Supreme Court Examines FCC’s Ability to Fine

The Supreme Court has accepted a case that will determine the FCC’s ability to levy fines against the companies it regulates. The lower court cases that brought the issue to the Supreme Court come from fines that the FCC levied against AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon after the companies sold customer location data. The FCC said that the carriers did not properly vet the companies that bought customer data, and that many of those companies widely resold the data.

The Fifth Circuit Court sided with AT&T and said that the FCC’s process was unconstitutional. The Second Circuit Court sided with the FCC when reviewing the Verizon fine. The DC Circuit also sided with the FCC when reviewing the fine against T-Mobile.  As often happens when lower courts issue conflicting rulings, the Supreme Court has agreed to review the findings of the lower courts.

The Circuit Court cases invoked a Supreme Court ruling in 2024 in the case of SEC v Jaresky. In that case, the defendant was accused of committing fraud and misrepresenting himself to investors. The Securities and Exchange Commission fined Mr. Jaresky $300,000 and ordered him to disgorge the unlawful profits he made of $685,000. Mr. Jaresky appealed to the Supreme Court and argued that the SEC didn’t have the regulatory authority to directly fine him, and that the SEC had violated his right to a jury trial.

The Supreme Court surprisingly sided with Jaresky and ordered that he should have been given the option for a jury trial rather than a trial by an SEC administrative judge. It was obvious after the Jaresky ruling that companies that were fined by other regulatory agencies would make the same claim if they were denied the right of a jury trial. In this case, the three cellular companies made the argument that the FCC fines were unconstitutional and got contradictory rulings from different lower courts. It’s fairly obvious that the carriers went to different courts hoping for conflicting rulings.

This is a major case for the FCC, since a ruling against it eliminates its ability to fine regulated companies for violating FCC rules. The ability to levy fines has always been one of the agency’s most effective enforcement tools and is one of the few remedies that is less drastic than yanking an FCC license to operate. The FCC has been using fines a lot recently in its attempt to cut down on robocalls and texts. The FCC will become a fairly toothless regulatory agency without the ability to levy fines. Carriers, both large and small, will be less afraid to violate FCC rules if they don’t fear that their violation would warrant a referral to the Justice Department.

This is a really interesting tactic by the cellular carriers. If these particular cases had been referred to a jury instead of an administrative judge, it’s not hard to imagine the fines being a lot larger. It’s not hard to imagine a jury that doesn’t like the idea of a giant corporation selling data that shows everywhere they travel with their cellphone.

This also opens up the possibility of State regulators tackling these kinds of issues and issuing fines if the FCC finds itself unable to do so. I have to think that selling customer data violates the law in multiple states.

If the Jaresky case is the precedent, then it’s hard to think the Court won’t side with the carriers and rule against the FCC. This Supreme Court seems to be very much against what they view as regulatory overstepping of authority, and the Jaresky case is only one of their rulings that are weakening federal regulatory agencies.

2026 Urban Rate Study

One of the more curious undertakings done by the FCC every year is the Urban Rate Study. This is an exercise undertaken every year to determine the highest monthly broadband rates that can be charged by ETCs (Eligible Telecommunications Carriers). This basically means regulated telcos and other ISPs that participate in some grant or subsidy programs. At a minimum, these rate caps apply to incumbent rate-of-return telephone companies, and ISPs that participated in the Rural Broadband Experiment, CAF II Phase II Auction, RDOF (Rural Digital Opportunity Fund Auction 904), and Enhanced A-CAM. These rate caps will apply to any BEAD winners that are certified as an ETC. These rate caps also apply to any ISP that voluntarily became an ETC in order to participate in any other subsidy program, such as the Universal Service Fund.

The FCC publishes this rate near the end of each year, and by July 1 of the following year, every ETC must certify to the FCC that it doesn’t charge a rate higher than the benchmarks.

 The FCC determines rate caps for an interesting mix of speeds that match the minimum speed goals set over the years for different subsidy programs. The FCC samples actual rates in the market and sets the target rates by applying two standard deviations. The FCC also sets the minimum size of any rate cap, and for 2026 has raised any monthly rate caps to provide at least 800 megabytes of data as of July 2026.

Below is a table that compares the 2026 rates to the rates from the Urban Rate Study in 2019.

