Tag Archives: WISPs

Ookla’s WISP Report Card

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The New BEAD Map Challenge

Perhaps the most unusual element of the new BEAD guidelines is a requirement that BEAD not be used for ‘overbuilding’. The new rules allow an ISP using unlicensed spectrum to stake a claim for areas it already serves and remove those areas from the BEAD map.

Judging if a WISP is really offering service that is considered as served for BEAD is complicated and involves multiple factors. First is speed. There are WISPs that have invested in new radios and backhaul to be able to deliver 100/20 Mbps to everybody. But there are WISPs (and other ISPs) that have been playing a regulatory game by claiming broadband speeds of exactly 100/20 Mbps while delivering something slower.

Second is geographic coverage that identifies the homes a WISP reach from a given radio. A landline network can serve everybody it touches, but terrain can make it increasingly hard for a WISP to reach every home, particularly as the distance from a tower increases. It’s not easy for a WISP to guarantee who it can reach or not reach.

Finally is overall capacity – the ability to be able to serve everybody in a given area. Judging capacity involves a number of factors – the density of homes in the area around a tower, the physical limitation n the connections a radio can make, the brand and age of the radios being used, the amount of backhaul bandwidth, the frequencies being used, and the number of other WISPs in an area that are vying for the same channels of frequency.

Broadband offices have already wrestled with understanding these issues in the original BEAD map challenge that involved WISPs using licensed frequency. But the new map challenge is crazy because State Broadband Offices are going to have to make super-quick decisions. NTIA is giving WISPs only seven days to claim they offer service that should be considered as served under BEAD, and the process is already underway in most states. States are also facing an incredibly short overall time frame and are now supposed to make all grant awards by September 4. That leaves no time to investigate, deliberate, or possibly even fully understand mapping and speed claims made by WISPs.

Contrast this with the BEAD mapping challenges that dragged on for half a year in some States where local governments and ISPs disputed the speed claims in the FCC map. NTIA created a torturously complicated process for the original map challenge to force challengers to prove that locations should be removed or included in the BEAD map. But now, we’re going to have a whirlwind process for excluding possibly millions of locations from BEAD. WISPs won’t have to go through any of the many steps required by the original map challenge, such as getting customers to prove their claims using speed tests.

I’ll be curious to see how many WISPs make a map claim. Removing locations from the BEAD map is not necessarily a good strategy since keeping BEAD locations provides an opportunity for a WISP to pursue BEAD funding under the revised rules that favor fixed wireless and satellite technology.

This quick process is troubling for another reason. I foresee a WISP or other ISP suing a State for making a quick decision about the maps they don’t like. The entire BEAD process has been surprisingly free of lawsuits, but a lawsuit at this late stage would really gum up the works. One area that could lead to lawsuits is the short decision-making time frame that leave WISPs with no chance to appeal a State’s decision. The short process also means that local governments or other ISPs don’t get a chance to review or comment on a State’s decisions.

Whatever happens, it’s going to be chaos. ISPs that still want to participate in BEAD now need to wait until this new map challenge has been resolved to see what is left on the map for BEAD grants. ISPs have been deliberating about where they want to serve for years and could suddenly be facing a different map. NTIA seems to be assuming that ISPs will somehow quickly cope and pivot to a changed map – but that is often going to mean reworking engineering designs and business models in a hurry. There are a lot of ISPs thinking about dropping out of the BEAD process because of the last-minute rule changes.

There has been a lot of criticism of NTIA in the past for being too deliberate. But this new process goes to the other extreme, and introduces major changes in the BEAD map and grant award rules with practically no time for the industry to react or provide input to the States. It seems inevitable that States are going to take widely different approaches to the issue, which makes it even more of a crap shoot for ISPs interested in BEAD.

Wireless to Fiber

There is an interesting discussion that has been percolating in the industry for many years. Many wireless ISPs have extolled the benefits of building wireless networks as the first step to eventually build fiber networks.

For over a decade, I’ve been a big proponent of this business plan and have worked with many rural ISPs who entered new rural markets with wireless with the hope of eventually building fiber in the same areas. The business plan makes a lot of sense – get paying customers and pocket revenues to eventually fund the upgrade. ISPs with this business plan typically have built as much fiber as they could up front, such as building fiber to each wireless tower to extend fiber deep into the network. Many of the ISPs that have adopted this business plan have already started making the transition to fiber. Many of them have taken advantage of state and federal grants to accelerate the process.

