Future Satellite Competition

I’ve been thinking about the long-term trajectory for satellite broadband in rural areas. I saw a recent estimate that Starlink has around 2.6 million customers in the U.S. and is still growing. I have to think that most of these customers live in places that don’t have a fast broadband alternative to satellite broadband.

I got to thinking about satellite after a recent conversation with an Uber driver. She lives in a small rural town in my county, and she and most of her neighbors use Starlink today. She says that it works adequately well for the way her family uses broadband, but that it’s far too expensive. She expects to be changing to fiber in 2026 when Frontier builds fiber in her area. She said she already knows people nearby who changed to Frontier fiber that was built in 2025. I researched her neighborhood, and Frontier is building fiber with the help of a broadband grant funded by the State of North Carolina.

There has already been a lot of rural fiber built with grant funding. There are fiber construction projects underway from CAF II, RDOF, ReConnect, NTIA Tribal, and EA-CAM. States awarded a huge amount of grants from the Capital Project Funds, from ARPA, and from State general funds. My best estimate is that these various programs will fund the construction of fiber to around 8 million rural fiber passings. My estimates are that there are still 2.2 million passings to be built from these programs in 2026 and another 1.2 million passings in 2027. On top of these programs, it looks like there will be roughly another 2.5 million rural fiber passings coming from the BEAD grants that have been tentatively announced.

I don’t have a good estimate for the coming passings from rural fixed wireless construction, but there is still construction of WISP networks being funded by RDOF and other grant programs. It looks like BEAD has tentatively awarded grants for fixed wireless to a little less than half a million new passings. WISPs are building networks with speed capabilities in the range of 500 Mbps download, which is a lot faster than what is being delivered by Starlink today.

These various grant programs are going to cover a lot of rural America with fast broadband, and that is going to eat into the potential market for Starlink and Amazon LEO. Starlink faces the issue of having a price that is significantly higher than the large majority of ISPs that are building grant-funded networks. That’s something that the company can fix by lowering rates. But even with lower rates, Starlink will not match the speeds of the grant-funded networks, at least with current satellite technology.

We have no real ideas about the pricing and speed capabilities of Amazon LEO. There is a lot of speculation that the company will create interesting bundles for satellite broadband with Amazon video and shopping.

The bottom line of my speculation is that the U.S. households that will be interested in satellite broadband will be shrinking over the next few years as millions of rural homes get faster broadband alternatives from fiber or fixed wireless.

It’s also likely that there will be serious competition between Starlink and Amazon LEO as they each try to lock down a share of the U.S. market. Will the two companies collude to keep prices high, or will they devolve into the kind of fierce competition we see in the cellular industry today?

On a worldwide basis, both U.S. satellite providers are going to see significant competition from the Guowang (the National Network) from China and the Quinfan (Thousand Sails) constellation from Shanghai. My best guess is that these two companies will undercut the prices of the U.S. providers to try to corner the markets in Asia, Africa, and South America.

Starlink has a unique market opportunity today since it brings the only fast broadband option to huge numbers of homes. But in North America and Europe, those opportunities will decrease as faster terrestrial networks are constructed. Starlink’s unique monopoly disappears when Amazon LEO enters the market, and possibly gets really competitive when other worldwide constellations come online.

Mission Accomplished?

In my recent annual predictions for 2026, I predicted that the FCC or the NTIA would declare that the rural digital divide has been solved since everybody in the country now has access to adequate broadband.

We got an inkling of this from NTIA Assistant Secretary Arielle Roth in a speech she made to the Hudson Institute. She alluded to the end of the rural digital divide twice in that speech. First, she said, “This administration does not want BEAD to become just another well-intentioned broadband program that falls short. Its mission is nothing less than to close the “digital divide” once and for all.” Later in the speech, she said, “Being good stewards of taxpayer money means holding awardees accountable and making sure those who take taxpayer dollars will deliver on their promises. That is what will set BEAD apart and ensure that this really is the last broadband funding program.”

I can’t find any similar statements from FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, but he has been a strong supporter of satellite broadband. He’s been a big proponent recently for easing the regulation of satellite broadband companies and also freeing up a lot of spectrum for them.

