Tag Archives: FCC

The FCC Opens the 900 MHz Band

The FCC voted in its recent open meeting to expand the use of 900 MHz spectrum. The order opens up the full 10 MHz available in the 900 MHz spectrum bands 896–901 and 935–940 MHz, for licensed broadband services. 900 MHz is an attractive band for users since the signals carry a long way and are good at penetrating buildings.

The licensed portion of the spectrum is not of interest to WISPs due to the small size of the channels, which won’t deliver the kinds of speeds expected by home broadband users. But the spectrum can easily support smartphone applications and is of interest to those wishing to deploy private 5G network.

This FCC change does impact the other bands of 900 MHz spectrum. For example, there are numerous uses allowed for the spectrum between 902 and 928 MHz, including ham radio, FM radio repeaters, alarm and security camera systems, video surveillance for law enforcement missions, and transmission of infrared scanner imagery during overflights of disaster areas. Some of these uses are restricted in Texas and New Mexico since this spectrum is also used to monitor the border.

The primary users of the expanded-use bands will be electric, gas, and water utilities that have been using the spectrum for automated meter reading and other network monitoring devices. The purpose of the FCC’s change is to provide more bandwidth and expanded capacity to utilities. The FCC order predicts that the changes to the spectrum usage will promote better smart metering, grid modernization, and network security and resilience. Under the former rules, transmissions in the band were restricted to 5 MHz licenses, which limited the ability for utilities to launch private 5G and LTE networks.

The new order provides different options for a current license holder to:

  • Continue to use the legacy configuration of 20 wideband channels and 200 narrowband channels.
  • Operate two paired 3 MHz channels and two segments of the remaining 4 MHz of spectrum to operate 159 narrowband channels.
  • Operate two paired 5 MHz channels to deploy more broadband use cases.

This change largely benefits Anterix. The company purchased a nationwide license for 6 MHz of the spectrum from Sprint in 2014. Anterix has been selling and leasing that spectrum to utilities to create private wireless networks. This new order gives the company the use of all 10 MHz of the spectrum.

One of the most interesting aspects of the new order is that it anticipates that the spectrum will be made available to others through voluntary negotiations and market-based transactions. The Anterix spectrum today is largely deployed on a county-by-county basis, and this order opens the door for entities other than utilities to license the spectrum to create local private 5G networks. This could be used by corporations or local governments looking for a private and secure wireless network outside of the public cellular networks.

I recently noted how the public cellular networks crashed in Western North Carolina after Hurricane Helene. While a number of cell sites sustained physical damage, many were still operational, but still failed since the backhaul fiber lines feeding the region were damaged or destroyed. While the lack of cell signal was a major inconvenience for the public, it was a crushing blow to first responders who found themselves unable to communicate. A private in-county 5G network for first responders using 900 MHz could have continued to work locally on the functional cell towers. This would have greatly benefited the search and rescue effort and the overall coordination of first responder resources.

It will take a while to see if this is a giveaway to Anterix or if this will really open up new opportunities for first responders and other local private wireless network providers.

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.

The Regulatory Death Knell for Copper?

In March, the FCC issued an order in docket WC 25-209 and 25-208 that may signal the final regulatory death knell for telephone copper networks. The docket is titled Reducing Barriers to Network Improvements and Service Changes / Accelerating Network Modernization.

The stated purpose of the order is to speed up the transition from the TDM technology used in copper telephone networks to all IP-based networks used by fiber and other newer technologies. The secondary purpose of the docket is to override state regulations that are slowing down the transition away from copper networks.

The order comes in eight parts:

  1. Adopt one consolidated rule applicable to all efforts to discontinue services and applications, eliminating all prior rules.
  2. Give blanket authority to grandfather copper services, meaning telcos don’t have to accept new orders for these services.
  3. Allow ISPs to use technologies other than copper T1s to connect to 911 centers.
  4. Give carriers the right to discontinue wholesale products provisioned over copper.
  5. Create a 31-day automatic grant of a request to discontinue services.
  6. Clarify discontinuance requests to ensure they do not adversely affect the public.
  7. Revise the rules applicable to emergency discontinuance of services during and after disasters.
  8. Eliminate redundant rules and regulations related to discontinuing services.

In probably the most consequential part of the order, the FCC is preempting all state laws and processes that hinder telcos from decommissioning copper networks.

Taken as a whole, these new rules greatly reduce the paperwork involved with decommissioning copper networks and related services, which should speed up the stated intent of the big telcos to get out of the copper business.

