S. ranking 4th in broadband subscribership per 100 inhabitants (after Korea, Sweden, and Canada)".- Broadband Internet Regulation and Access: Background and Issues, CRS p. 5 Jan. 26, 2006 OpenCRS
Tom Bleha on Charlie Rose
discussing his article "Down to the Wire" in Foreign Affairs
% if Total
% Of total
"Today's report shows the nation's broadband success story. The President's policies have made a significant impact on the availability and affordability of broadband in the United States," said U.S. Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez. "The broadband policies put in place by the President have created a competitive environment to foster innovation and provide effective technologies, services and cost-effective solutions to revolutionize health care delivery, education, society and the economy. We look forward to continuing our progress on this issue."
Four years ago, President Bush established a national goal of universal, affordable broadband access for all Americans. Since then, the United States has witnessed remarkable results in the growth of the broadband marketplace and the proliferation of broadband platforms and service options. The existing data indicate that broadband is available to the vast majority of U.S. households:
The report examines the comprehensive package of technology, regulatory, and fiscal polices implemented by the Administration to lower barriers to investment and create an environment in which broadband innovation and competition can flourish.
G7 Countries 4Q01 OECD
Dec. 2002 OECD XLS
Dec. 2003 OECD XLS
Dec. 2004 OECD XLS
ITU Jan 2005
Dec. 2005 OECD XLS
ITU Jan 2006
Dec. 2006 OECD XLS
Dec. 2007 OECD XLS
ITIF Composite Score 2007
|CAN 8.8||KOR 21.3||KOR 21.8||KOR 24.2||KOR 24.8||KOR 24.8||KOR 24.9||ICE 26.4||ICE||DNK 31.8||DNK 35.1||KOR 16.0|
|USA 4.3||HKG 14.6||CAN 12.1||CAN 15.1||HKG 21.9||NLD 19.0||HKG 20.9||KOR 25.3||KOR||NLD 31.8||NLD 34.8||JPN 15.1|
|GER 2.3||CAN 11.5||BEL 8.7||ICE 14.3||NLD 19.8||DEN 19.0||NLD 19.4||NLD 25.22||NLD||KOR 29.1||ISL 32.2||FIN 12.2|
|JPN 2.2||TWN 9.4||ICE 8.5||DEN 13.1||DEN 18.9||ICE 18.2||DEN 19.3||
|DEN||ICE 28.8||NOR 31.2||NLD 11.8|
|EU 1.5||ICE 8.6||DEN 8.3||NLD 11.8||ICE 18.4||CHE 17.6||CAN 17.6||CHE 23.8||HKG||CHE28.3||CHE 31.0||FRA 11.6|
|FRA 1.0||DEN 8.6||SWE 8.2||BEL 11.7||CAN 17.1||CAN 17.6||CHE 17.0||FIN 22.4||CHE||NOR 27.4||FIN 30.7||SWE 11.5|
|ITA 0.7||BEL 8.4||NET 7.0||SWE 11.0||TWN 16.5||BEL 15.5||TWN 16.3||NOR 21.8||FIN||FIN 27.1||KOR 30.5||DEN 11.4|
|UK 0.6||SWE 7.7||USA 6.7||JPN 10.7||CHE 16.4||JPN 15.0||BEL 16.0||CAN 20.7||NOR||SWE 27.1||SWE 30.3||ICE 11.2|
|AUT 6.6||JPN 6.1||CHE 10.5||BEL 15.6||FIN 14.9||ICE 15.5||SWE 20.2||CAN||CAN 23.6||LUX 26.7||NOR 11.1|
