Tag Archives: AT&T

Remembering Our Microwave Past

Somebody sent me a link to an interesting article posted on 99% Invisible, a website associated with a podcast that looks at “the thought that goes into the things we don’t think about — the unnoticed architecture and design that shape our world” The article covers a book called The Long Lines that documents the abandoned infrastructure of the national microwave network built by AT&T that predated the eventual long-haul fiber networks that now connects us.

The AT&T microwave network was built in the 1950s. The first long-haul microwave route put into service was between New York and Chicago, and went live on September 1, 1950. Over the next few years, microwave routes were established across the country.

The networks were enabled by the high-powered klystrons developed during World War II, plus new microwave technologies that allowed for the simultaneous transmission of multiple channels of data. A klyston is a vacuum tube that amplifies a signal from a low-power level to a higher one. The klystron system enabled the creation of microwave links with enough power to carry not only voice calls, but television signals. The technology was developed at Bell Labs, and the microwave radios were manufactured by Western Electric, the manufacturing arm of AT&T.

The AT&T microwave network enabled the first nationwide broadcasts of television shows and news events. The first television event sent was a speech by President Harry Truman from the San Francisco Peace Conference in September 1951, which was then broadcast by the early television stations in major cities across the country. The first regular TV show that used the microwave network was Edward R. Murrow’s See It Now, broadcast in November 1951.

The AT&T microwave network led to some of the early success of television networks since it allowed for content that people had never seen before, like live Saturday football games from across the country. From the 1950s through the 1970s, practically all national programming was transmitted through the microwave network.

The microwave network wasn’t the only transmission network used by AT&T. The company had built coast-to-coast copper networks, and Alexander Bell made the first transcontinental phone call from New York City to San Francisco on January 25, 1915. This network was eventually enhanced with long-line coaxial networks, but those networks didn’t have the capacity to support television signals.

The microwave network consisted of towers built between thirty and forty miles apart, which accommodated the need for a line-of-sight connection. Interestingly, the core network electronics nodes of the network were built to supposedly withstand a nuclear explosion, since the microwave network also carried military traffic. These core locations included underground bunkers for electronics, staff, and backup power generators.

Anyone of a certain age remembers these towers, which either disappeared or were repurposed for cellular. Each tower had multiple giant horn antennas used to transmit and receive data. I remember in the 1970s that it was always easy to spot the AT&T building as you drove into a city because of the giant antennas on top, like the picture at the top of the blog of the antennas of the AT&T building in Minneapolis.

AT&T isn’t the only company that used a microwave network. MCI got its start as a competitor to AT&T by carrying telephone calls using its own microwave network that was often built along railroad rights-of-way. That network supported the early competition that eventually resulted in a competitive telecom industry.

The microwave towers were eventually replaced by the now-familiar fiber routes that were built starting in the late 1970s, and the greater capacity of fiber quickly made the microwave network obsolete.

AT&T – No Rush for 6G?

Jenifer Robertson, Executive Vice President and General Manager of Mass Markets for AT&T, gave a lengthy interview at CTIA’s annual summit in D.C. that led to an article by Rob Pegoraro of Light Reading. The interview covered a range of topics and is worth reading. I was struck by a comment at the end of the article where Robertson said,  “I don’t have any data that tells me consumers are chomping at the bit for 6G.”

Part of that reason is that the AT&T 5G network is performing well. A big part of that performance came earlier this year when the company integrated the midband spectrum purchased from EchoStar. I’m an AT&T subscriber, and I saw my 5G cellular speeds more than double after that upgrade.

AT&T also moved further along the path towards fully implementing 5G. The company announced it deployed its first 5G standalone in October 2025. That includes launching new features that the company is labeling as 5G Advanced, which includes network slicing and other features that were part of the original 5G specification.

It’s not unusual that AT&T is still implementing 5G features in 2026. The cellular industry has implemented a new G generation of cellular technology every decade, starting with the introduction of 1G in 1979. It’s always taken much of each new decade to fully implement the newest generation of technology. You might remember that ten years ago, the big carriers were still implementing some of the specification features of 4G.