It’s interesting that the maximum rates allowed for slow speeds have increased significantly between 2019 and 2026. The FCC rate caps for speeds of 100 Mbps or greater have decreased since 2019. I think this is because gigabit rates were somewhat rare in 2019, and some ISPs that offered gigabit then charged a premium rate.

It’s commonly believed that the FCC is not in the ratemaking business, and for broadband, I think this is the agency’s only ratemaking role.

I’ve seen ISPs with rates higher than these benchmarks, but those ISPs are not regulated ETCs. I doubt that consumers are comforted by these rates, and luckily, market competition has pushed rates lower than everything in the table for most ISPs.

Cell Tower Regulation Changes?

Cellular carriers seem to be on a winning streak with federal regulators. In the Big Beautiful Bill last year, cellular carriers were able to insert language in the bill that mandates the FCC to auction 800 MHz of mid-range spectrum. That’s going to force the FCC to carve the spectrum from other uses, and it seems likely that most spectrum that goes to auction will be won by the big cell carriers.

Late last fall, the FCC opened a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) Eliminating Barriers to Wireless Deployments. In the NOI, the FCC asked the following questions.

  • Should the FCC establish a new set of shot clocks that cover permitting and construction of wireless towers and other wireless infrastructure?
  • Should the FCC consider a “deemed approved” rule that would mean that any proposed new tower project would be considered as approved if a local government doesn’t approve the project within a specified time frame?
  • Should the FCC preempt local governments from setting fees related to permits, rights-of-way, and construction processes, and should the FCC set national fees for these efforts?

As someone who has read a lot of FCC documents, the tone of this NOI suggests to me that the FCC has already largely determined what it is going to order related to the shot clock and fees. It looks likely that the cell carriers will likely achieve another big win on their regulatory wish list.

The NOI also seeks comments on a wide range of other questions:

  • Can localities reject a tower request for a carrier that will be providing interstate services?
  • The FCC is thinking about relaxing the rules for concealment elements, which is the process of hiding towers or disguising them to look like trees of other objects.
  • The FCC wants to make it harder for localities to disallow modifications to existing towers.
  • The NOI explores the definition of a macro cell site in relation to existing rules related to small cell sites.
  • The FCC asks if it can limit the ability of a locality to reject a tower application based on aesthetics.
  • The NOI asks if local franchise agreements that involve in-kind contributions are a violation of Section 253 rules.

The NOI saw over 4,000 public comments. AT&T, T-Mobile, and CTIA, the lobbying group for the cellular carriers, were in favor of what the FCC is proposing, while almost all of the other comments were against some or all of the FCC proposals.

A lot of the comments involved those that want local communities to have some say in the placement of towers for health reasons. Traditionally, these folks have an uphill battle since the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and other FCC rulings have made it hard for the FCC to consider “environmental issues’ related to cell site placement. But I read last week that HHS Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr. supports the idea that there are health risks from cell towers, so perhaps this now has some chance.

There were also comments from local governments and groups like the National Conference of Counties NACo), the United States Conference of Mayors (USCM), the National League of Cities (NLC), and the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (NATOA) have all filed comments that disagree with allowing the FCC to override local authority. The comments from these groups asked the FCC to:

  • Preserve local aesthetic and placement authority.
  • Recognize that local governments are entitled to compensation which reflects the full costs of wireless deployment, not an arbitrary national assessment of what costs “should” be.
  • Reject the creation of a “rocket docket”.
  • Reject premature preemption of state and local AI regulations.
  • Facilitate industry and local cooperation rather than heavy-handed federal mandates.

I do fine it curious that an agency that is working feverishly to eliminate regulatory requirements won’t hesitate to create new rules it likes.

 

Competing with Satellite Cellular

A recent article in Fierce Network quotes AT&T’s CEO John Stankey as saying that he’s not too worried about competition from satellite cellular providers. He said the new technology is better suited for specialty niches like maritime and IoT.

His comments raise a lot of interesting questions. First, Stankey is right that satellite cellular is not going to compete well head-to-head with traditional cellular in markets that have strong cell coverage. An Ookla report for the second quarter of 2025 shows nationwide median download speeds for the big three cellular providers as 275 Mbps for T-Mobile, 134 Mbps for Verizon, and 129 Mbps for AT&T. Speeds in urban markets are significantly higher.

