FCC 20 188a1

Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of )
)
Communications Marketplace Report ) GN Docket No. 20-60
2020 COMMUNICATIONS MARKETPLACE REPORT
Adopted: December 31, 2020 Released: December 31, 2020
By the Commission: Commissioner Carr approving in part, concurring in part and issuing a statement;
Commissioner Rosenworcel concurring and issuing a statement; Commissioner Starks approving in part,
dissenting in part and issuing a statement.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Heading Paragraph #
I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 1
II. ASSESSMENT OF THE STATE OF COMPETITION ........................................................................ 4
A. The Mobile Wireless Marketplace ................................................................................................... 6
1. Overview of the Mobile Wireless Marketplace......................................................................... 9
a. Service Providers ................................................................................................................ 9
b. Connections/Subscribers and Connections Market Share ................................................ 20
c. Churn ................................................................................................................................ 26
d. Data Usage ........................................................................................................................ 27
2. Mobile Wireless Spectrum and Service Providers’ Spectrum Holdings ................................. 29
3. Wireless Infrastructure ............................................................................................................ 34
4. Pricing Levels and Trends ....................................................................................................... 37
a. Postpaid Service ................................................................................................................ 38
b. Prepaid Service ................................................................................................................. 41
c. Price Indicators for Mobile Wireless Services.................................................................. 44
5. Non-Price Competition............................................................................................................ 50
a. Investment......................................................................................................................... 50
b. Innovation and Technological Change ............................................................................. 52
c. Mobile Wireless Devices, Services, and Advertising ....................................................... 58
d. Speed of Service ............................................................................................................... 62
6. Network Coverage ................................................................................................................... 66
a. FCC Form 477 .................................................................................................................. 67
b. Mobile Wireless Coverage Estimates ............................................................................... 72
B. The Fixed Broadband Services Marketplace ................................................................................. 82
1. Overview of the Fixed Broadband Marketplace ..................................................................... 83
a. Technologies Deployed .................................................................................................... 85
b. Service Providers .............................................................................................................. 92
c. Connections/Subscribers ................................................................................................... 99
d. Adoption Rates ............................................................................................................... 101
2. Competition in Fixed Broadband .......................................................................................... 105
a. Investment Trends........................................................................................................... 106
b. Pricing ............................................................................................................................. 109

c. Speed............................................................................................................................... 115
d. Access to Multiple Providers .......................................................................................... 125
3. Competition between Fixed and Mobile Broadband Service ................................................ 130
C. Voice Telephone Services............................................................................................................ 143
D. The Video Marketplace................................................................................................................ 150
1. Overview of the Video Programming Marketplace .............................................................. 150
2. Multichannel Video Programming Distributors .................................................................... 154
a. Providers and Subscribers ............................................................................................... 154
b. Channel Packages and Bundling..................................................................................... 160
c. Pricing ............................................................................................................................. 163
d. Video Revenue................................................................................................................ 167
e. Content Ownership ......................................................................................................... 168
f. Commercial Availability of Equipment Used to Access MVPD Programming and
Services ........................................................................................................................... 170
3. Online Video Distributors ..................................................................................................... 176
a. OVD Service Offerings .................................................................................................. 177
b. Original Content and Content Ownership....................................................................... 189
c. OVD Usage, Subscribers, and Revenue ......................................................................... 193
4. Broadcast Television Stations ............................................................................................... 201
a. Station Licensing and Ownership ................................................................................... 202
b. Distribution and Delivery ............................................................................................... 205
c. Programming and Content Ownership............................................................................ 208
d. Broadcast Television Revenue........................................................................................ 213
5. Competition in Video ............................................................................................................ 218
6. Report on Cable Industry Prices ............................................................................................ 233
E. The Audio Market ........................................................................................................................ 240
1. Overview of the Audio Programming Market....................................................................... 241
2. Terrestrial Radio Broadcasters .............................................................................................. 245
3. Satellite Radio ....................................................................................................................... 255
4. Online Audio Providers ......................................................................................................... 259
5. Competition in Audio Programming ..................................................................................... 265
III. ASSESSMENT OF BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT ...................................................................... 275
A. Access to Advanced Telecommunications Capability ................................................................. 276
1. Broadband Deployment Estimates ........................................................................................ 281
a. Deployment of Fixed Advanced Telecommunications Capability ................................. 282
b. Deployment of Mobile 4G LTE ...................................................................................... 283
c. Deployment of Fixed Services and Mobile 4G LTE ...................................................... 284
d. Additional Deployment Estimates .................................................................................. 287
B. Demographic Data ....................................................................................................................... 288
1. Tribal Lands Data .................................................................................................................. 292
C. International Broadband Data Report .......................................................................................... 294
1. Broadband Speed and Performance Comparison .................................................................. 296
2. Broadband Price Comparison ................................................................................................ 299
3. Broadband Deployment Comparison with Europe................................................................ 302
4. Demographics........................................................................................................................ 305
5. International Regulatory Developments ................................................................................ 306
IV. ENTRY AND EXPANSION CONDITIONS IN THE COMMUNICATIONS
MARKETPLACE .............................................................................................................................. 319
A. The Mobile Wireless Communications Marketplace................................................................... 320
B. The Fixed Communications Marketplace .................................................................................... 327
1. Fixed Terrestrial .................................................................................................................... 327
2. Satellite .................................................................................................................................. 332
2
C. The Video and Audio Communications Marketplace.................................................................. 336

V. COMMISSION ACTIONS ALREADY TAKEN TO CLOSE DIGITAL DIVIDE,
ENHANCE COMPETITION, AND ENCOURAGE DEPLOYMENT OF
COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES ................................................................................................... 351
1. Universal Service Support ..................................................................................................... 352
2. Spectrum Challenges ............................................................................................................. 354
3. Wireless Infrastructure Siting ................................................................................................ 366
1. Enhancing Competition, Removing Barriers to Investment, and Encouraging
Deployment ........................................................................................................................... 371
2. Universal Service Support ..................................................................................................... 387
3. Satellite .................................................................................................................................. 404
D. Efforts To Ensure and Improve Connectivity During the COVID-19 Pandemic ........................ 419
VI. COMMISSION AGENDA TO FURTHER ENCOURAGE INVESTMENT, INNOVATION,
DEPLOYMENT, AND COMPETITION .......................................................................................... 433
VII. PROCEDURAL MATTERS ............................................................................................................. 451
APPENDIX A: List of Commenters
APPENDIX B: Mobile Wireless Communications Market
APPENDIX C: Fixed Communications Market
APPENDIX D: 9th and 10th Fixed Measuring Broadband America Reports
APPENDIX E: Cable Industry Prices Report
APPENDIX F: Broadband Deployment and Advanced Telecommunications Capability
APPENDIX G: International Broadband Deployment Report
I. INTRODUCTION
1. Every two years, the Commission is required to publish a Communications Marketplace
Report that, among other things, assesses generally the state of competition across the broader
communications marketplace, including competition to deliver voice, video, audio, and data services
among providers of telecommunications, providers of commercial mobile service, multichannel video
programming distributors, broadcast stations, providers of satellite communications, Internet service
providers, and other providers of communications services.1 The Commission must consider all forms of
competition, including “the effect of intermodal competition, facilities-based competition, and
competition from new and emergent communications services.”2 The Commission also must assess
whether laws, regulations, regulatory practices—whether federal, state, local, Tribal, or foreign—or
marketplace practices pose a barrier to competitive entry into the communications marketplace or to the
competitive expansion of existing providers of communications service.3
1
47 U.S.C. §§ 163(a), (b)(1); see also Section 401 of the Repack Airwaves Yielding Better Access for Users of
Modern Services Act of 2018 (RAY BAUM’S Act of 2018), Pub. L. No. 115-141, 132 Stat. 1087 (codified at 47
U.S.C. § 163) (RAY BAUM’S Act of 2018).
2
47 U.S.C. § 163(d)(1).
3
47 U.S.C. § 163(b)(3). In assessing the state of competition under subsection (b)(1) and regulatory barriers under
subsection (b)(3) of the Act, the Commission must also “consider market entry barriers for entrepreneurs and other
small businesses in the communications marketplace in accordance with the national policy under section 257(b).”
(continued….)
3
2. In December 2018, the Commission adopted the first Communications Marketplace

Report, providing a comprehensive evaluation of the state of the communications marketplace (as of year-
end 2017).4 In February 2020, the Commission updated certain figures, maps and tables contained in the
2018 Communications Marketplace Report, to reflect the most recent data available as of year-end
2018.5 On February 27, 2020, the Commission adopted a Public Notice seeking input on the state of the
communications marketplace to inform its assessment of competition in the communications marketplace
in its second Communications Marketplace Report (2020 Communications Marketplace Report) to
Congress.6
3. With this second 2020 Communications Marketplace Report, the Commission fulfills the
requirement set forth in RAY BAUM’S Act of 2018 to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the state of
competition in the communications marketplace in the United States. As required, this Report assesses
the state of all forms of competition in the communications marketplace; the state of deployment of
communications capabilities; barriers to competitive entry, including market entry barriers for
entrepreneurs and other small businesses. Further, this Report describes the actions taken by the
Commission in the previous two years to address challenges and opportunities in the communications
marketplace. It also discusses the actions taken by the Commission to help Americans in the face of the
unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic. Finally, this Report discusses the Commission’s agenda for
continuing to address the challenges and opportunities in front of us over the next two years.
II. ASSESSMENT OF THE STATE OF COMPETITION
4. RAY BAUM’S Act of 2018 requires the Commission to assess the state of competition in
the communications marketplace. We first assess the state of competition separately within several
specific components of the broader communications marketplace, including the mobile wireless
marketplace, the fixed broadband marketplace, the voice services marketplace, the video marketplace
including cable industry prices, and the audio marketplace.
5. In assessing the state of competition, we report on several economic indicators. These
include indirect measures of competition—such as the number of providers along with barometers of
market concentration—that are recognized as being associated with the level of competition. We also
report, among other things, prices and product offerings. This entails looking at the major factors that
affect prices, including inputs such as spectrum, infrastructure, or video content, as well as the quality of
the service being offered to consumers and quality enhancing investment. The Report further recognizes
that some markets are interrelated, and so assesses competition between some of these markets, such as
between fixed and mobile broadband and between multichannel video programming distributors
(MVPDs), online video distributors (OVDs), and broadcast television stations.
47 U.S.C. § 163(d)(3). The Commission must include the International Broadband Data Report required by section
103(b)(1) of the Broadband Data Improvement Act as part of the Communications Marketplace Report. See RAY
BAUM’S Act of 2018 § 402(c), 132 Stat. at 1089; 47 U.S.C. § 163; 47 U.S.C. § 1303(b)(1).
4
Communications Marketplace Report et al., GN Docket No. 18-231 et al., Report, 33 FCC Rcd 12558 (2018)
(2018 Communications Marketplace Report).
5
FCC Releases Certain Data Updated as of December 31, 2018 for the Communications Marketplace Report, GN
Docket No. 18-231, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 1479 (OEA 2020) (CMR Updated Data Public Notice); FCC, 2018
Communications Marketplace Report – Updates, https://www.fcc.gov/communications-marketplace-report-updates
(last visited Oct. 27, 2020).
6
See generally Office of Economics and Analytics Seeks Comment On The State Of Competition In The
Communications Marketplace, GN Docket No. 20-60, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 1577 (OEA 2020) (2020 Public
Notice). The comment period was scheduled to end on April 13, 2020, and the reply comment period was scheduled
to end on May 13, 2020. These deadlines were extended on April 10, 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and
community and business efforts to respond to this public safety crisis. The revised comment date was April 27,
2020, and the revised reply comment date was May 28, 2020. Appx. A of this Report provides a list of all parties
who filed in this proceeding.
4
A. The Mobile Wireless Marketplace