It’s obvious that any pronouncements about the end of the rural digital divide would be tied to the ubiquitous availability of satellite broadband. It would not be a stretch for regulators to say that the rural digital divide has been solved since everybody can buy satellite broadband.

Of course, pronouncing the end of the rural digital divide is not the same thing as it being true. Starlink told State Broadband Offices that it needs BEAD grant funding to grow the capacity to serve larger numbers of rural households. Starlink no longer has any waiting lists, but it does warn that new subscribers might have to pay a ‘demand surcharge” in areas that are oversubscribed.

Starlink is no different than any ISP in that there is a maximum number of customers that it can serve in a geographic area. Recent estimates are that the company has around 2.6 million U.S. customers. Only Starlink knows what its real capacity is, but it’s not an unlimited number of subscribers, particularly in the parts of the country where it will see a greater concentration of customers. It’s anybody’s guess what Amazon One will mean for the industry.

There are definite repercussions if federal regulators say that the rural broadband gap has been solved. Certainly, this would mean the end of federal broadband grants. Even if grants are created, like is happening with ReConnect at USDA, there will be no grants awarded if the federal government declares that satellite broadband means all households are considered to be served.

Such a declaration probably also puts pressure on maintaining federal subsidies in rural areas through the Universal Service Fund. It becomes easy to justify ending ongoing subsidies for rural ISPs if satellite broadband can pick up any customers left stranded by the end of subsidies.

Such a declaration would be a big disappointment to the millions of homes being missed by BEAD. The last two years of the BEAD process focused on eliminating BEAD-eligible locations, many of which still don’t have good broadband. For example, the map challenge process eliminated huge numbers of homes from BEAD that are claimed by WISPs using CBRS spectrum, with no real concern if the WISPs were actually delivering adequate broadband. Making this declaration would end up leaving these homes to satellite without any public declaration.

People who still don’t have good broadband are not going to stop complaining about it to local, state, and federal elected officials. A declaration that rural broadband might make it easy to ignore these folks for a while, but that will only last for so long.

Competing Against the Bundle

For many years, competing against the bundle referred to anybody who tried to compete against a cable company that offered the triple-play of broadband, cable TV, and telephone. I conducted market surveys for years, and it was not unusual to find 60% to 70% of cable company subscribers who were buying the bundle.

The triple-play bundle was a powerful marketing tool when a majority of homes were interested in buying all three products, since subscribers could buy all three products in a bundle that cost less than buying them individually. The power of the bundle came from the high cost of breaking the bundle, which made it a challenge for customers to consider alternative broadband providers. However, over time, telephone subscriptions have dropped from 95% to under 20%, and cable TV subscribership has dropped by over half, and is still diving.

While some version of the triple-play bundle still exists, competitors now face two new bundles that are proving to be effective in the market. Both bundles include cellphones as part of the package. FWA sales have been phenomenal. In the third quarter, the three major FWA carriers had almost 14.3 million FWA customers and added over 1 million net new customers, the highest quarterly gain yet.

The three FWA cellular broadband providers have been phenomenally successful in selling home broadband delivered using cellular spectrum. The main selling point is the lower price of FWA broadband, which is priced lower than cable company and fiber broadband. The base price for AT&T is $65; for T-Mobile, it’s $55 – 65, and for Verizon, it’s $60 to $70.

But the base FWA price is not the story, at least for T-Mobile and Verizon. Both companies reduce the broadband price by $15 for bundling with a cellphone plan. Both also offer discounts for customers who use autopay billing. The bundle reduces the price for broadband for both T-Mobile and Verizon FWA to $35 to $45 per month, which explains why the product is selling so well.

The other cellular bundle comes from the biggest cable companies, with Comcast and Charter leading the way. Both cable companies have been aggressively selling cellphone service to existing broadband customers. The primary motivation for the cellphone bundle is to reduce churn by keeping broadband customers from leaving for a competitor.

Charter sells several cellular options. The base cellular package is $20 per month, which includes 1 GB of data, with extra data at $5 per GB. The $30 plan comes with 30 GB of data. The $40 plan comes with 50 GB of data. Comcast also sells by the gigabyte. $15 per month buys 1 GB; $30 per month buys 3 GB, and $60 per month buys 10 GB. But a better option for large data users is the unlimited plans. The $40 Unlimited plan comes with 30 GB of data. Unlimited Plus for $50 comes with 100 GB of data.  All of these plans are often advertised as specials for even less. Charter recently made an offer that a home that will buy and keep for cellphone plans can have free broadband for as long as they keep the phones.

