Tag Archives: FCC

The Spectrum Auction Winners

After a four-year hiatus, the FCC recently held a spectrum auction of 200 licenses for AWS-3 spectrum in the 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, and 2155-2180 MHz bands. The last FCC auction was in 2022 for 2.5 GHz spectrum. The FCC lost the ability to hold spectrum auctions when its Congressional authority lapsed and was not renewed. This spectrum was touted by the FCC as being 5G-grade. The license areas included in the auction covered over 100 million people across 48 states and two US territories, and included major markets like New York, Chicago, Boston, Tampa, and Charlotte. The FCC announced before the auction that much of the proceeds will be used to continue to fund the rip-and-replace of Chinese electronics from Huawei and ZTE.

The winning bidders collectively bid more than $3.57 billion. The winners are as follows, from largest to smallest:

  • Verizon Wireless: $3,162,445,000 for 82 licenses in 82 markets
  • T-Mobile: $277,787,000 for 102 licenses in 102 markets
  • AT&T: $120,774,000 for 10 licenses in 10 markets
  • SpaceX: $8,490,200 for two licenses in two markets
  • Blue Ridge Wireless II LLC: $2,090,000 for one license in one market
  • Conundrum Wireless, LLC: $1,228,000 for two licenses in one market
  • Citizens Band License Company, LLC: $75,000 for one license in one market

Not surprisingly, 99.7% of the spectrum was claimed by the three big cellular carriers, with Verizon snagging 88.5% of the awards. Folks might be surprised to see SpaceX as the fourth-largest winner. The company is looking for spectrum to enhance its direct-to-cell mobile services. Analysts speculated that this auction was a trial run for the company to learn about the auction process since the company has already agreed to buy $2.6 billion in spectrum in the AWS-3, AWS-4, and H-blocks from EchoStar.

Verizon was using the auction to fill holes in its spectrum portfolio and spent almost $2 billion of its winning bids in New York, Chicago, and Boston. AT&T’s biggest focus was for Charlotte. T-Mobile dropped out of all of the expensive markets, but still won the most licenses spread across small metropolitan areas.

ike many actions by the federal government these days, there is also an interesting backstory to this auction. The spectrum that was included in this auction originally came from EchoStar (originally Dish Networks). Two companies, SNR Wireless and Northstar Wireless, originally purchased the spectrum in the 2014 AWS-3 auction for $3.3 billion. When the FCC learned that Dish was the secret backer of the two companies, the FCC voided the awards. The FCC ruled that when this spectrum was eventually reauctioned, that Dish would owe the FCC any shortfall if the new auction raises anything less than $2.9 billion.

Roger Entner of Recon Analytics says that EchoStar bid up the current auction to save itself from having to pay for any shortfall in the auction. EchoStar entered the recent auction with almost as many bid credits as Verizon. Entner claims that EchoStar was in the auction for no other purpose than bidding up the price, and in doing so, increased the proceeds of the auction from $2 billion to the final $3.57 billion. He says that EchoStar stayed in the auction until the auction reached the threshold where the company was off the hook for paying for the shortfall. In the next two rounds, the company dropped out of every market except for two licenses it got stuck with in Guam. The company is no longer in the cellular business, and Entner expects it will sell this spectrum at a discount to a local cellular provider or just ride out the build-out shot clock until the FCC is forced to reclaim the spectrum.

It’s going to be interesting to see if the three big carriers take any action against EchoStar for driving up the prices. I don’t have the slightest idea if EchoStar did anything illegal, but its bidding actions were certainly shady.

FCC Proposes New Permitting Rules

The FCC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking titled Build America: Eliminating Barriers to Wireline Deployments. The stated purpose of the proposed new rules is “to cut red tape and excessive fees imposed by some state and local governments in the public rights-of-way for wireline deployments”. There are several important provisions in the new rules.