6. We assess competition among mobile wireless service providers and discuss the resulting
pricing, quality, and other related outcomes. In addition to the three facilities-based nationwide mobile
wireless service providers, the mobile wireless marketplace consists of numerous regional and local
facilities-based providers, mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) who purchase mobile wireless
services wholesale, cable providers that rely on a hybrid wholesale/hotspot arrangement to offer service,
and mobile satellite providers who currently primarily focus on niche services like tracking services for
aircraft and ships and operations in remote locations. Additionally, as a condition following the merger of
T-Mobile and Sprint, DISH has committed to building its own independent fifth-generation (5G) mobile
network. Mobile wireless services are an important and increasingly prevalent part of Americans’ daily
lives, and competition in the provision of mobile wireless services drives innovation and investment to
the ultimate benefit of the American people and economy. In this section, we present and review
available 2019 data for all mobile wireless services, including voice, messaging, and broadband, and we
also present certain information as of mid-2020.
7. Mobile wireless service connections have grown by 2 to 5% per year since year-end
2017, while data usage has continued to grow substantially faster, rising to 9.2 GB per subscriber per
month at year-end 2019, an increase of approximately 39% from year-end 2018. Growing consumption is
made possible by the increasing availability of unlimited data plans from both postpaid and prepaid
mobile wireless brands as well as the increased speeds offered by nationwide service providers. For
instance, nationwide Long Term Evolution (LTE) download speeds increased from 16 Mbps in the
second half of 2017 to 26.2 Mbps in the second half of 2019, an increase of approximately 64%.
8. The wireless industry is currently undertaking the implementation and construction of 5G
mobile wireless networks that are expected to deliver even faster download speeds, reduced latency, and
better security to users than 4G LTE networks. This has entailed increased deployment of small cells and
Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) to fill local coverage gaps, densify networks, and increase local
capacity. At the same time, the Commission has made available significant amounts of mid-band
spectrum as well as nearly 12 gigahertz of licensed and unlicensed millimeter wave (mmW) spectrum to
meet service needs. In addition to the quality improvements that this investment and access to spectrum
allow, CTIA data indicate that industry prices declined, with ARPU decreasing from roughly $39 in 2017
to approximately $37 in 2019, an indicator of strong competition in the mobile wireless marketplace.
1. Overview of the Mobile Wireless Marketplace
a. Service Providers
9. Facilities-Based Service Providers. Following the completed merger of T-Mobile and
Sprint on April 1, 2020,7 there are three facilities-based mobile wireless service providers in the United
States that this Report terms “nationwide service providers”: AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon Wireless.
Although none of these three nationwide service providers has a network that is truly ubiquitous, the three
service providers each have networks that they report cover a substantial majority of the country—at least
98% of the U.S. population and at least 84% of U.S. road miles—with their 4G LTE networks.8
7
The Commission approved the transaction between T-Mobile and Sprint, subject to certain conditions, on October
16, 2019. See generally Applications of T-Mobile US, Inc., and Sprint Corporation For Consent to Transfer Control
of Licenses and Authorizations; Applications of American H Block Wireless L.L.C, DBSD Corporation, Gamma
Acquisition L.L.C., and Manifest Wireless L.L.C. for Extension of Time, WT Docket No. 18-197, Memorandum
Opinion and Order, Declaratory Ruling, and Order of Proposed Modification, 34 FCC Rcd 10578 (2019) (T-Mobile-
Sprint Order). In this Report, we present and review data for year-end 2019, and as such, T-Mobile and Sprint data
are, for the most part, reported separately. See also Press Release, T-Mobile, T-Mobile Completes Merger with
Sprint to Create the New T-Mobile (Apr. 1, 2020), https://www.t-mobile.com/news/un-carrier/t-mobile-sprint-one-
company.
8
See infra section II.A.6.
5
Collectively, these three service providers account for over 400 million connections.9 U.S. Cellular,
currently the fourth largest facilities-based service provider in the United States, is best characterized as a
multi-regional service provider, and has developed wireless networks and customer service operations in
portions of 20 states.10 As of December 31, 2019, U.S. Cellular accounted for approximately five million
connections.11 Two other larger regional service providers include C Spire, which provides service to
nearly one million subscribers in the Southeastern United States,12 and Claro, which provides service to
approximately 920,000 subscribers in Puerto Rico.13 There are also dozens of other facilities-based
mobile wireless service providers throughout the United States, many of which provide service in a
single, often rural, geographic area.14 These non-nationwide facilities-based service providers increase
choices for consumers and help make facilities-based service more widely available in rural areas.15
10. T-Mobile-Sprint Transaction. In April 2018, T-Mobile and Sprint announced their intent
to merge. T-Mobile and Sprint claimed that the merger would represent a total implied enterprise value
of approximately $146 billion and would rapidly allow them to create a nationwide 5G network with a
combined company that would have lower costs and better quality than the standalone competitors.16 In
its initial filing to the Commission, T-Mobile emphasized that the proposed merger would spur 5G
network deployment nationally, improve rural coverage, and permit the combined companies to compete
with wired broadband providers through a new in-home fixed broadband service offering.17
11. This transaction involved the transfer of multiple spectrum licenses and authorizations,
and was subject to Commission review to determine whether the transaction would serve the public
interest, convenience, and necessity.18 Accordingly, we assessed the extent to which this merger of two
firms that compete in many of the same geographic and product markets might lessen some elements of
competition, and whether any potential harms would be counterbalanced by the potential benefits of the
transaction. In response to Commission staff’s concerns about certain aspects of the proposed transaction,
in May 2019, T-Mobile made several commitments to the Commission—including a pledge to divest
Sprint’s Boost Mobile business and various 5G deployment commitments.19 On October 16, 2019, the
9
See infra Fig. II.A.1.
10
United States Cellular Corp., 2019 SEC Form 10-K at 1 (filed Feb. 25, 2020). U.S. Cellular is a majority-owned
(82%) subsidiary of Telephone and Data Systems, Inc. Id.
11
See id.
12
C Spire, About C Spire, C Spire Celebrates 30 Years of Customer Inspiration This Month (Feb. 13, 2018),
https://www.cspire.com/company_info/about/news_detail.jsp?entryId=29600003.
13
América Móvil, América Móvil's Second Quarter of 2020 Financial and Operating Report at 23 (July 14, 2020),
https://www.americamovil.com/investors/reports-and-filings/quarterly-results/default.aspx.
14
Examples of regional facilities-based service providers include Appalachian Wireless, Carolina West Wireless,
Cellcom, Choice Wireless, GCI, Nex-Tech Wireless, and Sagebrush Cellular. Annual Report and Analysis of
Competitive Market Conditions With Respect to Mobile Wireless, Including Commercial Mobile Services, WT
Docket No. 17-126, Twentieth Report, 32 FCC Rcd 8968, 8975, para. 14 & n.50 (2017) (Twentieth Wireless
Competition Report).
15
Policies Regarding Mobile Spectrum Holdings Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of
Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions, Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd 6133, 6207, paras. 179-80 (2014) (Mobile
Spectrum Holdings Report and Order).
16
Press Release, T-Mobile, T-Mobile and Sprint to Combine, Accelerating 5G Innovation & Increasing Competition
(Apr. 29, 2018), https://www.t-mobile.com/news/press/5gforall.
17
See generally Applications of T-Mobile USA, Inc., and Sprint Corporation for Consent To Transfer Control of
Licenses and Authorizations, ULS File No. 0008224209 (Lead Application) (filed June 18, 2018, amended July 5,
2018), Exh. 1—Description of the Transaction, Public Interest Statement, and Related Demonstrations at 2.
18
47 U.S.C. §§ 214(a), 310(d).
19
See T-Mobile-Sprint Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 10801-28, Appx. G.
6
Commission adopted the T-Mobile-Sprint Order, which required, “as a condition of our approval, that the
Applicants fulfill a series of commitments to address the potential for lost price competition, such as the
divestiture of Boost Mobile.”20
12. Mobile Virtual Network Operators. MVNOs do not own any network facilities, but
instead they purchase mobile wireless services wholesale from facilities-based service providers and
resell these services to consumers.21 In 2019, TracFone, an América Móvil subsidiary,22 was the largest
MVNO, with approximately 21 million subscribers.23 In 2015, Google launched “Project Fi,” an MVNO
in partnership with T-Mobile and Sprint whereby Google Fi subscribers switched between Wi-Fi
networks and these two service providers’ 4G LTE networks.24
13. Cable providers have also begun entering the mobile wireless market through MVNO
arrangements. These products rely on combining the mobile networks of facilities-based partners with
hotspot or small-cell networks that send traffic through the cable provider’s infrastructure.25 In 2016,
20
T-Mobile-Sprint Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 10582, para. 11.
21
Twentieth Wireless Competition Report, 32 FCC Rcd at 8976, para. 15. The Commission is not able to provide an
exact figure of the number of MVNOs that currently offer services. This is partly because, as resellers of service
offered by facilities-based service providers, MVNOs are not licensees and typically do not file section 214
applications. Furthermore, as the Commission has found in prior competition reports, “[c]omprehensive data on
MVNO subscribers are generally not reported by either MVNOs or facilities-based providers that host
MVNOs. Estimates of the number of MVNOs operating in the United States vary considerably. Many MVNOs are
privately-held companies that do not publicly report financial or subscriber data.” Implementation of Section
6002(b) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993; Annual Report and Analysis of Competitive Market
Conditions With Respect to Mobile Wireless, Including Commercial Mobile Services, Sixteenth Report, 28 FCC Rcd
3700, 3739, para. 32 (2013) (Sixteenth Wireless Competition Report).
22
Verizon announced that it has entered into an agreement with América Móvil to acquire TracFone Wireless, Inc.,
the leading pre-paid and value mobile provider in the United States. The consideration for the transaction will
include $3.125 billion in cash and $3.125 billion in Verizon common stock, subject to customary adjustments, at
closing. The agreement also includes up to an additional $650 million in future cash consideration related to the
achievement of certain performance measures and other commercial arrangements. Verizon expects the transaction
to close in the second half of 2021. See Verizon Wireless, Verizon to acquire TracFone Wireless (Sept. 14, 2020),
https://www.verizon.com/about/news/verizon-to-acquire-tracfone.
23
TracFone, TracFone Home, http://www.tracfone.com/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020); BestMVNO, For the First
Time Straight Talk Has More Subscribers Than All Other Tracfone Brands Combined (Feb. 24, 2020),
https://bestmvno.com/straight-talk/for-the-first-time-straight-talk-has-more-subscribers-than-all-other-tracfone-
brands-combined/.
24
FierceWireless, Google Unveils “Project Fi” MVNO with Sprint and T-Mobile as Partners (Apr. 22, 2015),
http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/google-unveils-project-fi-mvno-sprint-and-t-mobile-partners/2015-04-22. In
June 2016, Google added U.S. Cellular as a partner. FierceWireless, Google’s Project Fi to Add U.S. Cellular to
Partner Network (June 8, 2016), http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/googles-project-fi-add-us-cellular-partner-
network/2016-06-08. Similar Wi-Fi service is also provided by two other MVNOs: FreedomPop, FreedomPop
Home, https://www.freedompop.com/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020) and Republic Wireless, Republic Wireless FAQ,
https://republicwireless.com/faqs (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).
25
Chris Mills and Fiona Armstrong, Tutela, Special Report: State of MVNOs at 18 (Oct. 2019) (“The most
immediate solution for wireless traffic offload are the networks of public or semi-public hotspots operated by the
cable companies. Comcast . . . claims to operate a network of 18 million ‘xfinitywifi’hotspots nationwide”); see
also id. at 21. (“Altice Mobile is also well positioned to exploit future technology improvements and spectrum
deployments to embrace the ‘hybrid MVNO’ model. Altice operates the core network, device SIMs, and in some
cases has infrastructure agreements in place with Sprint for small cells.”),
https://www.tutela.com/hubfs/Assets/USA%20State%20of%20MVNOs%20Report%20-%20October%202019.pdf.
7
both Comcast26 and Charter,27 the nation’s two largest cable providers, activated MVNO options they held
with Verizon Wireless. Comcast launched its Xfinity Mobile wireless service in the spring of 2017,
which has since grown to more than 2 million subscribers by year-end 2019.28 Charter began offering its
service in the summer of 2018 and has grown to approximately 1.1 million customers by year-end 2019.29
Altice,30 another cable provider, launched an MVNO service on Sprint’s network in September 2019, and
it had 69,000 subscribers by the end of 2019.31
14. DISH. As a condition of the T-Mobile-Sprint transaction,32 DISH entered into an
agreement with T-Mobile to provide mobile wireless service.33 On July 1, 2020, DISH acquired the
Boost Mobile brand and its approximately 9 million customers from T-Mobile,34 as a result of the
required divestiture by the Commission and Department of Justice in approving the T-Mobile-Sprint
merger.35 Initially this offering will be an MVNO,36 which would make it the second largest in the nation
behind TracFone. The MVNO agreement between T-Mobile and DISH allows DISH to use T-Mobile’s
wireless network to provide service to its customers, offers DISH the option to construct and use its own
network, and requires T-Mobile to interconnect with DISH’s network.37 Unlike traditional MVNOs,
however, DISH has committed to building its own independent 5G network,38 using its AWS-4, Lower
26
FierceWireless, Comcast to Launch Wireless Service in 2017 with Verizon MVNO, 15M Wi-Fi Hotpots (Sept. 20,
2016), http://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/comcast-to-launch-wireless-service-2017-verizon-mvno-15m-wi-fi-
hotspots.
27
FierceCable, Rutledge: Charter Has Asked Verizon to Activate MVNO Agreement (Sept. 21, 2016),
http://www.fiercecable.com/cable/rutledge-charter-has-asked-verizon-to-activate-mvno-agreement.
28
FierceWireless, Comcast Adds 261,000 Wireless Subscribers in Q4, Its Largest Gain Yet (Jan. 23, 2020),
https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/comcast-adds-261-000-wireless-subscribers-q4-its-largest-gain-yet.
29
FierceWireless, Charter’s Mobile Service Crosses 1M Subscriber Mark (Feb. 3, 2020),
https://www.fiercewireless.com/operators/charter-s-mobile-service-crosses-1-million-subscriber-mark.
30
Altice describes itself as an “infrastructure-based Mobile Virtual Network Operator,” as it operates its own core
network infrastructure to provide wireline broadband, though it does not have its own radio access network for its
mobile offering. The distinction in Altice’s ability to leverage its own facilities has allowed it to obtain numbers
directly under waiver. See Numbering Policies for Modern Communications; Number Resource Optimization, WC
Docket No. 13-97; CC Docket No. 99-200, Order, 33 FCC Rcd 12501 (WCB 2018).
31
FierceWireless, Altice Mobile Raises Prices by $10 for New Customers (Feb. 13, 2020),
https://www.fiercewireless.com/operators/altice-mobile-raises-price-by-10-for-new-customers.
32
T-Mobile-Sprint Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 10591-3, paras. 34-36; see also United States et al. v. Deutsche Telekom
AG, T-Mobile US, Inc. Softbank Group Corp. and Sprint Corp., Competitive Impact Statement, No. 1:19-cv-02232,
at 8 & n.2 (D.D.C.) (filed July 30, 2019).
See Letter from Charles Mathias and Catherine Matraves, FCC, to Kathleen O’Brien Ham, Counsel to T-Mobile,
33
DA 20-421, 35 FCC Rcd 3556 (filed Apr. 16, 2020) (Mathias and Matraves Letter).
34
DISH, DISH Enters Retail Wireless Market with Close of Boost Mobile, Advances Build of the Nation’s First
Standalone 5G Network (July 1, 2020), http://about.dish.com/2020-07-01-DISH-enters-retail-wireless-market-with-
close-of-Boost-Mobile-advances-build-of-the-nations-first-standalone-5G-network.
35
T-Mobile-Sprint Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 10591-92, 10661, paras. 33-34, 189; see also DISH, DISH to Become
National Facilities-based Wireless Carrier (July 26, 2019), http://about.dish.com/2019-07-26-DISH-to-Become-
National-Facilities-based-Wireless-Carrier.
36
T-Mobile-Sprint Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 10591-92, paras. 33-34.
37
Id. at 10592-3, para. 34; see also Mathias and Matraves Letter at 1-2.
38
T-Mobile-Sprint Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 10594, 10740, paras. 37, 369; see also DISH, DISH Enters Retail Wireless
Market with Close of Boost Mobile, Advances Build of the Nation’s First Standalone 5G Network (July 1, 2020),
http://about.dish.com/2020-07-01-DISH-enters-retail-wireless-market-with-close-of-Boost-Mobile-advances-build-
of-the-nations-first-standalone-5G-network.
8
700 MHz, and H Block spectrum licenses.39 As DISH expands its network, it will operate as a hybrid of a
facilities-based operator and an MVNO, and ultimately the Commission expects it to become a standalone
facilities-based operator.40
15. In its second 2020 quarterly earnings call, DISH stated it intends to cover 20% of the
U.S. population by mid-2022 and deploy over 15,000 cell sites by mid-2023, with an eventual nationwide
network of 50,000 cell sites with a $10 billion investment cost.41 DISH spent more than $900 million for
5,492 licenses for 5G-capable mid-band spectrum in Auction 105, the second largest amount of any
winning bidder.42 Further, we note that DISH has already made arrangements with suppliers, including
Fujitsu for radios, VMWare for cloud networking, and Altiostar and Mavenir for software.43
16. Mobile Satellite Providers. In the United States, and globally, satellites provide
telecommunications infrastructure for communications, including voice, video, audio, and data services.44
Mobile satellite service (MSS)45 generally involves transmitting and receiving communications signals
from mobile earth stations located on land, on sea, or on airplanes.46 MSS operates in a 70 megahertz
range of spectrum allocated in the L-band, in a 40 megahertz range in the 2 GHz MSS band, in a 33
megahertz range in the Big LEO band, and in a 4 megahertz range in the Little LEO band.47 Voice and
39
See T-Mobile-Sprint Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 10829-41, Appx. H.
40
See id. at 10594, 10741-45, 10829-41, paras. 37, 372-38, Appx. H.
41
CitiResearch, DISH Network Corp (DISH), Wireless Outlook Needs to Pivot Beyond Tech to the TAM, at 1 and 3
(Aug. 9, 2020); J.P. Morgan, DISH Network, Strong Video Trends as Focus Shifts to Wireless Execution; Boost
Likely Loses Subs from Here, at 1 (Aug. 7, 2020).
42
Auction of Priority Access Licenses in the 3550-3650 MHz Band; Winning Bidders Announced for Auction 105,
AU Docket No. 19-244, Public Notice, DA 20-1009, Exh. A, at 1,
https://auctionfiling.fcc.gov/form175/search175/index.htm, (OEA, WTB Sept. 2, 2020) (3.5 GHz Public Notice).
43
DISH, DISH Selects Mavenir to Deliver Cloud-Native OpenRAN Software for Nation's First Virtual 5G Wireless
Broadband Network (Apr. 23 , 2020), http://about.dish.com/2020-04-23-DISH-Selects-Mavenir-to-Deliver-Cloud-
Native-OpenRAN-Software-for-Nations-First-Virtual-5G-Wireless-Broadband-Network; DISH, DISH advances O-
RAN network, Selects Fujitsu for 5G radio units and Altiostar for virtualized RAN software solution (June. 30,
2020), https://about.dish.com/2020-06-30-DISH-advances-O-RAN-network-Selects-Fujitsu-for-5G-radio-units-and-
Altiostar-for-virtualized-RAN-software-solution; VMWare, DISH Selects VMware to Help Build the Most
Advanced, Automated, End-to-End 5G Network in the U.S., https://www.vmware.com/company/news/releases/vmw-
newsfeed.DISH-Selects-VMware-to-Help-Build-the-Most-Advanced-Automated-End-to-End-5G-Network-in-the-
U.S.459a7317-5c39-48ec-a2c1-fef8509d4075.html (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).
44
Satellites function as relay stations in space that receive signals from an earth station and then re-transmit the
signal to a distant point located often thousands of miles from the point of signal origination. An earth station is a
station located either on the Earth’s surface or within the major portion of the Earth's atmosphere and intended for
communication: (1) With one or more space stations; or (2) With one or more stations of the same kind by means of
one or more reflecting satellites or other objects in space. 47 CFR § 25.103. The Commission’s definition is
identical to the definition established by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). ITU, Radio
Regulations—Articles (ed. 2016), at 13 (Article 1, 1.63),
http://search.itu.int/history/HistoryDigitalCollectionDocLibrary/1.43.48.en.101.pdf (ITU Radio Regulations) (last
visited Oct. 27, 2020).
45
MSS generally refers to services provided to mobile earth stations using MSS frequency bands. The newer
ESIMs, discussed below, refer to services provided to mobile earth stations using the FSS frequency bands.
46
47 CFR § 25.103.
47
There are MSS allocations in the 1525-1559 MHz (space-to-Earth) band and the 1626.5-1660.5 MHz (Earth-to-
space) band of the L-band, and in the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands of the 2 GHz band. Other
frequency bands with MSS allocations have been given specific labels in the Commission rules: the Big LEO bands
(1610-1626.5 MHz and 2483.5-2500 MHz) and the Little LEO bands (137-138 MHz, 400.15-401 MHz, and 148-
150.5 MHz). 47 CFR § 25.103. Due to encumbrances, not all of the allocated spectrum is available for use by MSS
providers.
9
data services are conducted in the L-band, Big LEO band, and 2 GHz bands, while the Little LEO band is
limited to non-voice services.48 Examples of MSS applications include voice, low-speed data, and
tracking services for aircraft and ships, as well as handsets operating in remote locations on land.
17. Currently, five satellite operators provide MSS in the United States: Inmarsat, Ligado
(formerly known as LightSquared),49 Iridium, Globalstar, and ORBCOMM.50 Due to technological
differences, MSS services vary significantly in characteristics, such as cost, geographic availability,
required customer equipment, data bandwidth and allowances, two-way capabilities, latency, network
reliability, and ease of use.51 Inmarsat, the largest MSS operator, provides extensive voice, video, and
data communications services to mobile earth stations using GSO satellites, five of which have been
granted access to the U.S. market.52 In 2019, MSS generated approximately $700 million in U.S.
revenues.53
18. Over the last ten years, the Commission also has allowed the operation of Earth Stations
in Motion (ESIMs) within the spectrum bands allocated to fixed satellite services (FSS).54 Earth Stations
on Vessels, Vehicle-Mounted Earth Stations, and Earth Stations Aboard Aircraft—collectively designated
as ESIMs55—are mobile in nature, but nevertheless operate in FSS spectrum because at any point in time,
their emissions have the same characteristics as those of a fixed earth station transmitting from the same
location. Given that ESIMs have access to a significant amount of FSS spectrum and they use directional
48
See, e.g., Terrestrial Use of the 2473-2495 MHz Band for Low-Power Mobile Broadband Networks; Amendments
to Rules for the Ancillary Terrestrial Component of Mobile Satellite Service Systems, IB Docket No. 13-213, RM-
11685, Report and Order, 31 FCC Rcd 13801, 13802 & n.2 (2016) (noting distinction between Big LEO systems,
which operate with voice and higher data-rate capabilities, and Little LEO systems, which do not provide voice
service and generally operate with lower data-rate capabilities).
49
Ligado Amendment to License Modification Applications IBFS File Nos. SES-MOD-20151231-00981, SAT-MOD-
20151231-00090, and SAT-MOD-20151231-00091 et al., IB Docket No. 11-109, Order and Authorization, 35 FCC
Rcd 3772 (2020).
50
See Inmarsat, Our Satellites, https://www.inmarsat.com/about-us/our-technology/our-satellites/ (last visited Oct.
27, 2020); Ligado, Covering a Continent with the Ligado SkyTerra 1 Satellite, https://ligado.com/wp-
content/uploads/SkyTerra1_InfoSheet_0819.pdf (last visited Oct. 27, 2020); Iridium, Iridium Global Network,
https://www.iridium.com/network/globalnetwork/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020); Globalstar, Our Technology,
https://www.globalstar.com/en-us/corporate/about/our-technology (last visited Oct. 27, 2020); ORBCOMM,
Satellite IoT and M2M Networks, https://www.orbcomm.com/en/networks/satellite (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).
51
Inmarsat Plc, 2018 Annual Report and Financial Statements at 1, https://www.inmarsat.com/wp-
content/uploads/2019/12/Inmarsat-Group-Limited-Annual-Report-2018.pdf (last visited Oct. 27, 2020); Iridium
Communications, Inc., 2019 SEC Form 10-K at 2-5 (filed Feb. 25, 2020); Globalstar, 2019 SEC Form 10-K at 3-9
(filed Feb. 28, 2020).
52
FCC, Space Station Approval List, https://www.fcc.gov/approved-space-station-list. (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).
53
Mobile satellite 2019 revenues totaled $0.7 billion in both 2018 and 2019, approximately 1% of total U.S. satellite
services revenue. SIA Comments at 5, SIA Ex Parte. For total mobile satellite revenues from 2013 through 2017,
see 2018 Communications Marketplace Report, 33 FCC Rcd at 12673, Fig. F-1.
54
See generally Procedures to Govern the Use of Satellite Earth Stations on Board Vessels in the 5925-6425
MHz/3700-4200 MHz Bands and 14.0-14.5 GHz/11.7-12.2 GHz Bands, IB Docket No. 02-10, Report and Order, 20
FCC Rcd 674 (2005); see also Amendment of Parts 2 and 25 of the Commission’s Rules to Allocate Spectrum and
Adopt Service Rules and Procedures to Govern the Use of Vehicle-Mounted Earth Stations in Certain Frequency
Bands Allocated to the Fixed-Satellite Service, IB Docket No. 07-101, Report and Order, 24 FCC Rcd 10414 (2009).
55
O3b Limited; Request for Modification of U.S. Market Access for O3b Limited's Non-Geostationary Satellite Orbit
System in the Fixed-Satellite Service and in the Mobile-Satellite Service, Order and Declaratory Ruling, 33 FCC Rcd
5508, 5516, para. 21 & n.59 (2018) (O3b Modification Order).
10
antennas that enhance throughput,56 ESIMs are able to transmit and receive very high data-rate broadband
communications while in motion.57 Licensees increasingly use ESIMs to deliver broadband to ships,
vehicles, trains, and aircraft using the same frequency bands, hardware, satellites, transponder beams, and
gateways used to serve earth stations at fixed locations.58
19. FSS operators provide broadband services to aircraft and maritime vessels, which include
government organizations, commercial entities, and individual clients.59 For example, Intelsat and Telesat
offer broadband services for maritime vessels (including maritime enterprise VSAT services60 and
broadband connectivity for cruise ships), as well as broadband connectivity for in-flight entertainment and
Wi-Fi services for the aeronautical industry.61 SES and ViaSat provide broadband service on commercial
airlines and cruise ships.62 Hughes/Echostar also provides broadband service on commercial airlines.63
56
The use of directional antennas required for FSS spectrum use means that FSS spectrum can be re-used
repeatedly, for each satellite spot beam, unlike MSS services which traditionally use non-directional antennas,
preventing the reuse of spectrum. O3b Modification Order, 33 FCC Rcd at 5516, para. 21 & n.59.
57
O3b Modification Order, 33 FCC Rcd at 5516, para. 21 & n.59. ESIMs enable the provision of very high data rate
broadband communications, navigational, situational awareness, and other services to mobile platforms that often
cannot be served using other communications technologies. See Amendment of Parts 2 and 25 of the Commission’s
Rules to Facilitate the Use of Earth Stations in Motion Communicating with Geostationary Orbit Space Stations in
Frequency Bands Allocated to the Fixed Satellite Service, IB Docket No. 17-95, Report and Order and Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 33 FCC Rcd 9327, 9328-29, para. 3 (2018) (ESIMs Order). The Commission
continues to distinguish ESIMs, which operate in FSS spectrum, from mobile earth stations, which operate in MSS
spectrum. ESIMs Order 33 FCC Rcd at 9328-30, paras. 3-4, 10 (defining ESIMs to collectively designate the three
types of FSS earth stations that the Commission authorizes to transmit while in motion: Earth Stations on Vessels
(ESVs), Vehicle-Mounted Earth Stations (VMESs), and Earth Stations Aboard Aircraft (ESAAs)); 47 CFR § 25.103
(Mobile Earth Station) (defining mobile earth station as “[a]n earth station in the Mobile-Satellite Service intended
to be used while in motion or during halts at unspecified points.”).
58
ESIMs Order, 33 FCC Rcd at 9328, para. 2.
59
“Satellites are playing an increasingly profitable role in the aviation industry. A $1B market today, the London
School of Economics projects that airline broadband will encompass a $30B market by 2035. Connected aircraft
could also save airlines $15B annually in operating costs, according to the same study.” SIA Comments at 8-9. See
also Grous, Alexander, Sky High Economics. Department of Media and Communications, London School of
Economics and Political Science (2017), http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/87438/1/Grous_Sky%20High_Author.pdf.
60
Vessels can connect to the global communications network with VSAT technology, which provides crew and
passengers with high-speed Internet access and phone service. iDirect, ViaSatellite, The Coming Wave of Maritime
VSAT Growth, https://www.satellitetoday.com//long-form-stories/maritime-vsat/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).
61
See Intelsat, 2019 SEC Form 10-K, at 11 (filed Feb. 20, 2020) (Intelsat 2019 SEC Form 10-K); Telesat Canada,
2019 SEC Form 20-F at 34 (filed Feb. 27, 2020) (Telesat Canada 2019 SEC Form 20-F). For example, Telesat has a
long-term contract with Panasonic Avionics Corporation (Panasonic) to provide satellite capacity to support
Panasonic’s in-flight entertainment and communications systems. See Telesat, Panasonic Signs Long Term
Contract For Multiple Transponders on Telesat Satellites to Expand Aeronautical Broadband Service Over Latin
America (Nov. 14, 2012), www.telesat.com/news-events/panasonic-signs-long-term-contract-multiple-transponders-
telesat-satellites-expand. Likewise, Intelsat leases transponder capacity to GoGo for aviation. Intelsat, Gogo Adds
Intelsat 29e Services to Provide Broadband Connectivity for Aircraft Crossing the North Atlantic (Nov. 17, 2016),
http://www.intelsat.com/news/press-release/gogo-adds-intelsat-29e-services-to-provide-broadband-connectivity-for-
aircraft-crossing-the-north-atlantic/.
62
SES plans to launch SES-17 in 2021 to provide aviation service over the Americas and Atlantic. SES, 2019
Annual Report at 36, 41, https://www.ses.com/sites/default/files/2020-
04/SES_Annual_Report_2019_HighRes_1.pdf (SES 2019 Annual Report) (last visited Oct. 27, 2020); ViaSat, 2019
SEC Form 10-K at 3-4 (filed May 28, 2020) (ViaSat 2019 SEC Form 10-K).
63
Hughes, Thales and SES Select Hughes for Next-Generation Aviation Connectivity Network to Provide Increased
Capacity, Coverage and Redundancy over the Americas (Mar. 8, 2017), https://www.hughes.com/resources/press-
(continued….)
11
b. Connections/Subscribers and Connections Market Share

20. To estimate the number of mobile wireless subscribers/connections, this Report uses
Numbering Resource Utilization/Forecast (NRUF) data,64 which track how many phone numbers have
been assigned to mobile wireless devices,65 and CTIA data.66 As shown in Figure II.A.1 below,67 NRUF
estimates of mobile wireless connections at year-end 2018 were approximately 422 million, an increase of
around 3% from year-end 2017, and at year-end 2019 were approximately 430 million, an increase of
around 2% from year-end 2018. CTIA estimates of mobile wireless connections at year-end 2018 were
approximately 422 million, an increase of around 5% from year-end 2017, and at year-end 2019 were
approximately 442 million, an increase of approximately 5% from year-end 2018.
releases/thales-and-ses-select-hughes-next-generation-aviation-connectivity-network; Hughes, Aeronautical

Broadband Solutions, https://www.hughes.com/what-we-do/by-industry/aeronautical-broadband-solutions (last
64
NRUF data indicate the number of assigned phone numbers that a wireless service provider has in a particular rate
center (there are approximately 18,000 rate centers in the country). Rate centers are geographic areas used by local
exchange carriers for a variety of reasons, including the determination of toll rates. Harry Newton, Newton’s
Telecom Dictionary: 19th Expanded & Updated Edition at 660 (July 2003). All mobile wireless service providers
must report to the Commission the quantity of their phone numbers that have been assigned to end users, thereby
permitting the Commission to calculate the total number of mobile wireless subscribers. For purposes of
geographical analysis, the rate center data can be associated with a geographic point, and all of those points that fall
within a county boundary can be aggregated together and associated with much larger geographic areas based on
counties. We note that the aggregation to larger geographic areas reduces the level of inaccuracy inherent in
combining non-coterminous areas, such as rate center areas and counties.
65
While NRUF provides a measure of the number of mobile wireless connections or connected devices that have
assigned telephone numbers, the data have limitations, like providing only the quantity of mobile wireless
connections that have a telephone number, rather than the number of consumers subscribed to mobile broadband or
voice service. Twentieth Wireless Competition Report, 32 FCC Rcd at 8977-78, n.65. If a mobile broadband or
voice subscriber uses a device that does not have a telephone number assigned to it (e.g., a tablet), then that
subscriber will not be recorded. See Modernizing the FCC Form 477 Data Program, WC Docket No. 11-10,
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 32 FCC Rcd 6329, 6337, para. 26 & n.38 (2017) (2017 Data Collection
Improvement FNPRM). These data also do not reflect when consumers move to a different state and retain the same
telephone number. See Establishing the Digital Opportunity Data Collection et al., WC Docket No. 19-195, Report
and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 34 FCC Rcd 7505, 7530-31, para. 60 (2019)
(Digital Opportunity Data Collection Order and Second Further Notice).
66
Different sources refer to their data as connections or subscribers, and when discussing the different data, we will
use the terminology most currently used by the source and, where possible, provide a definition of this term. For
example, CTIA explains its use of the terms “subscribers” and “connections” as follows: “Traditionally, the term
‘subscribers’ was used as a term of art, reflecting the number of revenue-generating units, equally describable as
‘wireless connections’—the equivalent of wired telephone ‘lines.’ The terms ‘subscriber’ does not indicate a unique
individual person. Indeed, the growing number and variety of non-traditional devices and machine-to-machine
applications mean that the term ‘subscribers’ is increasingly less descriptive of a growing share of the universe of
active units.” CTIA, CTIA’s Wireless Industry Indices Report, Year-End 2019 Results at 16 (CTIA Year-End 2019
Wireless Industry Indices Report).
67
For details of total mobile wireless connections over time, see Appx. B.1 of this Report.
12
Source: NRUF, CTIA Year-End 2019 Wireless Industry Indices Report.