A market weakness for the big cellular carriers is rural coverage, which is going to be a target market for satellite cellular. You don’t have to drive far outside most urban areas and county seats to encounter areas with little or no cellular coverage by the big companies.

There seems to be interest and a potential market for satellite cellular. Viasat released the results of a survey that indicated that 60% of cellular customers worldwide, and 56% in the U.S., would consider paying extra to get access to satellite cellular connections. You have to take a survey done at the early stage of the new industry with a grain of salt since real interest is going to depend on the quality, ease, and cost of using satellite cellular. The survey results are interesting because they show a lot of people who must be encountering situations where traditional cellular is inadequate.

Stankey pointed out the weaknesses of the satellite cellular concept. The biggest weakness is that there isn’t good indoor coverage. However, I would be shocked if somebody doesn’t eventually solve that problem. Perhaps Starlink dishes or standalone outdoor receivers can be used to communicate with cellular satellites, which could then somehow get the signal into the home. The issue that I haven’t heard being discussed is the ability of satellite cellular to connect to moving vehicles.

Stankey’s more significant observation is that a satellite network can never duplicate the huge amount of bandwidth needed to give cellular customers the services they want. He’s absolutely right, and it’s unrealistic to think that satellite providers could have enough bandwidth collectively to become the fourth major carrier in the market. Cellphone usage is no longer just about texting and voice calls, and cell customers want to stream videos and upload pictures and videos. For satellite to become a viable rural solution, it will need to provide enough bandwidth to satisfy expected customer demand.

There are a few other issues that will also affect the long-term competition issue. Cellular broadband speeds are still improving. For example, AT&T recently installed the spectrum acquired from EchoStar in 23,000 towers to improve speeds. We’re five years away from seeing the beginning of the 6G generation of cellphones. It’s too early to know specifically what that means, but it has to mean more speed and capability for terrestrial cellphone networks.

One of Stankey’s comments is intriguing: that satellite cellular might be the solution for IoT. I’ve been reading for a decade about the potential for widespread agricultural sensors, but this has never happened in any material way. A big part of the problem is the bandwidth needed to communicate with sensors. Rural cellular networks are generally lousy or nonexistent in areas that are mostly farm fields. The second issue has always been power, but there have been advancements in small solar power units that could finally combine with ubiquitous satellite cellular coverage to make farm sensors a reality.

BEAD Rule Changes for Permitting

NTIA issued new General Terms and Conditions dated November 2025 that include dozens of changes to the BEAD rules for recipients, but also changes that impact state Broadband Offices that have wider implications on States. I’m not listing all of the changes here, but there is a great summary of the changes done by the Benton Institute on January 14. This blog will look at the issues related to permitting that have repercussions far outside of the BEAD grant recipients.

In Section 13.D of the revised NTIA Terms and Conditions, State Broadband Offices (SBOs – which are described as Grantees by the NTIA) have a lot of major new obligations related to permitting.

SBOs must “establish procedures to ensure that broadband-related permit applications are promptly accepted, and requests are approved or denied within 90 days”.

In general, SBOs don’t hold a position of authority in State governments to impose rules on anybody other than recipients of grants. Permits for BEAD will mostly mean getting permits to build along existing roads. SBOs are going to have to agree to this requirement, but it’s hard to imagine how an SBO can impose rules for State roads, County roads, Township roads, Municipal roads, roads through Tribal lands, and the biggest challenge – roads passing through federal lands. The goal of getting permits completed within 90 days is great, but it’s hard to think that the small number of people working in SBOs even know the identity of the many permitting authorities in a state, let alone can have any influence, other than perhaps begging, to get BEAD permitting authorities to meet the 90-day deadline. An even bigger challenge is permitting on private land, since a lot of rural roads are privately owned. What can an SBO possibly do to influence private permits?

SBOs must assist “state and local authorities in establishing a single, dedicated point of contact, which has knowledge of the application and review processes, for broadband-related permits.

The key word in this requirement is ‘assist”. Assuming that States even want to go through this process, they vary widely in how this would be achieved. There are States where a Governor might be able to do this. There are States where a State Regulatory Commission might have the authority to tackle this. But in many States, this might require action for a Legislature. What happens in States that don’t undertake the formation of a single, dedicated point of contact?

SBOs must provide technical assistance to permitting agencies to ensure sufficient capacity (e.g., Master Agreement and Consultant Reimbursement Agreement templates, surge support for permit processing, etc.)