There are instant impacts on the public. Telcos no longer have to sell telephone service or DSL provided over copper lines. Somebody moving into a rural home with no cell service will no longer be able to count on buying a traditional telephone line.While the FCC order didn’t explicitly state it, this new requirement just killed the carrier of last resort responsibility for copper-based telcos.

The new FCC rules still retain the requirement that customers must be provided an alternative when their copper services are discontinued. However, under the new rules, a telco doesn’t have to provide the services if they can point to alternative from a different provider. I’m envisioning telcos telling the FCC and customers that the alternative is satellite broadband for voice and data – eliminating the need for the telco to provide an alternative.

One of the biggest concerns of discontinuing rural copper is connectivity to 911. A lot of rural residents still buy landlines to have a sure way to connect to 911. Consider the many people who live in rural areas with little or no cellular coverage. If these households don’t have broadband, either by choice or because of affordability, they will lose the ability to call 911. Even customers buying broadband do not automatically have connectivity to 911 through their broadband connection. Rural broadband customers have to buy an online VoIP product to be able to safely guarantee they can register their home address for identification to 911 through the broadband connection.

We’ve known this was coming for a long time, and the FCC just took the steps to make it quick and painless for telcos to walk away from copper, including in states like California that have still been enforcing copper regulations. It’s going to take a few more years for telcos to abandon copper. For example, AT&T has a goal of being out of the copper business by 2030. But this order makes it clear that the end of copper is on the horizon.

WiFi Router Ban

The FCC issued a ban on March 23 on all consumer-grade routers made in foreign countries. A router is the device in your home that connects your ISP broadband to the WiFi that almost everybody uses to connect devices in the home. Businesses use routers to direct ISP broadband around the business on fiber or copper networks. The ban covers all new brands and models of routers except those that have been granted a Conditional Approval by the Department of Defense or the Department of Homeland Security.

The ban comes after the White House convened an interagency group comprised of government security experts, which collectively decided that new routers made overseas “pose unacceptable risks to national security of the United States and the safety and security of United States persons”. There have been previous technology bans for security reasons, such as a ban on using software from Kaspersky Lab, and telecommunications services provided by China Telecom and China Mobile International USA. It’s worth noting that the FCC cannot decide to ban any equipment or service and can only do so if directed by national security agencies.

The ban noted that malicious actors have exploited security gaps in foreign-made routers to attack households, disrupt networks, engage in espionage, and steal intellectual property. The notice says that foreign-made routers were involved in cyberattacks from Volt, Flax, and Salt Typhoon.

The ban does not stop consumers from using existing routers. It doesn’t stop retailers from selling existing stocks of routers or from continuing to buy routers that previously have been approved by the FCC’s equipment authorization process. All that is blocked is any new models or generations of routers.

Router manufacturers can petition the DoD or DHS for conditional approval, which would allow them to apply to the FCC for equipment authorization for new routers. There are no manufacturers today that have this conditional approval.

It’s hard to know where this ban will lead, but this could become a big concern for ISPs, since most ISPs provide a WiFi router for new customers. Many cable companies and fiber builders build the router into the modem. Any ISP that is currently using a router that has not been approved by the FCC is in trouble, because according to this ban, they can’t give an unauthorized router to a new customer. Every ISP should be checking this week to make sure the routers they are providing have been blessed by the FCC.

This has longer-term implications since virtually all routers are made overseas, including those made by American companies like TP-Link, which manufactures its routers in Vietnam. Manufacturers routinely upgrade and improve routers every few years, and American ISPs will be stuck with older routers if the government doesn’t approve any new brands or models of routers.

One unspoken intent of the order is probably to promote the manufacture of routers in the U.S. I have to wonder if an American-made router would be any less susceptible to hacking than a foreign-made one. If not, I’m not sure what this ban will accomplish, other than making it more expensive to get routers. It will be interesting to see if any router companies move manufacturing to the U.S. due to this ruling. A more likely outcome might be that American consumers won’t be able to get some of the newest routers that are available to the rest of the world.

Light Spectrum Licensing

There is an interesting spectrum battle going on between cell carriers and satellite companies. The heart of the contention is spectrum in the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service (UMFUS) bands, specifically the 24 GHz (GigaHertz), 28 GHz, upper 37 GHz, 39 GHz, 47 GHz, and 50 GHz bands. These frequency bands are generally referred to as millimeter wave spectrum.