21. Figure II.A.2 presents data on total connections by service segment, based on UBS
Investment Research data. It shows that, in 2019, the postpaid segment accounted for approximately 59%
of all connections, while the prepaid segment accounted for approximately 15% of all connections. Most
notably, Internet connected devices surpassed prepaid connections in the middle of 2018 and is now the
second-largest segment by volume, accounting for approximately 22% of all wireless connections.68
68
These wireless connections are “composed almost entirely of data-capable devices, with web-capable devices,
smartphones, tablets/laptops and wireless broadband modems composing the vast majority of all wireless-connected
devices.” In addition, the number of data-only devices—such as connected cars, IoT devices and wearables—
increased to approximately 175 million in 2019. CTIA Year-End 2019 Wireless Industry Indices Report at 6.
13
Fig. II.A.2
Quarterly Total Mobile Wireless Connections by Service Segment
2017-2019 470.2 478.1
500 457.3 464.2
444.7 452.1
427.3 432.5 438.3
450 417.6 418.3 420.4
400
Total Connections (Millions)
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
1Q17 2Q17 3Q17 4Q17 1Q18 2Q18 3Q18 4Q18 1Q19 2Q19 3Q19 4Q19
Quarter, Year
Postpaid Prepaid Wholesale Connected Devices
Source: UBS Investment Research. UBS Data 2017-2019. Published with permission from UBS.
22. Figure II.A.3 presents data on total mobile wireless connections for the largest publicly
traded service providers operating in the United States, including an estimate of their respective market
shares as of year-end 2019.69 As of the end of 2019, the market shares for Verizon Wireless and AT&T
were each greater than the next three largest providers, T-Mobile, Sprint, and U.S. Cellular, combined.
Fig II.A.3
Estimated Total Connections for Publicly Traded Facilities–Based Mobile
Wireless Service Providers (in thousands): 2016–2019
Service EOY 2016 EOY 2017 EOY 2018 EOY 2019 EOY 2019
Providers (% Connection
Market Share)
Verizon 145,859 151,978 155,798 169,602 35.4
Wireless
AT&T 134,875 146,847 157,095 163,388 34.1
T-Mobile 71,455 74,040 79,651 86,046 18.0
Sprint 59,515 54,683 54,495 54,165 11.3
U.S. Cellular 5,079 5,063 5,041 4,948 1.0
Top 5 Service 416,783 432,611 452,080 479,149
Providers
Source: UBS Investment Research. UBS Data 2016-2019. Published with permission from UBS. Total estimated
Total
connections figure includes data only for the service providers reported in this table.
23. Estimates of the number of net additions in 2018 and 2019 vary, likely due to differences
in the way in which connections are measured. As shown in Figure II.A.4, for 2018, there were
approximately 12.3 million net additions based on NRUF data, compared with 4.3 million based on CTIA
data. Mobile voice subscriber data as reported by service providers on FCC Form 477 show that for
69
The size of a company, typically measured by service revenues or subscribers, relative to the total size of the
industry determines its market share. See, e.g., The MIT Dictionary of Modern Economics at 268 (4th ed. 1992).
14
2018, net subscriber additions totaled approximately 8.1 million. In 2019, NRUF showed 11.0 million
additions, CTIA showed 21.6 million additions, and preliminary figures from FCC Form 477 showed 7.8
million additions.70
Fig. II.A.4
Total Mobile Wireless Connections Annual Net Additions
(2016-2019)
25
21.6
20.2
20
Net Additions (Millions)
18.0
15
12.3 12.3
11.0 NRUF
10 8.1 CTIA
7.8
6.1 Form 477
4.3 4.3
5
1.9
0
2016 2017 2018 2019
Year
Source: NRUF, CTIA Year-End 2019 Wireless Industry Indices Report, FCC Form 477.
24. Figure II.A.5 below shows that in both 2018 and 2019, a substantial majority of wireless
additions were connected devices, accounting for approximately 69% and 75% of all wireless additions in
those two years, respectively. Additionally, wholesale additions surpassed postpaid additions in 2018,
perhaps in part due to the entry of cable providers into the wireless market. Lastly, prepaid connections
declined in each of the last three years. Figure II.A.6 shows net subscriber additions by the four
nationwide service providers from 2016 through 2019.
70
Based on FCC Form 477 data, the preliminary total number of mobile voice telephone subscriptions at year-end
2019 was 356 million, as compared to 348 million at year-end 2018. We again note that the year-end FCC Form
477 data are preliminary only, are subject to corrections as appropriate by the service provider, and the final data
will be published in due course by the agency. See, e.g., FCC, Wireline Competition Bureau, Voice Telephone
Services: Status as of December 31, 2018 (Mar. 6, 2020), https://www.fcc.gov/voice-telephone-services-report.
These data do not include non-voice devices.
15
Source: UBS Investment Research. UBS Data 2016-2019. Published with permission of UBS.
Fig. II.A.6
Annual Net Additions by Service Provider: 2016-2019
16,000
Net Subscriber Additions (Thousands)
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
-
(2,000)
2016 2017 2018 2019
Verizon 4,955 5,222 6,069 6,392
AT&T 6,196 9,474 11,581 13,804
Sprint 2,411 1,173 129 (330)
T-Mobile 8,173 5,658 7,044 7,011
16
25. Market Concentration. High market concentration levels in any market may raise some
concern that a market is not competitive, although it is not necessarily the case.71 To measure mobile
wireless market concentration, the Commission employs the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI), widely
used in competition analysis.72 The HHI is calculated by summing the squared market shares of all firms
in the given market. In this Report, we calculate HHIs based on the NRUF data by Economic Area (EA)
to maintain continuity with past reports and to ensure that we do not compromise the confidential
information found in the NRUF data. As of year-end 2017, the weighted average HHI (weighted by
population across the 172 EAs in the United States) for mobile wireless services was 3,106.73 As of year-
end 2019, taking into account the transaction between T-Mobile and Sprint, the weighted average HHI for
mobile wireless services by EA was 3,622.74
c. Churn
26. Churn measures the percentage of connections that are disconnected from mobile
wireless service during a given time period.75 A service provider’s churn rate depends on many factors,
such as the distribution of its customers between postpaid and prepaid service plans, customer satisfaction
with their service provider, and switching costs.76 High levels of industry churn can indicate that
consumers are not only willing but are also able to easily switch between service providers. For 2019,
CTIA reported an annual industry-wide churn rate of 19.5%, and a monthly rate of 1.6%.77 Figure II.A.7
shows the industry weighted churn rates, according to UBS, for the nationwide providers by quarter. At
the end of 2019, stronger wireless competition among the top four providers and new competition from
cable MVNOs resulted in a slight increase in churn rates.78
71
It is well understood that we can observe intense competition even with a small number of firms in the market.
See, e.g., Ernest Gellhorn, Antitrust Law and Economics 117 (4th ed. 1994) (stating “[m]arket shares are not
synonymous with market power; they should mark the beginning for careful analysis, not the end of it.”); Michael
Whinston, Antitrust Policy toward Horizontal Mergers, Handbook of Industrial Organization, Vol. 3, (eds. Mark
Armstrong and Robert Porter 2007); John Sutton, Sunk Costs and Market Structure (1991); Joseph Farrell and Carl
Shapiro, Antitrust Evaluation of Horizontal Mergers: An Economic Alternative to Market Definition, 10(1) The
B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics 1 (2010); Gregory J. Werden and Luke M. Froeb, Unilateral Competitive
Effects of Horizontal Mergers, Handbook of Antitrust Economics (ed. Paolo Buccirossi 2008).
72
To the extent that this section uses the term “markets,” we do not intend it to be interpreted as synonymous with
the antitrust concept of the “relevant market,” which the Commission defines in the context of secondary market
transactions review. See, e.g., T-Mobile-Sprint Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 10601, para. 55.
73
2018 Communications Marketplace Report, 33 FCC Rcd at 12582-83, para. 30.
74
Antitrust authorities in the United States generally classify markets into three types: Unconcentrated (HHI <
1500), Moderately Concentrated (1500 < HHI < 2500), and Highly Concentrated (HHI > 2500). U.S. Department of
Justice and the Federal Trade Commission, Horizontal Merger Guidelines (Aug. 19, 2010),
http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/guidelines/hmg-2010.pdf.
75
CTIA defines churn as “a measure of the number of subscribers disconnecting from service during the period.”
CTIA Year-End 2019 Wireless Industry Indices Report at 35. Churn is calculated by dividing the aggregate number
of wireless connections that canceled service during a time period by the total number of wireless connections at the
beginning of that time period. For an annual calculation, if a service provider has an average monthly churn rate of
2%, the service provider would lose 24% of its subscribers over the course of a year. Service providers publish their
monthly churn rate information as part of their quarterly filings with the SEC.
76
2018 Communications Marketplace Report, 33 FCC Rcd at 12567, para. 11.
77
CTIA Year-End 2019 Wireless Industry Indices Report at 37. For prepaid services, CTIA reported an annual
industry-wide churn rate of 47.2% and a monthly churn rate of 4.45%. Id. at Appx. C, 14.
78
Instinet, LLC, Equity Research, Churn Return: 2020 to Interrupt Years of Progress at 3 (2020); Bevin Fletcher,
Sprint sheds subscribers as churn climbs (Jan. 27, 2020), https://www.fiercewireless.com/financial/sprint-sheds-
subscribers-as-churn-climbs.
17
Fig. II.A.7
Quarterly Churn Rate for Nationwide Mobile Wireless Providers
1st Quarter 2017- 4th Quarter 2019
2.5%
2.0%
Churn Rate
1.5%
1.0%
0.5%
0.0%
1Q17 2Q17 3Q17 4Q17 1Q18 2Q18 3Q18 4Q18 1Q19 2Q19 3Q19 4Q19
AT&T 1.5% 1.3% 1.3% 1.4% 1.2% 1.2% 1.3% 1.4% 1.2% 1.1% 1.2% 1.3%
Verizon Wireless 1.4% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.3% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.3% 1.2% 1.2% 1.3%
Sprint 1.9% 1.9% 2.0% 1.8% 1.8% 1.6% 1.8% 1.9% 1.8% 1.7% 1.9% 2.0%
T-Mobile 1.7% 1.7% 2.0% 1.8% 1.7% 1.6% 1.7% 1.6% 1.5% 1.3% 1.7% 1.5%
d. Data Usage
27. As shown in Figure II.A.8, monthly data usage per smartphone subscriber rose to an
average of 9.2 GB per subscriber per month, an increase of approximately 39% from year-end 2018 to
year-end 2019.79 Figure II.A.9 further shows that total network annual data usage increased by
approximately 30% from 2018 to 2019, with a commensurate increase in total annual minutes of voice
use (MOUs) of approximately 29%,80 while total messaging traffic experienced a much smaller increase
of approximately 3%.81
79
CTIA Year-End 2019 Wireless Industry Indices Report at 15.
80
Id. at 13.
81
Id. This provider-reported messaging traffic does not include traffic from over-the-top messaging applications
and services, which would only appear in the total data traffic figures, thereby contributing to the total MB of data
traffic. See id.
18
Fig. II.A.8
Mobile Data Usage per Subscriber
2010 - 2019
Average Monthly GB per Average
10.0 9.2
8.0 7.1
Data Capable Unit
6.6
5.8
6.0 5.1
3.9
4.0 2.9 2.9 3.3
2.2
2.0 0.8 1.2 1.0 1.4
0.1 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.8
0.0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Data Capable Unit Smartphone
Source: CTIA Year-End Wireless Industry Indices Report at 15, Chart 4.
Fig. II.A.9
Annual Minutes, Messages, and Megabytes of Wireless Traffic
45,000
Billions of MOUs / Messages / MB
40,000 37,060
35,000
30,000 28,585
37.1 trillion
25,000 MBs
20,000 15,687
13,719
15,000 9,650
10,000
867 1,468 4,061 2.1 trillion text
388 3,230
5,000 2,108 2,006 2,108 1,939 2,098 messages
2,356 2,264 2,073 1,768 2,046
2,881 2,751 3,078 3.1 trillion
2,241 2,296 2,300 2,618 2,455 2,180 2,389
0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
MOUs Messages MB of Data Usage
Source: CTIA Year-End Wireless Industry Indices Report at 13, Chart 2.
28. This growth in data usage is primarily driven by increasing data demanded per device.
According to a 2019 Pew survey, smartphone and tablet ownership were 81% and 52%, respectively,
largely unchanged from the 77% and 53% ownership figures reported in 2018.82 Pew reported that 17%
of American adults are “smartphone-only” Internet users—they own a smartphone, but do not have
traditional fixed home broadband service—a 3-point decrease from a year earlier.83 Comparatively, the
U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) found that, as of 2019, approximately 10% of
total U.S. households subscribed to a cellular data plan with no other type of Internet subscription.84
82
Pew Research Center, Mobile Fact Sheet (June 12, 2019), http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/mobile/ (Pew
Mobile Fact Sheet).
83
See Pew Mobile Fact Sheet.
84
U.S. Census Bureau, 2019 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Types of Computers and Internet
Subscriptions,
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=S2801%3A%20TYPES%20OF%20COMPUTERS%20AND%20INTERNET
%20SUBSCRIPTIONS&tid=ACSST1Y2019.S2801&hidePreview=true (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). We note that
(continued….)
19
Many consumers also choose to depend on some combination of fixed and mobile broadband access,
while discontinuing their landline telephone services. In fact, according to preliminary data from the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as of June 2019, the percentage of U.S. adults living in
households that were identified as having wireless-only telephone service (no landline telephone service)
was approximately 59%.85
2. Mobile Wireless Spectrum and Service Providers’ Spectrum Holdings
29. Spectrum is a critical input in the provision of mobile wireless services.86 It can affect
whether, when, and where existing service providers and potential entrants will be able to expand
capacity or deploy networks.87 Incumbent service providers may need additional spectrum to increase
their coverage or capacity, while new entrants need access to spectrum to enter a geographic area at all.
Spectrum bands vary in breadth and in their propagation characteristics, and these variations have
implications for how spectrum is deployed.88 The effective supply of spectrum capacity available for
mobile wireless service depends on several aspects of spectrum policy, including allocation and licensing
policies, as well as interference and technical rules.89 Increasing the total supply of spectrum bandwidth
that the Commission allocates and licenses to mobile wireless service providers can increase network
capacity and reduce the degree of frequency reuse required to achieve a given level of capacity.90 The
efforts of the Commission to allocate more mid-band and mmW spectrum to meet consumer demand for
mobile broadband services and to fuel innovation and investment in the mobile wireless market are
detailed in sections V and VI below.
30. Subject to Commission approval, licensees may transfer licenses, in whole or in part
(through partitioning and/or disaggregation), on the secondary market.91 In reviewing proposed transfers
Pew surveys U.S. adults while ACS relies on sampling households, which is a likely source of divergence for these
respective statistics.
85
CDC, NCHS, Stephen J. Blumberg and Julian V. Luke, Wireless Substitution: Early Release of Estimates from
the National Health Interview Survey, January-June 2019, National Center for Health Statistics (May 2020),
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/wireless202005-508.pdf. For a more detailed discussion of
competition between fixed and mobile, see infra section II.B.3.
86
Non-spectrum inputs in the provision of mobile wireless services include cellular base stations and towers to carry
transmissions and backhaul, which routes voice and data traffic from base stations to mobile switching centers.
Backhaul may be provided via wireless spectrum, copper, or fiber, though we note copper may lack sufficient
capacity for current data demands.
87
Mobile Spectrum Holdings Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 6134, para. 2.
88
Spectrum below 1 GHz (low-band spectrum) has certain propagation advantages for network deployment over
long distances, and for penetrating buildings and urban canyons, while spectrum above 1 GHz (mid- or high-band
spectrum) allows for the better transmission of large amounts of information. Mobile Spectrum Holdings Report
and Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 6135, para. 3. In this sense, low-band spectrum may be thought of as “coverage”
spectrum, and higher band spectrum may be thought of as “capacity” spectrum. Service providers deploy their
spectrum bands differently depending on the nature of the service, geography, density, or other factors in their
network build-out. See 2018 Communications Marketplace Report, 33 FCC Rcd at 12584, para.31 & n.99;
Twentieth Wireless Competition Report, 32 FCC Rcd at 8992, para. 36 & n.112.
89
90
See Theodore Rappaport, Wireless Communications: Principles and Practice at 58 (2d ed. 2002).
91
As part of its secondary market policies, the Commission also permits mobile wireless licensees to lease all or a
portion of their spectrum usage rights for any length of time within the license term and over any geographic area
encompassed by the license.
20
of control of spectrum, the Commission uses an initial spectrum screen92 to help identify, for case-by-case
review, local markets where changes in spectrum holdings resulting from the transaction may be of
particular concern.93 In addition, the Commission determined that increased aggregation of below-1-GHz
spectrum would be treated as an “enhanced factor” under its case-by-case review of license transfers if
post-transaction the acquiring entity would hold approximately one-third or more of the currently suitable
and available spectrum below 1 GHz.94
31. In the past decade, in the context of its review of secondary market transactions, as well
as in rulemakings, the Commission periodically has determined that additional spectrum was suitable and
available for mobile wireless use, and therefore subject to inclusion in the spectrum screen.95 The current
suitable and available spectrum included in the spectrum screen, with an associated spectrum trigger of
250 megahertz, is shown in Figure II.A.10.
92
The Commission includes spectrum that it finds suitable and available for the provision of mobile wireless
services in the spectrum screen. See, e.g., T-Mobile-Sprint Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 10607-08, paras. 70-72; Mobile
Spectrum Holdings Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 6169, para. 71.
93
See, e.g., T-Mobile-Sprint Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 10607-08, paras. 70-72; Mobile Spectrum Holdings Report and
Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 6221-22, para. 225. In the case of transfer of business units, the Commission’s initial
Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) screen identifies, for further case-by-case market analysis, those markets in
which, post-transaction: (1) the HHI would be greater than 2800 and the change in HHI would be 100 or greater; or
(2) the change in HHI would be 250 or greater, regardless of the level of the HHI. See, e.g., T-Mobile-Sprint Order,
34 FCC Rcd at 10614-15, para. 87 & n.277; Mobile Spectrum Holdings Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 6140-41,
para. 13 & n.34.
94
See, e.g., T-Mobile-Sprint Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 10614-15, para. 87; Mobile Spectrum Holdings Report and
Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 6240, paras. 282-88.
95
See Incentive Auction Closing and Channel Reassignment, Public Notice, 32 FCC Rcd 2786 (WTB 2017);
Applications of SprintCom, Inc., Shenandoah Personal Communications, LLC, and NTELOS Holdings Corp. for
Consent To Assign Licenses and Spectrum Lease Authorizations and To Transfer Control of Spectrum Lease
Authorizations and an International Section 214 Authorization, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 31 FCC Rcd
3631, 3637-38, paras. 15-16 (WTB, IB 2016) (Sprint-Shentel-NTELOS Order); Mobile Spectrum Holdings Report
and Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 6172-90, paras. 82-134; Applications of AT&T Mobility Spectrum LLC, New Cingular
Wireless PCS, LLC, Comcast Corporation, Horizon Wi-Com, LLC, NextWave Wireless, Inc., and San Diego Gas &
Electric Company for Consent To Assign and Transfer Licenses, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 27 FCC Rcd
16459, 16470-71, para. 31 (2012); Amendment of Part 27 of the Commission’s Rules to Govern the Operation of
Wireless Communications Services in the 2.3 GHz Band, Report and Order, 25 FCC Rcd 11710, 11711, para. 1
(2010); Applications of Sprint Nextel Corporation and Clearwire Corporation for Consent To Transfer Control of
Licenses, Leases, and Authorizations, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 17570, 17598-99, paras. 70,
72 (2008); Applications of AT&T Inc. and Dobson Communications Corporation for Consent To Transfer Control of
Licenses and Authorizations, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 20295, 20307-08, para. 17 (2007).
21
Fig. II.A.10
Spectrum Included in the Spectrum Screen96
Spectrum Band Megahertz (Amount)
600 MHz 70
700 MHz 70
Cellular 50
SMR 14
Broadband PCS 130
AWS-1 90
AWS-3 65
AWS-4 40
H Block 10
WCS 20
BRS 67.5
EBS 116.5
Total Amount of Spectrum 743.0
32. With respect to high-band spectrum, the Commission has made available nearly 12
gigahertz of licensed and unlicensed mmW spectrum through its Spectrum Frontiers proceedings. The
64-71 GHz band is available for unlicensed use, and an additional 4950 megahertz is available for
licensed use, as shown in Figure II.A.11 below.97 The Commission adopted a separate threshold for
mmW spectrum holdings, with an associated trigger of 1850 megahertz, as an initial analytical tool to aid
in identifying certain markets for further review in proposed secondary market transactions.98 Figure
II.A.12 shows average megahertz holdings by licensee in the mmW spectrum bands.
96
We previously discounted the available 112.5 megahertz of EBS spectrum such that 89 megahertz was included in
the screen for review of proposed secondary market transactions. Mobile Spectrum Holdings Report and Order, 29
FCC Rcd at 6177-79, 6184-6187, paras. 100-102, 118-25. Following the adoption of the 2.5 GHz Report and
Order, which became effective on April 27, 2020, the amount of EBS spectrum now included in the spectrum screen
is 116.5 megahertz. Transforming the 2.5 GHz Band, WT Docket No. 18-120, Report and Order, 34 FCC Rcd 5446,
5481, 5482-83, para. 96 & n.279, paras. 99-100.
97
See Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz For Mobile Radio Services, et al., Third Report and Order,
Memorandum Opinion and Order, and Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 33 FCC Rcd 5576 (2018)
(Spectrum Frontiers Third Report and Order); Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz For Mobile Radio Services,
GN Docket No. 14-177, Second Report and Order, Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Order on
Reconsideration, and Memorandum Opinion and Order, 32 FCC Rcd 10988, 10990, para. 2 (2017) (Spectrum
Frontiers Second Report and Order); Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz for Mobile Radio Services, et. al.,
Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 31 FCC Rcd 8014 (2016) (Spectrum Frontiers
Report and Order).
98
See, e.g., T-Mobile-Sprint Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 10614-15, para. 87; Application of Verizon Communications Inc.
and Straight Path Communications, Inc. for Consent To Transfer Control of Local Multipoint Distribution Service,
39 GHz, Common Carrier Point-to-Point Microwave, and 3650-3700 MHz Service Licenses, Memorandum Opinion
and Order, 33 FCC Rcd 188, 194-95, paras. 18-19 (WTB 2018); Spectrum Frontiers Second Report and Order, 32
FCC Rcd at 11009-11, paras. 70, 74 & n.189; Spectrum Frontiers Report and Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 8082, para.
185.
22
Fig. II.A.11
Spectrum Included in the mmW Spectrum Threshold
Spectrum Band Megahertz (Amount)
24 GHz 700
28 GHz 850
Upper 37 GHz 1000
39 GHz 1400
47 GHz 1000
Total Amount of Spectrum 4950
Fig. II.A.12
Population-Weighted Average Megahertz Holdings by Licensee, by mmW Frequency Band
24 GHz 28 GHz Upper 37 GHz 39 GHz 47 GHz

Spectrum
Counted 700 850 1,000 1,400 1,000
AT&T 255 - 4 782 -
DISH 17 28 10 0.4 609
T-Mobile 334 126 - 321 380
US Cellular 27 24 4 27 -
Verizon Wireless 6 610 974 126 -
Other 58 60 6 136 8
33. Service Providers’ Spectrum Holdings. Figures II.A.13 and II.A.14 below present
spectrum holdings by service provider. As of July 2020, the three nationwide service providers, AT&T,
T-Mobile, and Verizon Wireless together held approximately 78% of all the spectrum included in the
spectrum screen, measured on a MHz-POPs basis. Figure II.A.15 shows the population-weighted average
megahertz spectrum holdings of licensees by frequency band.99
99
We consider population-weighted spectrum holdings in order to account for customer density in different
geographic areas. A spectrum license in Los Angeles or New York City, for example, covers more customers than a
spectrum license over the same amount of land area in White Sands, New Mexico.
23
Fig. II.A.13
Percentage Spectrum Holdings, Measured on a MHz-POPs Basis
by Licensee, by Frequency Band
600 700 H
Cell. SMR PCS AWS-1 AWS-3 AWS-4 WCS BRS EBS
MHz MHz Block
Spectrum 70 70 50 14 130 10 90 65 40 20 67.5 116.5

meg. meg. meg. meg. meg. meg. meg. meg. meg. meg. meg. meg.
100
AT&T 0.0% 42.3% 44.6% 0.0% 29.4% 0.0% 16.5% 33.5% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%
T-Mobile 45.3% 14.9% 0.1% 96.5% 51.0% 0.0% 41.2% 5.5% 0.0% 0.0% 93.1% 79.2%
VZW 0.0% 31.0% 47.7% 0.0% 16.9% 0.0% 40.1% 19.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
USCC 2.6% 3.5% 3.9% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.8% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
DISH 26.2% 6.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 34.8% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Other 25.8% 1.7% 3.7% 3.5% 1.6% 0.0% 1.4% 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.9% 20.8%
Staff estimates as of July 2020. Numbers may not sum to 100% due to rounding. Abbreviations for spectrum bands: Cell.
(Cellular), SMR (Specialized Mobile Radio Service), PCS (Personal Communications Service), BRS (Broadband Radio
Service), and EBS (Educational Broadband Service).
Fig. II.A.14
Population-Weighted Average Megahertz Holdings by Licensee, by Frequency Band101
600 700 H
Cell. SMR PCS AWS-1 AWS-3 AWS-4 WCS BRS EBS
MHz MHz Block
Spectrum 70 70 50 14 130 10 90 65 40 20 67.5 116.5

Counted meg. meg. meg. meg. meg. meg. meg. meg. meg. meg. meg meg.
.
AT&T 0.0 29.7 23.6 0.0 38.3 0.0 14.9 20.3 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0
T-Mobile 30.8 10.4 0.0 13.8 66.5 0.0 37.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 62.9 92.2
VZW 0.0 21.7 25.2 0.0 22.0 0.0 36.1 11.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
USCC 1.8 2.4 2.1 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.7 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
DISH 17.8 4.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 21.1 40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Other 17.5 1.2 2.0 0.5 2.1 0.0 1.3 3.1 0.0 0.0 4.6 24.3
Staff estimates as of July 2020.
In the 2018 Communications Marketplace Report, we erroneously calculated Sprint’s EBS holdings; see 2018
100
Communications Marketplace Report, 33 FCC Rcd at 12587, Fig. A-24. The correct percentage as of Aug. 2018
was 75.7%.
101
The population-weighted average megahertz for each provider is calculated by multiplying that provider’s
spectrum in a county by the county’s population (MHz-POPs), summing for all counties, and then dividing by the
2010 total U.S. population.
24
Fig. II.A.15
Spectrum Holdings by Band Weighted by Population
Mobile Wireless Provider Spectrum Holdings by Band