Robertson’s comment on 6G is a big shift from the way that the big carriers talked about 5G a decade ago. The hype for upgrading to 5G started in 2016, and folks probably remember that you couldn’t read an industry publication or go to a tradeshow without being bombarded about the upcoming miracles that were going to be unleased with 5G. We’re not seeing that same kind of excitement for 6G, and I would bet that the average cellular customer hasn’t even heard of 6G.

I also remember the market reaction when 5G was introduced in 2019. The first introduction of 5G only included a small piece of the new 5G specification, and the major real-world difference from 4G was that carriers put 5G connections on a different set of spectrum. Early adopters praised 5G, mostly because they were connecting on empty networks, but within a year, that advantage disappeared as the 5G spectrum got flooded with users.

There is a lot to brag about with 5G performance. Speeds increased dramatically over 4G, and in most urban markets, 5G speeds are at 200-300 Mbps download, or faster. There is one big downside to 5G in rural areas, in that the higher spectrum for 5G doesn’t carry as far, and so cellular network coverage in rural areas is shrinking. This will be dramatically noticeable when the carriers eventually decommission 4G.

By the time 5G was released to the public, every tech head wanted the new technology. This led to a huge surge in handset sales. There is no doubt that the equipment and handset vendors will want a big push for 6G. But there aren’t many advantages of 6G that will excite consumers. Most of the advantages of 6G benefit the carriers more than the public. Consider the following touted benefits. 6G will:

  • Enable immersive communication and human-machine interactions. That would enable eXtended Reality (XR), remote multi-sensory telepresence, holographic communications, haptic sensors and actuators, and multi-sensory interfaces.
  • Allow the connection of massive numbers of devices at a cell site. This will supposedly unleash more smart city applications, smart cars, environmental monitoring, and agricultural sensors.
  • Ease connections to smart machines for the remote operation of robots, autonomous factories, and the creation of digital twins for factories, health care, and other complex use cases.
  • Have peak theoretical data rates between 50 and 100 Gbps.
  • Target air interface latency between 0.1 ms and 1 ms.
  • Will introduce AI-related features to support distributed data processing, distributed learning, AI computing, AI model execution, and AI model inference.

Almost none of these new benefits will excite the average cellular customer. These upgrades mostly open up new markets for the carriers. The big carriers saw similar claims for 5G fizzle in the market. Folks aren’t interested in buying separate cellular subscriptions for smart devices, and the battle for connecting multiple devices has largely been won by WiFi. Faster speeds will benefit FWA home cellular, but will not be seen as an important benefit for cellphone users.

It’s going to be interesting to see if AT&T and the other big carriers stay lukewarm about paying for the upgrades to 6G. That would break the cycle of a new generation of cellular technology every ten years and would put equipment and handset vendors into a tailspin.

How Good is Rural Cellular Coverage – Part II

Yesterday’s blog looked at AT&T cellular coverage in a typical rural county in Illinois and included the following map. The map shows where AT&T can provide 5G coverage in a moving vehicle in the dark areas, and where somebody standing stationary outdoors could get a 5G signal in the lighter colored areas.

Let’s look at the maps for the other two major carriers in the same areas. The first map below is T-Mobile, and the second is Verizon.

These maps show typical coverage. The two carriers support 5G in moving vehicles in and close to towns and cities. The light colored areas are where somebody standing outdoors can likely get a 5G signal. An indoor cellular coverage map would likely not be a lot larger than the dark areas.

Taken altogether, these maps show a typical rural story of cellular coverage. Cell carriers rarely share towers, and each carrier is on different towers and has different coverage. All three carriers have areas where they have no 5G coverage, and somebody subscribed to any one carrier in this county would find a lot of dead zones. All three carriers have little or no coverage in the northwest sector. These maps show something that every rural delivery driver knows – to work in rural America means carrying multiple cellphones subscribed to different carriers.