As soon as I heard about the BEAD grants, one of my first thoughts was that this two-step upgrade business plan idea is dead. We are at perhaps the only point in the history of the industry when there is enough money to go straight to fiber by taking advantage of grant funding. Grant funding can provide an ISP with the same kind of cash up-front that they might have accumulated after operating as a WISP in a market for a decade or more.

I sat in more than a dozen presentations in the last year where a WISP asked a County government for ARPA funding to build a wireless broadband network. One of the best selling points in these pitches was that WISPs will have the broadband up and running a lot sooner than a fiber overbuilder. But in every single presentation, the WISPs also that they want to build wireless today but would eventually migrate to fiber.

I didn’t go to the WISPA convention this year, but I talked to one of the vendors that attended and asked him for the main takeaway. He said that everywhere he went, he heard talk of building wireless networks today as the first step to eventually get fiber.

I don’t doubt that most WISPs that promote this two-step business plan are sincere. There are a lot of WISPs that have already built some fiber and understand the long-term durability and reliability of a fiber network. But I suspect that a few of the WISPs who are making this pitch are not sincere and are just telling local government officials what they want to hear.

The issue really gets muddied by the pending introduction of 6 GHz spectrum into wireless networks and the promise of much faster wireless broadband speeds. If WISPs can upgrade to deliver really fast broadband, is there any incentive to ever build fiber? Perhaps there will be no need to upgrade, and perhaps the wireless network is the right long-term solution.

I’m still on the side of building fiber if an ISP can find the funding – and I’m the first to admit that’s my own personal bias. Fiber networks are going to last a long time. Forget the talk that fiber is only good for 20 to 30 years. I think most folks who build fiber today believe it will easily last 60 to 70 years, and where they’ve placed conduit, future upgrades will be a lot less costly than building from scratch. Fiber electronics vendors have also gotten a lot smarter, and you can new generations of electronics over an existing network without a costly rip and replace. This contrasts with wireless technology, which is changing at such a rapid pace that periodic rip and replace upgrades are still the norm.

Local government officials tell me that their two biggest fears of getting a wireless solution are that the network won’t reach everybody and that the WISP won’t make the needed upgrades in the future. To be fair, many of these same local officials are also leery about seeing grant money go to giant ISPs to build fiber, with the fear that these big companies won’t maintain the network.

The bottom line for me is that I am leery about accepting a claim that somebody building a wireless network today is going to eventually upgrade to fiber. But maybe fiber isn’t needed with a high-quality WISP that spends the extra money to reach everybody and who will keep radios up to date in the future. The real concern for rural communities should be how to avoid getting a WISP or a fiber ISP that doesn’t maintain the network – and identifying them is a whole different challenge.

The Trajectory of the Broadband Industry

For well over a decade, it was fairly easy to understand the trajectory of the broadband industry. In the residential market, cable companies snagged all of the growth while telcos shrank as customers abandoned DSL. Other technologies like fiber or fixed wireless gained customers but were a blip on the national scale. In the business market, a dozen large companies competed fiercely for large business customers while smaller businesses were stuck with the same technologies used to deliver home broadband. There was no suspense in predicting where the industry was headed from year to year.

But the broadband industry is now in total turmoil. Within a short time, cable companies have stopped growing. Currently, all of the industry growth among big ISPs is coming from FWA cellular wireless. Last-mile fiber networks are being built across the country. WISPs finally have the radios and enough spectrum to be serious competitors.

When I talk about trajectory, I’m not talking about predicting 2024. The challenge is to guess where the industry is headed over the next five years. Who will be the winners and losers over that time? The easiest way for me to think about this is to look at each industry segment.

Let me start with the cable companies. You can’t have this conversation without first acknowledging that Comcast and Charter together have over 50% of all broadband customers today. That puts a big target on their backs because they have the customers that everybody else is chasing. The cable companies have clearly lost the perception war – the general public seems to have accepted that fiber is better than coax. The cable companies got blindsided by the pandemic when millions of people suddenly cared about upload bandwidth, and a lot of people got a bad taste for the cable companies. The companies are now scrambling to implement mid-split technology to boost upload speeds to 100-200 Mbps. Most are talking about implementing DOCSIS 4.0 much earlier than they had originally planned. The big unknown is if these two upgrades will be enough to turn public perception. Cable companies don’t help their case by having the highest broadband rates in most markets that continue to increase each year. The one advantage the big cable companies have is aggressive bundling with low-price cellular.