First, the FCC proposes a 120-day shot clock for local governments to approve a request for rights-of-way. If the local government doesn’t respond in that time frame, then the application is presumed to be approved. That may seem like a reasonable time frame when you first hear about. It doesn’t seem unreasonable to ask a local government to approve or reject a right-of-way request to build fiber on a single street or a small neighborhood. But consider if a fiber overbuilder requests rights-of-way for an entire city. Such requests are complicated. Such a request would include residential neighborhoods and business districts. A city would have to consider a lot of factors, like planned road relocations or rebuilds, other construction activity that is already occurring, and issues related to the condition of existing rights-of-ways that might already be overcrowded with other utilities.

The docket also proposes to limit fees to a reasonable approximation of the government’s actual, direct costs of managing the rights-of-way with respect to a particular application. This implies the FCC will only allow fees associated with establishing the original right-of-way and will not allow fees to cover some of the costs for managing the right-of-way over future years.

The FCC plans to establish safe harbor fees for rights-of-way. For those not familiar with that term, a safe harbor fee generally means a standard rate or affordable guideline. The problem with safe harbor rates is that they don’t recognize the difference between a right-of-way fee in a small rural town and one for the biggest metropolitan areas of a state.

The new rules will count in-kind compensation as part of any fee. Local governments often negotiate in-kind contributions with fiber builders. For example, they might grant a right-of-way and ask the fiber builder to provide a few free fibers to connect between government buildings. The FCC new rules will mandate that any such in-kind contribution be counted as part of the fee. That would mean putting a dollar value on the in-kind contribution and subtracting it from the fees. That may sound reasonable, but this is being done in the context where the local government has to prove its fees are cost-based while a fiber builder will not. I have many clients who have been handed inflated estimates from cable companies for providing short fiber routes.

Finally, the new rules will prohibit a local government from charging higher fees when the proposed infrastructure will support multiple purposes. An example would be a fiber route that is being built to bring fiber to a neighborhood and also serve a cell tower.

The most interesting thing about the docket to me is that FCC Chairman Carr said when he took the job that his philosophy was “light touch regulation”, meaning he didn’t foresee the FCC implementing a lot of new regulations. Instead, this and other FCC proceedings are adding a lot of new federal regulations. Many of the other FCC proceedings are similar to this one in that the FCC wants to wrest away any regulatory authority from states and localities and regulate everything at the federal level.

I’m sure that industry comments will include some horror stories from fiber builders about cities that have stonewalled new fiber construction or that charge a lot of fees. My guess is that these are the exception rather than the rule since most communities want more fiber and are willing to work with anybody willing to invest in their market.

Satellite Shorts July 2026

Accelerated Satellite Regulatory Approvals. The FCC announced that it will vote at its July 22 meeting to overhaul the regulatory process for satellite broadband. The proposed rules are in an order titled Space Modernization for the 21st Century. The proposed rules are to meet four specific goals: to improve the speed of processing applications for new satellites, to provide more predictability to applicants and licensees, to provide more flexibility for innovation, and to still meet the FCC’s responsibilities. It’s one of the longest FCC orders I can recall, at 296 pages.

The new rules would eliminate a lot of old regulations and replace them with new rules intended to speed up the paperwork process by applying “bright-line” criteria for approving new satellites. For those not familiar with that term, a bright-line regulation is one with a clear, objective rule or standard that leaves no room for subjective interpretation or exceptions, that is designed to create highly predictable outcome. A bright-line approval process would list specific requirements, and any applicant who meets those requirements would be approved. Perhaps I’m naïve, but I would expect that approving new satellites should include a thorough engineering review at the FCC. There should also be an opportunity for other satellite providers to note any problems with an application. I’m all for improving the processing time at regulatory agencies, but changing from today’s through review to a set of bright-line rules is going too far in the direction of simplification and assumes that satellite companies won’t propose any bad or unworkable ideas.

100,000 Satellites for Starlink? Perhaps this is a coincidence for the FCC wanting to simplify satellite applications, but Starlink filed an application to expand to 100,000 broadband satellites to its constellation, up from the 12,000 that will be in orbit at the end of this year and the 15,000 total that have been authorized by the FCC. The application includes a request to get access to new spectrum in the W and D bands between 92 and 275 GHz. The filing says that the new satellites will be the new Gen3 that will be capable of speeds up to several gigabits per second. Never one for modesty, the filing from Elon Musk says that SpaceX has a goal of handling the majority of the world’s internet traffic.