When Chairman Carr says that 96.8% of households have 5G coverage, we have to put that into perspective. Over 80% of Americans live in cities and suburbs and likely have good cell coverage. Another substantial percentage live in smaller towns that happen to have at least one cell tower. In this particular county, 60% of people live in incorporated towns and villages, meaning there are a lot of rural residents.

What’s the point of these two blogs? The FCC considers this County to have good 5G coverage. That assumption comes largely from looking at the combined coverage of the three carriers shown for somebody standing stationary outdoors. The light colored areas of the three maps combined cover most of the county.

If the FCC ever decides to finally launch the 5G Fund for Rural America, this county will likely not be a candidate for a grant to build new cell towers. That’s unfortunate, because I estimate that 30% of the residents of this county would say they have poor cellular coverage. They will say that they don’t have good coverage indoors, and no matter which carrier they subscribe to, they hit dead spots when they drive around the county. The FCC’s assertion that 96.8% of homes have good 5G coverage can be supported by the FCC maps – but those maps don’t show the reality of the way that people judge cellular coverage.

How Good is Rural Cellular Coverage – Part I

The FCC has opened a docket that periodically looks at ways to improve the FCC’s broadband and cellular maps. As part of that docket, Chairman Brendan Carr issued the following statement: On the mobile side, 96.8 percent of locations have access to mobile 5G services of at least 7/1 Mbps.

To put that into perspective, there are roughly 116.7 million total passings counted in the FCC maps, and the Chairman is saying that all except 3.7 million have good access to 5G. The Chairman’s statement can be supported by the FCC cellular maps, but I think the reality in rural areas is far different than what is shown on the maps. I’m not saying that the FCC maps are a lie – because I think it’s likely that the maps represent what the FCC asked carriers to report. But I think the maps tell a different story than what Chairman Carr is pushing, and I don’t think anywhere near 96.8% of folks in the country would say they have good cellular coverage.

Let’s look at the FCC maps for 5G coverage in an actual county in Illinois. I didn’t pick this county because it doesn’t have good cell coverage. The coverage in the counties around it would all tell the same story. One thing to note about this county is that there are homes located in all parts of the county – the areas with no coverage on these maps are not parklands or forests.

The following map shows AT&T 5G coverage from the FCC cellular maps. The FCC asks carriers to show coverage in two ways. The darker orange areas are where AT&T claims that 5G coverage will work in a moving vehicle. The lighter areas are where AT&T says that a customer can receive 5G when standing stationary outdoors. AT&T is claiming no 5G coverage in the gray areas.

This AT&T map is typical of rural cell coverage. Cell towers are located roughly in the center of the dark-colored areas, and those areas mostly covering towns and cities. Anybody who understands cellular technology understands that speeds drop quickly with distance from a cell site. The cellular download data speeds at the center of the dark areas could easily be as fast as 300 Mbps. But within two miles of a tower, speeds drop to around 25 Mbps. 5G speeds and coverage in the light-colored areas are a lot slower and spottier, and as you get to the outer parts of the light-colored areas, farthest from the towers, it’s likely that somebody would have to move around in their yard to find the sweet spot where they could make a call.

What this map doesn’t measure, and the FCC doesn’t ask about, is indoor cellular coverage. It’s a general rule of thumb that indoor speeds are roughly half of outdoor speeds. You can easily test this by taking an outdoor cellular speed test and then an indoor test away from a window (turn off your WiFi). If the carriers were to map expected indoor cellular coverage, the areas with indoor coverage would be a lot smaller than the light-colored areas shown for outdoor coverage.

When you ask a rural resident what good cell coverage means, they will define it as working in their home and working in their car. With that definition, AT&T doesn’t have great 5G coverage in the county for people who live or drive outside the dark circles.

Tomorrow’s blog will compare AT&T’s coverage to T-Mobile and Verizon to show the overall picture of cell coverage in this county.

The FCC’s Ability to Levy Fines

Today’s blog takes a deeper dive into the upcoming case at the Supreme Court concerning appeals by AT&T and Verizon over fines levied by the FCC. The original appeals followed an FCC finding that all three major U.S. cellular carriers were liable for violating customer privacy by selling access to customer location data. This data showed every place that a customer visited during the day, something that should make every cell customer uncomfortable. The FCC fined AT&T $50 million, T-Mobile  $80 million, and Verizon $47 million, with smaller fines against a few other carriers. The case at the Supreme Court looks specifically at the FCC’s ability to levy fines against the carriers for violating consumer privacy rights.