Satellite companies use some of this spectrum today via a shared arrangement with cellular companies that have purchased some of this spectrum in FCC auctions. Satellite companies are seeking greater use of this spectrum to communicate between satellites and ground stations, which is a growing concern as the number of different satellite providers and the overall number of satellites in the sky increases. Satellite companies want access to more shared spectrum using a process the FCC calls ‘light licensing’, which is a process to register new ground stations with relatively little paperwork.

The big cellular carriers don’t want any expanded use of light licensing. Like many spectrum disputes, at the heart of the issue is money. AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon each spent roughly $2 billion in millimeter wave spectrum auctions, and these companies would like to require satellite companies to come to them to negotiate individual site licenses for the spectrum, presumably as a way to recover some of their investment in the spectrum.

To some degree, at least so far, the millimeter wave spectrum has been a bust for cell companies. Millimeter wave spectrum comprises very short waves that can deliver immense amounts of data. You might remember the ads on TV in 2019 when Verizon touted gigabit speeds on the new Samsung Galaxy S10 smartphone. It was impossible that year to watch a sporting event without seeing these ads multiple times.

At the time, Verizon had deployed millimeter wave spectrum in a few downtown areas of a handful of cities in the hope that faster speeds would lure customers to buy a more expensive subscription to get access to faster cellphone speeds. The trial was largely a bust since it turned out that millimeter wave spectrum is blocked by everything in the outdoor cellular environment, even the body of a cellular customer. But the real issue was that the public had little appetite to pay for faster cellular speeds and still doesn’t today. Cellphones don’t run apps that need superfast downloads, and existing 4G networks at the time easily delivered video streams.

Cellular carriers argue that letting satellite companies use the spectrum for more ground stations diminishes their licenses. Satellite companies counter by pointing out that there are almost no outdoor uses of the spectrum today, and most applications are being used to wirelessly move a lot of data indoors.

This will change to some extent now that Verizon has purchased Starry, which is the only carrier to make extensive use of millimeter wave spectrum outdoors. It seems likely that Verizon plans to expand the Starry model and technology, which is only used today in a few markets.

This fight is a good example of the spectrum battles we are going to see over the next few years that tend to pit large, important constituencies against each other. I expect a lot of loud spectrum battles as the FCC tries to find 800 MHz of mid-range cellular spectrum for auction – almost all spectrum in this range is already used by somebody other than the cell carriers.

The FCC is forced to choose, in this case, between cell carriers and satellite companies. My bet is that the satellite companies will be allowed to use more spectrum under the light licensing rules. This is partly because they currently seem to have a favored status at this FCC, but also because the cell carriers have never utilized the millimeter spectrum in any meaningful way. This also might be a precursor to a future where the FCC decides that multiple parties can more easily share spectrum.

FCC Alert on Cybersecurity Risks

The FCC recently took the unusual step of warning telecom companies about an increased risk of ransomware attacks. The FCC is warning telecom companies to regularly patch their systems, enable multifactor authentication, and segment their networks to avoid falling victim to ransomware attacks. The alert cited data that shows a fourfold increase in attacks on telecom companies from 2022 to 2025.

In the alert, the FCC said it has become aware over the past year of increased ransomware incidents involving small-to-medium-sized communications companies. These attacks have disrupted service, exposed company and customer information, and have locked ISPs and carriers out of critical files.

The FCC alert talks about how ransomware works and offers advice on how to protect against the problem. The FCC also offers advice on how to respond to a ransomware scammer, including advice for contacting the FCC and the FBI.

The most interesting recommendation was to monitor the cybersecurity practices of your critical vendors, which I take to mean vendors who supply network electronics or software systems. The FCC warns that a significant number of telecom intrusions have come from weaknesses in systems supplied by vendors. I’m not really sure how a small ISP is supposed to monitor this, because every major vendor you work with is going to swear that they have safe practices.

The FCC alert includes all of the standard cybersecurity practices related to regularly backing up data and training employees to avoid phishing and other bad practices. They also say that every ISP ought to have an incident response plan of how to deal with cybersecurity problems and to test it regularly.

An appendix to the FCC alert lists some best practices that are being recommended by the FCC’s Communications Security, Reliability, and Interoperability Council. This is a group formed that includes the FCC,  large ISPs, and carriers. This list recommends taking additional steps like requiring validation of software patches before using them.