The cellular bundles have been selling well. Consider the national net change in customers for the first two quarters this year for the largest cellular companies:There are a lot of quotes from executives of fiber overbuilders saying that they are not concerned about cable company cellular or FWA. But there is no doubt that these bundles are attracting a lot of customers. These are the two bundles to keep an eye on.

 

Broadband Turkeys of 2025

This is my first-ever list of annual broadband turkey awards, which I’m awarding for the worst industry events of 2025. I’ve never done this before, because there have never been enough negative events in a single year to make a list like this. I hope I won’t be able to make a list again at the end of 2026.

5 – Major Cloud Outages

There has been an increasing occurrence of major cloud outages this past year, including outages from Cloudflare, Google Cloud, and Amazon Web Services (AWS). It seems like the outages are growing in severity and breadth due to the growing concentration of the operation of the web into a handful of companies. At the same time, each of these providers also seems to be pursuing the consolidation of their networks into a small number of core data hubs. This combination now means that something as simple as a DNS error can get magnified into a major outage affecting multiple industries and causing billions in damages in a short time. This goes on the turkey award list since every one of us is at the mercy of a prolonged broadband outage caused at some distant data center.

4 – Congress Determining Spectrum Policy

In the Big Beautiful Bill, Congress seemingly usurped spectrum policy by mandating that 800 megahertz of mid-range spectrum be set aside for new FCC auctions. This undoes the historical deliberative process that balanced the needs of the many users of spectrum. This was seemingly done as a way to justify cutting taxes elsewhere, but the real reason behind this new mandate was the cell industry lobbyists doing an end run around everybody else in a land grab for some of the most valuable spectrum. This goes on the turkey award list since the FCC will likely have to raid the spectrum needed for other vital purposes like rural broadband and WiFi.

3 – BEAD Awards to Amazon LEO

In a process that is so absurd that it’s hard to discuss without laughing, we’ve allocated federal grant funding to serve at least 700,000 rural homes to an ISP that currently has no broadband infrastructure, and that has never served a single broadband customer. This might eventually turn out not to be a disaster, but this has to be one of the oddest things that has ever happened in the industry. This goes on the turkey awards list, well . . . because.

2 Killing the Digital Equity Act Funding

The Administration and the NTIA killed funding for grants from the Digital Equity Act, seemingly because the title of the law included the word “equity”. The grants were to tackle digital inclusion and specifically were aimed at making sure that people have access to computers and other devices and that they learn how to use them to increase digital literacy in the country. This decision is hard to understand at a time when the same federal government is forcing the public to interface electronically with government agencies. This same government is also saying that the future of the country is AI. This goes on the turkey award list because we seemed to have made a major policy decision based on misunderstanding the meaning of a word in the title of the law.

 1 Benefit of the Bargain

This was the process of the BEAD grant process that cut funding for broadband grants in half. It’s the most poorly-named process ever in the broadband industry since it isn’t a benefit to the many people who will no longer get a fast broadband solution, and it’s not a bargain for anybody that I can identify. The award goes equally to whoever came up with the plan to cut the BEAD infrastructure grants in half, and to the person who came up with this dreadful name.

There They Go Again

In a repeat of the silliest blog I write every year, this blog covers the annual pronouncement from USTelecom that broadband prices have dropped again in 2025.

USTelecom has a press release about this same time every year that claims that broadband prices are dropping. The claim this year is that the ‘real price’ for the most popular broadband services dropped 8.7% in 2025 and that the price for gigabit service dropped 6.2%. USTelecom claims that  broadband prices have dropped 43% since 2015, while the price for everything else, using the Overall Consumer Price Index, rose 35.8% in the same time period.

Anybody who pays a broadband bill and who still uses the same ISP as the year before knows they have not seen  a price reduction. If a consumer was paying $80 a year ago, according to USTelecom, their bill should have dropped $6.96 per month.