AT&T and Verizon appealed the FCC fines. Both companies were emboldened by two recent Supreme Court rulings that weakened the FCC’s authority. The first was Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo, which said that courts don’t have to defer to expertise at federal agencies when deciding lawsuits. The second case was SEC v. Jaresky, which said that federal agencies should give defendants a chance to have a trial by jury in a federal court rather than levying fines.

As usually happens with cases that make it to the Supreme Court, lower courts issued conflicting opinions about the FCC fines. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the fines levied against AT&T, while the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the FCC’s fines against Verizon.

One of the more interesting things about both appeals was that the carriers did not deny their bad actions – they had clearly allowed access to customer location data. Both appeals relied on the Supreme Court ruling in SEC v. Jaresky and argued that the FCC should have offered the carriers the chance to take the cases to court and hold a jury trial as an alternative to the FCC fines.

It’s clear that the carriers are trying to weaken or break the FCC’s ability to levy fines and are willing to go through this process as a way to avoid future fines. I find it unbelievable that the carriers would have chosen to take this specific case to a jury if they had been given that option. It’s impossible to seat a jury of people who don’t use cellphones, and I would wager that a jury would be unhappy that a carrier would sell the data to track them 24/7. It’s easy to imagine that a jury would assess damages much larger than the FCC fines if these cases had instead gone straight to court.

It will be interesting to see what the carriers do if they win this case. Winning doesn’t take them off the hook for selling customer data, and the cases would likely be remanded back to the FCC to give the carriers the option for a jury trial. As silly as it sounds, I’m dubious that, even with a second chance, the carriers would choose the jury trial. Again, the real goal of the carriers in this case is to weaken the FCC’s options in future disputes.

It will be unfortunate if the Supreme Court sides with the carriers and hobbles the FCC’s ability to levy fines. The FCC typically fines regulated companies for two reasons, for failing to comply with FCC rules or for abusing the general public. The first type of fines is generally relatively small and the big fines are saved for companies engaged in abuse and fraud of the public. In a recent action, the FCC fined Telnyx LLC for allowing foreign scam robocalls into the U.S. telephone network.

Protecting the public is one of the major roles of a regulatory agency. A policy shift that makes it difficult or impossible to hold large corporations accountable for abuses against the public would be a terrible outcome.

Some Thoughts on Convergence

An article in Light Reading reported that the largest cable companies captured about one-third of the net cellular customer additions in the fourth quarter of 2025. This statistic combines the cellular sales of Charter, Comcast, and Optimum. The overall cable industry statistics would be even higher if it included sales from Cox and Mediacom, which are privately held.

Industry analysts are using the word convergence as shorthand for competition that bundles cell service with broadband. Convergence is the newest strategy that replaces the traditional bundling strategy of selling a package of broadband, cable TV, and voice.

Industry press over the last year is full of articles that wonder about the ultimate success of the strategy. Cable companies seem to have the upper hand in a convergence bundle since they collectively pass roughly 122 million homes. I’ve read a few analysts who argue that the big telcos like AT&T and Verizon are at a disadvantage since they pass a lot fewer homes with fiber.

But I think these analysts are missing something. There are three players in the convergence battle, and each is using a different tactic:

  • Cable companies are finding success with the convergence bundle by combining full-price broadband with inexpensive cellular service. The main goal of the cable companies is to reduce broadband churn, and a customer loses their cable company cell service if they drop broadband.
  • The fiber parts of the telcos don’t seem to be pushing the convergence package to the same extent. They are mostly still betting that people like fiber a lot more than cable broadband. However, AT&T just announced a fiber/cellular bundle with gigabit and one cellphone for $90 and two cellphones $120.
  • The third competitors are the FWA cellular companies. They are bundling full-price cell service with inexpensive broadband. At least for now, they seem to be winning the convergence battle. In the fourth quarter of last year, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon added over 1 million net FWA customers while the rest of the industry barely grew.