Fiber overbuilders are now everywhere. Big fiber overbuilders like AT&T talk about achieving a 30% penetration rate in a few years and reaching 40% after 4-5 years. But the telcos also have to overcome a public perception problem since they did such a poor job of customer service over the last decade while pushing the clearly obsolete DSL. Smaller fiber overbuilders don’t have this history and are aiming higher, and have penetration rate goals of 50% and beyond. Fiber gains don’t only come from cable customers, and a lot of fiber gains are from converting the remaining DSL customers. In five years it’s not hard to believe that fiber will have half of the customers in neighborhoods with fiber.

The big unknown is FWA cellular wireless. Already today, this product has picked up all of the industry growth over the last 18 months, and that trend looks to continue for a while. It’s a real mystery where the carriers are getting most of the growth. I can tell by looking at detailed speed test data that a lot of the growth is coming in rural areas where customers within two miles of a cell tower finally have a solid and fast broadband product faster than 100 Mbps. Any gains in cities are probably coming from customers who care most about price – FWA is much cheaper than cable broadband. But over the long run, this technology faces challenges. In rural markets, FWA will compete against faster WISPs and with fiber networks that will be built by BEAD grants. The wildcard for the industry will be the impact of using C-Band spectrum. That is supposedly going to at least triple the speeds – again within relatively short distances from towers. But FWA technology has a big long-term constraint in that cellular networks were never designed to deliver steady-use home broadband. While carriers might love this new income, one would think they are not going to be dumb enough to endanger their cellular customer satisfaction, which is their real source of revenue.

WISPs have a rosier future through the combination of better radios that minimize interference and the use of new spectrum, particularly 6 GHz, which can mean gigabit speeds in ideal circumstances. It’s really hard to predict the trajectory of this sector. In many rural areas, WISPs will be competing against fiber networks funded by grants and operated by highly popular ILECs and cooperatives. But in other markets, WISPs might become the virtual monopoly provider if they can win the broadband grants. That makes it hard to judge the overall trajectory in rural markets. WISPs will always face challenges in urban markets where they can’t serve more than a small percentage of homes and where frequency interference is rampant.

We can’t forget satellite broadband. Starlink has done well by bringing broadband where nobody else would – but that is also going to change due to the rural grants. Starlink’s prices are already a barrier for many potential users. The big unknown in the industry is what Jeff Bezos and Amazon will do. The company finally launched test satellites and might be aggressive with non-traditional bundling and affordable prices.

All of this competition will be happening in an environment where households will use 20% more bandwidth each year. Any technology that has overall bandwidth constraints will eventually feel this pinch. This will affect FWA cellular and satellite broadband the most but can hit any ISP that hasn’t built a robust enough network.

What does all of this mean in five years?

  • Fiber will continue to eat away at cable companies, and in five years, the cable companies might not have a choice and will have to bite the bullet and convert to fiber to compete. It’s hard to envision a future where cable companies don’t lose customers annually for the next five years.
  • DSL will finally die, and its market share will be absorbed by FWA and fiber.
  • FWA companies will continue to grow at a rapid pace for the next couple of years. Low prices will always find a market. But if the carriers can’t find a way to guarantee bandwidth at peak times, a lot of homes will lose faith in the product. FWA will see a lot of competition in rural markets. I think the industry will eventually reach a market equilibrium – at some level higher than today’s DSL penetration.
  • WISP’s success will be market by market and will depend upon the other competition and local conditions – the technology will always struggle in places with rough terrain like Appalachia.
  • Satellite broadband will still be the technology of choice for the most remote places. Satellite’s real long-term markets are in the parts of the world that don’t have other good rural ISPs. But Amazon might find a bundling option that will still make the company a serious player in the U.S.

Can WISPs Compete Against fiber?

I already know that when certain WISP readers see this blog headline that they are going to say, “There goes that damned Dawson again. This is going to be another anti-WISP rant”. I think they might be surprised if they read past the headline.

I know WISP operators who are some of the best ISPs in the country. When I rate them as best, I’m talking about how they deliver products their customers are happy with and how they provide great customer service and timely repairs. They are the kind of ISP that builds customer loyalty. I fully expect high-quality WISPs to be able to compete against fiber networks. While the industry lately seems to be fixated on broadband speeds, there are customers that value other aspects of being an ISP, such as trust and reliability.

I’ve never built a business plan that assumes that any fiber ISP will sweep the market and get every customer, so there will always be room for other ISPs. There is some portion of customers in any market that will switch immediately to fiber. There has been so much hype about fiber that many folks accept it as the gold standard. But the penetration rate of a new fiber network builder is going to depend on who builds and operates the network.