Rocket Lab Buys Iridium. In an $8 billion deal, Rocket Lab is acquiring the satellite company Iridium. Iridium currently operates a constellation of 66 satellites that provide a range of services that include phone and data services using the L-band spectrum, positioning services, and navigation and timing services. Rocket Labs is a launch service that hopes the deal will make the company into a full-service provider that both launches and operates satellites. The company hinted earlier this year that it was interested in developing its own constellation but said it’s not ready to announce specific plans and services until it acquires the needed spectrum.

NASA Warns About Launch Site Capacity. A report from the inspector general of NASA warns that the increasing number of space launches is posing problems for spaceports. The report warns that the Kennedy Space Center in Florida and the Wallops Flight Facility in Virginia are approaching operational capacity and will hit their limits between 2028 and 2029. The prediction is that the number of launches will grow from the current 109 annual launches to 268 per year by 2030, which will overstrain the launch facilities that were constructed years ago to support the Apollo program. The report warns that an investment of at least $1 billion is needed to future-proof the sites. The launch sites are controlled under the NASA budget, and the administration has proposed a 24% cut in NASA’s budget for the next fiscal year, which includes eliminating forty scientific programs.

Premium Fees from Starlink? A recent article in Futurism reports that SpaceX is charging some users a demand surcharge of $500 to $1,500 because their address is within a high-demand area. The article cites several customers who have been hit with the surcharge, and who complain that it’s nearly impossible to fight the issue through the company’s slim customer service process.

The article notes that the congestion charge was quietly reintroduced in 2024 at a one-time fee of $100 for high-congestion areas. PC Magazine reported in 2025 that the fees had been increased to as much as $1,000. As of last month, there are reports of surcharges of $1,500 in parts of Alaska.

Meanwhile, Starlink has increased prices. While it now offers usage-capped plans for $55 or $85 in selected areas, the price for normal unlimited Starlink broadband was increased from $120 to $130.

Broadband Shorts June 2026

Digital Equity Grant Lawsuit Update. In April, a D.C. federal judge declined to pause litigation over the Administration’s cancellation of the $2.75 billion Digital Equity grants aimed at increasing digital literacy and digital skill training. The suit was filed by the National Digital Inclusion Alliance. The Court found that the case covered distinct issues from the related Climate United Fund v. Citibank case and should proceed on its own merits. A month ago, the administration asked the Court to dismiss the case. However, a DOJ attorney told the Court last week that the government would withdraw from the case and let the grants proceed if all preferences for race are removed from the grant rules. This entire suit, from the beginning, has been about the title of the grant program and not about the substance of the program. This should hearten digital inclusion advocates since there is now a chance of seeing the promised grant funded after all. But before celebrating, its worth noting that the White House removed this grant from its proposed budget for the upcoming fiscal year.

Lower Budget for the FCC. Like is happening with many federal agencies, the House Appropriations Subcommittee is recommending a lower budget than requested by the agency for the fiscal year 2027 that starts in October. The agency had requested a budget of $416 million, and Congress reduced that by 6% to $390.2 million. The Congressional appropriations bill also added some conditions to the appropriations:

  • The FCC will be prohibited from updating minimum service standards for fixed or mobile broadband without first evaluating any impact on affordability and consumer choice.
  • The FCC will be prohibited from enforcing the digital discrimination rules passed by the previous FCC.

Update on FCC Router Ban. The FCC expanded its ban on foreign-made WiFi routers to also include “consumer-grade portable or mobile MiFi Wi-Fi or hotspot devices for residential use” and “LTE/5G CPE devices for residential use”. That’s a gigantic issue for the large cellular carriers who have been selling FWA cellular broadband to roughly 1 million new households per quarter. As a reminder, the FCC router ban only applies to any new routers, and carriers and ISPs can continue to import any existing routers they already use today.