Weighted by Population
120
EBS BRS WCS
100 AWS-4 AWS-3 AWS-1
H Block PCS SMR
80
MHz-Pops (Billions)
Cellular 700 MHz 600 MHz
60
40
20
-
Verizon Wireless AT&T T-Mobile US Cellular DISH Other
Staff estimates as of July 2020.
3. Wireless Infrastructure
34. Wireless infrastructure facilities constitute another major input in the provision of mobile
wireless services.102 In addition to towers and other tall structures─such as lattice towers, guyed towers,
monopoles, rooftops, water towers, and steeples─wireless infrastructure also includes DAS and small
cells.103 In order to expand or to improve coverage in existing service areas, and to accommodate newer
technologies, mobile service providers have deployed additional cell sites. According to CTIA, as shown
in Figure II.A.16, cell sites in commercial use increased from 308,334 in 2016, to 323,448 in 2017, to
349,344 in 2018, and to 395,562 in 2019.104
102
Another component is the backhaul connections that link a mobile wireless service provider’s cell sites to the
mobile switching centers that provide connections to the provider’s core network, the PSTN, or the Internet,
carrying wireless voice and data traffic for routing and onward transmission. Backhaul facilities are generally
provided by incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs), competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs), competitive
fiber and microwave wholesalers, cable providers, tower companies, and independent backhaul operators. Twentieth
Wireless Competition Report, 32 FCC Rcd 8968, 8997-98, para. 42 & n.135; Sixteenth Wireless Competition Report,
28 FCC Rcd 3700, 3912, para. 336; see also American Tower 2019 Annual Report, Part I at 1 (“We also hold …
fiber…that we lease primarily to communications service providers and third-party tower operators.”); Crown Castle
2018 Corporate Sustainability Report, at 4 (“75,000+ route miles of dense, high-capacity fiber”).
103
See Twentieth Wireless Competition Report, 32 FCC Rcd at 8997, para 42 & n.133, n.134 (provides a full
description of DAS and small cells).
104
CTIA Year-End 2019 Wireless Industry Indices Report, Chart 19, at 53. The reported cell sites include small
cells and distributed antenna systems which may be located on rooftops, monopoles, and other pre-existing
(continued….)
25
Figure II.A.16
Year-End Cell Site Counts by Service Provider, 2016–2019
Cell Sites 2016 2017 2018 2019
AT&T 67,000 70,300 74,500 81,800
Sprint 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000
T-Mobile 59,417 61,457 64,285 66,319
Verizon Wireless 58,300 61,800 64,000 66,500
U.S. Cellular105 6,415 6,460 6,531 6,578
Total by Top Wireless Service Providers 241,132 250,017 259,316 271,197
CTIA Reported Total Cell Sites 308,334 323,448 349,344 395,562
Source: Cell site counts for individual service providers are from UBS Data: 2016-2019. The total
industry-wide cell count is from CTIA Year-End 2019 Wireless Industry Indices Report.
35. Mobile service providers have increased deployment of small cells and DAS sites to fill
local coverage gaps, to densify networks and increase local capacity, and to build their 5G networks.106
The telecommunications industry is deploying small cells in cities across the country, often through
attaching small-scale antennas/radios near the top of light or small utility poles.107 These small cells are
structures as well as on lattice towers. Because multiple cell sites can be co-located at the same “tower” site, the
reported cell sites should not be equated with “towers.” In addition, the reported cell sites may include repeaters and
other cell-extending devices. CTIA Year-End 2019 Wireless Industry Indices Report at 53.
105
U.S. Cellular 2019 cell site count is from U.S. Cellular 2019 SEC Form 10-K at 2; 2018 cell site count is from
U.S. Cellular 2018 SEC Form 10-K at 2 (filed Feb. 22, 2019); 2017 cell site count is from U.S. Cellular 2017 SEC
Form 10-K at 2 (filed Feb. 26, 2018); 2016 cell site count is from U.S. Cellular 2016 SEC Form 10-K at 2 (filed
Feb. 24, 2017).
106
Twentieth Wireless Competition Report, 32 FCC Rcd at 8998, para. 43; see also T-Mobile 2019 Annual Report at
7 (“66,000 macro cell sites and 25,000 small cell/distributed antenna system sites”); AT&T Inc., 2019 Annual
Report at 29 (filed Feb. 20, 2020), https://investors.att.com/~/media/Files/A/ATT-IR/financial-reports/annual-
reports/2019/complete-2019-annual-report.pdf (AT&T 2019 Annual Report) (“The industry-wide deployment of 5G
technology, …, will involve significant deployment of “small cell” equipment.”); Mike Dano, Charter Is Preparing
to Build a Wireless Network, LIGHT READING (Sept. 13, 2019), https://www.lightreading.com/mobile/4g-
lte/charter-is-preparing-to-build-a-wireless-network/d/d-id/754100 (“Altice USA has already deployed more than
20,000 LTE small cells in parts of Long Island and elsewhere that sit atop its wired cable network”); Monica
Alleven, Verizon pledges 5x more small cells in 2020 (Feb. 14, 2020), https://www.fiercewireless.com/tech/verizon-
pledges-5x-more-small-cells-
2020#:~:text=Verizon%20is%20building%20on%20its,small%20cells%20to%20do%20it; Thompson Reuters,
EDITED TRANSCRIPT Crown Castle Q1 2020 Earnings Call (Apr. 30, 2020), at 3 (“with approximately 45,000
small cells on air, and expect to deploy approximately 10,000 this year”), https://investor.crowncastle.com/static-
files/ce31f824-7ca7-413f-911b-23fc5cb88bfa; CTIA Comments at 46 (“The vast majority of 25,000 additional cell
sites in 2018 were new small cell”).
107
See, e.g., City of Sacramento, 5G SMALL CELL DEPLOYMENT IN SACRAMENTO,
https://www.cityofsacramento.org/Smart-City/5G (“install 5G small cell towers on more than 300 utilities poles”)
(last visited Oct. 27, 2020); City of Palo Alto, Project Description – AT&T Small Cell Wireless Project (June 12,
2019), at 1, https://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=73333.24&BlobID=72243; City of Dallas,
Deployment Update of Small Cell Network Nodes (May 10, 2019), at 8,
https://dallascityhall.com/government/Council%20Meeting%20Documents/msis_3_deployment-update-of-small-
cell-network-nodes_combined_051319.pdf; Jonathan Andrews, Chicago and Minneapolis turn on 5G as San Diego
lays groundwork (Apr. 11, 2019), https://cities-today.com/chicago-and-minneapolis-turn-on-5g-as-san-diego-lays-
groundwork/; Linda Hardesty, NYC allows 5G equipment on streetlamps (Feb. 4, 2020),
https://www.fiercewireless.com/5g/nyc-allows-5g-equipment-streetlamps; Crown Castle, Small Cell 101,
https://www.crowncastle.com/communities/small-cell-information (“Small cells are … usually attached to existing
infrastructure in the public right of way like utility poles or streetlights”) (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).
26
connected primarily to fiber backbones.108 CTIA estimates that 80% of future wireless infrastructure
deployments will be in the form of small cells.109 Rather than building their own DAS deployments, some
service providers share neutral host systems owned by third-party operators.110 Today, there are more
than 130 tower and DAS operators in the United States,111 and a majority of towers are now owned or
operated by independent tower companies rather than by mobile wireless service providers.112 In most
cases, tower operators and property owners lease antenna, rooftop, and other site space to multiple
wireless service providers.113
36. The three largest publicly traded neutral host providers are American Tower, Crown
Castle, and SBA Communications. As of July 2020, according to one estimate, these three infrastructure
providers owned or operated approximately 97,554 towers (not including DAS and small cells).114 At the
end of December 2019, Crown Castle and SBA had an average of 2.1 and 1.8 tenants per tower site,
108
See, e.g., Fiber Optic Association, Reference Guide, https://www.thefoa.org/tech/ref/appln/SmallCells.html
(“Small cells are designed to operate on fiber backbones”) (last visited Oct. 27, 2020); see also Crown Castle, Small
Cell 101, https://www.crowncastle.com/communities/small-cell-information (“Small cells are always connected by
fiber optic cable”) (last visited Oct. 27, 2020); RVA, Status Of U.S. Small Cell Wireless/ 5G&Smart City
Applications From The Community Perspective at 8 (March 2018), https://nextcenturycities.org/wp-
content/uploads/5Gresearch.pdf (“Small cell deployment is clearly correlated with… fiber deployment”).
109
CTIA, The Wireless Industry Data (Topic=Small Cell), https://www.ctia.org/the-wireless-industry/infographics-
library?topic=60 (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). See also Scott Bergmann, A Year of Accelerated Wireless
Infrastructure Investment (March 22, 2019), https://www.ctia.org/news/a-year-of-accelerated-wireless-
infrastructure-investment (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).
110
American Tower Corporation 2019 Annual Report at 3 (“small cells and other network architectures that may
support our tenants’ networks”); see also Crown Castle 2018 Corporate Sustainability Report at 32 (“providing our
customers with space on or access to our towers (including other structures, such as rooftops), small cell networks,
and fiber”); SBA 2019 Annual Report, Item I, at 1 (“We generally have constructed or acquired towers that
accommodate multiple tenants”).
111
See Wireless Estimator, Top 100 Tower Companies in the U.S., http://wirelessestimator.com/top-100-us-tower-
companies-list/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).
112
Major nationwide wireless service providers have sold their towers to neutral third-party tower companies. See
Press Release, Crown Castle, Crown Castle Announces $4.85 Billion AT&T Tower Transaction (Oct. 20, 2013),
https://investor.crowncastle.com/news-releases/news-release-details/crown-castle-announces-485-billion-att-tower-
transaction; Jarad Matula, American Tower buys Verizon towers for $5B (Feb. 5, 2015),
https://www.rcrwireless.com/20150205/cell-tower-news/cell-tower-news-american-tower-buys-verizon-towers-5b-
tag8; Press Release, Crown Castle, Crown Castle and T-Mobile USA Announce $2.4 Billion Tower Transaction,
(Sept. 28, 2012), https://investor.crowncastle.com/news-releases/news-release-details/crown-castle-and-t-mobile-
usa-announce-24-billion-tower; Fierce Wireless, Sprint sells off towers to pay down debt (July 24, 2008),
https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/sprint-sells-off-towers-to-pay-down-debt.
113
See, e.g., American Tower 2019 Annual Report, Part I at 1 (“Our primary business is the leasing of space on
communications sites to wireless service providers…”); see also Crown Castle 2018 Corporate Sustainability
Report, at 5 (“Shared Infrastructure Model”); Verizon Wireless 2019 Annual Report, at 51 (“We lease network
equipment including towers, distributed antenna systems, small cells, …”); T-Mobile 2019 Annual Report, Part I,
Item 2, at 27 (“As of December 31, 2019, we primarily leased approximately 66,000 macro towers and 25,000
distributed antenna system and small cell sites”).
114
See Wireless Estimator, Top 100 Tower Companies in the U.S. (Crown Castle at 40,567, American Tower at
40,586, and SBA at 16,401, not including rooftop sites, DAS and small cells),
http://www.wirelessestimator.com/t_content.cfm?pagename=US-Cell-Tower-Companies-Complete-List (last visited
Oct. 27, 2020); see also American Tower 2019 Annual Report, Part I, at 1 (40,974 sites in the United States as of
Dec. 31, 2019); Crown Castle, Company Overview (August 2020), at 4 (over 40,000 towers),
https://investor.crowncastle.com/static-files/e2d9530c-7a09-4247-8e63-449ea2bc3926; SBA 2019 Annual Report,
Item I, at 3 (16,401 sites as of Dec. 31, 2019).
27
respectively.115 The three tower companies also have significant capacity available for additional
antennas or tenants.116 Figure II.A.17 shows that, as of May 2020, there were three or more tower or cell
site operators in 2,885 (around 89%) counties nationwide, and four or more tower operators in 2,457
(around 76%) counties nationwide based on information from 32 tower or cell site operators in the United
States.117
Fig. II.A.17
Number of Counties with a Certain Number of Site Operators, May 2020
700 662
590
Number of Counties
600 519
500 428
400 319
300 237
201
200
73 101
100 32 46 19 0
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Number of Site Operators in a County
Source: 32 tower companies’ data on standalone towers, rooftops, DAS, and small cells (May 2020).
4. Pricing Levels and Trends
37. Mobile service providers continue to offer nationwide pricing plans throughout their
service areas, with little variation in monthly recurring charges between rural and non-rural markets.118
The majority of mobile wireless subscribers in the United States are “postpaid” subscribers, billed each
115
Crown Castle Earnings Materials Q4 2019, Supplemental Information Package and Non-GAAP Reconciliations,
Fourth Quarter (Dec. 31, 2019), at 8 (average of 2.1 tenants per tower), https://investor.crowncastle.com/static-
files/8e62e78b-eacc-4aed-8d36-e13f2d475b8a; SBA 2019 Annual Report, Item 1, at 1 (average of 1.8 tenants per
tower).
116
American Tower 2019 Annual Report, Part I, at 4 (“We believe that the majority of our towers have capacity for
additional tenants and that substantially all of our towers that are currently at or near full structural capacity can be
upgraded or augmented to meet future tenant demand with relatively modest capital investment.”); SBA 2019
Annual Report, Item 1, at 1 (“most of our towers have significant capacity available for additional antennas”);
Crown Castle Earnings Materials Q1 2020, Supplemental Information Package and Non-GAAP Reconciliations,
First Quarter (Mar. 31, 2020), at 3, https://investor.crowncastle.com/static-files/8e62e78b-eacc-4aed-8d36-
e13f2d475b8a (“We seek to increase our site rental revenues by adding more tenants on our shared communications
Infrastructure”).
117
Tower site information was downloaded from 32 tower providers’ websites between February and May 2020
(except the Crown Castle data that are from April 2018 since the general public can no longer download Crown
Castle’s tower list from its website). See Wireless Estimator, Top 100 Tower Companies in the U.S.,
http://www.wirelessestimator.com/t_content.cfm?pagename=US-Cell-Tower-Companies-Complete-List (last visited
Oct. 27, 2020)
118
2018 Communications Marketplace Report, 33 FCC Rcd at 12570, para. 14; Sixteenth Wireless Competition
Report, 28 FCC Rcd at 3797, para. 137. The pricing analysis included in this section shows that mobile service
providers offer nationwide pricing plans available throughout their service area, with no pricing disparity between
rural and urban markets, rendering unnecessary a separate standalone rate survey authorized in the 2011 Order that
modernized the universal service program for awarding support to mobile service providers in high-cost areas. See
Connect America Fund, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 26 FCC Rcd 17663, 17694,
17708-09, paras. 85, 113, 114 (2011).
28
month after service has been provided, while fewer are “prepaid” subscribers paying for services in
advance of receiving them.119
a. Postpaid Service
38. In 2019, service providers continued the trend of offering unlimited data plans,120 with
major providers adding tiers to their unlimited data plans.121 Providers also continued not to count certain
types of data towards deprioritization and data limits (T-Mobile’s “Binge On” program, for example).122
Competition is intensifying as companies expand their service offerings to compete in an ever more
connected world. As CTIA states, “Wireless consumers are benefitting in the form of lower prices,
device promotions, unlimited data services, bundled service offerings, additional incentives, free add-ons,
and more.”123
39. T-Mobile, for example, introduced two new unlimited plans in June 2019, Magenta and
Magenta Plus.124 Magenta and Magenta Plus are upgraded versions of T-Mobile ONE and T-Mobile One
Plus.125 In contrast to T-Mobile ONE, the Magenta plan adds 3 GB of high-speed smartphone hotspot–or
tethering–per line and unlimited 3G tethering thereafter. Magenta Plus keeps all the value in T-Mobile
ONE Plus including a Netflix Standard subscription for families. As with the T-Mobile ONE plan,
customers would continue to get unlimited talk, text, and 4G LTE smartphone data, free data and texting
in 210+ countries and destinations, an hour of Gogo inflight Wi-Fi and unlimited texting on domestic
flights, and more. Subsequently, in August 2019, Verizon Wireless introduced a new lineup of unlimited
119
The prepaid and postpaid versions of a given pricing plan or promotion still differ somewhat, largely because
prepaid subscribers may lack the credit background or income necessary to qualify for postpaid service. To prevent
credit losses and mitigate the credit risk associated with the prepaid segment, service providers require advance
payment for both prepaid service and handsets. 2018 Communications Marketplace Report, 33 FCC Rcd at 12570,
para. 14.
120
While a majority of unlimited plans are offered to postpaid subscribers, some providers now also offer unlimited
plans to their prepaid subscribers.
121
Postpaid subscribers who use up their plan’s data allowance in a given month generally experience data
deprioritization only during network congestion. See, e.g., T-Mobile, Magenta, https://www.t-mobile.com/cell-
phone-plans/magenta (last visited Oct. 27, 2020); Verizon Wireless, Get More Unlimited FAQs,
https://www.verizonwireless.com/support/get-more-unlimited-faqs/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020); Verizon Wireless,
Get More Unlimited – Data plan FAQs, https://www.verizonwireless.com/support/above-unlimited-faqs/ (last
visited Oct. 27, 2020). AT&T, on their Mobile Share Plus plans, offers zero overages, as well as “Rollover Data,”
which allows its postpaid subscribers to roll over their unused data at no additional cost. AT&T, Save More with
Unlimited Your WaySM, https://www.att.com/shop/wireless/data-plans.html (last visited Oct. 27, 2020); AT&T,
Rollover Data FAQs, https://att-bundles.com/faq/wireless/does-att-offer-rollover-data/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).
122
2018 Communications Marketplace Report, 33 FCC Rcd at 12570, para. 15. On all T-Mobile plans, during
congestion, a small fraction of customers using more than 50 GB a month may notice reduced speeds until the next
bill cycle due to prioritization. See T-Mobile, Unlimited video streaming with Binge On, https://www.t-
mobile.com/offers/binge-on-streaming-video (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).
123
CTIA Comments at 30.
124
T-Mobile, Love Your Discount, Not Your Carrier? T‑Mobile Will Match or Beat that Discount on Magenta (May
23, 2019), https://www.t-mobile.com/news/press/uncarrier-launches-discount-match. T-Mobile, Plans,
https://www.t-mobile.com/cell-phone-plans (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).
125
T-Mobile ONE offered unlimited 4G LTE smartphone data; unlimited talk and text; industry-first Un-carrier
benefits; unlimited smartphone mobile hotspot data (tethering) at 2G speeds; and 200 MB domestic roaming off-
network. T-Mobile, T-Mobile ONE Fact Sheet, https://www.t-mobile.com/news/press/t-mobile-fact-sheet (last
visited Oct. 27, 2020). In addition to everything the T-Mobile ONE plan offers, T-Mobile One Plus customers
received unlimited HD streaming in the United States; 20 GB of 4G LTE mobile hotspot data with unlimited 3G
data; twice the data speeds abroad; unlimited in-flight Wi-Fi on Gogo-enabled flights to, from, or within the United
States; voicemail to text; and name ID (identify calls from unknown numbers). See T-Mobile, T-Mobile One Plus,
https://www.t-mobile.com/support/plans-features/t-mobile-one-plus (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).
29
plans starting at $35 per line for four lines, which include: Start Unlimited, Do More Unlimited, Play
More Unlimited, Get More Unlimited, and Just Kids (introduced in April 2019). Verizon Wireless’s
largest plan, Get More Unlimited, includes 75 GB of 4G LTE data, along with 720p HD video streaming
for $90 (1 line) per month.126
40. In November 2019, AT&T launched three new unlimited plans: AT&T Unlimited Starter
for $35 per line for four lines, AT&T Unlimited Extra for $40 per line for four lines, and AT&T
Unlimited Elite for $50 per line for four lines.127 The largest plan, AT&T Unlimited Elite, includes 30
GB of mobile hotspot data per line, HD streaming, and HBO.128 U.S. Cellular offered a new unlimited
plan that removes previous caps on 4G LTE data, starting at $55 per month for one line in August 2019.129
In November 2019, U.S. Cellular further introduced new unlimited plans, including Basic, Everyday, and
Even Better Unlimited Plans, starting at $30 per line for four lines allowing customers to choose and
customize their plans.130
b. Prepaid Service
41. The three nationwide service providers also offer prepaid service under their own prepaid
brands, in addition to selling mobile wireless service wholesale to MVNOs. Verizon Wireless has the
smallest share of prepaid subscribers among the nationwide service providers, with only one prepaid
brand, Verizon Wireless Prepaid.131 To varying degrees, the other two nationwide service providers
pursue a multi-brand prepaid strategy.132 TracFone, the largest MVNO, also has multiple prepaid brands,
including Net10 Wireless, Straight Talk, Clearway, Walmart Family Mobile, SIMPLE Mobile, Telcel,
SafeLink, Page Plus, and GoSmart Mobile, which target different market and demographic segments such
as premium, Hispanic, or low-income subscribers.133
42. In addition, T-Mobile entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement with Sprint and DISH,
whereby DISH would acquire Sprint’s prepaid wireless business, operated under the Boost Mobile and
Sprint prepaid brands (excluding the Assurance brand Lifeline customers and the prepaid wireless
126
Access to Verizon’s 5G Ultra-Wideband network is $10 per month with any of the unlimited plans, and for a
limited time was included in the Get More Unlimited, Do More Unlimited and Play More Unlimited plans. Verizon
Wireless, Verizon customers get more plans to fit everyone in the family with more ways to save (Aug. 2, 2019),
https://www.verizon.com/about/news/verizon-customers-get-more-plans.
127
AT&T, AT&T to Offer Its Best Unlimited Wireless Plans at an Incredible Value (Oct. 30, 2019),
https://about.att.com/story/2019/new_unlimited_plans.html.
128
AT&T Unlimited Starter offers unlimited data, talk, and text in the United States, as well as in Mexico and
Canada; AT&T Unlimited Extra gives all the benefits of Starter, plus 15GB of mobile hotspot data per line.
129
Fierce Wireless, US Cellular drops data cap with new $55/month unlimited plan (Aug. 9, 2019),
https://www.fiercewireless.com/operators/us-cellular-drops-data-cap-new-55-month-unlimited-plan.
130
U.S. Cellular’s new Everyday Unlimited Plan comes with bonus features such as HD video streaming, roaming in
Mexico and Canada, 15 GB of hotspot access, 25 GB of priority data and one free movie night per month/line
through the company’s new entertainment partner, Redbox, for $40 per line/month for four lines. U.S. Cellular, U.S.
Cellular Offers Customers Choice and Customization with New Unlimited Plans Starting at $30 per Month (Nov. 4,
2019), https://www.uscellular.com/get-to-know-us/our-company/press-room/2019/USCellular-Offers-Customers-
Choice-and-Customization-with-New-Unlimited-Plans-Starting-at-30-per-Month.
131
As noted above, Verizon Wireless announced that it has entered into an agreement to acquire TracFone from
América Móvil. Verizon Wireless, Verizon to acquire TracFone Wireless (Sept. 14, 2020),
https://www.verizon.com/about/news/verizon-to-acquire-tracfone.
132
AT&T prepaid brands include AT&T Prepaid and Cricket; T-Mobile prepaid brands include Metro by T-Mobile
(formerly MetroPCS).
133
TracFone Wireless Inc., Brands, http://www.tracfonewirelessinc.com/en/brands/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).
30
customers of Shenandoah Telecommunications Company and Swiftel Communications, Inc.).134 On July

1, 2020, DISH announced that it had completed its $1.4 billion acquisition of Boost Mobile. With this
purchase, DISH officially entered the retail wireless market, serving more than nine million customers.
The company continues to promote the Boost Mobile brand.135
43. Furthermore, as postpaid offerings have shifted away from term contracts and equipment
subsidies, facilities-based service providers have adopted pricing plans and promotions for their high-end
prepaid monthly service offerings that are similar to their postpaid offerings. For example, in October
2018, T-Mobile’s Metro by T-Mobile introduced new all-unlimited plans. For one line at $60 per month,
customers get: Unlimited 4G LTE data (reduced after 35 GB, 480p streaming only), a 15 GB 4G LTE
mobile hotspot, Google One’s 100 GB tier of cloud storage, and Amazon Prime.136 AT&T’s Cricket
offered new customers, as a limited time offering, their Unlimited BYOD Plan for $40 a month in
November 2019.137 In July 2020, DISH’s Boost Mobile offered its customers a $35 10 GB plan that
includes unlimited talk and text.138 Generally, prepaid subscribers who reach the limit of their high-speed
data allowance in a given month may continue to use their handsets for data service on an unlimited basis,
but at reduced speeds.139 For example, Cricket reduces data download speeds to a maximum of 128 kbps
after the customer’s high-speed data allowance is used.140
c. Price Indicators for Mobile Wireless Services
44. As can be seen from the discussion above, it is difficult to directly compare prices
between providers or over time, because providers offer a variety of plans, frequently under multipart
pricing and bundling schemes. Plans also vary in non-price terms and features, such as the consequences
of reaching usage limits.141 Figure II.A.18 presents monthly postpaid prices for the three nationwide
service providers’ basic, mid-level, and premium unlimited plans, including now-common discounts for
automatic payments.142 Basic unlimited plans offer little more than unlimited talk, text, and data, and
134
T-Mobile, 2019 SEC Form 10-K at 75 (filed Feb. 6, 2020) (T-Mobile 2019 SEC Form 10-K)
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001283699/000128369920000026/tmus-20191231.htm.
135
DISH, DISH enters retail wireless market with close of Boost Mobile, advances build of the nation's first
standalone 5G network (July 1, 2020), http://about.dish.com/2020-07-01-DISH-enters-retail-wireless-market-with-
136
Fierce Wireless, T-Mobile rebrands MetroPCS prepaid service as ‘Metro by T-Mobile’ (Sept. 24, 2018),
https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/t-mobile-rebrands-metropcs-prepaid-service-as-metro-by-t-mobile.
137
Cricket, Calling All New Customers: Bring Your Device to Cricket this Holiday for “Unlimited” Wireless
Savings (Nov. 20, 2019), https://www.cricketwireless.com/newsroom/news-release/40-Dollar-BYOD.html. This
promotional price ran from November 22, 2019 through January 30, 2020.
138
DISH, DISH enters retail wireless market with close of Boost Mobile, advances build of the nation's first
standalone 5G network (July 1, 2020), http://about.dish.com/2020-07-01-DISH-enters-retail-wireless-market-with-
139
140
Cricket Wireless, Mobile Broadband Information (July 24, 2020), https://www.cricketwireless.com/legal-
info/mobile-broadband-information.html.
141
It is therefore difficult to identify sources of information that track mobile wireless service prices in a
comprehensive and consistent manner. In addition, data on subscribership is not available at the plan level. Thus, a
comparison of average prices would require assumptions regarding the number of customers who subscribe to each
plan that each company offers, which would not likely be accurate due to a lack of data. See, e.g., 2018
Communications Marketplace Report, 33 FCC Rcd at 12572, para. 18; Twentieth Wireless Competition Report, 32
FCC Rcd at 9006, para. 57.
142
In addition, T-Mobile incorporates taxes and fees into its advertised prices for its Magenta and Magenta Plus
plans. As these fees vary by locality, we are unable to fully account for the differences in pricing in Fig. II.A.18 in
this Report.
31
speeds that are deprioritized during network congestion. Mid-level plans typically offer increased data
before deprioritization, some high-speed mobile hotspot data, discounted or free subscription to an online
video service (e.g., Netflix or Disney+), and improved video streaming quality. Premium plans typically
offer increased mobile hotspot data limits, video quality, and other varying features across the providers.
Figure II.A.19 shows the current monthly prices for major prepaid service providers. Unlimited service is
also the primary offering of prepaid plans, although postpaid users frequently are given priority over
prepaid users on a given network during times of peak congestion.143 Further, postpaid and prepaid users
may also experience deprioritized speeds during periods of peak network congestion after they have
exceeded certain monthly data thresholds, depending on their plan type. The limits are shown in Figures
II.A.20 and II.A.21.
Fig. II.A.18
Monthly Postpaid Unlimited Prices for Top 3 Service Providers
Plan Type
Basic Mid-Level Premium
Provider 1 Line 4 Lines 1 Line 4 Lines 1 Line 4 Lines
AT&T $65 $140 $75 $160 $85 $200
T-Mobile $60 $120 $70 $160 $85 $200
Verizon Wireless $70 $140 $80 $180 $90 $220
Fig. II.A.19
Monthly Prepaid Unlimited Prices for Top 4 Service Providers
Plan Type
Basic Premium
Provider 1 Line 4 Lines 1 Line 4 Lines
Boost Mobile $50 $140 $60 $180
Cricket $50 $100 $55 $130
Metro $50 $140 $60 $150
Straight Talk $55 N/A N/A N/A
Note: The prices for unlimited data plans in Figures II.A.18 and II.A.19 were taken from service providers’
websites on July 31, 2020. Prices include any per line charges indicated by the service provider, but exclude fees
and taxes. Prices do not include any additional charges such as for equipment installment plans, insurance,
international use, or mobile hotspots. If a service provider includes any such feature as part of its unlimited data
plan without extra charge, the above price would include this feature. Further, the above prices do not include any
one-time charges paid, such as activation fees and termination fees, nor promotions that are advertised as short-term.
Prices and the specifics of the plans are subject to change.
Fig. II.A.20
Data Deprioritization Limits for Top 3 Postpaid Service Providers
143
For example, MetroPCS in its Terms and Conditions indicates that “[t]o differentiate the services we sell, at times
and at locations where there are competing customer demands for network resources, we give the data traffic of
customers who choose T-Mobile-branded services precedence over the data traffic of customers who choose non-T-
Mobile-branded services such as Metro by T-Mobile.” See Metro by T-Mobile, Metro by T-Mobile Terms and
Conditions of Service, https://www.metropcs.com/terms-conditions/terms-conditions-service.html (last visited Oct.
27, 2020). See also Cricket, Mobile Broadband Information (July 24, 2020), https://www.cricketwireless.com/legal-
info/mobile-broadband-information.html (“Congestion Management may affect certain customers on the Cricket
Core Plan or the Cricket More Plan that provides unlimited data access. On these unlimited plans, customers may
experience reduced data speeds and increased latency during periods of network congestion as compared to other
customers using the same cell site.”).
32
Plan Type
Provider Basic Mid-Level Premium
AT&T Congestion 50 GB 100 GB
T-Mobile Congestion 50 GB 50 GB
Verizon Wireless Congestion 25-50 GB 75 GB
Fig. II.A.21
Data Deprioritization Limits for Top 4 Prepaid Service Providers
Plan Type
Provider Basic Premium
Boost Mobile 35 GB 35 GB
Cricket Congestion Congestion
Metro 35 GB 35 GB
Straight Talk 60 GB N/A
Note: The deprioritization limits in Figures II.A.20 and II.A.21 were taken from service providers’
websites on July 31, 2020. “Congestion” indicates that users are deprioritized when there is congestion on
the network, regardless of the amount of data a customer has consumed in a given month.
45. Consumer Price Index. The CPI is a measure of the average change over time in the
prices consumers pay for a fixed market basket of goods and services. As documented in previous
Reports, the Wireless Telephone Services CPI144 shows that mobile wireless prices have declined
significantly since the mid-1990s.145 According to the CPI data, the price (in constant dollars) of mobile
wireless services has continued to decline: From 2018 to 2019, the annual Wireless Telephone Services
CPI decreased by approximately 3% while the broader Telephone Services CPI fell by 1%, and the
overall CPI increased by approximately 2%.146 Further, from 2017 through 2019, the annual Wireless
Telephone Services CPI decreased by approximately 5%, the Telephone Services CPI decreased by
approximately 3%, and the overall CPI increased by approximately 4%.
46. Average Revenue Per Unit. Various measures of Average Revenue per Unit (ARPU) are
frequently used as a proxy for price, particularly in industries with multiple pricing plans and complicated
rate structures, such as mobile wireless services.147 As shown in Figure II.A.22 below, which is based on
CTIA data, from 2017 to 2019 industry ARPU fell from $38.66 to $36.86, a decline of approximately
144
All CPI figures were taken from Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) databases (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Home Page, http://www.bls.gov (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). The index used in this analysis, the CPI for All Urban
Consumers (CPI-U), represents about 93% of the total U.S. population. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer
Price Index: Frequently Asked Questions, https://www.bls.gov/cpi/questions-and-answers.htm (last visited Oct. 27,
2020). The CPI category “Telephone Services” has two components: Wireless telephone services and landline
telephone services. Additional information can be found at U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index:
How the Consumer Price Index Measures Price Change for Telephone Services,
https://www.bls.gov/cpi/factsheets/telephone-services.htm (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).
145
See, e.g., 2018 Communications Marketplace Report, 33 FCC Rcd at 12574, para. 19.
146
For changes in the CPI over time, see Appx. B-2 of this Report.
147
See Implementation of Section 6002(b) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993; Annual Report and
Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions with Respect to Mobile Wireless, Including Commercial Mobile
Services, Seventeenth Report, 29 FCC Rcd 15311, 15328, para. 35 & n.52 (WTB 2014) (Seventeenth Wireless
Competition Report); Patrick McCloughan and Sean Lyons, Accounting for ARPU: New evidence from
international panel data, Telecommunications Policy 30, 521-32 (2006); Eun-A Park and Krishna Jayakar,
Competition between Standards and the Prices of Mobile Telecommunication Services: Analysis of Panel Data,
TPRC 2015 (Aug. 15, 2015).
33
5%.148 Recent changes by service providers, such as the removal of overage charges, the move toward
unlimited data plans, multiple line pricing, and Equipment Installment Plans (EIPs) have all contributed
to the reported decline in ARPU.149
Fig II.A.22
Total Wireless Subscribers, ARPU
1994 - 2019
500 $70.00
442
450
$60.00
400
350 $50.00
300 $40.00
250
200 $30.00
$36.86
150 $20.00
100
$10.00
50
0 $0.00
Year
Reported Subscribers (millions) ARPU ($)
Source: CTIA Year-End 2019 Wireless Industry Indices Report.