I think WISPs (and every other ISP) will have a hard time competing against a cooperative that builds fiber, particularly one that sets low prices like $50 or $60 for a gigabit. But not all coops will have affordable rates, and not all coops are loved by their members.

WISPs will have a much easier time competing against big telcos that win broadband grants. My firm does a lot of surveys, and a lot of the public has a massive dislike of big telcos like Frontier, CenturyLink, Windstream, AT&T, and some others. The public rightfully blames these big ISPs for walking away from rural America. I don’t think that folks will flock to these big ISPs just because they build fiber – particularly in cases where there is already a high-quality WISP that customers like. I will not be surprised in the future to find some markets where a great WISP will outsell a big ISP with a fiber network. A WISP might survive and thrive in such a market for a long time.

WISPs should also do well against a cable company that builds rural fiber if the cable company charges the same high rates as in cities. There are a lot of homes that can’t or won’t pay $90 – $100 per month for broadband.

But not all WISPs will be able to compete. There is a quiet truth that you will never hear WISPA talk about. There are some absolutely dreadful WISPs in the country. Lousy WISPs come in all sizes, but some of the largest WISPs are among the worst. Our broadband surveys often show rural folks who despise some of the WISPs in their neighborhood and either refuse to use them or plan to drop them with the first better broadband alternative. These are the WISPs that are not upgrading technology. These are the WISPs that will sell broadband to customers who are too far away from a tower where a WISP might deliver only 1 Mbps broadband but still charge full price. These are the WISPs that build long chains of wireless backhaul through tower after tower until there is not enough bandwidth for customers. These are the WISPs that have terrible customer service.

Interestingly, the most pointed critcism I hear about these poor WISPs comes from the high-quality WISPs. Good WISPs complain about how some WISPs cheat by exceeding power limits or constantly changing channel assignments just to goof up competing WISPs. There are WISPs who might read that as an anti-WISP statement, but these folks have not been reading my blog. I have been complaining about the big telcos non-stop for the last ten years. Small telcos that do a great job have spent the last few decades explaining how they are different from the big telcos. Great WISPs have to point out that they are different than the lousy WISPs that are poisoning the WISP brand name.

WISPA often responds to my blogs by saying I have a fiber bias and am anti-WISP. I admittedly think fiber should be the first choice for grant funding, but that’s a topic for another blog. But I am not anti-WISP, and I have WISP clients that are terrific. I know many other wonderful WISPs. I fully expect some of these WISPs will be around and thriving a decade from now. WISPs who thrive will do so for the same reasons as any other successful ISP – they will deliver a reliable product, priced reasonably, and will provide great customer service.

Licensed Spectrum and Broadband Mapping

As I work with clients who are thinking about applying for the BEAD grants, I keep stumbling across new issues that I see as problems. Today’s blog talks about how the BEAD grants in a given location could go sideways because of the NTIA’s decision to declare facility-based wireless technologies that use licensed spectrum to be considered as a reliable technology that is eligible for BEAD grants. I can foresee two different problems that might result from this decision.

There are two kinds of wireless carriers that could qualify under this new definition. First, cellular carriers like T-Mobile and Verizon are aggressively marketing FWA fixed wireless for homes using licensed spectrum. In the not-too-distant future, we can expect AT&T, Dish Network, and probably many of the smaller cellular carriers like U.S. Cellular to deploy the technology using licensed spectrum. The carriers are largely advertising this as 5G, but the actual technology being used for now is still 4G LTE.

The other set of facility-based wireless providers are the fixed wireless WISPs that use a mix of licensed and unlicensed spectrum to deliver broadband from towers. Most of these WISPs are using the licensed portion of Citizen Band Radio Spectrum (CBRS), but they can use other licensed spectrum like 700 MHz or other cellular spectrum purchased at auction in the past.

The first problem I foresee is that these wireless carriers can use the upcoming FCC broadband mapping update to lock down huge areas of real estate from eligibility for BEAD grants. Anywhere that these carriers claim speeds of 100/20 Mbps in the next set of FCC maps will be initially declared by the BEAD rules to be served and ineligible for grants.