But this is quickly going to become a major issue for carriers. The cable industry asked the FCC in the first week of June to swap some components inside existing routers, which would mean these are not identical to routers that were used before the ban. The cable companies warn that without the ability to modify older models that the cable industry faces a huge router shortage in the near future. The Global Electronics Association (GEA) has continued to argue that the FCC’s policy is flawed because security vulnerabilities are not related to where a router was manufactured and is endemic to the technology. Th good news is that the FCC is reviewing, and has approved several new routers.

New Fiber Factories. Corning is partnering with NVIDIA to build three new fiber factories that will increase the company’s capacity by 50%. The factories will be located in North Carolina and Texas. The cited reason for the expansion was the increased demand for fiber for data centers, but this increases fiber availability for all other purposes. NVIDIA is making a $500 million investment in Corning as part of the deal, and the company has an option to buy an additional 15 million Corning shares. This is another example of companies in the AI space investing in each other.

Supreme Court Upholds FCC Fines. The Supreme Court voted 8 to 1 to uphold the FCC’s authority to issue fines against companies that it regulates. The original suit that asked to eliminate the FCC fine authority was brought by AT&T and Verizon, which were trying to avoid fines levied after the two companies sold customer location data. The two carriers had argued that the FCC was improper to fine them since the companies should have been given the option of requesting a jury trial. The two companies said they are considering not paying the fines as another test of FCC authority.

 Spectrum Auction Results. The FCC held the first spectrum auction in four years and auctioned AWS-3 spectrum that is valuable for cellular traffic. The FCC was worried when the spectrum raised only $95 million in the first few days. The One Big Beautiful Bill had ordered the FCC to resume spectrum auctions as a way to raise money to offset tax cuts in the bill. Congress assumed that all upcoming spectrum auctions would raise $85 billion. At the end, the auction raised just over $3.5 billion, which was a big relief to EchoStar. This spectrum was originally won at auction by EchoStar, which was subsequently accused of claiming bidding discounts it didn’t deserve, and the FCC expected EchoStar to make up any shortfall under $3.4 billion. .

AT&T Offers Daily Rates for iPad Users. In a new pricing plan, AT&T is offering a daily rate of $3 to activate broadband on a SIM-enabled iPad. This can be done using the iPad settings and doesn’t require a special app. No contract, subscription, or credit check is required. This is interesting because this is how broadband is sold in much of Africa, where users buy broadband by the day and use those days to tackle all broadband tasks. The $3 rate is not cheap, at $90 per month, but would be a savings for somebody buying usage as few times per week.

FCC Questioning State Pole Regulation

The FCC issued a Public Notice with the longest title I can remember: Wireline Competition Bureau Reminds Reverse-preemption States of Obligation to Effectively Regulate Pole Attachments and Seeks Comment on Need for Changes to the Commission’s Certification Rules to Ensure Effective State Pole Attachment Regulation.

The Public Notice asks for comments on the effectiveness of regulations in States that have chosen to regulate pole attachments, meaning rules that regulate how telcos and others get access to poles that are in the public right-of-way. Comments are due on the Public Notice by July 13, 2026.

States were given the right to regulate pole attachments in Section 224 of the 1934 Communications Act. Twenty-three States have elected to regulate poles over the years, and the FCC has created regulations for the States that have not done so. In one of the oddities of regulatory language, States that have elected to regulate pole attachments are said to have “reverse-preempted” the federal pole attachment rules.

The Public Notice is seeking comments on whether States are properly regulating the rates, terms and conditions of pole attachments. More specifically, the FCC is asking what steps it could take to make sure that state pole attachment regulations are “transparent and effective”.

In strongly worded language, the FCC reminds States of the “obligation to effectively and clearly regulate pole attachments in their jurisdictions.” In what feels like a veiled threat, the FCC asks if it should require reverse-preemption States to refile new certifications for FCC review. This could present an opportunity for the FCC to refuse the certifications and take over the pole attachment rules. It will seem likely that there will be lawsuits if the FCC tries to take back jurisdiction of pole attachments, since the state’s right to regulate pole attachments is clearly stated in the Communications Act.