This recognizes that local governments often will not have enough staff to quickly process all of the permits required by a BEAD project. SBOs must develop template contracts that can assist a locality if it wants to get help to speed up permitting. But this doesn’t address the issue and time required by local governments when hiring outside vendors. It doesn’t address if a local government has a budget for additional help. Interestingly, this extra funding could come in some states from BED nondeployment funds, assuming there is enough such funding for the purpose.

SBOs must provide “deference to the construction techniques chosen by BEAD Subgrantees (without seeking to influence those decisions), absent any identified safety concerns.

I don’t know if anybody, except perhaps for big ISPs that might have suggested this language to NTIA, really knows what this means, other than allowing construction practices that would otherwise not be allowed by pole owners or by the governments who control the rights-of-way for buried construction. SBOs are being directed to turn their heads to what would normally be non-compliant construction techniques. I’m not sure how pole owners and rights-of-way owners will be expected to comply with this.

SBOs must maximize “streamlined processing through permitting by rule; batch processing of substantially similar permit requests; and waiving or expediting duplicative or burdensome broadband permitting requirements where possible.”

SBOs can certainly promote language that allows batch processing. But, related to the staffing issue addressed earlier, how might a County with little or no staffing be expected to comply with big batches of permits? Even more confounding, are SBOs expected to look at local rules for permitting across the state to identify the ones that are duplicative or burdensome – and what do they do when they identify such rules?

SBOs must follow “FCC rules regarding timelines, rates, terms, and conditions for access to municipally owned poles and conduit for broadband projects – including provisions in the FCC’s rules providing for “one-touch make-ready” and “self-help” – and requiring BEAD Subgrantees that own poles (including cooperatives) to comply with FCC rules across their footprint.”

Around 23 states and D.C. have decided to have their own pole attachment rules, something that has been allowed by federal legislation. While most of these rules are largely the same as the FCC rules, many differ in substantive ways. How can an SBO in a state with its own pole regulation somehow force the State to suddenly follow the FCC rules. The specific requirement cites self-help and one-touch make ready, which are some of rules where States have taken a decidedly different stance than the FCC.

Overall impression of these requirements. SBOs will clearly try to follow these requirements since they must agree to them before they get BEAD funding. But these rules create huge problems for SBOs that don’t have the authority and muscle to impose these rules on the rest of the State and on the many entities that are involved in permitting. To some degree, the severity of these rules, when judged against the practical chance of an SBO accomplishing them, seems like a tool for NTIA to be able to say that any selected State has failed its obligations. I assume that if NTIA tries to withhold funding to a State based on these rules that it will be sued, but that means BEAD goes on hold in that State, to the detriment of the many rural residents relying on better broadband. Interestingly, none of these rules hinders satellite BEAD winners.

Rats Attack Fibre!

County Broadband in Norfolk, England, recently lost service to 442 customers over a weekend when rats chewed through fiber and caused an outage during a snowstorm. The ISP battled bad weather conditions, so it took a few days to replace almost 2,000 feet of damaged fiber cable. The ISP stayed in contact with customers by text and was apologetic that the snow had caused its call center to close on Sunday.

There was a great quote in the press, “Rats are also notoriously difficult vermin to stop, like mini tanks with teeth that often seem able to cut through almost anything . . . even concrete.”

I’ve never heard of a rat problem with fiber in the U.S., although it seems likely that it happens. Judging by the conversations I’ve had with ISPs, and the occasional news article, the primary animal damage to fiber in this country comes from squirrels and gophers.

Squirrels seem to be the primary culprit for animal damage to aerial fiber. Squirrels seem to mainly chew on cables as a way to sharpen their teeth. Squirrel teeth grow up to 8 inches per year, and if squirrels aren’t wearing their teeth down from their diet, they look for other things to chew. There has been speculation that squirrels prefer fiber to other types of cables due to some oil or compound used in the fiber manufacturing process that attracts them.

Years ago, Level 3, a major middle-mile fiber network owner, said that 17% of its aerial fiber outages nationwide were caused by squirrels, with the rest, I assume, from storm damage, auto accidents, and gunshot damage.