Unfortunately, the new mapping rules allow for this since ISPs can claim marketing speeds in the FCC mapping. I’m positive that many WISPs will declare the speeds that will classify their areas as served, because many of them already have been reporting these speeds in the past. In just the past year, I’ve worked with at least thirty counties where at least one wireless ISP claimed countywide coverage with broadband  – in some cases at speeds of 100 Mbps or faster. These WISPs might have the 100/20 Mbps capability for some customers close to a tower, but it’s impossible to be able to deliver those speeds to everybody across an entire county.

To use an example, I talked to a farmer recently who is thrilled to get the new T-Mobile FWA product at the farm. The tower is on his property, and he is getting 200 Mbps downloads. But the stories from his neighbors are quite different. One neighbor less than a mile away is seeing 75 Mbps download speeds. A few other neighbors two miles or more away claim the broadband is unusable. If T-Mobile was to claim a fairly wide coverage for this technology in the FCC maps, it would be blocking BEAD grant money inside whatever areas it claims.

But let’s say that T-Mobile reports honestly. Under the new FCC mapping rules. a wireless ISP is supposed to input a wireless propagation map like the one below. This map is typical of wireless coverage in that the wireless signal travels further in directions where it is unimpeded. But this example propagation map doesn’t tell the whole story because you might imply that the speeds are the same over the whole propagation area. My farmer example shows that wireless speeds can drop off rapidly with distance from a tower. A map of a 200 Mbps coverage area or even a 100 Mbps coverage area will be tiny for a wireless ISP. The map that should be input to the new FCC maps is just the areas that can get good broadband speeds. In the propagation map below, probably 80% of the green areas probably don’t even see one bar of broadband. It’s also worth noting that the propagation map is not fixed – the coverage area changes with temperature, precipitation, and more mundane factors like the amount of backhaul provided to a given tower.This raises the second issue. If the wireless carriers with fast licensed spectrum report properly in the new maps, there are going to be splotches of areas around every rural cell tower that will be off-limits for grants. In the same way that the swiss cheese RDOF awards goofed up anybody else from bringing a fiber broadband solution, these fixed wireless or cellular blotches will make it hard to build a coherent network in areas that have to avoid the wireless areas. In a real deployment, An ISP will likely build to everybody in an area – but because of the mapping rules, they won’t get grant funding everywhere. I can’t even begin to imagine how somebody building a fiber network is going to properly account for assets that are inside and outside of areas that are supposedly already served.

I wonder if the NTIA understands what it has done. The agency seems to have worked very hard to avoid the problems the FCC caused in the RDOF reverse auction. But this ruling brings in one of the most damaging aspects of RDOF – incoherent grant serving areas. I know there is a challenge process for the maps used for BEAD, but it’s going to be extremely difficult to dispute an ever-changing propagation map around every cell tower or fixed wireless radio. I fear this is going to be one of the newest nightmares to pop out of the revised FCC maps.

Unlicensed Spectrum and BEAD Grants

There is a growing controversy brewing about the NTIA’s decision to declare that fixed wireless technology using only unlicensed spectrum is unreliable and not worthy of funding for the BEAD grants. WISPA, the lobbying arm for the fixed wireless industry, released a press release that says that the NTIA has made a big mistake in excluding WISPs that use only unlicensed spectrum.

I’m not a wireless engineer, so before I wrote this blog, I consulted with several engineers and several technicians who work with rural wireless networks. The one consistent message I got from all of them is that interference can be a serious issue for WISPs deploying only unlicensed spectrum. I’m just speculating, but I have to think that was part of the reason for the NTIA decision – interference can mean that the delivered speeds are not reliably predictable.

A lot of the interference comes from the way that many WISPs operate. The biggest practical problem with unlicensed spectrum is that it is unregulated, meaning there is no agency that can force order in a chaotic wireless situation. I’ve heard numerous horror stories about some of the practices in rural areas where there are multiple WISPs.  There are WISPs that grab all of the available channels of spectrum in a market to block out competitors. WISPs complain about competitors that cheat by rigging radios to operate above the legal power limit, which swamps their competitors. And bad behavior begets bad behavior in a vicious cycle where WISPs try to outmaneuver each other for enough spectrum to operate. The reality is that the WISP market using unlicensed spectrum is a free-for-all – it’s the Wild West. Customers bear the brunt of this as customer performance varies day by day as WISPs rearrange their networks. Unless there is only a single WISP in a market, the performance of the networks using unlicensed spectrum is unreliable, almost by definition.

There are other issues that nobody, including WISPA, wants to address. There are many WISPs that provide terrible broadband because they deploy wireless technology in ways that exceed the physics of the wireless signals. Many of these same criticisms apply to cellular carriers as well, particularly with the new cellular FWA broadband. Wireless broadband can be high-quality when done well and can be almost unusable if deployed poorly.