There is one annoying mention in the Public Notice that this is being done to protect the $42 billion BEAD program. NTIA’s Benefit of the Bargain rules cut the amount that will be used for infrastructure in half. Of the remaining BEAD awards, a lot will go to satellite, fixed wireless, or buried fiber construction that will not require the use of pole attachments. If only this was being done to protect $42 billion of infrastructure construction.

I also have to wonder about the timing of this. Many States are in the process of signing BEAD contracts, and some of the earliest steps for an ISP starting a new project is to immediately start the pole attachment paperwork process along with seeking rights-of-way. Even if the pole attachment rules could be better in some states, the FCC’s action would make more sense if it had been started a year earlier.

I think that it would be very disruptive if the FCC chooses to seize pole attachment regulation back from the states. At a minimum, in a state where the regulations reverted to federal authority, it seems likely that pole owners will take some time to fully digest and cope with the change, and to look at forms and processes.

I could be wrong, but this feels more like the FCC trying to take regulatory authority from States more than an attempt to improve BEAD. While BEAD is a large grant program, the many other grant programs in recent years have collectively funded more fiber than BEAD. My guess is that some States will fight to keep their own pole attachment rules, and any attempt to do this will result in a protracted court fight, and that BEAD will be in the rearview window before this is settled.

AT&T v. California

AT&T filed several petitions at the FCC asking the Commission to override regulations from the State of California. The State is forcing AT&T to maintain copper networks until such time that AT&T can offer the same services to customers using some alternate technology.

The FCC reacted by issuing two requests for public comments related to the AT&T petitions. In the first, the FCC asks for comments related to its ability to preempt California’s regulations related to copper networks. The second asks for public comments related to AT&T being able to walk away from carrier-of-last-resort responsibilities in California as it tears down copper networks.

These proceedings ask some interesting questions, although my hunch is that the FCC already plans to preempt California on these issues and is only going through the formalities first.

One interesting issue raised is whether the FCC can grab regulatory authority from a State. The historic framework for telecom regulation has always been that States are free to regulate anything that the FCC elects not to directly regulate. Back when AT&T was the primary telephone company, every state had numerous regulations related to telephone companies. The FCC established the big nationwide rules, often dictated by Congress, but the States were free to regulate anything the FCC didn’t directly regulate. This usually meant issues like consumer rates and customer service practices. As competition was introduced into the telecom market, AT&T and the various Bell companies were successful in convincing most states to relax regulations, and in some case telcos became almost totally unregulated. California eased some regulations, but still maintains a lot of regulation of telcos. It will be interesting to see how hard California will fight back if the FCC overrides the state’s regulatory authority.

Another interesting request is for AT&T to get out of carrier-of-last resort (COLR) obligations. The petition describes this as AT&T being relieved of ETC status (Eligible Communications Carrier), which is the formal process where states certified companies with COLR status. COLR is an obligation originally created by the Communications Act of 1934, and expanded by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which said that regulated telcos are required to serve customers located inside their regulated service areas, with only a few exceptions related to customers in remote locations. Telcos have been obligated to connect new customers to the existing networks and to build new networks to meet new homes and businesses. This feels like a quaint concept today, and it’s one of the first things that disappeared as states deregulated telephone companies. I find it interesting that many telcos still have ETC designations and use that status to receive various kinds of universal service funding while only playing lip service, at best, to carrier-of-last-resort obligations. The real question being asked in the FCC proceeding is whether the agency has the authority to override any COLR obligation required by California.

I have to think that AT&T has already been ignoring this obligation for years in California. I recall news stories of AT&T discontinuing rural copper services in rural California with little or no notification to customers. I have to think that it’s been a long time since AT&T has built any new copper infrastructure to reach newly constructed homes and neighborhoods. But there are other obligations related to COLR and ETC status that AT&T would like to have preempted.

It’s going to be interesting to see who, other than regulators in California, responds to these dockets. These particular issues are largely already dead in most of the rest of the country, although some states still maintain greater levels of regulation over telcos than others.