I know it seems odd to be counting the FWA competitors as different than the fiber telcos, since they are largely the same companies. But anybody who follows these companies understands there is not a lot of bleed-over between the wireline and the cellular parts of the businesses. The FWA division of the telcos are willing to compete for a fiber customer from their own sister companies.

It’s becoming clear that affordability is a major issue for a huge number of households. As long as that stays in the forefront, it seems like many households will lean towards the convergence plan that gives them a significant discount. I doubt that customers care if the discount comes from a lower price for broadband or cellular.

I think the cable companies are on to something with their focus on reducing churn. I talked to a few people in the last year who wanted to leave Charter and move to fiber broadband but didn’t want to lose their cheap cell service – and didn’t want to go through the hassle of replacing both services at the same time. The cable companies were really good at the triple play bundle in the 2010s, and a huge number of households felt they were held captive by the bundle. Are we headed back to that same place, but this time with multiple bundle options that force customers to buy both services from the same company?

Perhaps led by the recent new plan from AT&T, perhaps the fiber telcos are ready to jump into the convergence battle. I have wondered for years why they didn’t lead the market in this effort, and I guess it was due to internal battles over which division swallowed the bundling discount.

A Rural Cellular Story

I was looking through the FCC cellular map in Buncombe County, North Carolina, where I live. For those not fully familiar with the FCC broadband maps, the agency publishes two maps: the more familiar one that shows broadband coverage and a second that shows cellular coverage. You can toggle between the two maps at the FCC’s map website.

It struck me while looking at the details in the maps that rural cellular coverage is changing, and not in a good way. I started by looking at a small section of the county that is on the outer fringe of where the Asheville outer suburbs turn rural. According to the FCC cellular map, the area I selected has the following cellular coverage:

These two tables tell me the following:

  • AT&T and Verizon have some 4G coverage. But the Verizon coverage is likely very weak since they don’t claim it will work in a moving vehicle. While AT&T claims its 4G coverage will work in a moving vehicle, it’s curious that AT&T doesn’t have 5G. This tells me that the AT&T signal is also likely weak since it is outside the 5G coverage area.
  • The only carrier claiming relatively solid 5G (35/3 Mbps) is Project Genesis, which is EchoStar. The company has exited the facility-based cellular business and is in the process of dismantling cell sites.
  • T-Mobile claims both 4G and 5G for outdoor cellular coverage, but doesn’t claim it can work in a moving vehicle, meaning the coverage is also probably weak.
  • The last carrier listed is UScellular, which claims 7/1 speeds on 5G, but doesn’t claim to be able to provide coverage in vehicles. UScellular was purchased by T-Mobile, and the rumor is that any UScellular towers that already duplicate T-Mobile coverage are likely to be decommissioned.

The bottom line is that this particular neighborhood has weak cell coverage. The only carrier that claimed to be able to deliver 5G to a moving vehicle is now out of business.

I picked this neighborhood at random, but I think I would find the same story in most of the areas on the fringe of the metropolitan area. The coverage in areas that are completely rural is worse. The story I gleaned from this neighborhood is troublesome for several reasons.

  • The folks who live here don’t have a lot of options. The only carrier that might work in the way people need cellular to work is AT&T, but this neighborhood is outside the AT&T 5G coverage, and the 4G coverage is likely weak.
  • It looks like decent coverage was finally becoming available from EchoStar, but that’s now gone.
  • The speeds shown in the table are for outdoor coverage, and speeds inside homes are typically half of outdoor speeds.
  • When you look at the details in the FCC cellular map you quickly understand how the advertised national footprints of the big carriers are exaggerated.
  • The bad news is that the FCC considers this neighborhood to be served by cellular. That means if the FCC finally launches the 5G Fund for Rural America, this neighborhood will not be considered for funding to add a new cell tower.

Broadband Shorts March 2026

The following are a few topics I found interesting but which are two short to need a full blog.