There are a number of reasons for poor fixed wireless speeds. Some WISPs are still deploying lower quality and/or older radios that are not capable of the best speeds – this same complaint has been leveled for years against DSL providers. ISPs often pile too many customers into a radio sector and overload it, which greatly dilutes the quality of the broadband that can reach any one customer. Another common issue is WISPs that deploy networks with inadequate backhaul. They will string together multiple wireless backhaul links to the point where each wireless transmitter is starved for bandwidth. But the biggest issue that I see in real practice is that some WISPs won’t say no to customers even when the connection is poor. They will gladly install customers who live far past the reasonable range of the radios or who have restricted line-of-sight. These practices are okay if customers willingly accept the degraded broadband – but typically, customers are often given poor broadband for a full price with no explanation.

Don’t take this to mean that I am against WISPs. I was served by a WISP for a decade that did a great job. I know high-quality WISPS that don’t engage in shoddy practices and who are great ISPs. But I’ve worked in many rural counties where residents lump WISPs in with rural DSL as something they will only purchase if there is no alternative.

Unfortunately, some of these same criticisms can be leveled against some WISPs that use licensed spectrum. Having licensed spectrum doesn’t overcome issues of oversubscribed transmitters, poor backhaul, or serving customers with poor line-of-sight or out of range of the radios. I’m not a big fan of giving grant funding to WISPs who put profits above signal quality and customer performance – but I’m not sure how a grant office would know this.

I have to think that the real genesis for the NTIA’s decision is the real-life practices of WISPs that do a poor job. It’s something that is rarely talked about – but it’s something that any high-quality WISP will bend your ear about.

By contrast, it’s practically impossible to deploy a poor-quality fiber network – it either works, or it doesn’t. I have no insight into the discussions that went on behind the scenes at the NTIA, but I have to think that a big part of the NTIA’s decision was based upon the many WISPs that are already unreliable. The NTIA decision means unlicensed-spectrum WISPs aren’t eligible for grants – but they are free to compete for broadband customers. WISPs that offer a high-quality product at a good price will still be around for many years to come.

Broadband Now or Later?

I just heard about a County that is using its ARPA funds to build fixed wireless broadband. This is a traditional fixed wireless broadband technology that will probably deliver speeds of 100 Mbps to those close to the towers, slower speeds to homes further away, and which will not reach all homes in the County.

I understand why they did this. The County is listening to residents who want a broadband solution right now – and an ISP knocked on their door and offered a quick solution. I can’t fault them for this decision. But the wireless company they are partnering with is one of the larger ones and is not known for great customer service. The WISP doesn’t have any customers in the area today, and one hopes the WISP will hire a few local technicians to make this work.

The County had an alternative. It could follow the lead of other counties and used its ARPA money to instead attract an ISP to build fiber to everybody in the rural parts of the county. There are several regional ISPs close to this county that would probably jump at the chance to build a fiber network that is funded by both BEAD grants and local matching grants. It’s my firm belief that counties that form such a partnership with an ISP and also bring local cash to the deal will be the ones that will win the BEAD grants.

But this is not an easy choice. For an area that doesn’t have broadband today, the BEAD grants sound like a far distant opportunity. It’s hard to think that any recipients of BEAD grants will be constructing networks any sooner than 2024 – assuming by then that they’ll be able to get the needed fiber and electronics. Building fiber to a whole county can easily take two or three years, meaning that the last household in this county might not see fiber broadband until late 2026 – or even later with supply chain issues.

The BEAD grant program is feeling agonizingly glacial to anybody in the industry. To some degree, it’s good that the grants weren’t awarded right away since most communities needed time to prepare for grants. To win the grants, somebody has to estimate the cost of building a new network, and the community must choose an ISP partner to fulfill the broadband goal. These are not things that can happen overnight.

But the processes described in the legislation to release BEAD funding are slow and cumbersome. The cynical part of my brain suspects that some of the slow pace of the BEAD grant program was inserted into the legislation through influence from some of the big ISPs. I’ve heard that lobbying is why the grant process insists on using only the FCC maps to determine areas with grant availability. Color me cynical, but a big ISP can use that rule to show poor broadband to the FCC in areas where it wants to pursue grants and show good broadband in areas it would rather protect against competition.