These dockets don’t address the even bigger question, which is whether the state or federal government should be regulating telephone service at all. I think everybody is in favor of the FCC’s efforts to tamp down on robocalls and texts, but how much other regulation of traditional telephone companies is still needed?

Proposed Changes to E-Rate

The FCC announced in April it would be taking a fresh look at all aspects of the Universal Service Fund (USF). The agency recently kicked off this process for the E-Rate program by issuing a combined Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

E-Rate is the Universal Service Fund program that subsidizes broadband for schools that have the highest percentage of students who qualify for the federal school lunch program. E-Rate also brings broadband to libraries. The program has been in effect since 1997. In recent years, E-Rate has disbursed around $2.5 billion annually to subsidize broadband bills. There are over 101,500 schools and 11,600 libraries served by the program.

The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking asks for public feedback on some fundamental questions about the existing program. The FCC asks if E-Rate is still meeting the original intent and asks if the program should be narrowed in scope or even ended. The FCC notes that when E-Rate was created, most schools did not have broadband access, but virtually all schools are connected to fiber broadband today. As an aside, I wrote a blog last year that noted that a large percentage of schools now need a lot more than one gigabit of broadband, with many schools now needing 5- to 10-gigabit service.

Most of the NPRM asks questions related to students’ use of broadband. Probably the most controversial question in the NPRM asks if the FCC should somehow try to limit screen time for students. The FCC cites some statistics that say that children ages 5- 8 average about three and a half hours per day of screen time. For students ages eight to twelve, the average is about five and a half hours daily. Finally, teens spend an average of eight hours per day using a screen. The FCC cites an expert who recommends that children five years and older should be limited to no more than two hours per day of screen time.

The FCC asks if it should intervene to try to limit screen time inside schools that receive E-Rate. It’s an interesting question, and I suspect there will be parents who welcome this. When reading the document, it’s easy to think the FCC is leaning towards ordering this. I have a hard time understanding how this is within the FCC’s jurisdiction. The E-Rate rules from Congress give the FCC instructions to make sure schools have adequate broadband, but didn’t give any authority over how schools or students should use broadband. In a related question, the FCC asks if parents should be allowed to opt out of having their children use computers in school. I’m sure teachers are shuddering at the possibility of having a mix of students with and without computers in every class.

The NPRM also asks about stricter regulations to make sure that students with school-supplied computers cannot access harmful information on the web, both when using devices in the school and when taking the devices home. This is a requirement that’s been around since the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA), which was enacted in 1999. Apparently, the FCC is hearing of examples of students able to bypass restrictions on computers.

In the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the FCC is tackling the issue of better regulating E-Rate consultants. This is due to some recent headlines where consultants defrauded schools and the E-Rate fund. The FCC is suggesting an annual disclosure and certification of E-Rate consultants.

In addition to these proposals, the FCC recently separately suggested that E-Rate service move to a portal operated by USAC, where ISPs could competitively bid to serve E-Rate schools.

New Rules for FCC Maps

At the end of April, the FCC released a Report and Order and a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking related to its broadband mapping processes. There are no earth-shattering changes in the order and this is part of the ongoing process of finetuning the FCC broadband maps.

The following are the changes that were ordered:

  • The FCC ordered that the definition of broadband be the same for the BDC map collection process as the Form 477 process where ISPs and carriers report customers. Currently, there are some types of customers included in the BDC maps that are not included on the Form 477.
  • The FCC is eliminating the process, where an ISP or carrier must be notified of challenges to the map fabric and given a chance to respond. The map fabric is the database of potential customer locations. Eliminating this extra step will hopefully speed up the process of implementing challenges to the fabric.
  • The FCC shifted the responsibility to the FCC staff (or its mapping vendor) to remove demonstrably bad data from the BDC maps rather than requiring the ISP or carrier to make changes.