Acquisitions Changing the Broadband Landscape. We’ve recently seen the closing of a number of major mergers and sales that are changing the broadband landscape.

  • On January 20, the sale of Frontier to Verizon closed. This $20 billion blockbuster sale brought 2.2 million fiber subscribers and eight million passings. Long-time followers of the industry are somewhat amused to see Verizon buy back millions of passings it sold to Frontier in the past.
  • On February 2, AT&T closed the sale of over 1 million fiber customers from Lumen, which brought four million fiber passings. This included customers in major markets like Denver, Seattle, Salt Lake City, Las Vegas, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Orlando, and Phoenix.
  • On March 10, the sale of Starry to Verizon closed. While bringing only 100,000 customers, the acquisition also brings Starry’s proprietary technology that uses 28/39 GHz millimeter wave spectrum to deliver wireless broadband, mostly to MDUs. The speculation is that Verizon will use the technology to expand to MDUs outside of its fiber footprint.
  • The huge merger between Charter and Cox Communications is still pending. The merger recently got approved by the FCC and still needs approval from several states. Cox would bring around 6 million broadband customers and 12 million passing to Charter, making the combined company the largest ISP in the country.
  • GFiber just announced a merger with Astound Broadband that would spin GFiber from Google Alphabet.

Action in the NDIA Suit. The U.S. Department of Justice sought to dismiss the lawsuit filed by the National Digital Inclusion Alliance (NDIA) that challenged the administration’s refusal to disperse the grant funding approved by Congress from the Digital Equity Act. These grants were aimed at tackling digital inclusion efforts that included bringing broadband devices to those that need them, training people how to use computers and broadband, and training for broadband-related jobs. The NDIA suit was first filed in early October 2025. I note the DOJ motion since the agency has had a low success rate in defending executive actions that killed various other federal grants. I think there is still a chance that this funding will eventually be awarded as intended.

AI Fueling Surge in Deepfake Spam. Hiya, a service that provides apps to block spam calls, released its State of the Call 2026 report, which says that AI is fueling an increase in spam calls. A survey of over 12,000 consumers across the  U.S., UK, Canada, France, Germany, and Spain showed a rise of deepfake calls, which use AI to mimic voices that are familiar to those being called. One in four Americans said they received a deepfake voice call in the last year. Americans said by nearly 2-to-1 that spammers are winning the battle over the FCC, which is trying to squelch spam calls.

AT&T Partnership with Amazon. AT&T, Amazon Web Services (AWS), and Amazon Leo announced a broadband collaboration this week that integrates AT&T into the AI and cloud capabilities of AWS. AT&T will become the preferred vendor to provide connectivity to AWS data centers. Amazon LEO has an existing arrangement with Verizon to bring fiber to ground stations, and it will be interesting over time to see if that business shifts to AT&T.

AT&T will partner with Amazon Leo to provide satellite broadband connectivity to some AT&T broadband customers. This is an interesting solution that could help AT&T more easily walk away from rural copper networks. AT&T also wants to bring satellite backup broadband to AT&T business customers.

Cellular Backup for Broadband

Amazon announced a new device that offers broadband backup for broadband outages. The new device is the eero Signal, which is an add-on to Amazon’s eero WiFi system that will automatically connect a customer to cellular broadband any time the primary broadband connection fails.

For now, the device works with 4G and retails for $99.99. For the purchase price, a customer gets the device plus six months of backup service. After that, there is an annual $99.99 subscription. A 5G version of the products is coming soon that will have a $199.99 annual subscription fee. In both cases, the customer also has to have an eero subscription, which can cost as much as $9.99 per month or $99.99 for a year.

The Signal device will connect with the strongest carrier signal in your area, meaning that Amazon has made arrangements with AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon. There are usage limitations, and the cellular connection can’t be used as a primary broadband connection. I’m curious how long the device will function for somebody who has a multiday outage. One of the other caveats of the device is a warning that customers can’t connect to 911 through the device.