As usual, USTelecom is playing on words, and the key word in their claim is “real prices”. USTelecom is saying that the cost per megabit of broadband has dropped this year. How can the megabit price drop when the actual prices have increased? It’s simple math – ISPs continue to increase the maximum broadband speeds of their products. For example, in the last year, the download speed on the basic broadband product from Charter was increased from 300 Mbps to 500 Mbps. No consumer thinks about their broadband bill as a cost per megabit, but USTelecom is making its claim based on that.

The statement that broadband prices have dropped 43% since 2015 is a doozy. I would argue that the ‘real’ price paid for broadband is the check we all write each month. Consider how pricing has changed for the biggest ISPs since 2015.

Comcast. In 2015, the basic standalone broadband product from Comcast was Comcast Blast! with 100 Mbps for $76.95. That was not a good measure of Comcast’s pricing, because in 2015 Comcast required a customer who wanted to buy this basic broadband product to also buy a basic cable TV package. We can only guess how much of the $76.95 was for broadband versus cable TV. Comcast basic standalone broadband today is $80 for 300/35 Mbps.

Charter. In 2015, Charter sold 60 Mbps broadband for $40. The company was just getting ready that year to merge with Time Warner Cable, which had a higher price of 50 Mbps for $65. Charter’s basic broadband product today is 500/20 Mbps for $80

AT&T.  The company’s pricing for fiber was interesting in 2015. They sold gigabit speeds for $70, with the price set to match Google Fiber. AT&T hadn’t built much residential fiber then, and this product and price were only available in the handful of markets where AT&T overbuilt Google. Once AT&T started to build extensive fiber, the price came down. However, AT&T has now raised prices by $5 for two years in a row, and their prices are now 300 Mbps for $70, 500 Mbps for $80, and gigabit for $95.

Verizon. In 2015 the basic Verizon broadband was 50/20 Mbps for $40. Their prices now start at 100 Mbps for $59.99, 500 Mbps for $79.99, and gigabit for $99.99.

Prices are clearly rising over time. The big ISPs still have price increases every year. I’ve always assumed that USTelecom publishes this silly report for lobbying purposes, so they can claim to be holding down prices.

It’s certainly possible for customers to pay less today than last year. Lower prices have been one of the big drivers for folks to try FWA cellular home broadband, which is priced significantly below the prices of the big ISPS listed above. FWA base monthly prices are $50 to $65, but bundling with a cellular plan can bring the price for broadband as low as $35.

Predictions for 2026

The following are my predictions for 2026. I noticed that after I wrote this, the overall tenor of the list is negative. I’m generally pretty upbeat, but I can’t find fault with any of the predictions.

Federal Regulators Will Continue to Ignore Congress. Federal broadband regulators will continue to ignore Congressional legislation. This past year, the FCC ignored a Congressional edict to lower inmate calling rates. NTIA is ignoring Congress by withholding grant funding for the Digital Equity Act, and is likely to provide little or no funding for BEAD non-deployment funds. Expect similar actions in 2026.

Further Erosion of BEAD. NTIA is not done trying to whittle down the size of BEAD grant funding. The agency already whacked funding with the Benefit of the Bargain rule changes, along with numerous other actions. I expect NTIA to pull more rabbits out of the hat and find more excuses to deny funding to some states for issues like net neutrality, state permitting rules, or state regulation of AI.

Major Spectrum Battles. Congress instructed the FCC to find 800 megahertz of mid-range spectrum for auction. That means potentially reclaiming CBRS spectrum used for rural broadband and 6 GHz spectrum that is just starting to be implemented for WiFi 7. Cellular lobbyists preempted the normal deliberations on spectrum management and got the biggest item on their wish list included in the Big Beautiful Bill. I don’t expect opponents of the spectrum grab to go down without a big fight.

FWA Will Have Another Strong Year. AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon just had the biggest quarterly gain of new customers yet, adding over 1 million net new FWA customers in the third quarter of 2025. I predict the three companies will continue to add over 900,000 customers per quarter in 2026, and even more if we see a softening of the economy.

Universal Service Fund Reform Will Stall. Congress is considering badly needed changes to the Universal Service Fund. In the current political chaos in Congress, I predict that a USF bill will never make it through the legislative process.   