In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the FCC asked for feedback from the industry on a number of questions:

  • The FCC asks about changing the map restoration This is the process where ISPs or carriers can reenter data into the FCC maps that was removed due to map challenges or other FCC actions. We now know that a lot of changes were made to the maps as a result of the BEAD map challenges, and the FCC is asking if there can be a simpler process for ISPs or carriers to fix the maps.
  • The FCC asks if it should eliminate the requirement for ISPs to report “grandfathered” broadband coverage, meaning locations where maximum download speeds are slower than 25 Mbps.
  • The FCC also asks about eliminating the requirement to report 3G cellular coverage.
  • The FCC asks if the rules for fixed wireless reporting should be changed when reporting the ‘buffer size’, which is the maximum distance an ISP wants to claim to be able to provide service from a tower site.
  • The FCC asks if it should change or relax the assumption that fixed wireless providers should assume the height of a customer receiver at a height no higher than 7 meters.
  • The FCC currently requires BDC providers to retain all of the backup for reported data for three years, and it asks if that should be something different.
  • The FCC is seeking comments on changes that would speed up and streamline the map challenge process. There are questions related to individual map challenges, bulk challenges, and crowdsourced challenges.
  • The FCC asks if there are needed changes to the mobile verification and audit processes.
  • Finally, the FCC asks if certain kinds of data should automatically be considered to be confidential, rather than requiring ISPs and carriers to seek confidentiality with each data submittal.

Are Broadband Prices Dropping?

The FCC recently asked for comments in Docket 26-78, which is the latest iteration of its biennial report to Congress that looks at the State of Competition in the Communications Marketplace. Various industry players provided input to the FCC on issues related to competition and pricing for broadband and cellular service, with fewer caring about voice and cable service.

One of the issues widely discussed in this year’s filing is broadband prices. Some of the big ISPs continue to assert that broadband prices are dropping. For example, USTelecom refers to a report it generated that asserts that Internet prices have fallen for the eleventh straight year. I’ve written about the annual USTelecom reports before, and a big part of their assertion comes from looking at the price over time of the cost per megabit of speed being sold. On that basis, prices are dropping, mostly because ISPs have been increasing the speeds being delivered at a faster pace than prices.

One set of comments came from the Benton Institute, which described the issue perfectly. They cite the example that the price for 200 Mbps was around $50 in 2021. Many ISPs have unilaterally increased speeds without increasing price, and the average price for 400 Mbps in 2025 was also around $50. While the cost per megabit cut in half, customers are still paying $50.

Of course, ISPs don’t sell, and consumers don’t buy broadband by the megabit. Benton made a humorous observation on the big ISP’s focus on cost per megabit. Benton cites a USTelecom comment that the price per megabit for gigabit service is around 7 cents per megabit, or $70 per month. If USTelecom members are happy with that price, then why aren’t they applying that price to slower products so that 200 Mbps would cost $14 per month?

Perhaps the best discussion of prices in the docket comes from a study by John P. Horrigan, PhD, which is attached to the Benton comments. Horrigan takes a neutral look at prices and found that the weighted average for all broadband products increased by 4.8% from 2024 to 2025. Horrigan found that broadband prices for products slower than gigabit declined 8.5% from 2024 to 2025, with prices increasing for faster products.

Horrigan found that low-price options are disappearing from the market. When the ACP plan was operating, 9% pf broadband being sold was priced at $30 or less. He says this fell to just 3% of the market in 2025. This also holds true for plans with slower speeds. In 2022, 57% of consumers were buying Internet at a speed of 100 Mbps or less. In 2025, that has dropped to 32% of the market.

While the Benton Institute comments hint at it, I think most other comments in the docket are missing the bigger picture. Customers are choosing to migrate to lower-cost broadband options. One doesn’t have to look any further than the phenomenal success of FWA cellular. Since 2022, 16.5 million customers have subscribed to FWA cellular. While some of these customers live in rural areas where FWA is the only fast broadband option, I think a vast majority of these folks choose FWA to save money. The list prices for FWA home broadband are in the $50-$60 dollar range. However, there are big discounts for bundling with cellular service and for using autopay, and it’s possible to buy FWA home broadband for as little as $20-$30 per month.

Any analysis that just looks at prices for specific speeds over time will account for folks willing to take less speed for a lower bill. The big ISPs don’t want to talk about this, but there is no other way to discuss the huge success of FWA without talking about customers self-selecting lower prices.

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.