|NLD 6.5||CHE 5.6||USA 9.5||FIN 15.3||NOR 14.8||SWE 15.1||BEL 18.1||SWE||BEL 22.3||CAN 26.6||CHE 10.8|
|USA 6.5||AUT 5.6||FIN 9.5||JPN 15.3||SWE 14.8||NOR 15.0||JPN 17.6||TWN||UK 21.5||UK 25.8||CAN 10.6|
|CHE 6.3||FIN 5.5||NOR 8.0||NOR 14.9||USA 12.7||ISR 14.3||UK 16.3||BEL||USA 20.2||BEL 25.7||AUS 10.5|
|JPN 6.1||NOR 4.2||AUT 7.6||ISR 14.0||AUT 10.6||JPN 14.1||USA 16.2||ISR||JPN 20.2||FRA 24.6||UK 10.3|
|SGP 5.5||GER 4.0||FRA 5.9||SWE 13.7||FRA 10.5||FIN 12.8||FRA 15.1||JPN||FRA 20.1||GER 23.8||LUX 10.3|
|FIN 5.3||ESP 3.0||GER 5.6||LIE 13.7||UK 10.4||SGP 11.6||LUX 14.5||USA||LUX 19.7||USA 23.3||USA 10.25|
|FRA 2.8||ESP 5.4||USA 12.8||LUX 9.6||USA 11.4||AUT 14.3||AUS 19.0||AUS 23.3||GER 10.2|
|PRT 2.5||UK 5.4||UK 11.9||GER 8.4||FRA 11.2||AUS 13.6||AUT 17.2||JPN 22.1||BEL 10.2|
|UK 2.3||PRT 4.8||SGP 11.9||PRT 8.2||UK 10.3||GER 13.0||GER 17.1||AUT 19.6||PRT 10.2|
|AUS 1.8||ITA 4.1||FRA 11.2||ITA 8.1||AUT 10.1||ITA 11.8||ESP 15.1||NZ 18.3||NZ 9.7|
|ITA 1.7||AUS 3.5||AUT 10||ESP 8.1||PRT 8.5||ESP 11.5||ITA 14.3||IRE 18.1||ESP 9.7|
Subs millions Dec. 2007 OECD XLS
|ITIF Lowest Monthly Price per Mbps 2007||ITIF Ave download speed Mbps|
|USA 70||JPN 0.13||JPN 63.6|
|JPN 28||KOR 0.37||KOR 49.5|
|GER 20||FRA 0.33||FIN 21.7|
|UK 16||SWE 0.35||FRA 17.6|
|FRA 16||FIN 0.42||SWE 16.8|
|KOR 15||AUS 0.94||NLD 8.8|
|ITA 10||NZ 1.05||PRT 8.1|
|CAN 9||GER 1.10||POL 7.9|
|SPA 8||PRT 1.24||NOR 7.7|
|NLD 6||UK 1.24||CAN 7.6|
|AUS 5||GRE 1.41||AUT 7.2|
|MEX 5||DEN 1.65||BEL 6.3|
|TUR 4||LUX 1.85||ICE 6.1|
|POL 3||NLD 1.9||GER 6.0|
|SWE 3||ITA 1.97||USA 4.9|
|BEL 3||ESP 2.27||DEN 4.6|
|CHE 2||NOR 2.74||ITA 4.2|
|DNK 2||USA 2.83||SLO 3.5|
|AUT 2||CHE 3.4||HUN 3.3|
|FIN 2||BEL 3.58||LUX 3.1|
Comment Sought On International Comparison And Consumer Survey Requirements In The Broadband Data Improvement Act GN Docket No. 09-47
- Comment Date: April 10, 2009
- Reply Comment Date: April 17, 2009
In this Public Notice, we seek comment on how the Commission should implement sections 103(b) and 103(c)(1) of the Broadband Data Improvement Act (BDIA). These sections impose new broadband data collection and reporting obligations on the Commission by requiring the Commission to include an international comparison in its annual broadband report and to conduct a consumer survey of broadband service capability.
Specifically, s ection 103(b) of the BDIA provides:
(b) INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON.-
(1) IN GENERAL.-As part of the assessment and report required by section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. 157 note), the Federal Communications Commission shall 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.