47. Average Revenue Per Unit by Service Provider. Based on UBS estimates, as seen in
Figure II.A.23, from the fourth quarter of 2017 to the fourth quarter of 2019, subscriber-based ARPU
declined for all service providers. Specifically, AT&T’s ARPU declined by approximately 19%; Sprint’s
ARPU declined by approximately 1%; and T-Mobile and Verizon Wireless’s ARPU both declined by
approximately 5%. Industry ARPU declined by approximately 10% over this time period.
148
CTIA reported an industry average measure of ARPU which is calculated “based on total reported wireless
service revenues for the period, divided by the average reported subscriber units during the survey period.” CTIA
Year-End 2019 Wireless Industry Indices Report at 8.
149
Fig. II.A.22 presents more than 20 years of subscribers/connections and ARPU. For additional details on ARPUs
from 1993 to 2019, see Appx. B-3 of this Report.
34
Fig. II.A.23
ARPU Estimates of National Facilities-Based Mobile Wireless Service Providers
4th Quarter 2016–4th Quarter 2019
Nationwide Providers 4Q16 4Q17 4Q18 4Q19
AT&T $36.58 $34.13 $29.57 $27.71

Sprint $32.03 $32.49 $33.31 $32.04
T-Mobile $33.80 $35.62 $34.27 $33.73
Verizon Wireless $37.52 $35.27 $33.98 $33.52
Industry ARPU $35.93 $34.73 $32.51 $31.38
48. Revenue Share by Service Provider. As shown in Figure II.A.24, AT&T and Verizon
Wireless faced declining service revenues from 2016 through 2018, however their revenues increased in
2019. Sprint’s service revenues fell in each reporting period. Finally, T-Mobile had significant revenue
growth each year from 2016 through 2019.
Fig. II.A.24
Service Revenues and Shares Among Nationwide Wireless Service Providers ($ millions)
2016–2019
2016 2017 2018 2019
Service
Providers Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue
Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue
Share Share Share Share
AT&T 59,153 33.3% 57,023 33.0% 54,294 31.7% 55,331 31.6%
Sprint 24,200 13.6% 22,736 13.1% 21,980 12.8% 20,971 12.0%
T-Mobile 27,844 15.7% 30,160 17.4% 31,992 18.7% 33,994 19.4%
Verizon
Wireless 66,580 37.5% 63,121 36.5% 63,020 36.8% 64,979 37.1%
49. Estimated Average Revenue per GB. Given the variation in data plans, including shared
plans, the lack of information on how much data users consume across these different plans, and the fact
that revenues specific to data consumption are no longer reported by service providers, we lack the
necessary information to measure precisely the price per GB of mobile broadband data. By making
certain assumptions,150 however, we can provide various industry-wide estimates of the average revenues
150
To derive $/GB (Total Rev), we divide the Total Service Revenues by the Total Wireless Data Traffic, assuming
that 100% of service revenues are attributable to data. CTIA Year-End 2019 Wireless Industry Indices at 39, 62. To
derive $/GB (All Users) and $/GB (Smartphones) we divide ARPU by the monthly average GB data usage, and we
calculate this metric both with all users and with smartphone users only. Again, this assumes that 100% of revenues
are attributable to data and that average revenue is the same for both smartphone users and non-smartphone users.
CTIA Year-End 2019 Wireless Industry at 44, 63. Finally, for $/GB (Est. Data Rev), we estimate the percentage of
total revenues that are attributable to data by dividing Internet Access Service Revenues by Total Revenues for
NAICS 5172, U.S. Census Bureau, 2018 Annual Service Survey, Table 4: Estimated Sources of Revenue for
Employer Firms: 2013 through 2018, https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2018/econ/services/sas-naics.html (last
visited Oct. 27, 2020). The 2019 data percentage was estimated based on the average growth rate across 2015 to
2018. We then applied these percentages to the CTIA data (Total Service Revenues/Total Wireless Data Traffic).
CTIA Year-End 2019 Wireless Industry Indices at 39, 62. This does not take into account the fraction of revenues
(continued….)
35
per GB. Figure II.A.25 below shows four different estimates of the average revenue per GB, based on
data from CTIA and the U.S. Census Bureau. All four estimates indicate that average revenue per GB has
been declining. Specifically, as of year-end 2019, these estimates show a decrease of approximately 20%
to 30% compared to 2018, and a decrease of approximately 62% to 68% compared to 2016.
Fig. II.A.25
Estimates of Wireless Average Revenue per GB: 2015-2019
$25
$/GB (Total Rev)

$20
Estimated Revenue per GB
$/GB (All Users)
$15
$/GB (Smartphones)
$/GB (Est Data Rev)

$10
$5
$0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Source: CTIA Year-End 2019 Wireless Industry Indices Report; U.S. Census Bureau, 2018 Annual Service Survey.
5. Non-Price Competition
a. Investment
50. Over the past 10 years, according to CTIA data,151 mobile wireless service providers have
invested over $286 billion in their networks, with service providers reporting $29.1 billion in incremental
investment in 2019.152 As a result of the continued investment in their networks, consumers have
benefitted greatly from the resulting increase in higher data speeds, expanded network coverage, and
increased network densification.153 Based on the most current data from UBS Investment Research, in
that are made up of messaging. Note that prior Reports reported a $/MB figure. However, we will now report a
price per GB, as the price per MB is below one cent.
151
According to CTIA, the capital investment reported “excludes the cost of licenses used to deliver wireless
service, whether acquired at private or public auctions, or via other acquisition processes. Likewise, investment by
third-party tower erectors, and non-carrier owners or managers of networks, is not tracked by nor reflected in
CTIA’s survey. CTIA’s survey collects only historical (past data) and not projected or planned investment.” CTIA
Year-End 2019 Wireless Industry Indices Report at 47.
152
Id.
153
We note that capital expenditure (CapEx) in system/network assets may be cyclical or “lumpy” because
technological change in the mobile wireless service industry is commercially implemented in successive generations
of technologies. Consequently, CapEx may vary between periods, and fluctuations in measures of CapEx are
(continued….)
36
2019, wireless service providers made total capital investments of $30.7 billion, of which the nationwide
providers accounted for $29.8 billion.154
51. Figure II.A.26 shows capital investment by providers. In 2016-2017, AT&T, T-Mobile,
and Verizon Wireless each had CapEx of approximately 16.3% to 17.4% of service revenue.155 CapEx by
Sprint, on the other hand, has varied considerably over the years, from approximately 17% of service
revenue in 2015, to 7.5% in 2016, and to 11% in 2017. In the last few years, all four nationwide
providers have invested a higher percentage of their revenues into their respective networks in preparation
for 5G. Overall, over the past three years, the CapEx for the nationwide providers averaged
approximately 17% of service revenues.156 As the mobile wireless industry prepares for a full rollout of
5G services, equipment vendor, Ericsson, for example, reported that worldwide, it currently has over 100
commercial agreements for the deployment of 5G, and that in the United States, all of the nationwide
providers have selected it as an equipment vendor.157 S&P Global Market Intelligence recently reported
that it estimates that capital investment by U.S. mobile providers could “grow at 5% for 2020, boosted by
small cells, 5G deployments and to a lesser extent, a new wireless entrant,”158 namely DISH.
consistent with the cyclical nature of technological adoption in the mobile wireless service industry. Twentieth
Wireless Competition Report, 32 FCC Rcd at 9014, para. 68.
154
UBS and CTIA numbers may differ as they use different methodologies for accounting for CapEx. CTIA’s data
are based on their voluntary survey of all wireless providers (with a very high response rate). UBS uses quarterly
and annual filings from publicly traded service providers along with their wireless model to calculate industry
investment.
155
UBS Investment Research. UBS Data, 2016-2019.
156
Id.
157
Ericsson 5G, Discover the Power of 5G, https://www.ericsson.com/5g/5g-networks/5g-contracts (last visited Oct.
27, 2020).
158
S&P Global Market Intelligence: Wireless Investor: Capex rising with 5G (last accessed Aug. 3, 2020).
37
Fig. II.A.26
Wireless Capital Expenditures by Provider
2016 - 2019
$14,000
11,725
Capital Expenditures ($ Millions)
$12,000 11,240 11,300

10,310 10,500
9,750 10,053
$10,000 9,400 9,575
8,486
$8,000
5,918
$6,000 5,208 5,179
4,724 4,702
4,416
4,043 3,884
$4,000
2,510
1,797
$2,000
$0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Verizon AT&T T-Mobile Sprint
b. Innovation and Technological Change

52. Focusing first on 4G LTE, we note that 4G LTE networks transformed the wireless
industry: Increases in download speeds and network capacities allowed consumers to use their mobile
devices in new ways, such as streaming video in high definition, accessing ride sharing platforms, and
live-mapping driving routes.159 CTIA reports that from the initial deployment of 4G LTE networks in
2010 through the end of 2019, the average 4G download speed has increased by a factor of 31, from 1.3
megabits per second to 41 megabits per second.160 Mobile data consumption also increased dramatically:
In 2019, Americans used more than 37 million gigabytes of data, a 96-fold increase from 2010.161 In a
series of surveys, Pew found that 81% of Americans owned a smartphone in 2019 compared to just 35%
in 2011.162 Between January 1, 2020 and June 30, 2020, users worldwide installed an estimated 71.5
billion apps from the Apple App Store and the Google Play Store.163 CTIA reports that the number of
American jobs that depend on the wireless industry has grown significantly from 3.7 million in 2011 to
20.4 million in 2019.164
159
Letter from Kara Graves, Assistant Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, CTIA, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary,
FCC, OEA Docket No. 20-60, WTB Docket No. 19-348, Attach., The 4G Decade: Quantifying the Benefits at 10
(filed Aug. 6, 2020) (CTIA 4G Decade Report).
160
CTIA 4G Decade Report at 10.
161
Id. at 11.
162
See Pew Mobile Fact Sheet.
163
Sarah Perez, Global App Revenue Jumps to $50B in the First Half of 2020, in part Due to COVID-19 Impacts,
Tech Crunch, (June 30, 2020), https://techcrunch.com/2020/06/30/global-app-revenue-jumps-to-50b-in-the-first-
half-of-2020-in-part-due-to-covid-19-impacts/.
164
CTIA 4G Decade Report at 6.
38
53. The wireless industry is currently implementing the new 5G technology standard.165
Industry participants expect 5G networks to deliver faster download speeds and reduced latency to users
than previous technologies, while also expanding network capacity.166 Further, the new reliability and
security standards of 5G167 could support a large number of connected devices.168 In addition to the low-
and mid-band spectrum used by previous cellular technologies such as 4G LTE, 5G may also be deployed
on high-frequency spectrum bands (mmW spectrum).169 Bands with higher frequencies can transmit more
information but have less favorable propagation characteristics, especially in indoor settings.170 5G,
however, makes high-frequency bands practical for wireless use through advances in antenna design and
the use of small cells that reduce transmission distances.171
54. 5G’s expected performance gains could improve both how consumers use their mobile
devices on a day-to-day basis and the productivity in a wide range of industries.172 For example, 5G
networks could allow users to access content more quickly, stream video at higher qualities, and use fully
immersive virtual reality and augmented reality technologies.173 As 5G networks continue to expand,
their ability to support high-definition video chat has the potential to enhance mobile telemedicine visits
in a greater number of areas, allowing patients to seek care more quickly and conveniently.174 As the Free
State Foundation (FSF) explains,175 the additional capacity of 5G may also allow service providers to
provide fixed wireless broadband access,176 which may be particularly useful in rural areas with limited
wireline infrastructure, but high wireless penetration.177 In urban areas, 5G networks using mmW
spectrum would create the potential for gigabit data rates, low latency, and increased capacity, which
would improve network performance in heavily trafficked areas.178 Further, improved antenna beam
165
For purposes of 5G mapping, the Commission has adopted the 5G-NR technology standards developed by the 3rd
Generation Partnership Project (3GPP). Digital Opportunity Data Collection Order and Second Further Notice, 34
FCC Rcd at 7524, para.44; Establishing the Digital Opportunity Data Collection et al., WC Docket No. 19-195, 11-
10, Report and Order and Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 35 FCC Rcd 7460, 7476-7483, paras. 38-
51 (2020) (Digital Opportunity Data Collection Second Order and Third Further Notice).
166
See WEF—World Economic Forum, The Impact of 5G: Creating New Value Across Industries and Society, at 7,
(Jan. 2020), http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_The_Impact_of_5G_Report.pdf (WEF 5G Impact Report).
167
See 3rd Generation Partnership Project, 3GPP TR 21.915 V15.0.0 (2019-09) Technical Report, (Sept. 2019),
https://www.3gpp.org/ftp//Specs/archive/21_series/21.915/21915-f00.zip.
168
See IHS Markit, The 5G Economy: How 5G Will Contribute to the Global Economy, at 11-14, (Nov. 2019),
https://www.qualcomm.com/media/documents/files/ihs-5g-economic-impact-study-2019.pdf (IHS 5G Economic
Impact Study).
169
IHS 5G Economic Impact Study at 15.
170
See generally e.g., Spectrum Frontiers Report and Order.
171
172
See IHS 5G Economic Impact Study at 14-19.
173
See AMTA—The Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association, 5G & EMF Explained 5G & EMF, at 4
(March 2018), https://amta.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/5GEMF_Explained_May2018_Final-1.pdf (AMTA
5G Explained).
174
See AT&T, 5 Ways 5G Will Transform Healthcare, https://www.business.att.com/learn/updates/how-5g-will-
transform-the-healthcare-industry.html (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).
175
FSF Comments at 13.
176
WEF 5G Impact Report at 7.
177
178
Id. at 15.
39
steering creates more reliable connections when users are moving at high speeds, thus improving the
consumer experience when traveling by car or public transit.179
55. Other use cases could benefit primarily from 5G’s potential to expand applications of the
Internet of Things (IoT). 5G networks can support a greater number of connected devices operating in
concert, which should allow both businesses and individuals to implement more intricate IoT systems.180
GSMA estimates that the number of connected devices will increase from 9.1 billion in 2018 to 25.2
billion in 2025, and that 3.1 billion of those devices will use cellular technologies.181 Precision
agriculture, which involves the use of IoT in farm management, is expected to be important in the years to
come.182 With access to 5G networks, farmers will be better positioned to manage crops using specialized
connected devices, such as autonomous vehicles for field tasks,183 and sensors that monitor moisture
levels and the chemical composition of soil.184 Remote monitoring is also expected to be applied in
industrial settings, where IoT connected devices can be used to optimize production, predict maintenance,
and monitor safety risks that otherwise could not be detected.185 Additionally, the low latency of 5G
connections potentially allows firms to automate precise and time-sensitive processes.186
56. Smart home devices are also expected to increasingly leverage 5G cellular networks, with
the goal of improving device reliability and alleviating difficulties in device setup.187 In telehealth, the
expansion of IoT medical devices could allow healthcare providers to monitor more patients remotely and
to improve health outcomes.188 GSMA’s 2019 5G report suggests that cities could see significant
benefits from 5G deployment.189 For example, GSMA suggests that cities may be able to better manage
traffic through IoT connected traffic lights and road cameras.190 5G is also expected to play an important
role in autonomous vehicles. In the short term, 5G networks may be used to create more effective driver
assistance features, while in the long run 5G networks have the capability to offload the large amounts of
data needed to make vehicles fully autonomous.191
179
AMTA 5G Explained at 5.
180
See GSMA, Internet of Things in the 5G Era: Opportunities and Benefits for Enterprises and Consumers, at 3
(Nov. 2019), https://www.gsma.com/iot/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/201911-GSMA-IoT-Report-IoT-in-the-5G-
Era.pdf (GSMA IoT Report).
181
See GSMA, The GSMA Guide to the Internet of Things, at 2 (Sept. 2018), https://www.gsma.com/iot/wp-
content/uploads/2018/09/4048-GSMA-IOT-Guide2018-WEB.pdf.
182
See, e.g., Establishing a 5G Fund for Rural America, GN Docket No. 20-32, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and
Order, 35 FCC Rcd 3994, 3996, para. 5 (2020) (5G Fund NPRM and Order).
183
184
185
Id. at 31.
186
WEF 5G Impact Report at 7.
187
IHS 5G Economic Impact Study at 30-31.
188
AT&T Business Editorial Team, 5 ways 5G will transform healthcare,
https://www.business.att.com/learn/updates/how-5g-will-transform-the-healthcare-industry.html (last visited Oct.
27, 2020).
189
GSMA IoT Report at 4.
190
Id. at 8.
191
40
57. In contrast to prior generations of technologies, the costly process of transitioning

spectrum from 4G use to 5G use may be largely avoided through Dynamic Spectrum Sharing (DSS).192
DSS allows service providers to allocate spectrum resources between 4G and 5G in real time.193 In effect,
4G and 5G users would be able to coexist within the same spectrum band, alleviating the need to
completely clear bands during transition.194
c. Mobile Wireless Devices, Services, and Advertising
58. In addition to competing on device promotions, price, and network quality, mobile
wireless providers compete using differentiated plans and bundled services. Wireless providers
frequently offer a variety of plans and services to appeal to subsets of consumers.195 As noted in section
II.A.4,196 plans may differ in features such as video streaming services, streaming quality, data limits, and
thresholds that trigger speed limits.197 Wireless providers also compete by offering mobile hotspots with
differing available speeds and data limits, cloud storage differentiated by storage allowances, and
international service capabilities.198
59. Mobile wireless service providers frequently offer special promotions for customers
porting their numbers from competitors or adding new lines to their account.199 For example, in
December 2019, AT&T, T-Mobile, U.S. Cellular, and Verizon Wireless all offered different promotions
involving the Samsung Galaxy S10E.200 AT&T offered a free Galaxy S10E with the purchase of a
standard S10 or S10 Plus using the company’s annual trade-in plan. Similarly, Verizon Wireless offered
a free S10E with purchase of an S10 or S10 Plus, with the requirements that the consumer must start at
least one new line of service and also pay off the balance if they leave Verizon Wireless within 24 months
of receiving the promotion. T-Mobile offered the $750 S10E for $360 to customers adding a new line,
paid over 36 monthly installments. Finally, U.S. Cellular offered 50% off the price of the S10E to be paid
over 30 months to new or current customers with the “Total Plan with Unlimited Plus Data.”201
60. Individuals use devices such as smartphones, tablets, and laptops to access wireless
services. For example, a Deloitte survey reported that smartphone penetration had grown from 82% in
192
In February 2020, Ericsson’s Head of Networks stated that they expected 80% of their commercial 5G partners to
use DSS within the 12 months. Fierce Wireless, Ericsson Defends Dynamic Spectrum Sharing (Feb. 27, 2020),
https://www.fiercewireless.com/tech/ericsson-defends-dynamic-spectrum-sharing.
193
See Qualcomm, Key breakthroughs to drive a fast and smooth transition to 5G standalone (Aug. 19, 2019),
https://www.qualcomm.com/news/onq/2019/08/19/key-breakthroughs-drive-fast-and-smooth-transition-5g-
standalone.
194
See Qualcomm, Key breakthroughs to drive a fast and smooth transition to 5G standalone (Aug. 19, 2019),
https://www.qualcomm.com/news/onq/2019/08/19/key-breakthroughs-drive-fast-and-smooth-transition-5g-
standalone.
195
196
See infra section II.A.4 for additional details on service providers’ plans and services.
197
CTIA Comments at 30-31.
198
Jason Cipriani, Compared: 5G data plans from Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile, ZDNet (Oct. 22, 2020),
https://www.zdnet.com/article/compared-5g-data-plans-from-verizon-at-t-sprint-and-t-mobile/.
199
See infra section II.A.4; see also, e.g., AT&T, Switch and Save, https://www.att.com/wireless/switch-and-save/
200
Jeffery Van Camp, How to Pick the Right Galaxy S10, and Where to Order It, Wired (Dec. 3, 2019),
https://www.wired.com/story/samsung-galaxy-s10-deals/.
201
See Jeffery Van Camp, How to Pick the Right Galaxy S10, and Where to Order It, Wired (Dec. 3, 2019),
https://www.wired.com/story/samsung-galaxy-s10-deals/.
41
2017 to 85% in 2018.202 Statista, on the other hand, reported smartphone penetration rates of 80% in
2018, and 82% in 2019.203 To access 5G-capable networks, many smartphone users will need to upgrade
their devices.204 Handset manufacturers including Samsung, Motorola, and LG are releasing 5G capable
devices in 2020,205 and Apple has just announced the release of its 5G iPhone 12.206 The Consumer
Technology Association (CTA) predicts that around 20 million 5G-capable phones will ship in 2020,
contributing $15 billion in revenue and representing 19% of total smart phone revenue.207
61. Mobile wireless providers also compete for customers through extensive advertising and
marketing campaigns.208 Service providers’ marketing campaigns often focus on aspects such as network
quality,209 5G capabilities,210 price differences,211 differentiating services,212 and device promotions.213 In
2019, AT&T spent $6.1 billion on advertising,214 Sprint spent $1.1 billion,215 T-Mobile spent $1.6
billion,216 and Verizon Wireless spent $3.1 billion.217 During the period covered by this report, service
202
Deloitte, 2018 Global Mobile Consumer Survey: U.S. Edition at 2 (2018),
https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/us/Documents/technology-media-telecommunications/us-tmt-
global-mobile-consumer-survey-exec-summary-2018.pdf.
203
Statista, Smartphone User Penetration as Share of Population in the United States from 2018 to 2024 (Apr. 21,
2020), https://www.statista.com/statistics/201184/percentage-of-mobile-phone-users-who-use-a-smartphone-in-the-
us/.
204
Phillip Prado, Should You Upgrade Now or Wait for One of 2020’s 5G Phones (Dec. 15, 2019),
https://www.androidauthority.com/5g-smartphones-2020-1063813/.
205
See, e.g., Press Release, Samsung, Capture Your World in a Whole New Way: Samsung Galaxy S20 5G Series
Available Today (Mar. 6, 2020), https://news.samsung.com/us/samsung-galaxy-s20-5g-series-available-today-
capture-your-world; Larry Dignan, Motorola Enters Flagship Smartphone Fray, Launches Moto Edge, Edge Plus at
$999, ZDNET (Apr. 22, 2020), https://www.zdnet.com/article/motorola-enters-flagship-smartphone-fray-launches-
moto-edge-edge-plus-at-999/; AT&T News, AT&T Expands 5G Device Lineup with the LG V60 ThinQ 5G Coming
Soon, AT&T (Feb. 26, 2020), https://about.att.com/story/2020/lg_v60_thinq_5g.html.
206
Press Release, Apple, Apple announces iPhone 12 and iPhone 12 mini: A new era for iPhone with 5G (Oct. 13,
2020), https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/10/apple-announces-iphone-12-and-iphone-12-mini-a-new-era-for-
iphone-with-5g/.
This prediction was “[p]rior to the current crisis” of COVID-19 and actual shipments are likely to be lower. CTA
207
Comments at 6-7.
208
CTIA Comments at 32-33.
ispot.tv, Verizon TV Commercial, ‘Ned: $650 When You Switch,’ https://www.ispot.tv/ad/IxQq/verizon-ned-650-
209
when-you-switch (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).

ispot.tv, T-Mobile TV Commercial, ‘A New Moment in Wireless Has Begun,’ https://www.ispot.tv/ad/nqlA/t-
210
mobile-a-new-moment-in-wireless-has-begun (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).

ispot.tv, T-Mobile Essentials TV Commercial, ‘Families Save Big: 50 Percent,’ https://www.ispot.tv/ad/nR50/t-
211
mobile-families-save-big-50-percent (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).