Big ISPs Will Have Record Cash Windfalls. There hasn’t been a lot of industry press about the bonus depreciation change included in the Big Beautiful Bill. This allows ISPs to quickly write off current fiber construction, which will cut tax liabilities and generate big cash bonuses for the biggest ISPs in 2026. I predict much of the windfall will be used to buy back stock rather than invest in new networks.

Big ISPs Will All Raise Rates. You might think that in a weakened economy, where the cost of living is the number one issue with the public, ISPs might hold off on rate increases. But the recent $5 across-the-board rate increase by AT&T for fiber will be the first of many significant rate increases during the coming year.

A Federal Regulator Will Declare that the Rural Broadband Gap has Been Solved. I don’t know if it will be the FCC or NTIA, but I expect one of the federal broadband regulators to declare that the rural broadband gap has been solved because of the many grant programs and because everybody can now buy satellite broadband. Arielle Roth already hinted at this when she said in a speech that the mission of BEAD “is nothing less than to close the digital divide once and for all”.

ISPs Need to Tackle Digital Inclusion

It’s clear that federal funding for digital inclusion activities is dead. NTIA and the Administration killed the funding for the Digital Equity Act, and it’s looking increasingly certain that NTIA is going to kill most or all of the BEAD non-deployment funds. These two sources of funding were going to be used to get a lot of computers and devices into the hands of people who need them and train millions of people to better use broadband.

Both of these efforts were going to benefit ISPs in a big way. Numerous studies have shown that once people buy a broadband subscription, they work hard to keep it. Broadband subscriptions are anti-recessionary, and people will ditch other expenses in their life, before cancelling a broadband subscription.

I think it’s in the best interest of ISPs to step into the federal funding void to help tackle this issue. Very few ISPs have attempted to tackle the issue, but one tackled it in a big way. Comcast Internet Essentials provides a monthly broadband connection that includes WiFi for qualifying low-income households for as little as $14.95 per month, with no extra fees for equipment or activation. Participants get access to computer training, either online or in person. Participants can buy a computer for $149.99. The company says it has helped 10 million homes with the program and has a goal to help up to 50 million homes by the end of 2027.

Setting aside the low price issue, the Comcast Internet Essentials program is addressing two of the keys to digital inclusion – getting devices in the hands of people who need them and showing people how to use broadband. I have no idea how Comcast handles these two issues. I have to assume, at their scale, they’ve arranged to buy a lot of basic computers for a low price. If I had to guess, I would think that Comcast outsources the training to a vendor. Comcast can pull this off due to the size of the Internet Essential program – there is a lot of economy of scale in helping 10 million homes. Smaller ISPs are not going to easily be able to duplicate what Comcast has done. But that doesn’t mean that small ISPs can’t make a difference in their markets.

One way for an ISP to participate in the digital inclusion effort is to somehow partner with the local folks who are already tackling the issue. There are folks in most parts of the country already tackling these issues. It might be a library, a non-profit, or a local government agency. In my part of the world, the leader in this effort is the Land of Sky COG, a state-sanctioned group of local governments that work together to tackle local problems.

Providing funding and technical assistance to your local digital inclusion groups can help them pursue their mission of helping people join the digital world. I can think of multiple ways for ISPs and digital inclusion folks to partner that range from ISPs providing funding to ISPs, to wading in and providing hands-on assistance with training or refurbishing computers. The same advice applied to the digital inclusion folks who were counting on federal and state grant funding need to regroup to stay viable. You should be knocking on the doors of local ISPs to let them know what you are doing and explain how what you do helps them.

There has been talk for the last twenty years about solving the digital divide. The way to do this has been understood from the beginning – get people connected, make sure people have computers, and make sure they know how to use them. While some folks started to tackle these issues years ago, the topic got national and local attention with the promise of federal grant funding. It’s in the interest of ISPs and digital inclusion folks to work together to find a way to keep this effort moving forward. It’s good for communities, good for ISPs, and it’s the right thing to do.

Do We Have a Spectrum Policy?

Telecompetitor recently published an article that cited concerns from analysts at MoffettNathanson Research that wonder about the way spectrum is being allocated for FWA home cellular broadband. It turns out that the big cellular carriers are devoting a huge amount of network resources to FWA while reaping only small financial benefits. FWA use may already account for more than half of the traffic on the Verizon cellular network while only accounting for 3% of Verizon’s revenues. FWA makes up only 6% of T-Mobile’s revenues.