(2) CONTENTS.-The Commission shall choose communities for the comparison under this subsection in a manner that will offer, to the extent possible, communities of a population size, population density, topography, and demographic profile that are comparable to the population size, population density, topography, and demographic profile of the various communities within the United States. The Commission shall include in the comparison under this subsection-
(A) a geographically diverse selection of countries; and
(B) communities including the capital cities of such countries.
(3) SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES.-The Commission shall identify relevant similarities and differences in each community, including their market structures, the number of competitors, the number of facilities-based providers, the types of technologies deployed by such providers, the applications and services those technologies enable, the regulatory model under which broadband service capability is provided, the types of applications and services used, business and residential use of such services, and other media available to consumers.
The Commission invites parties to comment on how the Commission can effectively implement the international comparison of broadband service capability, including speeds and prices, required by section 103(b). We seek comment on the criteria in section 103(b)(2) for the identification and selection of the communities to be included in the survey. We seek comment on the enumerated indicators in section 103(b)(3) for the identification of "relevant similarities and differences in each community" as well as any additional indicators that commenters seek to propose. We also seek comment on all possible sources of data that the Commission should examine in the course of implementing this section of the BDIA. Finally, we seek comment on any other factors or issues the Commission should consider in implementing section 103(b) of the BDIA.
Section 103(c)(1) of the BDIA provides:
(c) CONSUMER SURVEY OF BROADBAND SERVICE CAPABILITY.-
(1) IN GENERAL.-For the purpose of evaluating, on a statistically significant basis, the national characteristics of the use of broadband service capability, the Commission shall conduct and make public periodic surveys of consumers in urban, suburban, and rural areas in the large business, small business, and residential consumer markets to determine-
(A) the types of technology used to provide the broadband service capability to which consumers subscribe;
(B) the amounts consumers pay per month for such capability;
(C) the actual data transmission speeds of such capability;
(D) the types of applications and services consumers most frequently use in conjunction with such capability;
(E) for consumers who have declined to subscribe to broadband service capability, the reasons given by such consumers for declining such capability;
(F) other sources of broadband service capability which consumers regularly use or on which they rely; and
(G) any other information the Commission deems appropriate for such purpose.
The Commission invites parties to comment on how the Commission can effectively implement the survey requirements in section 103(c)(1), including any factors or issues the Commission should consider as part of this implementation.
Broadband Data Improvement Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-385, 122 Stat. 4097 (codified at 47 U.S.C. §§ 1301-04).
BDIA § 103(b); 47 U.S.C. § 1303(b).
BDIA § 103(c)(1); 47 U.S.C. § 1303(c)(1).
We recognize that, while the Commission previously raised related issues of whether and how the Commission should undertake broadband customer surveys in a pending proceeding, the BDIA mandates that we conduct and publish such a survey. See Development of Nationwide Broadband Data to Evaluate Reasonable and Timely Deployment of Advanced Services to All Americans, Improvement of Wireless Broadband Subscribership Data, and Development of Data on Interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) Subscribership , WC Docket No. 07-38, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 23 FCC Rcd 9691, 9712, para. 40 (2008).
Released: 03/31/2009. COMMENT SOUGHT ON INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON AND CONSUMER SURVEY REQUIREMENTS IN THE BROADBAND DATA IMPROVEMENT ACT. (DA No. 09-741). (Dkt No 09-47). Comments Due: 04/10/2009. Reply Comments
Due: 04/17/2009. WCB. Contact: Randy Clarke or Jeremy Miller at 0940 TXTx
Differences between countries
- General variables / differences
- Countries with "robust national broadband strategies" fare better then those countries without
- Levels of competition matter
- Demand side issues matter such as ownership of computers
- Per capita income
- Percent of the population that are internet users
- Price of broadband
- Median age of population
- 50% of South Korea live in high teledensity, large apartment buildings - the cost of deployment of infrastructure to these apartment buildings is significantly less than deployment to single homes or more suburban environments. [ITIF VII, p. 10]
- The USA has large rural areas with low teledensity, making infrastructure deployment expensive.