212
ispot.tv, Verizon TV Commercial, ‘Disney+ on Us,’ https://www.ispot.tv/ad/ZAFd/verizon-disney-on-us (last
213
ispot.tv, AT&T Unlimited TV Commercial, ‘Innovations: Jeans: Samsung Galaxy S10e’,
https://www.ispot.tv/ad/IJY8/at-and-t-unlimited-innovations-jeans-samsung-galaxy-s10e (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).
214
AT&T Inc., SEC Form 10-K at n.22 (filed Feb. 20, 2020) (AT&T 2019 SEC Form 10-K).
215
Sprint, SEC Form 10-K at F-18 (filed May 29, 2020)
216
T-Mobile 2019 SEC Form 10-K at 70.
217
Verizon Communications Inc., SEC Form 10-K at n.15 (filed Feb. 21, 2020) (Verizon 2019 SEC Form 10-K).
42
providers have increasingly focused on 5G in their advertisements.218 CTIA reports that, in 2019, AT&T
spent roughly $90 million on advertisements with 5G in the title, while Verizon Wireless spent roughly
$86 million.219
d. Speed of Service
62. Network speed is a key characteristic of mobile wireless performance, and the
Commission has recognized the importance of accurate and timely data on wireless upload and download
speeds.220 Mobile broadband speeds experienced by consumers can vary greatly with a number of factors,
including the service provider’s received signal quality, cell traffic loading and network capacity in
different locations, as well as the capabilities of consumers’ devices.221 Because these and other factors
cause variations in mobile network performance, various methodologies have been employed to measure
mobile network speeds. The two most prevalent methodologies rely on crowdsourced data and structured
sample data. Crowdsourced data are user-generated data produced by consumers who voluntarily
download speed test applications on their mobile devices. Structured sample data, by contrast, are
generated from tests that control for the location and time of the tests as well as for the devices used in the
test.222 This Report presents speed data using the Ookla Net Index data (crowdsourced), OpenSignal data
(crowdsourced), and RootMetrics (structured sample).223
63. Figures II.A.27 and II.A.28 present the nationwide mean and median 4G LTE download
and upload speeds by service provider based on Ookla data for the second half of 2018 through the
second half of 2019.224 Figure II.A.29 presents the increase over time for mean and median 4G LTE
218
Alexandra Bruell, Wireless Carriers Revamp Ad Strategies for 5G, The Wall Street Journal (Feb, 26, 2019),
https://www.wsj.com/articles/wireless-carriers-revamp-ad-strategies-for-5g-11551236521.
219
220
See generally Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans
in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, GN Docket No. 19-285, 2020 Broadband Deployment Report, 35 FCC Rcd
8986 (2020) (2020 Broadband Deployment Report). In addition, in section III.A, we assess the extent to which
Americans are covered by mobile 4G LTE (based on FCC Form 477 data at minimum advertised speeds of 5
Mbps/1 Mbps, and Ookla data at a median speed of 10 Mbps/3 Mbps or higher).
221
As we have pointed out, crowdsourced data have certain limitations. For example, bias is often introduced into
speed test data because tests are performed only at specific times and places, potentially providing a less accurate
snapshot of mobile broadband performance. Further, we noted that the methods by which different speed test apps
collect data can vary and may not use techniques that control for certain variables. Digital Opportunity Data
Collection Second Order and Third Further Notice, 35 FCC Rcd at 7487-7488, para. 65. For additional discussion
of the various factors, see Twentieth Wireless Competition Report, 32 FCC Rcd at 9033, para. 87; Sixteenth Wireless
Competition Report, 28 FCC Rcd at 3895, para. 293.
222
For a detailed discussion of crowdsourcing and structured sample data, see Twentieth Wireless Competition
Report, 32 FCC Rcd at 9033-34, para. 88. Many apps that collect crowdsourced data collect data via background or
automated tests, as well as through user-initiated tests.
223
While speed metrics based on the FCC Speed Test (available for both Android phones and the iPhone) were
reported in the Seventeenth Wireless Competition Report through the Nineteenth Wireless Competition Report, we
stopped reporting these metrics in the Twentieth Wireless Competition Report and do not report them in this Report
due to certain anomalies found in the underlying data. We may include data from the FCC Speed Test in future
Reports, as the anomalies are aged out of the dataset. An in-depth discussion of the Measuring Broadband America
Program’s FCC Speed Test is available in the Seventeenth Wireless Competition Report. Seventeenth Report, 29
FCC Rcd at 15467, Appx. VI., paras. 7-9; see also FCC, Measuring Mobile Broadband Performance,
https://www.fcc.gov/general/measuring-mobile-broadband-performance (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).
224
Ookla gathers crowdsourced mobile speed data through the use of its Speedtest mobile app. Speedtest, Speedtest
Apps for Mobile Data, http://www.speedtest.net/mobile/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). An in-depth discussion of the
Ookla speedtest is available in the Seventeenth Report. Seventeenth Report, 29 FCC Rcd at 15465-66, Appx. VI.,
paras. 1-6. The upload and download speeds were calculated by Ookla and provided to the Commission for use in
this Report. In addition, we present 5G download and upload speed data in Appx. B-4 of this Report.
43
download speeds for all providers, from the first half of 2014 through the second half of 2019.225 Based
on Ookla data, Figure II.A.29 indicates that the median 4G LTE download speed increased from 11.0
Mbps to 26.2 Mbps, an increase of approximately 138%, over this time period.
Fig. II.A.27
Ookla Speedtest─Estimated 4G LTE Download Speeds by Service Provider, Nationwide
2H2018 1H2019 2H2019
Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median

Service
Down Down Number Down Down Number Down Down Number
Provider
load load of Tests load load of Tests load load of Tests
Speed Speed (’000s) Speed Speed (’000s) Speed Speed (’000s)
(Mbps) (Mbps) (Mbps) (Mbps) (Mbps) (Mbps)
AT&T 29.03 20.79 2,642 37.08 28.33 3,167 41.18 30.43 3,188
Sprint 26.30 16.73 1,794 32.44 21.72 1,594 36.74 23.71 1,441
T-Mobile 32.29 23.88 3,052 34.29 25.28 2,688 34.92 25.45 3,180
Verizon
30.69 22.97 3,886 32.36 24.47 3,419 33.28 24.53 3,708
Wireless
Source: Ookla SPEEDTEST intelligence data, © 2020 Ookla, LLC. All rights reserved. Published with permission
of Ookla.
225
Note that in recent years, Ookla has updated its data cleaning and aggregation rules. In Fig. II.A.29, the legacy
rules are reflected in the speeds through the first half of 2016, and updated cleaning rules are reflected in the speeds
in the second half of 2016 and beyond.
44
Fig. II.A.28
Ookla Speedtest - Estimated 4G LTE Upload Speeds by Service Provider, Nationwide
2H2018 1H2019 2H2019
Service Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median

Number Number Number
Provider Upload Upload Upload Upload Upload Upload
of Tests of Tests of Tests
Speed Speed Speed Speed Speed Speed
(’000s) (’000s) (’000s)
(Mbps) (Mbps) (Mbps) (Mbps) (Mbps) (Mbps)
AT&T 7.88 5.34 2,642 9.18 6.90 3,167 9.89 7.93 3,188
Sprint 3.28 2.48 1,794 3.61 2.70 1,594 4.18 3.15 1,441
T-Mobile 11.75 9.54 3,052 12.98 10.40 2,688 14.23 11.61 3,180
Verizon
9.90 6.99 3,886 10.48 7.52 3,419 10.94 7.81 3,708
Wireless
of Ookla.
Fig. II.A.29
Ookla Speed Test: Total 4G LTE Download Speeds, Nationwide
40.0 36.3
4G LTE Downalod Speed (Mbps)
34.1
35.0
29.9
27.9
30.0
25.4 26.2
25.3
25.0 23.4
22.0 21.6
20.2 20.2
18.3
20.0 16.4
15.9 16.0
14.4 15.1 15.5
14.0
15.0 11.5
12.7
11.0 11.6
10.0
Mean 4G LTE Download Speed Median 4G LTE Download Speed
of Ookla.
64. Nationwide average 4G LTE download and upload speeds for the second half of 2018
through the second half of 2019 from OpenSignal are presented in Figures II.A.30 and II.A.31 below.226
Fig. II.A.30
OpenSignal─Estimated 4G LTE Download Speeds, Nationwide
Service Provider 2H2018 1H2019 2H2019
226
OpenSignal gathers crowdsourced mobile speed data through the use of its mobile app as well as through partner
apps. The partners it works with are strategically selected to cover a wide range of users, demographics, and
devices. Opensignal, Methodology Overview: How Opensignal Measures Mobile Network Experience,
https://www.opensignal.com/sites/opensignal-com/files/opensignal_methodology_overview_june_2020.pdf (last
45
Average Average Average

Download Download Download
Speed Speed Speed
(Mbps) (Mbps) (Mbps)
AT&T 19.5 24.6 29.1
Sprint 15.5 21.1 25.9
T-Mobile 21.9 24.3 26.3
Verizon Wireless 22.0 23.8 25.9
OpenSignal, © 2020 OpenSignal.
Fig. II.A.31
OpenSignal –Estimated 4G LTE Upload Speeds, Nationwide
2H2018 1H2019 2H2019
Average Average Average
Service Provider Upload Upload Upload
Speed Speed Speed
(Mbps) (Mbps) (Mbps)
AT&T 5.1 5.4 6.4
Sprint 2.6 2.6 3.0
T-Mobile 7.0 7.5 8.8
Verizon Wireless 7.4 7.2 8.2
Source: OpenSignal, © 2020 OpenSignal.
65. RootMetrics mobile wireless indices within the United States for the second half of 2018
through the second half of 2019 are presented in Figure II.A.32.227
Fig. II.A.32
RootMetrics National Speed Index Data, 2nd Half 2018--2st Half 2019
2nd Half 2018 1st Half 2019 2nd Half 2019
Service
Provider Speed Data Text Speed Data Text Speed Data Text
Index Index Index Index Index Index Index Index Index
AT&T 89.2 93.8 96.5 89.9 94.4 96.5 90.2 94.7 96.8
Sprint 81.3 86.0 95.1 83.4 88.8 95.0 83.9 88.9 95.5
T-Mobile 88.7 91.9 92.1 89.0 92.2 91.7 89.0 92.1 92.0
Verizon 90.4 95.0 96.8 91.2 95.5 96.3 90.7 95.1 96.5
Wireless
Source: RootMetrics Data, © 2020 RootMetrics. All rights reserved. Published with permission of RootMetrics.
6. Network Coverage
66. This section first provides a description of the FCC Form 477 data that are used in this
Report for both analyzing mobile and fixed coverage. We then describe how the Commission has already
227
RootMetrics, Methodology, http://rootmetrics.com/en-US/methodology (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). RootMetrics
performs drive tests and stationary tests in specific locations, using leading Android-based smartphones for each
network. RootScores are scaled from 0 to 100. An in-depth discussion of the RootMetrics dataset is available in the
Seventeenth Report, 29 FCC Rcd at 15467-68, Appx. VI, paras 10-11.
46
reformed─and is further proposing to reform─the FCC Form 477 data collection. Finally, we evaluate
mobile coverage as of year-end 2019. Fixed coverage is assessed in section III.A.
a. FCC Form 477
67. The FCC Form 477 data are currently the most comprehensive data available to evaluate
broadband deployment.228 The FCC Form 477 deployment data are also available to the public, which
increases the transparency of our analysis and permits the public to independently assess our broadband
service deployment data.229 The Commission has collected FCC Form 477 deployment data since 2014,
and, thus, these data have provided a consistent yardstick against which to measure year-over-year
broadband deployment.230
68. We measure mobile network coverage based on a set of maps that contain information on
deployment at a detailed geographic level.231 In conducting this analysis, we use the actual-area
methodology, which analyzes FCC Form 477 mobile broadband data on a sub-census-block level and
calculates the percentage of each census block covered by each service provider by technology. Unlike
the centroid methodology,232 in which a particular entire census block is either considered to be covered
228
See 2020 Broadband Deployment Report, 35 FCC Rcd at 8997-98, para. 24; Inquiry Concerning the Deployment
of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, GN Docket No.
18-238, 2019 Broadband Deployment Report, 34 FCC Rcd 3857, 3868, para. 25 (2019) (2019 Broadband
Deployment Report); 2018 Communications Marketplace Report 34 FCC Rcd at 12651, para. 184.
229
FCC, Form 477 Resources, https://www.fcc.gov/economics-analytics/industry-analysis-division/form-477-
resources (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). All FCC Form 477 data used in this Report have been certified as accurate by
the filers. We note that the Report’s analysis may understate or overstate consumers’ options for services to the
extent that broadband providers fail to report data or misreport data. See FCC, Explanation of Broadband
Deployment Data, https://www.fcc.gov/general/explanation-broadband-deployment-data (last visited Oct. 27, 2020)
(describing quality and consistency checks performed on providers’ submitted data and explaining any adjustments
made to the FCC Form 477 data as filed).
230
See AACG Reply Comments at 3 (asserting that FCC Form 477 data provide a consistent set of measures to
allow parties to see the evolution of broadband across time and geography).
231
Currently, FCC Form 477 collects broadband deployment data from facilities-based providers of fixed and
mobile broadband service. See 47 CFR § 1.7001(b). The FCC Form 477 reporting requirements exclude providers
of terrestrial wireless “hot spot” services, like local-area Wi-Fi or Wi-Fi within public places, but include facilities-
based network providers that provide resale of mobile services. Facilities-based providers of mobile service submit
polygons in a shapefile format representing geographic coverage nationwide (including U.S. territories) for each
transmission technology (e.g., 5G-NR, 4G LTE, CDMA-based, GSM-based), indicating the geographic areas in
which users should expect to receive the minimum upload and download speeds advertised by the service provider
for the deployed technologies. FCC Form 477, Local Telephone Competition and Broadband Reporting
Instructions (May 21, 2020), https://transition.fcc.gov/form477/477inst.pdf.
The scope and nature of the FCC Form 477 data on mobile services coverage is an improvement over earlier data
sources in certain key respects, such as the uniformity of data reporting. See Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of
Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible
Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as Amended
by the Broadband Data Improvement Act, 2016 Broadband Progress Report, 31 FCC Rcd 699, 708-09, para. 22
(2016) (“[D]ata from the Form 477 . . . help us better analyze mobile broadband deployment than in years past.”).
232
The centroid methodology considers a census block covered if the geometric center point, or centroid, is covered.
The methodology estimates coverage of population, land, and road miles by aggregating the totals for “covered”
census blocks. Twentieth Wireless Competition Report, 32 FCC Rcd at 9016-17, para. 71. In practice, actual-area
and centroid methodologies yield similar results at the national level. Twentieth Wireless Competition Report, 32
FCC Rcd at 9017-18, para. 72. In this Report, we provide mobile wireless coverage maps in Appx. B-5, and we
report our results based on the centroid analysis in Appx. B-6. We include the continental United States, Hawaii,
Alaska, and Puerto Rico, and exclude all water-only blocks in our analysis.
47
or not, the actual-area methodology estimates the area of the census block that is covered.233 However,
because we currently do not know the distribution of the population at the sub-census-block level, we
must approximate the population covered by each technology. To do this, we assume, for purposes of
this Report, that the population of a census block is uniformly distributed such that the fraction of the
population covered in a block is proportional to the fraction of the actual area covered. We then sum the
estimated covered population across blocks to estimate the total covered population within the United
States. Likewise, we assume that the fraction of the road miles covered in a block is proportional to the
fraction of the actual area covered.234
69. We measure fixed deployment data at the census block level. FCC Form 477 filers report
a list of census blocks in which they provide access to broadband.235 For purposes of the analysis of
access to advanced telecommunications capability in this Report, a census block is classified as served if
the FCC Form 477 data indicate that service is available in the census block, even if not to every
location.236 Therefore, it is not necessarily the case that every household, housing unit, or person will
have coverage from a given service provider in a census block that this analysis indicates is served.237
Thus, as the Commission has previously explained, this analysis could overstate the coverage experienced
by some consumers, especially in large or irregularly-shaped census blocks.238 While some commenters
233
This sub-census-block analysis can determine the unique combination of service providers serving a particular
percentage of the area in a census block with a certain technology. As this analysis was done at each technology
level, the set of unique combinations that it produces are valid for each individual technology, but not across
multiple technologies. Essentially, we can distinguish the unique percentages covered by various service providers
at the sub-census-block level using a particular technology (e.g., 4G LTE), but we currently cannot determine how
this interplays with other technologies (e.g., with 2G or 3G technologies).
234
In order to fully take advantage of the increase in precision offered by the actual-area coverage methodology,
spatially accurate representations of population and road miles would be necessary. We do not have access to such
information for the current Report, however.
235
See Modernizing the FCC Form 477 Data Program, WC Docket No. 11-10, Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd
9887, 9902, para. 32 (2013).
236
The Commission’s instructions for completing FCC Form 477 state: “For purposes of this form, fixed broadband
connections are available in a census block if the provider does, or could, within a service interval that is typical for
that type of connection—that is, without an extraordinary commitment of resources—provision two-way data
transmission to and from the Internet with advertised speeds exceeding 200 kbps in at least one direction to end-user
premises in the census block.” FCC, FCC Form 477 Local Telephone Competition and Broadband Report
Instructions, at 17 (Dec. 5, 2016), https://us-fcc.box.com/v/Form477InstThruJune19 (2018 FCC Form 477
Instructions); FCC, FCC Form 477 Local Telephone Competition and Broadband Report Instructions at 18 (May 21,
2020), https://transition.fcc.gov/form477/477inst.pdf (2019 FCC Form 477 Instructions) (current version).
237
A household consists of all the people who occupy a housing unit. A house, an apartment or other group of
rooms, or a single room, is regarded as a housing unit when it is occupied or intended for occupancy as separate
living quarters; that is, when the occupants do not live with any other persons in the structure and there is direct
access from the outside or through a common hall. U.S. Census Bureau, Subject Definitions,
https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/technical-documentation/subject-definitions.html#household (last
visited Oct. 27, 2020). Commission staff developed population estimates for 2011-19 by updating the 2010 census
block population estimates. These estimates are based upon annual U.S. Census mid-year county (or county-
equivalent) level population and housing unit estimates for the fifty states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto
Rico. These data are used in conjunction with U.S. Census Bureau TIGER data to indicate new roads, that is, new
housing development, to distribute population amongst the census blocks comprising each county (or county-
equivalent). FCC, Staff Block Estimates, https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/data/staff-block-estimates (last
238
See, e.g., 2020 Broadband Deployment Report, 35 FCC Rcd at 8998, para. 26; 2019 Broadband Deployment
Report, 34 FCC Rcd at 3869, para. 25 & n.92.
48
criticize as overly inclusive the use of census-block reporting for fixed providers,239 these data remain the
best and most granular data available for our analysis at this point in time. In addition, we find that using
a consistent unit of measurement (the census block) is an effective tool for evaluating how deployment is
progressing over time. Our analysis of deployment for both fixed and mobile 4G LTE services in section
III.A uses 2010 census block population data that Commission staff has updated to account for population
growth and economic development.240
70. As the Commission has repeatedly stated, having accurate and reliable broadband
deployment data is critical not only to the Commission, but also to other federal policymakers, state
policymakers, and consumers.241 We observe that, while the current FCC Form 477 deployment data are
an improvement over the deployment data previously available on a national scale, questions have arisen
in various contexts over the past several years regarding the accuracy of coverage reported by FCC Form
477 deployment data.242 We note, however, that this Report is not the appropriate vehicle for the
Commission to make changes to the data collection. Indeed, in August 2019, the Commission adopted
new requirements for broadband mapping as part of its Digital Opportunity Data Collection proceeding
for collecting granular, precise coverage data.243 After the Commission initiated its Digital Opportunity
Data Collection proceeding, Congress enacted the Broadband DATA Act, which largely affirmed the
approach to broadband mapping the Commission adopted in the Digital Opportunity Data Collection.244
239
See INCOMPAS Comments at 9-11 (critiquing use of the data, but also conceding that they are not aware of any
sufficient information that is accurate and verifiable for the FCC to conduct its analysis); Common Cause/NHMC
Reply Comments at 5-7; OTI Reply Comments at 2-3.
240
Commission staff developed population estimates for 2011-19 by updating the 2010 census block population
estimates. These estimates are based upon annual U.S. Census mid-year county (or county-equivalent) level
population and housing unit estimates for the fifty states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. These data are
used in conjunction with U.S. Census Bureau TIGER data to indicate new roads, that is, new housing development,
to distribute population amongst the census blocks comprising each county (or county-equivalent). FCC, Staff Block
Estimates, https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/data/staff-block-estimates (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).
241
See Digital Opportunity Data Collection Second Order and Third Further Notice, 35 FCC Rcd at 7461, para. 1;
Digital Opportunity Data Collection Order and Second Further Notice, 34 FCC Rcd at 7549, para. 112; 2017 Data
Collection Improvement FNPRM, 32 FCC Rcd at 6331-32, para. 8. For purposes of this Report, the “Digital
Opportunity Data Collection proceeding” refers collectively to the Digital Opportunity Data Collection Second
Order and Third Further Notice, and the Digital Opportunity Data Collection Order and Second Further Notice.
See, FCC, Digital Opportunity Data Collection, https://www.fcc.gov/digital-opportunity-data-collection-dodc (last
visited Oct. 27, 2020). The Commission has also used this proceeding to implement the Broadband DATA Act’s
provisions since its passage.
242
Digital Opportunity Data Collection Second Order and Third Further Notice, 35 FCC Rcd, 7462-63, para. 5;
Digital Opportunity Data Collection Order and Second Further Notice, 34 FCC Rcd at 7509, para. 10; 2017 Data
Collection Improvement FNPRM, 32 FCC Rcd at 6332-33, para. 10; see also Rural Broadband Auctions Task Force,
Mobility Fund Phase II Coverage Maps Investigation Staff Report (2019),
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-361165A1.pdf.
243
See Digital Opportunity Data Collection Second Order and Third Further Notice, 35 FCC Rcd at 7461, para. 1;
see generally Digital Opportunity Data Collection Report and Order and Second Further Notice.
244
Broadband Deployment Accuracy and Technological Availability Act (Broadband DATA Act), Pub. L. No. 116-
130, 134 Stat. 228 (2020) (codified at 47 U.S.C. §§ 641-46). Under the Broadband DATA Act, the Commission
must establish rules: (1) requiring the collection of granular data from providers on the availability and quality of
service of broadband internet access service, which the Commission will use to create publicly available coverage
maps; (2) adopting processes for challenging and verifying the coverage maps and submitted data; and
(3) instructing mobile providers to submit propagation maps depicting current 4G LTE mobile broadband coverage,
along with propagation model details, that consider the effect of clutter and demonstrate minimum specified
parameters. 47 U.S.C. §§ 642 (b)(5), (a)(1)(B)(i), (b)(2)(B). The Act also requires the Commission to create a
common dataset of all locations where fixed broadband Internet access service can be installed. 47 U.S.C. § 642
(b)(1)(A)(i).
49
However, the Broadband DATA Act prohibits the Commission from relying on the Universal Service
Administrative Company—the administrator of the Universal Service Fund and the entity the
Commission intended to carry out various administrative responsibilities in connection with the new
broadband maps. As a result, the Commission must wait for Congress to appropriate necessary funding
to develop these new maps.245
71. Starting with the December 2019 FCC Form 477 data collection, the wireless reporting
requirements were changed to provide more useful information to the public and to streamline
unnecessary filings.246 Specifically, minimum advertised or expected speeds and provider-specific
coverage data, reported to the FCC but previously kept confidential, are now publicly released.247 Mobile
providers are no longer required to report coverage by spectrum band as the FCC usually collects band-
specific data from providers directly when needed.248 Mobile providers now must separately report
coverage that satisfies the 5G-NR standards developed by the 3rd Generation Partnership Project
(3GPP).249 In general, mobile broadband coverage data must be submitted in four streamlined categories:
5G-NR, 4G LTE, CDMA-based, and GSM-based, instead of the previous nine codes.250 The voice
coverage data reporting requirements have been simplified consistent with the revisions to the
requirements for FCC Form 477 mobile broadband reporting.251
b. Mobile Wireless Coverage Estimates
72. Overall Coverage by Individual Service Provider. Figure II.A.33 presents estimates of
mobile wireless coverage by individual mobile wireless service provider using any technology.252
Because the data are from December 2019, and thus before the consummation of the merger between T-
Mobile and Sprint, coverage for both firms is presented in this Report.253 Figure II.A.33 indicates that
AT&T covered census blocks containing over 99% of the population, while the comparable approximate
percentages are 98% for Verizon Wireless, 98% for T-Mobile, and 93% for Sprint. AT&T and Verizon
Wireless each covered approximately 92% of the road miles, T-Mobile covered approximately 85%, and
Sprint covered approximately 57%. In terms of land area, AT&T and Verizon Wireless each covered
over 70%, while T-Mobile covered over 60% and Sprint covered over 30%.
245
Broadband DATA Act.
246
See Digital Opportunity Data Collection Second Order and Third Further Notice, 35 FCC Rcd at 7474-83, paras.
32-51; Digital Opportunity Data Collection Order and Second Further Notice, 34 FCC Rcd 7521-37, paras. 35-75.
247
Id. at 7521-22, paras. 36-40.
248
Id. at 7523-24, paras. 41-43.
249
Id. at 7524-25, paras. 44-45.
250
Id. at 7525-27, paras. 46-51.
251
Id. at 7527-29, paras. 52-56.
252
Importantly, we note that even though a particular service provider has indicated that it has network coverage in a
particular census block, that does not necessarily mean that it offers service to residents in that census block. This
note extends to all coverage figures presented in this section.
253
As noted above, the T-Mobile/Sprint merger closed on April 1, 2020. T-Mobile, T‑Mobile Completes Merger
with Sprint to Create the New T‑Mobile (Apr. 1, 2020), https://www.t-mobile.com/news/un-carrier/t-mobile-sprint-
one-company/.
50
Fig. II.A.33
Estimated Wireless Coverage by Provider
FCC Form 477, Actual Area Coverage, December 2019
99.5%
AT&T 92.3%
73.3%
Service Provider
93.3%
Sprint 56.5%
31.9%
98.1%
T-Mobile 84.7%
63.5%
97.9%
Verizon Wireless 91.5%
72.5%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Wireless Coverage
% of U.S. Population % of U.S. Road Miles % of U.S. Square Miles
Source: Based on actual area coverage analysis of December 2019 FCC Form 477 and 2010 Census data.
73. 4G LTE Mobile Broadband Coverage. Figure II.A.34 presents 4G LTE mobile
broadband coverage by number of service providers. It shows that, as of December 2019, approximately
95% of the U.S. population lived in areas with 4G LTE coverage by at least four service providers. These
census blocks, however, only accounted for approximately 64% of road miles and approximately 39% of
the total land area of the United States.
74. Figure II.A.35 presents estimates of 4G LTE mobile broadband coverage by individual
mobile wireless service provider. It shows that AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon Wireless each provided
4G LTE coverage to census blocks containing over 97% of the population, while Sprint provided 4G LTE
coverage to approximately 93% of the population. In terms of road miles and land area, Verizon Wireless
covered approximately 91% of road miles and 72% of the land area, AT&T covered approximately 89%
of road miles and 68% of the land area, T-Mobile covered approximately 84% of road miles and 63% of
the land area, and Sprint covered approximately 56% of road miles and 31% of the land area with 4G
LTE.
51
Fig. II.A.34
Estimated 4G LTE Coverage by Census Block
FCC Form 477, December 2019, Actual Area Coverage
Number of Service Providers with Coverage
99.9%
1 or more 96.8%
79.9%
99.7%
2 or more 92.7%
72.6%
99.0%
3 or more 85.7%
62.9%
94.6%
4 or more 63.8%
39.4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
4G LTE Coverage
Fig. II.A.35
Estimated 4G LTE Coverage by Provider
99.2%
AT&T 88.9%
68.3%
Service Provider
93.1%
Sprint 55.7%
31.2%
98.0%
T-Mobile 84.1%
62.9%
97.9%
71.8%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