Companies use a wide variety of techniques to try to protect from squirrel damage, but anybody who has tried to protect a bird feeder from squirrels knows how persistent they can be. One deterrent is to use hardened cables that are a challenge for squirrels to chew through. However, there have been reported cases where squirrels partially chew through hardened cables, which then lets in water that can cause future damage.

A more common solution is adding a barrier to keep squirrels away from the cable. There are barrier devices that can be mounted on the pole to block squirrels from moving higher. There are also barriers that are mounted where cables meet a pole to keep the squirrels away from the fiber. A few companies have tried more exotic solutions, like deploying ultrasonic blasters to drive squirrels away from fiber.

The most common animal damage to buried fiber comes from gophers. Gophers also seem to like chewing on fiber to sharpen their teeth. There are thirteen species of pocket gophers in the country that range from 5 to 13 inches in length. The two parts of the country with the most pocket gophers are the Midwest plains and the Southwest. Gophers mostly live on roots or on plants they pull down through the soil.

Pocket gophers can cause considerable damage to fiber. These rodents will chew almost anything, and there have been reported outages from gophers that have chewed through buried gas, water, and electric lines. Gophers typically live 6 and 12 inches below the surface and are a particular threat to buried drops.

There are several ways to protect against gophers. The best protection is to bury fiber deep enough to be out of gopher range, but that can add a lot of cost to buried drops. I have a few clients who bore drops and install the fiber in conduit  rather than trench or vibrate the drops directly. Another strategy is to enclose the fiber in a sheath over 3 inches in diameter, which is supposedly too big for a gopher to bite. Another solution is to surround the buried fiber with 6 – 8 inches of gravel of at least 1-inch size – anything smaller gets pushed aside by gophers. These solutions are all expensive, and most ISPs just live with drop cuts.

Technology Shorts January 2026

Sensors That Beat Lidar and Radar

The Boston startup Tarador has developed a sensor that co-founder Matt Carey says beats the performance of radar and lidar. The sensors are solid-state, meaning no moving parts, and use the terahertz band of spectrum that sits between microwaves and infrared light.

The spectrum band allows the sensors to easily pierce rain and fog. The use of higher terahertz frequencies improves the resolution of images by twenty times compared to radar. The sensors have a range of 325 yards. One of the sales points for the new sensors is a target cost to be far less than lidar. This would make the sensors a great solution for driver-assisted and self-driving cars.

Laser Cooling for Data Centers

Sandia Labs, the federally funded energy research lab, has found a way to use lasers to cool things. It’s anti-intuitive since lasers generally generate heat when they hit an object. Scientists at the lab have been working with Maxwell Labs from Minneapolis to develop the technology.

Lasers can create a cooling effect, and this has been used in the past to chill antimatter and to study quantum phenomena. How does this work? Lasers tuned to a specific frequency and targeted at a small area on the surface of a certain element can cool it instead of heating it. Small means an area in the order of hundreds of microns. The technology would utilize a photonic cold plate with components a thousand times smaller than the width of a human hair that would channel the cooling lasers. The cold plate would be composed of a millimeter-thick plate of pure gallium arsenide. The scientists believe this can bring as much cooling as the current method of circulating water close to chips. This would be a huge breakthrough since 30% to 40% of the cost of operating a data center is used for cooling. This could also extend the life of chips, which tend to burn out in two years under data center loads.

A Chip that Can Stream Thoughts

A team from Columbia University, New York Presbyterian Hospital, Stanford University, and the University of Pennsylvania has collaborated to create a tiny brain implant that could significantly change how people interact with computers.

The brain implant is called a Biological Interface System to Cortex (BISC). The power of this technology is the small size, since the BISC is thinner than a human hair, along with the ability to transmit large amount of data. The implant is a big improvement over current technologies because it is controlled by a single small chip that can be easily implanted inside the skull.

One of the benefits of the BISC implant is the ability to treat conditions like epilepsy, spinal cord injuries, ALS, strokes, and blindness. The chip can hopefully create a communication pathway to the brain to help restore motor, speech, and visual abilities.

Like all new technologies, this could also power other uses, like creating an interface between humans and computers. This team was not focused on that goal, but this is another technology step forward in brain/computer interfaces, a goal of scientists over the last decade.