- The USA has the longest copper loop lengths of the 13 OECD countries where this data is available - making DSL deployment expensive and difficult. [ITIF VII]
- Govt Policy
- Government incentives are a factor
- "S. Korean government's certificant system, implemented in 1999 for broadband Internet-equipped buildings to expedite expansion of broadband Internet services . . . requires all newly constructed buildings in S Korea to be designed to enable high speed broadband connections, such as locating DSL access multiplexers (DSLAMs) or cable head-ends in apartment basements." [ITIF p 10]
- In Japan, the govt has a significant ownership interest in the telecom provider NTT
Problems with Methodology
- USA Today article appears to compare actual delivered US speeds with advertised speeds in other countries. [Hoewing Verizon]
- Intl Comparisons do not reflect upstream speeds. [Hoewing Verizon]
- "The principal limitation of the OECD rankings are that they measure penetration on a per capita basis rather than a per household basis. When measured on a household basis, the US rank improves somewhat, to 12th " (from 15th in 2007) [ITIF 5]
- OECD fails to include WiFi Hot Spots and at work access
|Income||Have BB||Want BB||Not Online|
|$35k - 50k||11%||20%||51%|
NB: Some surveys contrast all types of Internet access (including dial up), some only contrast DSL to Cable.
- The 2007 Digital Economy Fact Book, Progress and Freedom Foundation p. 17 (Dec. 2007) ( PDF )
- Vermont Telecommunications Plan, Sept 2004 p. 4-29 (Vermont Residents)
- Cable represented 75.3% of advanced service lines, ADSL represented 14.9%, and other technologies represented 9.8% in December 2003. The relative position of cable and ADSL was 56% and 16.8% in June 2001. Cable represented 58% of high speed lines, with ADSL representing 34% as of year-end 2003. Pew Internet Project reported in April 2004 that 42% of broadband users at home connected via DSL, compared to 28% a year previously. [p.30] [p.29] FCC Fourth Sec. 706 Report (Sept. 2004)
Plan to Adopt Soon
Vermont Residents Likely to Upgrade to faster Internet connection in the next year: Yes 23% : No 67% Dont Know 10%. Vermont Residents without home Internet access likely to acquire it in the next year: Yes 23%: No 69% : Dont Know 7% : Refused 1%.Vermont Telecommunications Plan, Sept 2004 p. 4-27
Broadband at Home
Percent of Non Users 2000 2001 2002 No Computer 37.7 25.5 28.5 No Interest 33.3 21.4 23 Dont Know How 18.9 6.9 15.4 Too Expensive 9.1 2.6 9.6 Fear of Tech 4.2 5.6 2.6 Privacy Security Concerns 2.9 1.6 0.8 Not Appropriate for Kids 1.9 0.8 1.4 Computer Not Good Enuf 1.4 1.2 3.4 Consumes too much time 0 1.6 3.6
Value of Bits: Cost Per Megabyte of Various Services
Service Typical Monthly Bill Revenue Per MB Cable $40 $0.00012 Broadband Internet $50 $0.025 Phone $70 $0.08 Dial Up Internet $20 $0.33 Cell Phone $50 $3.50 SMS
Source: Andrew Odlyzko, Pricing and Architecture of the Internet: Historical Perspectives from Telecommunications and Transportation, p. 4 (TPRC 2004)
MSO CMS Subs
Comcast 6,000 TW Cable 3,548 Cox 2,246 Charter 1,711 Cablevision 1,179 Adelphia 1,164 Bright House 675 Mediacom 327 Insight 274 RCN 220 CableOne 152 Other 255 Total 17,752
Wifi Hotspots x1000
Note: Estimates of the number of hotspots vary widely. Note also that the term "hotspot" may not be consistently defined.
Costs are for ILEC. Excludes CLEC UNE costs. Source: McKinsey and JFMS analysis 2001.