Amazon is clearly counting on folks willing to pay extra for instantaneous broadband backup. The service seems pricy to me. I have several broadband outages every month on my cable broadband connection, and most last for 15 minutes or less. If I’m working on my computer,  I can activate my cellular hotspot within a minute if I really need an Internet connection, but I often just wait for the outage to clear. But I’m not the target customer for the product since my quick fix is only for the computer I am using. I don’t operate any critical devices on WiFi, like a security system, fire alarms, or a health monitor. The biggest draw of the service for folks with those devices is that the eero Signal product will support WiFi for all of the devices in the home, including when the customer is away from home.

In December, AT&T also announced a new broadband backup service. This is a free product that offers cellular backup to customers who buy both AT&T broadband and cellular service. This backup also provides cellular broadband for the whole home, but only if the activated cellphone is within range of the home Internet gateway. The broadband gateway will instantly start using cellular broadband if the normal broadband connection is lost. One of the best features of this service is that it requires no new hardware or a subscription. But this wouldn’t provide backup for critical devices if the customer isn’t home or in range with the cellphone.

Both companies obviously think there is a need and a market for a backup service. AT&T is oddly acknowledging that its broadband has enough outages for this service to be an issue. I’m going to guess that Amazon isn’t going to be the only hardware company to offer this. The idea of creating a recurring revenue stream has to be attractive to folks who normally sell hardware.

California Competition Study

The Public Advocates Office, which is part of the California Public Service Commission, undertook a a deep analysis of broadband pricing in the state, correlated with the level of competition. The study was conducted from August through October of 2025.

The study looked at four large markets in the state: San Mateo, Oakland, Los Angeles, and San Diego. By choosing these markets, the study encompasses the four largest ISPs in the state – AT&T, Comcast, Charter, and Cox. The study gathered information on available broadband plans by location, advertised speed tiers, and promotional prices. The study also overlaid household incomes from the Census across the data it gathered to explore if household income played a role in prices offered by the big ISPs. The markets are interesting because they not only vary by ISP, but each market has some neighborhoods where the only gigabit provider is the cable company, and other neighborhoods where there is also one or more fiber competitor.

The overall conclusion of the study won’t surprise anybody who follows the big ISPs – broadband prices vary by the level of competition. In aggregate, the study showed that the price for broadband in competitive neighborhoods across the four markets was around $51 per month, while prices in non-competitive markets were $15 to $40 higher per month for comparable services.

The study resulted in three major conclusions:

Gigabit Fiber Drives Lower Broadband Prices. The study demonstrated that price competition only kicked in for neighborhoods where there are multiple ISPs offering gigabit broadband. That means a cable company and at least one fiber provider. The study showed that when there is competition for gigabit broadband, the competition extends downward to slower speeds offered by the big ISPs.

The study demonstrates something that is probably obvious, in that pricing is trimmed even further when there are more than two gigabit providers in a neighborhood.

Sub-Gigabit Providers Do Not Reliably Constrain Price. This is an interesting finding. It says that when the only competition to a cable company is an FWA cellular provider or a fixed wireless ISP, the cable company does not engage in significant price competition to keep customers. The study showed that, in fact, some of the neighborhoods with this kind of competition see the highest prices from the big ISPs.

This doesn’t mean that cable companies never compete hard against 100 Mbps providers, but this finding makes a lot of sense. Customers are attracted to the low prices of the FWA providers, and both T-Mobile and Verizon have price options as low as $35 per month. Cable companies, at least in these four large markets, are not willing to drop prices to compete with those prices.

Income is Not a Primary Driver of Prices. This is a bit of a surprise, because there were previous studies that suggested that pricing was lower in neighborhoods with the highest household incomes. That may have been true five years ago, but the data now suggests that prices offered by the big ISPs are mostly related to the level of competition.

The study made some other interesting observations. One observation is that in competitive neighborhoods, promotional prices can vary by household, and somebody might be paying a significantly higher or lower price than their immediate neighbors.

The study is worth reading for anybody interested in how big ISPs compete. The study has a lot of detail about how big ISPs stratify addresses and pricing offers based on the presence of other gigabit providers, while not caring much about ISPs that compete with slower products.