Ookla’s WISP Report Card

Ookla published a WISP Report Card in November that looks at the speed performance of eight large WISPs – Etheric Networks, GeoLinks, NextLink, Resound Networks, Rise Broadband, Starry, Unwired Broadband, and Wisper Internet. Since this article was published, Starry has been acquired by Verizon. Ookla trended speed test results for each WISP by quarter from Q1 2021 through Q2 2025.

The results of the speed tests for most WISPs were not spectacular. The best performing WISP was Starry, with 67% of customers achieving a speed that meets the FCC definition of broadband of 100/20 Mbps. Rise Broadband performed the worst, with only 6.7% of customers achieving 100/20 Mbps speeds. However, speed isn’t always a fair metric since some of the WISPs sell products with lower speed thresholds. For example, GeoLinks says its most popular product is 30/30 Mbps.

It’s also hard to compare the biggest WISPs because they have different business plans and use different spectrum. For example, Starry uses the 37.1, 37.3, and 37.5 GHz bands of millimeter wave spectrum, mostly serves apartment buildings, and places base stations within a mile of customers. Most of the other WISPs are more traditional rural WISPs using a mix of unlicensed and licensed spectrum. Following is a short summary of each of the eight WISPs.

Etheric Networks.  8.4% of customers achieve 100/20 Mbps. Median speeds are 41/30 Mbps. The company used traditional unlicensed spectrum. The company markets speeds from up to 100 Mbps to up to 1 Gbps.

GeoLinks.  8.7% of customers achieve 100/20 Mbps. Median speeds are 23/20 Mbps. The company uses a combination of LMDS, unlicensed 5 GHz, and millimeter wave spectrum. Marketed plans range from 10/10 to 100/25 Mbps.

NextLink.  24.4% of customers achieve speeds of 100/20 Mbps. Median speeds are 68/18 Mbps. The company purchased 1,100 CBRS PALs licenses. The company markets speeds between 50 and 500 Mbps. The company is midway through network upgrades funded by RDOF, so speeds should increase significantly.

Resound Networks. 41.5% of customers achieve speeds of 100/20 Mbps. Median speeds are 99/31 Mbps. The company uses unlicensed 5 GHz and 6 GHz spectrum. The company offers speed packages between 75 Mbps and 1 gigabit.

Rise Broadband. 6.7% of customers achieve speeds of 100/20 Mbps. Median speeds are 43/18 Mbps. The company uses a combination of unlicensed spectrum and CBRS. Speed packages range from 50 to 400 Mbps. The company claims to be the largest WISP with 200,000 customers.

Starry. 66.9% of customers achieve 100/20 Mbps. Median speeds are 202/54 Mbps. Starry uses millimeter wave spectrum to reach apartment buildings in five major metropolitan markets. The company markets speeds between 200 Mbps and 1 Gbps. Speeds have nearly doubled since 2021.

Unwired Broadband  21.8% of customers achieve a speed of 100/20 Mbps. Median speeds are 50/17 Mbps. The company uses a combination of licensed and unlicensed spectrum. Pricing plans start at 100 Mbps.

Wisper Internet. 26.0% of customers achieve a speed of 100/20 Mbps. Median speeds are 53/12 Mbps. The company uses unlicensed 5 GHz and a mix of licensed and unlicensed 2.5 GHz and CBRS spectrum. Speed plans range from 25 to 400 Mbps.

A few things to observe about the group. The article points out that rural WISPs are seeing serious speed competition from Starlink, which will intensify when Starlink starts launching its next generation of satellites in 2026. Some of the WISPs have improved speeds significantly since 2021, although a few have not. Some of the WISPs are doing upgrades to much faster radios and it will be interesting to see a future article showing speed trends in a few years. Like with satellite broadband, the overall weakness of most of the WISPs today is the upload speeds.

Starlink Update

Starlink did something new and recently issued an update discussing the recent history and the outlook for the company. Perhaps the company will update this kind of report periodically.

Coverage and Customers. Starlink says it became available in 42 new countries around the world during 2025. The company says it has over 6 million customers, which includes over 2 million customers in the U.S. The most impressive statistic is that the company added 2.7 million customers worldwide over the past year, an annual growth rate of 82%.

Constellation. SpaceX had more than 100 missions during the year to add 2,300 Starlink satellites to the constellation. At the end of the year, there were more than 9,400 satellites in orbit, including about 100 satellites that are inactive and in the process of deorbiting. Starlink’s target for the first constellation is 12,000 satellites, and the company should be getting close to that goal by the end of 2026.