This Council also strongly recommends using the least-privilege principle (PoLP) for network access. This is a process that limits access to critical software systems only to those who need access. It also involves granting minimum access rights so that users can only access the parts of a system they need while blocking access elsewhere. It can mean granting people temporary access only for the duration of a needed task. Finally, this means granting access by job function, and not by user identity.

I’s obviously impossible to fully protect a company from external attacks, as was witnessed when the Salt Typhoon hackers gained access to a number of giant corporations and government agencies that supposedly have world-class cybersecurity. But it’s worth reviewing your practices and systems, because of the downside of being unlucky enough to be a victim of one of these attacks.

The FCC’s Spectrum Challenge

The FCC has been tasked by Congress to find and auction 800 megahertz of mid-range spectrum. This was a key element of the One Big Beautiful Bill that planned to use the proceeds from spectrum auctions to offset other costs created by the bill. The bill specifically requires the FCC to auction 100 megahertz of spectrum in the upper C-Band, located at 3.98 – 4.2 GHz.

The new requirement to auction that spectrum has resulted in a strong response from the aviation industry and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). This new controversy is a perfect example of the challenges the FCC is going to face as it tries to free up 800 megahertz of spectrum. Proposing to change any mid-range spectrum is going to rile up controversy and opposition from those who care about a given spectrum band.

In this case, the FAA’s concern is about interference. Apparently, they don’t want to take any chance of interference from cellular companies that would negatively affect airline altimeters. I think anybody who flies is on the FAA’s side – if they are concerned, I am concerned.

The FAA released new altimeter standards in 2023 that required changes to altimeters to be able to ignore any interference from the lower C-Band spectrum located at 3.7-3.98 GHz. Even though there is a gap between the lower C-band and the 4.2-4.4 GHz band that is used for altimeters, the FCC was worried about interference.

The FAA immediately reacted when Congress directed the FCC to auction off the 3.98 – 4.2 GHz band that sits directly adjacent to the altimeter spectrum. The FAA recognizes the reality that there are radios that don’t do a great job of fitting precisely in the spectrum band they are supposed to use.

The FAA warns that existing altimeters, including those that were retrofitted to meet the 2023 changes, are not going to be able to filter out interference from the upper C-Band spectrum. The FAA tracks reports of interference, and by the summer of 2025, it had received 659 reports of potential C-band interference. After analyzing the reports, the FAA identified 118 events that were directly attributable to lower C-band interference, and this was for spectrum that is not directly adjacent to the altimeter spectrum bands.

The FCC has a major dilemma since Congress specifically ordered the upper C-band spectrum to be auctioned. I’m not sure how the agency can resolve this other than by getting Congress to change the directive. The FCC could spend a lot of money to move altimeters to a different spectrum band, but there aren’t any convenient bands that meet the criteria. This would likely require the FCC to fund new altimeters.

Other wireless users are already starting to lobby to leave certain bands of spectrum alone as the FCC searches for 800 MHz of mid-range spectrum. Rural WISPs and others are already heavily lobbying for the FCC to leave CBRS spectrum alone, which is currently being used for rural broadband. The really big fight is going to come if the FCC wants to take any portion of the unlicensed 6 GHz spectrum that is being used for WiFi 7. The military had originally said it would go along with some changes in the mid-range spectrum bands, but already seems to be retracting from that commitment.

I don’t envy the FCC’s job of auctioning the spectrum as directed by Congress. I predict big lobbying battles and probably big lawsuits before much spectrum actually makes it to an auction.

Onshoring Customer Service

In one of the oddest actions I ever remember seeing at the FCC, the agency plans to vote on rules later this month that will curtail the use of overseas customer service by companies regulated by the FCC. I describe this as odd because it’s not clear to me that the FCC has the authority to tell ISPs, cellular carriers, and cable companies how to operate their day-to-day business. The FCC press release refers to  customer service, but I assume this also applies to overseas technical support.

The FCC is considering the following changes:

  • Onshoring Incentives. The FCC will encourage carriers to return call-center jobs to the U.S.
  • English Proficiency Standards. They are considering a requirement that foreign-based customer service agents must be proficient in American Standard English.
  • Location Disclosure. Companies must disclose to customers if an agent is located overseas.
  • Right to Transfer. Customers must be given an option to transfer to a U.S.-based agent.
  • Call Volume Caps. The FCC wants to limit the percentage of calls that can be handled by foreign agents.