The decision is easy for some counties that have already been approached by local ISPs they know and trust, like small telcos or cooperatives. Such counties know that they are going to get a solution they like, provided by somebody they know will do a good job. But even for these counties, having to wait for fiber construction is torturous. What does a county official say to the family of an eighth-grader who needs home broadband now but may not see it until senior year?

And what about all of the counties that don’t have these trustworthy local ISP partners? Can they just assume that somebody will step in and ask for the BEAD grant funds for their area? What if the ISP winning BEAD grants is one of the giant telcos they don’t trust or some new venture capital firm that is only chasing grants to build and flip the networks? Can a county even assume that anybody will be funded in their area? $42.5 billion sounds like a lot of money, but I’m certain that there are still going to be areas with no broadband solution after all of the smoke clears from the grant awards.

There will be great long-term benefits for a county that is willing to wait to get a fiber network. It’s an asset that is going to be good for the rest of the century, and that can provide as much broadband as homes and businesses are ever going to need. I know some of the WISPs are telling communities to let them build wireless now and that they’ll take the profits and roll that back into fiber eventually. If the ISP telling you that is somebody other than an electric or telephone cooperative, the chances of them self-funding the future conversion to fiber is basically zero. It takes about five minutes of math to show that there will ever be enough profits to fund that promise.

What makes the decision harder is that there will be some WISPS who will do a great job. They’ll start with the best electronics on the market, will build fiber backhaul to towers, and will invest in every coming decade to upgrade radios to keep up with the state of the art. A county that gets this kind of WISP probably is in great hands and made a good decision to get broadband now and not wait. But there are other WISPs who will take the grant money and never invest another dime. It’s hard for a community to know what to believe since both kinds of WISPs will likely make the identical sales pitch.

The New Speed Battle

I’ve been thinking about the implications of having a new definition of broadband at 100/20 Mbps. That’s the threshold that has been set in several giant federal grants that allow grant funding to areas that have broadband slower than 100/20 Mbps. This is also the number that has been bandied about the industry as the likely new definition of broadband when the FCC seats a fifth Commissioner.

The best thing about a higher definition of broadband is that it finally puts the DSL controversy to bed. A definition of broadband of 100/20 Mbps clearly says that DSL is no longer considered to be broadband. A 100/20  Mbps definition of broadband means we can completely ignore whatever nonsense the big telcos report to the FCC mapping process.

Unfortunately, by killing the DSL controversy we start a whole new set of speed battles with cable companies and WISPs that will be similar to the controversy we’ve had for years with DSL. Telcos have claimed 25/3 Mbps broadband coverage over huge parts of rural America in an attempt to deflect broadband grants. In reality, there is almost no such thing as a rural customer who can get 25/3 Mbps DSL unless they sit next to a DSLAM. But the telcos have been taking advantage of the theoretical capacity of DSL, and the lax rules in the FCC mapping process allowed them to claim broadband speeds that don’t exist. I hate to admit it, but overstating DSL speeds has been a spectacularly successful strategy for the big telcos.

We’re going to see the same thing all over again, but the new players will be cable companies and WISPs. The controversy this time will be more interesting because both technologies theoretically can deliver speeds greater than 100/20 Mbps. But like with DSL, the market reality is that there are a whole lot of places where cable companies and WISPs are not delivering 100/20 Mbps speeds and would not be considered as broadband with a 100/20 Mbps yardstick. You can take it to the bank that cable companies and WISPs will claim 100/20 Mbps capability if it helps to block other competitors or if it helps them win grants.

The issue for cable companies is the upload speed. One only has to look at the mountains of speed tests gathered around the country to see that cable upload speeds are rarely even close to 20 Mbps. We’ve helped cities collect speed tests where maybe 5% of customers are reporting speeds over 20 Mbps, while the vast majority of cable upload speeds are measured at between 10 Mbps and 15 Mbps. Usually, the only cable customers with upload speeds over 20 Mbps are ones who have ponied up to buy an expensive 400 Mbps or faster download product – and even many of them don’t see upload speeds over 20 Mbps.

This begs the question of what a definition of broadband means. If 95% of the customers in a market can’t achieve the defined upload speeds, is a cable company delivering broadband under a 100/20 Mbps definition? We know how the telcos answered this question in the past with DSL, and it’s not hard to guess how the cable companies are going to answer it.

It’s not a coincidence that this new controversy has materialized. The first draft of several of the big grant programs included a definition of broadband of 100/100 Mbps – a speed that would have shut the door on cable companies. But cable company lobbying began immediately, and the final rules from Congress included the slimmed-down 100/20 Mbps broadband definition.