I’ve written about this before, and the difference in monthly data usage between cell customers and home broadband customers is immense. CTIA, the association for cellular carriers, recently reported that the average cell customer uses 17.2 gigabytes of data per month on cellular networks. OpenVault recently reported that the average home broadband customer used over 640 gigabytes per month at the end of the third quarter. That means that the average FWA customer is using as much bandwidth as 37 average cellular customers.

You might ask why it matters how Verizon and T-Mobile use the spectrum they purchased in FCC auctions. From a regulatory perspective, it probably doesn’t matter. Once these companies buy the spectrum, they are free to use it in ways allowed by the spectrum licenses. Cellular spectrum has been used for home broadband for many years through the sale of hotspots. The big difference between hotspots and FWA is that hotspots most normally have stingy data caps similar to what is sold to cellphones, while FWA offers unlimited home broadband.

But from a market perspective, it matters a lot because the government has suddenly decided to shuttle a lot more spectrum to the cellular carriers. In the Big Beautiful Bill, Congress instructed the FCC to find at least 800 megahertz of spectrum for commercial wireless services. The expectation is that the sale of this spectrum could raise around $88 billion for the U.S. Treasury. It’s highly likely that the three big cellular companies would buy most of this spectrum along with perhaps a few large cable companies.

Cellular carriers need this extra spectrum to support FWA. Even if they add no new FWA customers, home broadband usage has been growing at around 9% per year, so FWA will take up an increasing share of existing cellular spectrum every year. But the major reason the carriers need more spectrum is because they have big plans to continue to grow FWA cellular. Verizon says it plans to double the number of FWA customers by 2028. T-Mobile says it plans to grow from today’s 7.8 million FWA customers to over 12 million by 2028. AT&T has expressed no specific plan for FWA growth but has recently stepped up sales significantly.

The three carriers will need the new spectrum being made available by Congress to support their sudden appetite for using spectrum to compete for home broadband. That’s one of the more surprising sentences I have ever written. A decade ago, I would have been laughed out of the room if I had suggested that our scarce national spectrum resource should be used to compete with landline broadband networks.

This is policy gone amok. Clearly, the carrier lobbyists were successful in getting this change inserted into the Big Beautiful Bill. That alone is extraordinary, because in the past, the FCC and the NTIA together collaborated to determine spectrum policy. Apparently, Congress can now set spectrum policy in a footnote of a budget reconciliation bill.

There are many other important uses for the same spectrum bands now being considered for expanding FWA. The spectrum is also needed for the military, for rural fixed wireless broadband, for communicating with airplanes, for weather services, for public safety, and for WiFi.

That last use is the most troublesome of all. WiFi spectrum is by far the most valuable spectrum in the U.S. economy. Almost everybody reading this blog spends most of their online time, whether by computer or cellphone, using WiFi spectrum. The FCC is likely going to have to dip into the 6 GHz WiFi spectrum to satisfy the Congressional mandate. That is absurdly short-sighted and undoes decades of careful spectrum deliberations that have tried to make sure that every use of spectrum is protected.

It’s a fair question to ask if we even have a national spectrum policy now. Raiding 800 megahertz of the most valuable spectrum we have to support FWA sounds less like a policy and more like a land grab by the cellular industry.

Another Look at Starlink Performance

The Internet Society published a blog by Isabel Suizo of Carnegie Mellon University that looks at Starlink’s impact on digital equity.

The blog made three interesting points about Starlink. First, Starlink is not meeting the regulatory performance goals in the U.S., the EU, and Australia. The blog cites speed tests from M-Labs that show that only 24.7% of U.S. speed tests, 13.6% of EU speed tests, and 42.2% of Australian speed tests exceeded 100 Mbps. That speed requirement to qualify as broadband came from the BEAD grants in the US, the Connecting Europe Broadband Fund (CEBF) in the EU, and the Statutory Infrastructure Provider (SIP) regime in Australia.