The FCC says its proposed action is for security purposes since foreign call centers present a higher risk of not protecting customers’ personal data. The FCC insinuates that overseas call centers have been linked to the rise of robocalls and fraud, which may be true, but I’ve never heard of this before. The FCC says the changes are also intended to create U.S. job growth.

A quick review of the biggest carriers shows that Charter already uses 100% U.S.-based customer service agents. The FCC made the company agree to onshore customer service for its merger with Cox, but that was something the company had already promised when it first announced the Cox merger. Verizon mostly uses U.S. agents but has some limited overseas customer service. The big companies that will impacted the most are Comcast, AT&T, and T-Mobile, each of which uses a lot of overseas customer service agents. I’ll be curious to find out how smaller ISPs send this work overseas.

There is little doubt that this will be popular with many in the public. It’s not hard to find complaints on the web of customers who don’t like talking to somebody overseas. However, there are also a lot of online complaints about big companies like Charter, which uses U.S.-based customer service. I’ve always wondered how much people dislike overseas agents compared to the degree that they don’t like talking to any agents who use prepared scripts to answer questions.

One of the first things that came to mind when I read this is that it might provide an incentive for the big carriers that use overseas agents to transition to AI customer service. That would eliminate overseas workers, but it might also eliminate U.S. jobs. My gut feeling is that we are still not close to a day when a company can safely hand customer service completely to AI, but that doesn’t mean that some companies won’t try it. I suspect the public will hate talking to AI even more than talking to a live person, here or overseas.

The biggest question that will have to be answered is whether the FCC has the authority to order this. I can’t think of any section of the FCC code that would give the agency the authority to mandate the manner in which ISPs and carriers conduct day-to-day business. It will be interesting to see if anybody challenges them on this.

I also find it curious that this doesn’t feel like the light-touch regulation that was promised by the current FCC Chairman. This seems like new regulations that will add a lot to the cost of regulatory compliance. As I said at the beginning of the blog, it’s an odd idea on many fronts.

Unintended Consequences

The industry news is always full of big events like mergers, bankruptcies, new regulations, or regulations killed. I’ve written many blogs about these kinds of issues, but I have rarely written about the unintended consequences of big industry changes. Today’s blog looks at two examples of unintended consequences.

The first is the decision  by EchoStar to abandon the facility-based cellular business. There were several factors that led to the company’s decision to abandon the business line, but the company says the primary reason was pressure from the FCC to use the spectrum it owned or return it to the FCC for auction. The FCC was also pressuring the company to build faster and to get more customers.

One of the unintended consequences of the FCC nudging EchoStar out of the cellular business is that the company decided in 2025 that its best option for maximizing value was to sell the spectrum it planned to use for cell towers. The company sold spectrum to Starlink that will support the company’s entry into the satellite cellular business. EchoStar also sold spectrum to AT&T, which was put to immediate use to boost bandwidth at 23,000 cell sites nationwide. Both of these consequences are positive for the industry and will benefit many millions of customers.

Another consequence of EchoStar abandoning cell towers is that the company walked away from a huge number of long-term leases for space on cell towers. A group of ten tower company executives met with the FCC recently and asked for help to recover the abandoned payments from EchoStar. The company says it had no choice but to walk away from the leases since it is no longer using towers, and they say this fits the “force majeure” clause in its contracts with tower owners that excuse payments in the case of an unforeseeable event. It’s going to be interesting to see if the FCC does anything, or even if they have any authority to intervene in a business contractual dispute. This same thing happens all of the time on a smaller scale when carriers and ISPs walk away from leases they no longer need, and the only real difference in the case is the magnitude of the issue. My bet is that the FCC will do nothing since this is now a commercial contract dispute, and it will probably tell tower owners to take their claims to court.

Another big piece of news is Verizon’s purchase of Frontier Communications. The purchase process started sixteen months before the deal finally closed, and much has changed in the industry since then. When the transaction was first announced, CEO Hans Vestberg touted the sale as moving Verizon forward in pursuing convergence. That’s the new industry phrase that replaces the old triple-play strategy and now refers to bundling broadband and cellphones.

Companies generally pursue mergers in an attempt to boost stock prices, and it will be interesting to see if that happens for Verizon. There are already industry analysts panning the merger, saying that it doesn’t really move the needle for Verizon. Pre-transaction, Verizon’s fiber covers 9.2% of the country, and Frontier brings another 4.3% coverage. This pales against the cable companies that lead in the convergence battle, with the biggest cable companies collectively passing 90% of households in the country.