WISPs have a more interesting challenge because the vast majority of existing WISP connections are nowhere close to meeting either the upload or download speed of 100/20 Mbps. But fixed wireless technology is capable of meeting those speeds. A WISP deploying a new state-of-the-art system can achieve those speeds today for some reasonable number of miles from a tower in an area with good lines of sight. But most existing WISPs are deploying older technology that can’t come close to a 100/20 Mbps test. Even WISPs with new technology will often serve customers who are too far from a tower to get the full speeds. Just like with cable companies, the 100/20 Mbps definition of broadband will allow WISPs to stay in the game to pursue grants even when customers are not receiving the 100/20 Mbps speeds. So brace yourself, because the fights over speeds are far from over.

Broadband Interference

Jon Brodkin of ArsTechnica published an amusing story about how the DSL went out of service in a 400-resident village in Wales each morning at 7:00 am. It turns out that one of the residents turned on an ancient television that interfered with the DSL signal to the extent that the network collapsed. The ISP finally figured this out by looking around the village in the morning with a spectrum analyzer until they found the source of the interference.

It’s easy to think that the story points out another weakness of old DSL technology, but interference can be a problem for a lot of other technologies.

This same problem is common on cable company hybrid-fiber coaxial networks. The easiest way to understand this is to think back to the old days when we all watched analog TV. Anybody who watched programming on channels 2 through 5 remembers times when the channels got fuzzy or even became unwatchable. It turns out that there are a lot of different devices that interfere with the frequencies used for these channels including things like microwave ovens, certain motors like power tools and lawnmowers, and other devices like blenders. It was a common household occurrence for one of these channels to go fuzzy when somebody in the house, or even in a neighboring home used one of these devices.

This same interference carries forward into cable TV networks. Cable companies originally used the same frequencies for TV channels inside the coaxial wires that were used over the air and the low TV channels sat between the 5 MHz and 42 MHz frequency. It turns out that long stretches of coaxial wires on poles act as a great antenna, so cable systems pick up the same kinds of interference that happens in homes. It was pretty routine for channels 2 and 3, in particular, to be fuzzy in an analog cable network.

You’d think that this interference might have gone away when cable companies converted TV signals to digital. The TV transmissions for channels 2 through 5 got crystal clear because cable companies relocated the digital version of these channels to better frequency. When broadband was added to cable systems the cable companies continue to use the low frequencies. CableLabs elected to use these frequencies for the upload portion of broadband. There is still plenty of interference in cable networks today – probably even more than years ago as coaxial networks have aged and have more points for interference to seep into the wires. Until the pandemic, we didn’t care much about upload bandwidth, but it turns out that one of the major reasons that cable companies struggle to deliver reliable upload speeds is that they are using the noisiest spectrum for the upload function.

The DSL in the village suffered from the same issue since the telephone copper wires also act as a big outdoor antenna. In this village, the frequency emanating from the old TV exactly matched the frequencies used for DSL.

Another common kind of interference is seen in fixed wireless networks in a situation where there are multiple ISPs using the same frequencies in a given rural footprint. I know of counties where there are as many as five or six different wireless ISPs, and most use the same frequencies since most WISPs rely on a handful of channels in the traditional WiFi bandwidth at 2.4 MHz and 5 MHz. I’ve heard of situations where WiFi is so crowded that the performance of all WISPs suffer.

WiFi also suffers from local interference in the home. The WiFi standard says that all devices have an equal chance of using the frequencies. This means that a home WiFi router will cycle through all the signals from all devices trying to make a WiFi connection. When a WiFi router connects with an authorized device inside the home it allows for a burst of data, but then the router disconnects that signal and tries the next signal – cycling through all of the possible sources of WiFi.

This is the same issue that is seen by people using WiFi in a high-rise apartment building or a hotel where many users are trying to connect to WiFi at the same time. Luckily this problem ought to improve. The FCC has authorized the use of 6 GHz spectrum for home broadband which opens up numerous new channels. Interference will only occur between devices trying to share a channel, but that will be far fewer cases of interference than today.

The technology that has no such interference is fiber. Nothing interferes with the light signal between a fiber hub and a customer. However, once customers connect the broadband signal to their home WiFi network, the same interference issues arise. I looked recently and can see over twenty other home WiFi networks from my office – a setup ripe for interference. Before making too much fun of the folks in the Welsh village, there is a good chance that you are subject to significant interference in your home broadband today.