The company has begun to launch a series of satellites with a polar orbit that will provide coverage to Alaska and other northern areas. The goal was to have 400 satellites in a polar orbit by the end of 2025.

Starlink says that it has over 100 ground station gateway sites in the U.S. that are comprised of over 1,500 antennas for communicating with satellites, with all of the gateway antennas manufactured in Redmond, Washington.

The company says that new satellites are all equipped with lasers that can be used to communicate between satellites.

Speeds and Latency. The report includes a chart of the average speed and latency since early 2022. Starlink measures the performance of the constellation every 15 seconds. The chart shows the average download speed in 2022 was around 23 Mbps, and has grown to over 170 Mbps by late 2025. Latency has improved significantly, starting at 44 milliseconds in 2022, down to around 24 milliseconds in late 2025. Starlink says it is approaching its goal of a stable 20 millisecond latency.

Network Capacity. Probably the major reason for the improved speeds and latency is the constant increase in the overall capacity of the constellation coming from new and better satellites. The report includes a graph showing the overall capacity of the network. At the end of 2022, the constellation had about 40 terabytes of capacity. Near the end of 2025, capacity grew to around 445 terabytes, with a growth curve that is still on a steep climb. The company says it is adding about 5 terabytes of capacity to the network per week with new launches.

Network capacity is going to get a big boost when the new third-generation satellites are launched, sometime in the first half of this year. Each new satellite will have over 1 terabit of download speed capacity and 200 gigabits of upload.

State Broadband Regulation

The industry spends a lot of time focusing on potential federal broadband regulation, and bills introduced in Congress get a lot of press. It’s easy to forget that a lot of broadband legislation happens at the State level,

NCSL (the National Conference of State Legislators) tracks state legislation across the country and wrote an article summarizing state legislation related to broadband issues. 2025 was a busy year for broadband legislation, and there were over 600 broadband bills introduced in state legislatures, with 139 bills enacted into law. The article is a great resource for anybody who wants to dig deeper since it links to the enacted bills that are mentioned in the story.

Poles and Permitting

Seventy of the enacted laws established new state rules related to pole attachments and permitting. We’re likely to see a flurry of more laws in this area in 2026 since BEAD grant rules require states to approve or deny applications for permits on State highways and land be approved or denied within 90 days. The bills highlighted in the article include:

  • Idaho HB 180 requires public utilities to allow space on poles for broadband, cable and telecommunications equipment and allows the Idaho Public Utilities Commission to mediate if parties cannot agree on rates, conditions, and timing. The legislature thought this law was needed since municipal pole owners are excluded from federal pole attachment rules.
  • Indiana SB 502 adopts the timelines required by BEAD and also establishes a timeline for quick mediation of disputes.
  • Maine HB 559 gives more authority to towns over approving the building of new poles. The law allows smaller towns than previously to deny applications to build new poles as long as the reason for the rejection is related to public safety or welfare.
  • Colorado HB 1056 and West Virginia HB 3144 allows for automatic approval of specific kinds of applications for rights-of-way and permits for wireless infrastructure.

Critical Infrastructure Protections

There has been a major uptick in damage and vandalism to communications infrastructure in recent years that has resulted in serious network outages. State legislatures reacted to passing legislation that establishes or creates penalties for those who damage networks. I discussed this topic in several blogs this year, one that asks when network damage might be considered to be terrorism, and one that looks at the trend of declaring broadband networks to be critical infrastructure.

The article provides links to the text of approved legislation that have increased penalties for those who damage communication infrastructure, enacted by Alabama SB 54, Iowa HB 879, Kansas HB 2061, Kentucky SB 64, Louisiana SB 22, Montana HB 257, and West Virginia HB 3504. A few states went even further, and Oklahoma HB 2104 and Texas SB 1646 categorized damage to communications infrastructure as felonies.

Looking Ahead to 2026

It’s likely that there will also be a lot of new legislation in 2026. As mentioned above, States likely will tighten approval times for rights-of-way and permitting on state lands and highways to comply with BEAD. An area that is seeing a lot of discussion is data centers, and it seems likely that states will pass legislation that establishes rules related to the placement, energy use, and environmental issues related to new data centers. While not directly related to broadband, it seems likely that there will be a lot of new State regulations related to AI.