There are also other consequences when companies merge. Verizon will claim it’s gaining efficiencies from the merger, but the real consequence is that a lot of folks at Frontier will lose jobs that would have been safe without the merger. Many of the vendors and suppliers that supported Frontier will suddenly find they have lost a giant customer. It’s likely that eventually the prices of the products at the two companies will be brought into synch, and since Verizon’s fiber prices are higher than Frontier’s, it probably means eventual price increases for Frontier customers.

The FCC 2024 Broadband Report

The FCC recently released its Internet Access Services report for December 31, 2024. The report is generated to provide a mandated update to Congress annually on the state of broadband. The data for the report mostly comes from broadband data that ISPs report to the FCC twice each year using the BDC reporting system, with some overlay with Census data.

I’ve always hoped this report would provide useful information, but it’s challenging to glean any truly valuable information from the report. There are a lot of reasons that combine to make most of the report unusable.

  • There is still a lot of inconsistency in the way the FCC broadband map defines serviceable locations. There are numerous examples where the FCC maps include locations that don’t exist while excluding valid locations. There is still no consensus on how to count vacant homes, vacation cabins, apartments built in basements and garages, etc. The FCC broadband map concentrates on ‘mass-market’ residential and business broadband locations. This leads to inconsistent counting of large businesses, while most anchor institutions are not included in the map.
  • ISPs report broadband coverage to the FCC, which is supposed to mean locations an ISP is connected to or that it can connect within 10 business days of a customer request for service. We’ve seen many cases where ISPs exaggerate claimed service areas.
  • The real issue with the claimed coverage is that ISPs also claim the maximum broadband speed available at each location. FCC rules allow ISPs to claim marketing speeds, which may be very different than actual speeds. For example, it’s very common for ISPs to claim 100/20 Mbps coverage but deliver something much slower for download or upload speeds. This means the FCC report is nothing more than a summary of the marketing speeds claimed by ISPs.
  • The FCC makes no attempt to layer on known changes to the data. For example, the FCC maintains maps of federal broadband grant awards that are supposed to be built in coming years. The report would be a lot more useful for measuring broadband improvements if there were tables summarizing these known changes.
  • Finally, I’m doubtful, in today’s dynamic market, of the usefulness of any data captured at a snap shot in time. The Fiber Broadband Association claims there were 11.1 million fiber passings constructed during 2025 that are not reflected in the report. There have also been a lot of technology upgrades from cable companies, WISPs, and FWA providers. These changes all mean that the broadband landscape is significantly different just one year after the date of this report.

The report is full of charts and tables that sound like they should be useful, until you look at each of them in light of the above issues. For example, every table that is based on broadband speed is highly questionable due to ISPs that self-report marketing speeds.

But even many of the tables and graphs that don’t refer to speeds are puzzling, or report nothing useful.

  • Figure 4 purports to show broadband customers at the end of 2024 by technology. It shows 57.3% on cable, 26.7% on fiber, 6.6% on DSL, 7.3 % on fixed wireless, and 2% on satellite. However, even this simple table is troublesome. The three big FWA cellular providers claimed 11.6 million customers at the end of 2024, and it looks like these customers are not included in any of the categories.
  • Figure 9 shows the locations in each state with various speeds. Are there really 9% of locations in West Virginia and 5% of locations in Mississippi that can’t get a broadband speed of at least 0.2 Mbps? There are a lot of tables that analyze speeds over and under 200 kbps (this really is kilobits, which is four times faster than dial-up), which must be an obsolete Congressional reporting category.
  • Figure 17 shows all fixed connections with speeds over 200 kbps. The table combines cellphones and broadband in the same table, which demonstrates that only 14% of broadband connections are from cable broadband.
  • Figures 20 through 31 show the trend over time of the number of connections at various speeds. Because of the use of marketing speeds, the quantities are likely far off, but the trends are interesting. These figures clearly ignore FWA cellular broadband.
  • There are a lot of charts and tables about cellular speeds, which are completely worthless since most cell companies report 5G speeds to the FCC maps of either 7/1 Mbps or 35/3 Mbps, in a world where actual speeds can be hundreds of Mbps.
  • Figure 41 is interesting and shows the number of ISPs that report the use of various technologies over time. The trends are interesting but have no context. For example, how much of the drop of the number of cable ISPs is due to companies that folded versus those that were absorbed into a larger cable provider?