The analysis noted that Starlink comes closer to meeting the regulatory goals if it is judged only by the peak speed measured at a given location, versus looking at average speeds over time. This is a major finding that has not been widely discussed before. It means that Starlink speeds vary for a customer and that Starlink does not deliver a reliable speed of at least 100 Mbps. The blog contrasts this with fiber, where average and maximum speeds are similar, meaning fiber delivers a reliably steady speed.

The second finding of the report is that there is little difference in Starlink broadband throughput between the top 10% and bottom 10% of households ranked by household incomes. That means, at least at the global level, that Starlink delivers the same broadband to everybody.

However, that’s not entirely true since Starlink does offer priority service to businesses and users like ships in the ocean. These priority customers pay extra to guarantee good broadband. It has also not been widely discussed that Starlink restricts broadband speeds for customers who exceed its 1 terabyte data cap in a month.

The final conclusion of the paper is that LEO networks have the potential to improve broadband performance in remote, underserved users. That is not surprising since it matches the stated goals for both Starlink and Kuiper. These companies have touted since they began that they can bring broadband to the underserved and unserved around the world.

Overall, this analysis adds to the evidence of how Starlink works in practice. The biggest revelation from the research I that speeds to a given customer vary, and that speeds are sometimes solid and sometimes aren’t. The research shows that, at least for now, Starlink is largely delivering the same broadband to everybody, with the caveat that there are customers who are willing to pay more for a higher priority. Only time will tell if priority for pay becomes a regular feature of LEO broadband. Finally, Starlink seems to be meeting its stated goals of bringing broadband to places outside of the reach of landline broadband networks.

Why I am Thankful 2025

It’s Thanksgiving time again, and time to list those things for which I am thankful. As I’ve been talking to folks lately, there is a lot of angst in the industry as things are rapidly changing. But I think there are still plenty of things to be thankful for.

Broadband Networks Being Built. You couldn’t drive in rural areas this past year without seeing signs of fiber construction. A lot of neighborhoods and homes got fast broadband for the first time in 2025. We became laser-focused over the last year on BEAD and forgot that there is continuing construction funded by programs like RDOF, CAF II, ReConnect, Middle-Mile, Tribal, and State grants funded by ARPA and the Capital Project Fund. By my estimates, over $11 billion in grant and subsidy funding was scheduled to be spent on broadband networks in 2025, following $10 billion in 2024.

Digital Inclusion Marches Forward. The administration put a big dent in the digital inclusion efforts around the country by cancelling the grants from the Digital Equity Act. However, I look around and see that thousands of people have gotten on board the digital inclusion bandwagon, and there is already a lot of digital inclusion work being done that didn’t wait for federal grants. I think we’ll look up in a year and see that we’ve created a digital inclusion ecosystem that will find sustainable ways to work to help folks to get access to devices and learn how to use them.

Also, Digital Equity Act funding is not totally dead, thanks to a lawsuit from NDIA challenging the Administration’s decision to withhold the funds allocated by Congress.

Rural Competition Improving. It’s easy to be dismissive of Starlink, but the company now provides broadband to 2 million U.S. households, most of which don’t have a faster broadband option today. Over the last year, T-Mobile, Verizon, and now AT&T enabled numerous rural cell towers with FWA cellular broadband, and customers lucky enough to live within a few miles of the towers got access to new, affordable broadband.

BEAD Not a Total Bust. For a while, it looked like BEAD would be gutted for fiber construction, but a lot of states were still able to make substantial grant awards to build fiber. Hopefully, the winning ISPs get to work and get fiber to communities that have been waiting a decade or more for better broadband.

Improved Cellular. Cellular speeds continue to improve. Recently, AT&T implemented 3.45 GHz spectrum at 23,000 cell sites in just a few weeks.

Technology Marches Forward. This last year saw announcements for faster PON fiber electronics and faster DOCSIS 4.0 gear. Fixed wireless radios are improving at an astounding rate. We’re even talking about routine texting from anywhere using satellites.

Personal Thanks. Like most years, I met a lot of new clients and made new friends this year. I am particularly happy to see a lot of new, younger faces who are taking the reins in the industry. I’m always thankful for the many friends and colleagues who have provided me with support and a sounding board over the last year. I’m thankful for my family who supports me as I work to support broadband projects and write this blog every day. I’m especially thankful for the cats, squirrels, crows, chipmunks, and the other critters who make me smile every day.