4G LTE
52
75. Rural/Non-Rural Comparisons. Since 2004, the Commission has used a “baseline”
definition of a rural county as one with a population density of 100 people per square mile or less.254 We
use this same baseline definition to analyze coverage in rural versus non-rural areas for our mobile
broadband coverage analysis. To determine whether counties are rural or non-rural, we first excluded all
water-only census blocks within each county. We then divided the county population by the total
geographic area of the county to determine the population density. For those counties with a population
density of 100 people per square mile or less, all census blocks within those counties were considered
rural. Under this definition and using 2010 U.S. Census population data, approximately 56 million
people, or approximately 18% of the U.S. population, live in rural counties. These counties comprise
approximately 3 million square miles, or approximately 84%, of the geographic area of the United States.
76. Figure II.A.36 presents mobile wireless coverage (using any technology) of the rural and
non-rural U.S. population by individual mobile wireless service provider. Our analysis indicates that each
of the four nationwide service providers covered at least 98% of the non-rural population with mobile
wireless service. Rural wireless coverage by service provider is more limited: AT&T covered
approximately 98%, Verizon Wireless covered approximately 96%, T-Mobile covered approximately
92%, and Sprint covered approximately 69% of the rural population with wireless service.
Fig. II.A.36
Estimated Wireless Coverage by Provider in Rural vs. Non-Rural Areas FCC
Form 477, Actual Area Coverage, December 2019
99.9%
AT&T
97.6%
Service Provider
98.6%
Sprint
69.3%
99.5%
T-Mobile
91.8%
98.4%
Verizon Wireless
95.8%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Wireless Coverage
% of U.S. Non-Rural POPs % of U.S. Rural POPs
77. Figure II.A.37 presents 4G LTE population coverage in rural and non-rural census blocks
by number of service providers. Our estimates show that approximately 99% of the non-rural population
was covered by at least three 4G LTE service providers, while approximately 96% of the rural population
was covered by at least three 4G LTE service providers. Over 98% of the non-rural American population
had 4G LTE coverage from four or more service providers, while only approximately 77% of the rural
population was covered by at least four 4G LTE service providers.
78. Figure II.A.38 presents 4G LTE coverage by individual service provider of both the rural
and non-rural U.S. population. Our estimates show that each of the four nationwide service providers
covered at least 98% of the non-rural population with 4G LTE. Regarding 4G LTE coverage in rural
254
See Facilitating the Provision of Spectrum-Based Services to Rural Areas and Promoting Opportunities for Rural
Telephone Companies To Provide Spectrum-Based Services, WT Docket No. 02-381, Report and Order and Further
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 19 FCC Rcd 19078, 19086-88, paras. 10-12 (2004).
53
areas, Verizon Wireless covered approximately 96%, AT&T covered approximately 96%, T-Mobile
covered approximately 91%, and Sprint covered approximately 69% of the rural population with 4G LTE.
Fig. II.A.37
Estimated 4G LTE Coverage by Census Block in Rural vs. Non-Rural Areas
FCC Form 477, December 2019, Actual Area Coverage
Number of Service Providers with
100.0%
1 or more
99.6%
99.9%
2 or more
Coverage
98.7%
99.8%
3 or more
95.5%
98.5%
4 or more
76.9%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

4G LTE Coverage
Fig. II.A.38
Estimated 4G LTE Coverage by Provider in Rural vs. Non-Rural Areas
99.9%
AT&T
96.4%
Service Provicer
98.5%
Sprint
68.5%
99.5%
T-Mobile
91.2%
98.4%
Verizon Wireless
95.7%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

4G LTE Coverage
Source: Based on actual area coverage analysis of December 2019 FCC Form 477 and 2010 Census data
79. 5G Coverage. In August 2019, the Commission made certain changes to the FCC Form
477 data collection program, including directing wireless service providers to report their 5G
deployment.255 As of December 2019, these data report that T-Mobile covered 27.7% of U.S. square
miles, 41.8% of road miles, and 63.5% of the population; Sprint covered 6.7% of the population, Verizon
had negligible 5G coverage and AT&T reported no mobile 5G coverage at all.
255
See Digital Opportunity Data Collection Order and Second Further Notice, 34 FCC Rcd at 7524, para. 44.
54
80. Since the beginning of 2020, Verizon,256 AT&T, 257 T-Mobile,258 Sprint, 259 and US
260
Cellular have reported further deployments of 5G. Other firms also provide or have the potential to
provide 5G services.261 For example, CTIA suggests that cable companies are “well positioned to deploy
fixed and mobile 5G operations and compete directly with mobile network operators on a national
basis.”262 As part of its acquisition of Boost Mobile, DISH has committed to deploy “a facilities-based
5G broadband network capable of serving 70 percent of the U.S. population by June 2023.”263 Starry
provides fixed wireless broadband through a “pre-standard 5G, point-to-multipoint fixed wireless
technology.”264
81. Finally, as one of the conditions of approval for the T-Mobile-Sprint transaction, T-
Mobile committed to covering 97% of the United States population with low-band 5G service within
three years of the consummation of the merger and 99% within six years.265 T-Mobile made
commitments to deploy 5G service using mid-band spectrum, with 75% of the population being covered
within three years and 88% within six years.266 Under its commitments, 5G services with at least 50
Mbps download speeds would be available to 75% of the population within three years and 99% within
six years.267 5G services with at least 100 Mbps download speeds would be available to 63% of the
population within three years and 90% within six years.268 Further, within three years, T-Mobile
committed to deploy a 5G network to 85% of the rural population with low-band spectrum, 55% with
mid-band spectrum, and to 66.7% with download speeds of at least 50 Mbps, verified by drive testing,
and 55% of at least 100 Mbps downloads, verified by drive testing.269
B. The Fixed Broadband Services Marketplace
82. We next assess the state of competition in the fixed broadband marketplace. In section
II.B.1, we will first examine the various fixed technologies that Internet service providers (ISPs) currently
deploy, describe the service providers, and provide information on connections/subscribers and adoption
rates. In section II.B.2, we will consider competition in fixed broadband, including a discussion of
256
Verizon, Verizon 5G Ultra Wideband service available in more cities (Oct. 14, 2020),
https://www.verizon.com/about/news/verizon-5g-ultra-wideband-service-available-more-cities.
257
AT&T, AT&T Continues to Build 5G on Nation’s Best Network (July 23, 2020),
https://about.att.com/newsroom/2020/5g_announcements.html.
258
T-Mobile coverage of Alaska was achieved via partnership with GCI. T-Mobile, T-Mobile is First with 5G in all
50 States! (June 1, 2020) https://investor.t-mobile.com/news-and-events/t-mobile-us-press-releases/press-release-
details/2020/T-Mobile-is-First-with-5G-in-all-50-States/default.aspx.
259
Sprint, Sprint 5G Overview (Feb. 11, 2020), https://newsroom.sprint.com/sprint-5g-overview-1-2.htm.
260
U.S. Cellular, U.S. Cellular 5G, https://www.uscellular.com/plans/network-innovation/5g-technology (last
261
See CTIA Comments at 23-27.
262
Id. at 23.
263
DISH, DISH to Become National Facilities-based Wireless Carrier (Jul. 26, 2019), http://about.dish.com/2019-
07-26-DISH-to-Become-National-Facilities-based-Wireless-Carrier.
264
Starry, Starry Wins Licenses in the 24 GHz Band, Enabling Expansion to 40 Million Households Nationwide
(June 18, 2019), https://dyajmw2sca9cs.cloudfront.net/press/pdf/Starry+Auction+102+Results+-+FINAL.pdf.
265
See T-Mobile-Sprint Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 10589, 10810, para 26, Appx. G.
266
See id. at 10589, 10810, para 28, Appx. G, Attach. 1.
267
See id. at 10589, 10810, para 26, Appx. G.
268
See id.
269
See id. at 10589, 10810, para 28, Appx. G, Attach. 1.
55
investment trends, pricing, speed, and access to multiple providers. In addition, we will describe findings
from the latest Measuring Broadband America reports, which provide a snapshot of fixed broadband
Internet access service performance in the United States.
1. Overview of the Fixed Broadband Marketplace
83. Since the 2018 Communications Marketplace Report, more Americans have access to
fixed broadband services, and those who previously had access now have access to newer broadband
technologies capable of faster speeds. In particular, FCC Form 477 data shows an increase in fiber and
DOCSIS 3.1 cable broadband technologies available to residential consumers, both of which advertise
faster speeds than other technologies do. Additionally, the total number of providers has continued to
increase in both rural and urban areas.270 Subscribership is also on the rise, with total fixed connections
consistently increasing for the last five years. Most of the growth in subscribership can be attributed to
cable and fiber connections, Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) connections have decreased and satellite and
terrestrial fixed wireless connections have remained relatively constant. As income and population
density increase, the adoption of Internet services also increases for all speed tiers.
84. This Report analyzes three metrics commonly thought to be affected by competition in
the fixed broadband marketplace: speed, investment, and pricing. While actual speeds consumers
experience vary by connection technology, consumers continue to have access to faster speeds, and this
Report shows that connections capable of 100 Mbps have increased by a factor of six since 2015. In
terms of access to multiple providers, the Report shows that approximately 84% of Americans have at
least two options for 10/1 Mbps fixed terrestrial service; approximately 74% have at least two options for
25/3 Mbps fixed terrestrial service; approximately 67% have at least two options for 50/5 Mbps service;
approximately 55% have at least two options for 100/10 Mbps service; and approximately 35% have at
least two options for 250/25 Mbps service. Further, capital investment by service providers has increased
in recent years. FCC Form 477 data also show that deployment of newer technologies such as DOCSISI
3.1 has increased over the past few years. Pricing is a difficult metric to capture, as it is dependent on
many product characteristics and can change with time or bundle offer. This Report provides a snapshot
of prices for Internet-only packages. We show that as broadband speeds increase, so do prices across
cable, DSL, fiber, and fixed wireless technologies. For speeds under 150 Mbps, cable is generally less
expensive and terrestrial fixed wireless technologies are generally the most expensive.
a. Technologies Deployed
85. Consumers access the Internet through a variety of fixed technologies, including cable
broadband service, DSL, fiber to the premise, terrestrial fixed wireless service and satellite service. These
services differ in their availability and characteristics, such as price, speed, and latency.271 To compete
with other providers and to meet consumer’s expectations, providers are continually investing in network
upgrades and implementing technological developments that improve the quality of their services and
increase the speed of their networks.272
86. We primarily use FCC Form 477 data as of December 31, 2019 to assess the level of
deployment of fixed services. Consistent with previous findings by the Commission,273 the FCC Form
477 data are currently the most accurate and complete data available to the Commission for this
270
Most broadband service providers serve less than 1% of the U.S. population; and only ten providers serve more
than 5%.
271
Latency refers to the time it takes for a data packet to travel back and forth through the network.
272
The Tenth Measuring Broadband America Fixed Broadband Report and the Ninth Measuring Broadband
America are attached as Appx. D to this Report.
273
See 2020 Broadband Deployment Report, 35 FCC Rcd at 8997-98, para. 24; 2018 Communications Marketplace
Report, 33 FCC Rcd at 12651, para. 184.
56
analysis.274 For purposes of FCC Form 477 analysis, a census block is classified as served if the FCC
Form 477 deployment data indicate that service can be provided to some, even if not all, locations in the
census block. To give context to consumer purchase patterns of these technologies, we also provide an
overview of consumer subscription to these services. Figure II.B.1 reports, by technology, household
deployment estimates and residential connections for any speed reported in the FCC Form 477 data.275
Fig. II.B.1
Deployment (millions) and Total Residential Connections (millions) of Fixed Services in the United
States, by Technology, for Any Reported Speed (Dec. 31, 2019)
Deployment (Any Reported Speed) Residential
Technology
Households % Connections
Cable 111.176 88.8% 67.140
DOCSIS 3.1 105.023 83.9%
DSL 112.520 89.9% 17.551
Fiber (FTTP) 50.896 40.7% 16.681
Satellite Services 125.119 99.9% 1.795
Terrestrial Fixed Wireless 58.508 46.7% 1.493
87. Cable Broadband Service. Cable broadband service uses infrastructure originally
deployed for cable television to deliver broadband. This service is provisioned over coaxial cables that
deliver cable TV programming and Internet service on separate channels (or frequencies). Currently,
most providers of cable broadband service have deployed a hybrid fiber-coaxial (HFC) technology that
transmits signals over a fiber from the provider’s facility to an optical node near the consumer.276 These
providers typically use coaxial cable to send the signal from the optical node to the customer’s end
location. Data Over Cable Service Interface Specifications 3.1 (DOCSIS 3.1), the latest standard
currently deployed to approximately 84% of U.S. households, is capable of achieving 10 Gbps download
speed and a 1 Gbps upload speed. The weighted mean advertised download speed for subscribers
participating in the Commission’s Measuring Broadband America program was approximately 155
Mbps.277 The industry has recently released specifications for DOCSIS 4.0 which will enable multi-
gigabit symmetric services.278
88. DSL. DSL, the oldest broadband technology still in use, is commonly used by traditional
telephone companies, and transmits data via a modem over traditional copper telephone lines to
consumers.279 Although widely available because it is built on the existing telephone network, this
274
We recognize that improvements to such data are needed, and have undertaken such efforts as part of the Digital
Opportunity Data Collection, but that collection is not yet available for use in this Report. See generally Digital
Opportunity Data Collection proceeding.
275
The data presented in Fig. II.B.1 are for the States, District of Columbia and U.S. Territories. The FCC Form 477
deployment data are grouped into the following categories: cable (technology codes 40, 41, 42, and 43); DOCSIS
3.1 (technology code 43); DSL (all copper based services, i.e., technology codes 10, 11, 12, 20, and 30); fiber
(technology code 50); satellite (technology code 60); and terrestrial fixed wireless (technology code 70).
In contrast, the FCC Form 477 residential connection/subscriber data include only one response category for cable
services. This means that we cannot separately report residential connections to a DOCSIS 3.1 technology from
residential connections to older cable technologies. The maximum reported speed is capped at 1 gigabyte. As of
2019, there are 125.2 million households in the United States. FCC, Staff Block Estimates, https://FCC.gov/reports-
research/data/staff-block-estimates (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).
276
277
See infra Appx. D-2: Tenth Measuring Broadband America Report at 12.
278
NCTA Comments at 3. By gigabit service, we refer to service with a download speed of at least 1 Gbps.
279
57
service is generally slower than other types of broadband services.280 DSL service is limited by the
distance between the telephone provider’s central office and the consumer’s home such that the speed of
the service decreases as the distance between these two endpoints increases.281 The weighted mean
advertised download speed for subscribers participating in the Commission’s Measuring Broadband
America program was 13 Mbps.282
89. Fiber. Fiber-based Internet service may be provisioned by fiber-to-the-node (FTTN),
fiber-to-the-curb (FTTC), or fiber-to-the-premises (FTTP). FTTP uses optical fiber to deliver a signal
from the operator’s equipment to the residential customer.283 This service can offer the consumer the
highest speed among all currently available services because the fiber connects directly to the consumer’s
residence.284 In contrast, FTTN and FTTC services rely on a fiber-optic connection from a local central
office to the neighborhood (node or curb) and then a twisted-pair copper wiring from the node or utility
pole to the consumer’s home.285 FTTN and FTTC services are typically slower than FTTP services
because the connection to the consumer is over twisted-pair copper, although they are typically faster than
service provided entirely over copper.286 FTTN and FTTC services are reported in FCC Form 477 as DSL
service.287 The weighted mean advertised download speed for subscribers participating in the
Commission’s Measuring Broadband America program was 208 Mbps.288
90. Fixed Satellite Service. FSS is the transmitting and receiving of communications signals
from earth stations, including customer stations, that are located at fixed points on earth. The
Commission has allocated specific spectrum bands for FSS, most importantly, the C-, Ku-, and Ka-
bands.289 More recently, there also has been interest in use of the V-band frequencies.290 Examples of
280
281
2018 Communications Marketplace Report, 33 FCC Rcd at 12646, para. 175. FTTN and FTTC services are
reported in FCC Form 477 as DSL service because this service is ultimately delivered to the end-user via twisted-
pair copper wiring. FCC Form 477 Local Telephone Competition and Broadband Reporting Instructions for Filings
as of December 31, 2019 and Beyond, at 30.
282
283
2018 Communications Marketplace Report, 33 FCC Rcd at 12643-644, para.173.
284
See Internet Experts, Differences between FTTH, FTTC, and FTTN,
https://www.attinternetservice.com/resources/different-types-fiber/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).
285
See 2018 Communications Marketplace Report, 33 FCC Rcd at 12647, para. 176; Internet Experts, Differences
between FTTH, FTTC, and FTTN, https://www.attinternetservice.com/resources/different-types-fiber/ (last visited
Oct. 27, 2020); FCC Form 477 Local Telephone Competition and Broadband Reporting Instructions for Filings as of
December 31, 2019 and Beyond, at 30.
286
287
FCC Form 477 Local Telephone Competition and Broadband Reporting Instructions for Filings as of December
31, 2019 and Beyond, at 30.
288
289
47 CFR § 25.103. The conventional C-band refers to the 3700-4200 MHz (space-to-Earth) and 5925-6425 MHz
(Earth-to-space) FSS frequency bands, while the extended C-band refers to the 3600-3700 MHz (space-to-Earth),
5850-5925 MHz (Earth-to-space), and 6425–6725 MHz (Earth-to-space) FSS frequency bands. The conventional
Ku-band refers to the 11.7-12.2 GHz (space-to-Earth) and 14.0-14.5 (Earth-to-space) FSS frequency bands, while
the extended Ku-band refers to the 10.95-11.2 GHz (space-to-Earth), 11.45-11.7 GHz (space-to-Earth), and 13.75-
14.0 GHz (Earth-to-space) FSS frequency bands. The conventional Ka-band refers to the 18.3-18.8 GHz (space-to-
Earth), 19.7-20.2 GHz (space-to-Earth), 28.35-28.6 GHz (Earth-to-space), and 29.25-30.0 GHz (Earth-to-space)
frequency bands, which the Commission has designated as primary for GSO FSS operation. 47 CFR § 25.103.
290
We use the term “V-band” to refer to frequencies ranging from 37.5 GHz to 52.4 GHz, although there is no
domestic allocation for satellite services in 42.0-42.5 GHz band and there is no domestic or international allocation
for satellite services in the 51.4- 52.4 GHz frequency band. We have recently approved applications for V-band
(continued….)
58
FSS offerings include wholesale transponder services,291 managed services (also known as enterprise
services), and consumer broadband services. One of the benefits of satellite technology is its ability to
deliver services in remote areas that are unserved or underserved by terrestrial services, and satellite can
play a key role in delivering services in disaster areas, e.g., Puerto Rico in the aftermath of the 2017
hurricane season.292
91. Terrestrial Fixed Wireless Broadband. Terrestrial fixed wireless providers deliver
broadband service to consumers using licensed, unlicensed and shared access spectrum while often
relying on fiber optics to form parts of the rest of their network infrastructure.293 Terrestrial fixed wireless
providers receive broadband content from an external distribution point via fiber or microwave
connections.294 They deliver service to a customer’s fixed antenna from wireless transmitters on towers
that transmit the signal via licensed, shared access spectrum or unlicensed spectrum.295 In some instances,
this technology is capable of delivering gigabit speed services.296 One terrestrial fixed wireless provider,
Starry, currently advertises 200 Mbps service and is rolling out a point-to-multipoint technology that will
deliver gigabit-capable service to the home.297
b. Service Providers
92. Fixed Terrestrial. As of December 2019, there were 2,052 entities of varying sizes and
deployment footprints that reported providing fixed broadband services to residential consumers.298
Figure II.B.2 presents the number of total providers, as well as the number of providers in rural and urban
areas, from June 2014 through December 2019.299 The total number of providers has consistently
increased period over period, and has grown by approximately 26% since June 2014. The growth in the
systems in portions of 37.5-50.2 GHz frequency range. See, e.g., O3b Modification Order, 33 FCC Rcd at 5519-20,
para. 30; Audacy Corporation; Application for Authority to Launch and Operate a Non-Geostationary Medium
Earth Orbit Satellite System in the Fixed- and Inter-Satellite Services, Order and Authorization, 33 FCC Rcd 5554,
5562, para. 20 (2018); Policy Branch Information, Satellite Space Applications Actions Taken, IBFS File Nos. SAT-
LOA-20170621-00092 and SAT-AMD-20170908-00128, Public Notice, 33 FCC Rcd 2869 (2018) (granting in part
and deferring in part; deferring consideration of Hughes Network Systems’ request for operations in the 50.4-51.4
GHz band); Space Exploration Holdings, LLC; Application for Approval for Orbital Deployment and Operating
Authority for the SpaceX V-band NGSO Satellite System, 33 FCC Rcd 11434 (2018); Telesat Canada; Petition for
Declaratory Ruling to Grant Access to the U.S. Market for Telesat's V-Band NGSO Constellation, 33 FCC Rcd
11469 (2018).
291
A transponder is the part of a satellite that receives signals transmitted from earth stations to the antennas
onboard a satellite and retransmits these signals to the Earth. See Dennis Roddy, Satellite Communications 199 (4th
ed. 2006). The number of transponders onboard any given satellite may vary, ranging approximately from 24 to 72.
U.S. Government Accountability Office, Telecommunications: Competition, Capacity, and Costs in the Fixed
Satellite Services Industry, at 5 (Sept. 2011), https://www.gao.gov/assets/330/322861.pdf.
292
See SIA Comments at 15-16; SpaceX Comments at 1; SES and O3b Reply Comments at 3, 5-6.
293
See WISPA Comments at 6-8; 2018 Communications Marketplace Report, 33 FCC Rcd at 12647, para. 177.
294
Id.
295
Id.
296
297
Id.
298
The data for this section include U.S. territories.
299
We use FCC Form 477 deployment data for residential consumers. For a detailed description of the FCC Form
477 data collection, see Twentieth Wireless Competition Report, 32 FCC Rcd at 9015, para. 69. For purposes of
presenting estimates for rural and urban areas, in this section we aggregate all similarly categorized areas. The
designation of a census block as urban is based upon the 2010 Census. An urban census block encompasses all
population, housing, and territory included within a census block categorized as in an urban area or urban cluster. A
rural census block encompasses all population, housing, and territory not included within urban census blocks.
59
total number of providers is similar in urban and rural areas. Between June 2014 and December 2019, the
number of providers in urban areas and rural areas increased by approximately 30% and 25%,
respectively.
Fig. II.B.2
Total Providers of Residential Fixed Services Over Time
2,000
1,500
Total Providers
1,000
500
0
June Dec June Dec June Dec June Dec June Dec June Dec
2014 2014 2015 2015 2016 2016 2017 2017 2018 2018 2019 2019
Total Providers 1,634 1,687 1,697 1,718 1,758 1,800 1,834 1,895 1,916 1,996 2,012 2,052
Rural Providers 1,579 1,627 1,644 1,666 1,713 1,752 1,780 1,828 1,849 1,931 1,947 1,976
Urban Providers 1,248 1,310 1,331 1,340 1,387 1,426 1,458 1,505 1,525 1,581 1,596 1,623
Total Providers Rural Providers Urban Providers
Source: FCC Form 477 deployment data for residential consumers and 2010 Census data.
93. While there are over 2,000 providers of residential services, there is considerable
variation in provider size and deployment footprint. The overwhelming majority of providers each cover
less than 1% of the U.S. population. Figure II.B.3 shows that in December 2019, only ten providers
covered 5% or more of the U.S. population, based on their reported deployment data. As presented in
Figure II.B.4, these providers are AT&T, Comcast, Charter, Verizon, CenturyLink, Frontier, Cox, TDS,
JAB Wireless,300 and Altice. AT&T covered approximately 41% of the United States population, making
it the provider with the largest fixed broadband footprint, followed closely by Comcast and Charter,
covering approximately 36% and 33% of the U.S. population, respectively. Verizon reported coverage to
approximately 17% of the population, followed by CenturyLink at 16%, Frontier at 12%, and TDS at
10%. The remaining three providers each covered between 5% and 7% of the U.S population.
300
Fixed wireless technology accounts for the majority of the deployment footprint for TDS and JAB Wireless;
additionally 93% of TDS’ deployment footprint is from the fixed wireless operations of its U.S. Cellular subsidiary.
60
Fig. II.B.3
Total Providers of Residential Fixed Services of the United States
by Population Coverage (Dec. 31, 2019)
1000
912
900
800
700
Total Providers
600
533
500
432
400
300
200
137
100
15 4 1 2 0 0 1 1 1
0
Percent of U.S. Population
61
Fig. II.B.4
Top Ten Provider Footprints for Residential Fixed Services in the United States
by Population Coverage (Dec. 31, 2019)
45.0%
40.7%
40.0%
35.5%
35.0% 33.0%
Percent of US Population Covered
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
17.3%
16.2%
15.0%
11.5%
9.8%
10.0%
6.8% 6.7%
5.4%
5.0%
0.0%
AT&T Comcast Charter Verizon Century Frontier TDS Cox JAB Altice
Link Wireless USA
94. Figure II.B.5 shows the change in U.S. population coverage over time for each of the top
ten providers, as described above. For the most part, population coverage has remained constant over
time, with a few significant exceptions. For example, Charter jumped from approximately 9% population
coverage in June 2014 to 33% population coverage in June 2016 due to its acquisition of Time Warner
Cable and Bright House Networks.301 In addition, Frontier more than doubled its population coverage
between June 2014 and December 2019, from approximately 5% to 12%. This increase was primarily
driven by its acquisition of certain wireline operations from Verizon in 2016,302 and therefore largely
offset by a decrease in population covered by Verizon.
301
Commission Approves Charter, TWC and Bright House Merger, MB Docket No. 15-149, Memorandum Opinion
and Order, 31 FCC Rcd 6327, para. 1 (2016).
302
Transfer of Control Applications Granted for Frontier and Verizon, MB Docket No.15-44, Memorandum
Opinion and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 9812, para. 4 (2015).
62
Fig. II.B.5
Provider Population Coverage for Residential Fixed Services
in the United States Over Time
45%
40%
Percent of US Population Covered
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
AT&T Comcast Charter Verizon Century Link

Frontier TDS Cox JAB Wireless Altice USA
95. Figure II.B.6 shows a detailed breakdown of the technology composition of the ten
largest providers’ deployment footprints. As seen in Figure II.B.6, Comcast and Charter almost
exclusively provide fixed broadband through cable across their footprints. In contrast, AT&T provides
broadband access with a combination of technologies, covering approximately 96% of its service area
with DSL in addition to covering approximately 29% of its service area with FTTP. CenturyLink and
Frontier also each use a combination of technologies, covering almost their entire service areas with DSL
and also covering approximately one-fourth and one-third of their service areas with FTTP, respectively.
Verizon covers almost 64% of its footprint with fiber and also covers approximately 87% of its footprint
with DSL. TDS and JAB Wireless each cover approximately 6% of the U.S. population through
terrestrial fixed wireless (TFW) technologies, while Altice and Cox have a similar population coverage
but primarily through cable connections.
63
Fig. II.B.6
Technology Composition of Provider Footprint for Residential Fixed Services
in the United States (Dec. 31, 2019)
96. Satellite. Intelsat, SES, Eutelsat, Telesat, Hughes/Echostar,303 and ViaSat currently
provide nearly all of the satellite communications services in FSS spectrum in the United States.304
Telesat provides satellite services to the U.S. government, and provides Ka-band satellite capacity to
ViaSat, which uses the capacity to provide broadband services in the United States.305 ViaSat and
Hughes/EchoStar both provide wholesale and retail commercial broadband services to customers in the
United States.306 Intelsat, Telesat, SES, ViaSat, and EchoStar have high-throughput satellites serving
303
EchoStar provides its consumer broadband and managed services through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Hughes
Network Services.
304
Intelsat 2019 SEC Form 10-K at 5-21; SES 2019 Annual Report; Eutelsat, Satellites,
https://www.eutelsat.com/en/satellites.html (last visited Oct. 27, 2020); Telesat Canada 2019 SEC Form 20-F at 27-
37; Hughes Comments at 2-4; ViaSat 2019 SEC Form 10-K at 3-14.
305
Telesat Canada 2019 SEC Form 20-F at 34.
306
ViaSat 2019 SEC Form 10-K at 3; Hughes Comments at 2-3. Hughes states that it is “currently constructing its
next-generation, Commission-licensed, ultra-high-density satellite, EchoStar XXIV (also known as Jupiter 3), which
will provide service in the United States and throughout the Americas at speeds of 100 Mbps or more” and “is
expected to launch and begin commercial service in 2021.” Hughes Comments at 2.
64
North America.307 SES provides services using both Geostationary Orbit (GSO) and Medium Earth Orbit
(MEO) satellites.308
97. Some FSS operators supply managed network services,309 which are a complete, end-to-
end communications system that includes leased satellite bandwidth, ground facilities, terrestrial
transmission links, and management of the end-to-end communications service.310 Customers of managed
satellite services include U.S. and foreign government agencies, government contractors, and commercial
entities.311 Also, satellite provision of backhaul services is expected to grow in the coming years.312 FSS
operators in the United States provide transponder capacity for lease through complex contracts for
variable quantities of bandwidth, frequency, orbital location, geographic coverage, power, and length of
307
Through the use of small beams, high-throughput satellites are capable of reusing the same frequency band
multiple times over their coverage area. This allows the use of more spectrum for each of their small beams, making
higher throughput available anywhere in their coverage area. Satcom Post, Defining High Throughput Satellites
(HTS) (May 3, 2013), http://satcompost.com/defining-high-throughput-satellites-hts/; Hughes Network Systems,
LLC, The View from JUPITER: High-Throughput Satellite Systems at 2 (July 2013),
https://www.hughes.com/sites/hughes.com/files/2017-04/JUPITER_H50283_HR_08-01-13.pdf. For example,
ViaSat indicates that their “high-capacity satellite systems are designed to grow with increased global broadband
demand—enabling faster service speeds, higher quality and enhanced reliability.” ViaSat, High-Capacity Satellite
System: Transforming Satellite Broadband, https://www.viasat.com/products/high-capacity-satellites (last visited
Oct. 27, 2020).
308
SES combines GEO and MEO satellite constellations to provide service, and has proposed adding Low Earth
Orbit (LEO) satellites. “Our GEO HTS satellites combine with our O3b MEO fleet to create the industry's only
multi-orbit, multi-band services, including network resiliency, and intelligent application-aware load balancing
solutions.” SES, GEO HTS: Global reach with superior performance, https://www.ses.com/networks/networks-
and-platforms/geo-hts (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). SES launched and completed in 2019 its O3b Ka-band
constellation of 20 satellites in medium earth orbit, to provide lower latency broadband connectivity for mobile use.
SES plans to launch 7 next generation MEO O3b mPOWER satellites in 2021. SIA Comments at 9, 11-13; SES
2019 Annual Report at 22, 23, 34, 36; SpaceNews, SES details LEO constellation and expanded MEO constellation
to FCC (May 29, 2020), https://spacenews.com/ses-details-leo-constellation-and-expanded-meo-constellation-to-
fcc/.
309
See, e.g., SES, Managed Network Services, https://www.ses.com/networks/services/managed-network-services;
(last visited Oct. 27, 2020); Hughes, Hughes Managed Services, https://business.hughes.com/resources/collateral-
library/hughes-managed-services (last visited Oct. 27, 2020); Intelsat, INTELSATOne Flex,
http://www.intelsat.com/intelsatone-flex/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).
310
Examples of third-party providers of managed services include Digisat International Inc., Speedcast International
Limited, and Artel, LLC. See Digisat, Satellite Communications Network Management Services,
https://www.digisat.org/managed-network-services (last visited Oct. 27, 2020); Speedcast, Managed Network
Solutions, https://www.speedcastgov.com/our-solution/managed-network-services/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).
Artel, HISPASAT’s Amazonas Nexus Satellite will embed the Pathfinder 2 mission for the United States Space Force
(June 24, 2020) (“For 30 years, Artel has provided secure network communication services to Federal Government
agencies. … Artel is a carrier-agnostic network integrator – allowing us to develop customized solutions for our
customers.”), https://www.artelllc.com/hispasats-amazonas-nexus-satellite-will-embed-the-pathfinder-2-mission-for-
the-united-states-space-force/.
311
See, e.g., Third Report and Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions with Respect to Domestic and
International Satellite Communications Services; Report and Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions with
Respect to Domestic and International Satellite Communications Services, IB Docket Nos. 09-16, 10-99, Third
Report, 26 FCC Rcd 17284, 17304, para. 41-42 (2011) (Third Satellite Competition Report) (noting that value-added
resellers provide managed services to government and corporate clients (e.g., U.S. Army, Federal Bureau of
Investigation, commercial shipping) that need communications in “thin markets” or need to extend the reach of their
corporate networks).
312
See Mark Holmes, Telcos Talk Bluntly About Satellite’s Backhaul Future, ViaSatellite (July 2020),
http://interactive.satellitetoday.com/via/july-2020/telcos-talk-bluntly-about-satellites-backhaul-future/.
65
service of the transponders required by the customer.313 Many wholesale customers of FSS operators only
lease transponder capacity and self-supply their own earth stations and terrestrial links. Applications of
leased transponder capacity include point-to-point transponder capacity for use by providers of media
services, point-to-multipoint transmission of video programming to multichannel cable programming
distributors, and the transport of point-to-point telecommunications transmissions to terrestrial
telecommunications operators and corporate users.314 Leased transponders can also be used for the
provision of broadband to aircraft and vessels.
98. Satellite broadband providers, Hughes/Echostar and ViaSat, play a role in closing the
digital divide across the United States, especially in the most rural and remote areas of the country, where
it may be uneconomical to build terrestrial networks.315 These operators now serve a combined
approximately 2 million subscribers and, as their infrastructure expands, they are increasing the speeds
made available to consumers.316 The planned launches of next-generation GSO satellites Jupiter
3/EchoStar XXIV and ViaSat-3, and proposed low latency NGSO satellite constellations, may result in
higher-speed satellite broadband offerings in the future.317 Figure II.B.7 provides aggregated U.S. satellite
services revenues for 2013 to 2019 with respect to fixed satellite services.
Fig. II.B.7
U.S. Fixed Satellite Services Revenue (2013-2019)
Service Total Revenue ($ billions)
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Satellite Broadband 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.8 2.2 2.6
Managed Services318 3.4 3.5 3.8 4.1 4.7 4.9 5.1
Transponder 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2
Agreements319
Source: SIA Comments at 5, Appx. B; 2018 Communications Marketplace Report, 33 FCC Rcd at 12673,
Fig. F-1.320
c. Connections/Subscribers
99. The number of residential fixed connections in the United States increased approximately
14.5% from over 91 million connections in June 2015 to approximately 105 million connections in
313
See Third Satellite Competition Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 17292-99, paras. 15-35 (discussing complexities of output
produced by commercial satellite operators). The pricing of transponder services and the specific attributes of the
service to be supplied to the customer are bilaterally negotiated between the customer and the satellite operator. Id.
at 17291-92, para. 14.
314
See Third Satellite Competition Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 17296-97, paras. 26-28.
315
SIA Comments at 9-10.
316
Id. at 6-7, 9-10.
317
ViaSat 2019 SEC Form 10-K at 3-4; Echostar 2019 Annual Report at 4 (Mar. 18, 2020),
http://ir.echostar.com/static-files/51503a9e-9aea-40ae-8ed5-34e8f85c8703; Hughes, EchoStar XXIV,
https://www.hughes.com/technologies/hughes-high-throughput-satellite-constellation/echostar-xxiv (last visited Oct.
27, 2020); SIA Comments at 11-14.
318
According to SIA, the revenue represented for “Managed Services” includes VSAT, mobility, and in-flight
connectivity. Id. at 22.
319
According to SIA, the revenue represented for “Transponder Agreements” includes capacity for direct-to-home
satellite TV and some mobility service platforms. Id. at 22.
320
SIA Ex Parte, Attach. SIA estimates that the U.S. share of global satellite services revenue in 2019 was 41%. Id.
SIA’s estimate of global satellite services revenue includes revenue derived from direct-to-consumer retail services
(e.g., satellite TV, radio, and broadband), fixed and mobile satellite services, and remote sensing services. Id.
66
December 2019. The number of connections over time—overall and by technology—are presented in
Figure II.B.8. Connections have increased for all technologies except DSL, for which the number of
connections has decreased in every reporting period, and satellite, which has had periods of both growth
and decline during the reporting period. FTTP has experienced approximately 89% subscriber growth
since 2015, making it the fastest growing technology available to residential consumers. Figure II.B.9
shows the percentage of total residential fixed connections that each technology represents, from June
2015 to December 2019. Cable continued to be the dominant technology of residential fixed broadband
subscriptions throughout this period of time. In December 2019, approximately 64% of fixed residential
connections were cable, 17% were DSL, 16% were FTTP, and the remaining 3% were a combination of
satellite, terrestrial fixed wireless, and other technologies.
Fig. II.B.8
Residential Connections over 200 kbps in at Least One Direction 2015-2019 (in thousands)321
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Technology Jun Dec Jun Dec Jun Dec Jun Dec Jun Dec
aDSL 26,157 25,139 24,486 23,691 22,774 21,653 20,671 19,692 18,280 17,476
sDSL 18 16 10 8 12 9 9 4 4 5
Other
59 54 51 32 74 67 74 74 61 74
Wireline322
Cable 53,544 55,799 57,358 59,145 59,687 61,567 62,320 63,802 65,476 67,140
FTTP 8,842 9,592 10,140 10,956 11,776 12,702 13,663 14,632 16,025 16,681
Satellite 1,875 1,891 1,897 1,676 1,637 1,688 1,751 1,787 1,805 1,795
Fixed
944 943 1,059 1,100 1,112 1,160 1,270 1,330 1,409 1,509
Wireless
Total Fixed 91,439 93,434 95,001 96,607 97,071 98,847 99,758 101,321 103,059 104,680
Source: Staff calculations based on FCC Form 477 data.
321
FCC Form 477 defines an Internet access connection as a wired line or wireless channel that terminates at an end-
user location or mobile device and enables the end user to receive information from and/or send information to the
Internet at information transfer rates exceeding 200 kilobits per second (kbps) in at least one direction. This
definition is outlined in the Code of Federal Regulations regarding the scope and content of filed reports. See 65 FR
19684, Apr. 12, 2000; 65 FR 24654, Apr. 27, 2000, as amended at 67 FR 13224, Mar. 21, 2002.
322
Other wireline includes: all copper-wire based technologies other than xDSL (examples include Ethernet over
copper and T-1); additionally, power line technologies are included in this category to maintain confidentiality.
67
Fig. II.B.9
Residential Connections over 200 kbps in at Least One Direction by Technology 2015-2019
100% 3.1% 3.1% 3.2% 2.9% 2.9% 3.0% 3.1% 3.1% 3.2% 3.2%
9.7% 10.3% 10.7% 11.3% 12.1% 12.9%
90% 13.7% 14.4% 15.5% 15.9%
Percentage of Residential Fixed Connections
80%
70%
60%
58.6% 59.7% 60.4% 61.2% 61.5% 62.3% 62.5%
50% 63.0% 63.5% 64.1%
40%
30%
20%
28.6% 26.9% 25.8% 24.5% 23.5% 21.9%
10% 20.7% 19.4% 17.7% 16.7%
0%
June 2015 Dec 2015 June 2016 Dec 2016 June 2017 Dec 2017 June 2018 Dec 2018 June 2019 Dec 2019
DSL Cable FTTP All Other

100. Figure II.B.10 below shows the total number of residential subscribers of each company
as reported on their SEC Form 10-Ks filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.323 These five
companies—Charter, CenturyLink, Frontier, AT&T, and Comcast—along with Verizon,324 have the
largest population coverage for residential fixed services.325
Fig. II.B.10
Total Residential Subscribers for the Largest Public Providers (in millions)
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Charter 5.2 21.4 22.5 23.6 24.9
CenturyLink 6.0 5.9 5.7 4.7 4.8
Frontier 2.5 4.3 3.9 3.7 3.5
AT&T 12.4 12.9 14.5 14.8 14.7
Comcast 21.6 22.8 23.9 25.1 26.4
323
All 10-K data were accessed through the SEC website. SEC, EDGAR Company Filings,
https://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/companysearch.html, (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).
324
Verizon does not disclose the total number of customers they have for fixed services in its 10-K. Verizon 2019
SEC Form 10-K, https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/732712/000073271220000014/a2019q410-
k.htm.
325
See section II.B.1.
68
d. Adoption Rates
101. Residential connections vary by location and largely depend on the underlying population
of an area. Figure II.B.11 shows the ratio of total residential connections over 200 kbps to total
households for each state, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The darker the shaded area, the
more households have residential Internet connections in a state. The ratio varies from 0.39 for Puerto
Rico to 1.02 for Hawaii.326 Mississippi has the lowest connections per household of any state with a ratio
of 0.66.
Fig. II.B.11
Residential Fixed Connections over 200 kbps per Household by State (Dec. 31, 2019)
Source: Staff calculations based on FCC Form 477 data as of December 31, 2019 and ACS 5-year estimates;
Census 2010.
102. Our assessment of adoption from 2015-2019 is based upon FCC Form 477
subscriber/connection data that are collected at the census tract level and FCC Form 477 deployment data
that is collected at the census block level. For this analysis, we aggregate data up to the geographic level
reported in each of the figure, e.g., the United States, the tract level, or the county. We evaluate the
adoption of fixed terrestrial services at speeds of 10/1 Mbps, 25/3 Mbps, 50/5 Mbps, 100/10 Mbps, and
250/25 Mbps. The reported adoption rates are the number of residential connections divided by the
number of households in the area where the FCC Form 477 deployment data indicate that fixed terrestrial
services of at least the designated speed are deployed.
326
The denominator for these calculations is a different data source than the numerator; the ACS population data is
used to normalize values between states, but the reporting years can be different than the FCC Form 477 reporting
year. Normalizing values between two different data sources can result in values exceeding 1, and should not be
interpreted as more connections than households.
69
103. Figure II.B.12 reports adoption rates based upon year-end data from 2015 to 2019 for the
United States as a whole (excluding the U.S. Territories),327 urban and non-urban core areas,328 and Tribal
lands.329 Figure II.B.12 shows year-to-year increases in the adoption of broadband services across the
vast majority of areas, including Tribal lands.
327
We exclude data from the U.S. Territories when showing the five-year progression of deployment and adoption
of broadband services because of anomalies in the historical data for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands whose
population account for over 92% of the total combined population of the U.S. Territories. The historical data
suggest a 21.7 percentage point increase in deployment between 2015 and 2016. 2020 Broadband Deployment
Report, 35 FCC Rcd at 8998, para. 28 & n.95. The year-end 2017 deployment data most likely significantly
overstate deployment in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands at that time because the data do not reflect
infrastructure damage caused by Hurricanes Maria and Irma. We include data from the U.S. Territories in figures
that report data since 2018 only as we believe these FCC Form 477 data collections provide reliable estimates for the
U.S. Territories.
328
Connection data are reported at the census tract level. We aggregate deployment data up to the census tract to
identify urban core and non-urban core areas. A census tract is designated as “Urban Core” if it has a land area less
than three square miles and a population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile. A census tract is
designated as “Non-Urban Core” if we have not designated the census tract as Urban Core.
329
A census tract is designated Tribal lands if more than 50% of the land area is Tribal land. For purposes of the
analysis of Tribal lands in this Report, we use the definition that was used in the 2018 Commercial Marketplace
Report and in the Commission’s Broadband Deployment Reports since 2012. See 2018 Communications
Marketplace Report, 33 FCC Rcd at 12652, para. 187 & n.598; Inquiry Concerning Deployment of Advanced
Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, GN Docket No. 11-121
Eighth Broadband Progress Report, 27 FCC Rcd 10342, 10414-15 (2012). We acknowledge that the Commission
has used other definitions of Tribal lands. See, e.g., 2.5 GHz Report and Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 5465-66, paras. 51-
55 (2019), Bridging the Digital Divide for Low-Income Consumers, Fourth Report and Order, Order on
Reconsideration, Memorandum Opinion and Order, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and Notice of Inquiry, 32 FCC
Rcd 10475 (2017); Connect America Fund et al., Report and Order, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and
Order on Reconsideration, 33 FCC Rcd 11893, 11910-11, para. 55 & n.122 (2018); Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau Announces Procedures for 2.5 GHz Rural Tribal Priority Window, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 308, 313,
para. 19 (WTB 2020) (2.5 GHz Tribal Priority Window Public Notice). However, for purposes of this Report, we
maintain our definition as previously employed.
Our assessment of Tribal lands in this Report begins by examining the census blocks that have been coded by the
Census Bureau as federally recognized Tribal lands for the 2010 Census. These areas fall into one of the following
American Indian Area/Alaska Native Area/Hawaiian Home Land Class Code categories: (1) Joint Use Areas;
(2) legal federally recognized American Indian area consisting of reservation and associated off-reservation trust
land; (3) legal federally recognized American Indian area consisting of reservation only; (4) legal federally
recognized American Indian area consisting of off-reservation trust land only; (5) statistical American Indian area
defined for a federally recognized Tribe that does not have reservation or off-reservation trust land, specifically a
Tribal designated statistical area (TDSA) or Oklahoma Tribal Statistical Area (OTSA); (6) Alaskan Native village
statistical area; and (7) Hawaiian Home Lands established by the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1921. We
exclude state recognized areas from the analysis of Tribal lands. We note that the Tribal Statistical Areas are largely
in Oklahoma, but they also include areas in California, New York, and Washington. To assess adoption rates on
Tribal lands we designate a census tract as Tribal lands if more than 50% of the land area is Tribal land.
70
Fig. II.B.12
Overall Adoption Rate for Fixed Terrestrial Services at Different Speed Tiers
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
10/1 Mbps
United States330 62.2% 66.3% 69.7% 73.3% 77.0%
Non-Urban Core Areas 55.8% 60.3% 63.5% 67.4% 71.8%
Urban Core Areas 67.0% 71.0% 74.7% 78.1% 81.4%
Tribal Lands 42.4% 43.1% 46.3% 51.2% 55.5%
Urban Core Areas 56.8% 59.1% 62.3% 68.1% 71.1%
25/3 Mbps
United States 48.1% 53.5% 60.2% 65.1% 69.4%
Urban Core Areas 51.5% 56.9% 64.0% 69.2% 73.3%
Tribal Lands 31.7% 33.4% 37.9% 44.0% 46.5%
Urban Core Areas 37.1% 39.4% 45.1% 56.1% 61.8%
50/5 Mbps
United States 33.9% 44.4% 54.8% 60.6% 64.8%
Urban Core Areas 38.0% 46.7% 57.7% 63.8% 67.7%
Tribal Lands 25.0% 28.9% 34.2% 37.8% 42.4%
Urban Core Areas 32.0% 34.9% 40.5% 45.6% 50.3%
100/10 Mbps
United States 16.7% 19.2% 29.6% 45.7% 50.9%
Urban Core Areas 16.9% 20.0% 31.4% 46.6% 51.5%
Tribal Lands 7.4% 10.5% 18.3% 30.2% 36.2%
Urban Core Areas 8.7% 11.6% 20.4% 37.3% 42.5%
250/25 Mbps
United States 4.2% 1.8% 4.1% 5.5% 9.1%
Urban Core Areas 3.1% 1.6% 4.1% 5.8% 9.7%
Tribal Lands 1.4% 1.8% 4.4% 7.5% 11.5%
Urban Core Areas 0.2% 1.5% 4.3% 6.7% 11.0%
104. Figure II.B.13 reports average county-level adoption rates for fixed terrestrial services
against the quartile ranking for median household income, population density, the poverty rate and the
proportion of the population that resides in a rural area.331 The data are further disaggregated by speed
tier.332 In general, these data suggest that the average household adoption rate in a county increases with
median household income and population density, and decreases with increases in the poverty rate and
rural population rate.333
71
330
We present adoption data for each state, U.S. Territory, and the District of Columbia in Appx. C-1.
331
This demographic analysis is based upon county level adoption rates and the ACS Five-Year Estimates 2014-
2018 for income and poverty measures for county-level data for the states, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico
(income measures are not available for the other U.S. Territories). Median household income is based on 2018 data
and is measured in 2018 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars. The household poverty rate is the proportion of households
living below the poverty level. The ACS Five-Year Estimates for 2015-2019 will not be released until December
10, 2020. U.S. Census Bureau, 2019 Data Release Schedule (Mar. 3, 2020), https://www.census.gov/programs-
surveys/acs/news/data-releases/2019/release-schedule.html. Population Density is the total population residing in the
county as of 2019 divided by the square miles of land in the county, where the estimate of land area is based upon
the 2010 Census. The proportion of the population residing in a rural area is the total population residing in the
county rural census block (based on the 2010 Census) divided by the total population in the county. A rural census
block encompasses all population, housing and territory not identified as an urban census block in the 2010 Census.
332
We note that this analysis is based upon the best data currently available and may not accurately reflect how
adoption may be associated with the subscriber’s demographic data. Our data is based upon the subscriber data
submitted by the providers, and we do not know the demographics of the providers’ subscribers to their fixed
broadband services.
333
The adoption of fixed terrestrial broadband varies across demographic groups and households with less income
are less likely to subscribe to a fixed broadband service for their home. See Pew Research Center,
Internet/Broadband Fact Sheet (June 12, 2019), https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/internet-
broadband/#who-has-home-broadband. Incomes tend to be lower in rural areas, and subscription to home
broadband services is generally lower in rural areas. See Michael J.R. Martin, Rural and Lower-Income Counties
Lag Nation in Internet Subscription (Dec. 13, 2018), https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2018/12/rural-and-
lower-income-counties-lag-nation-internet-subscription.html. Counties with a higher proportion of rural population
will tend to have lower population density because fewer people live in these counties than in counties with more
urban areas. In Figure II.B.12, the quartile with the lowest population density will likely correspond to the quartile
with the highest rural population rate. Thus, the observation that the average overall adoption rate for fixed
terrestrial services increases with population density is akin to the observation that the average overall adoption rate
for fixed terrestrial services decreases as the rural population rate increases.
72
Fig. II.B.13
Average County Overall Adoption Rate for Fixed Terrestrial Services by County Level
Demographic Variable (Dec. 31, 2019)334
100/10 250/25
10/1 Mbps 25/3 Mbps 50/5 Mbps Mbps Mbps
Median Household Income
First Quartile (Lowest Median
38.4% 28.3% 23.4% 20.2% 4.7%
Household Income)
Second Quartile 51.6% 41.6% 36.4% 31.0% 6.0%
Third Quartile 58.8% 47.6% 42.2% 35.2% 6.2%
Fourth Quartile (Highest Median
71.2% 61.3% 56.7% 43.8% 8.1%
Household Income)
Population Density
First Quartile (Lowest Population
48.8% 34.2% 26.8% 22.7% 8.0%
Density)
Second Quartile 43.9% 34.3% 30.1% 25.0% 4.8%
Third Quartile 55.1% 46.5% 42.6% 36.0% 5.0%
Fourth Quartile (Highest
72.0% 63.6% 58.8% 46.1% 7.8%
Population Density)
Household Poverty Rate
First Quartile (Lowest Household
67.2% 55.9% 50.9% 39.8% 7.6%
Poverty Rate)
Second Quartile 59.4% 48.7% 43.4% 36.0% 6.7%
Third Quartile 52.7% 43.1% 38.5% 33.1% 6.5%
Fourth Quartile (Highest
40.7% 31.1% 26.0% 21.5% 4.3%
Household Poverty Rate)
Rural Population Rate
First Quartile (Lowest Rural
71.0% 62.3% 57.3% 44.9% 8.0%
Population Rate)
Second Quartile 57.4% 47.8% 43.0% 36.1% 5.7%
Third Quartile 46.8% 37.0% 32.7% 27.7% 5.0%
Fourth Quartile (Highest Rural
44.6% 31.5% 25.2% 21.0% 6.5%
Population Rate)
2. Competition in Fixed Broadband

105. Internet service providers continue to invest in their networks to improve the quality and
availability of their services, typically in competition with each other.335 As we have explained
previously, our data understate the benefits that come from competition because: (1) fixed Internet
service providers have strong incentives, even when facing a single competitor, to capture customers or
induce greater use of their networks; and (2) competitive pressures often have spillover effects across a
given provider, meaning an Internet service provider facing competition broadly, if not universally, will
tend to treat customers that do not have a competitive choice as if they do.336
334
All data presented for the United States in Fig. II.B.13 exclude U.S. Territories other than Puerto Rico.
335
See Restoring Internet Freedom, WC Docket Nos. 17-108, 17-287, and 11-42, Declaratory Ruling, Report and
Order, and Order, 33 FCC Rcd 311, 385, paras. 126-27 (2017) (Restoring Internet Freedom Order).
336
Id. at 383-85, paras. 126-27.
73
a. Investment Trends
106. According to USTelecom, U.S. fixed broadband providers invested approximately $80
billion in CapEx in 2018, up from approximately $75 billion in 2016.337 Overall, broadband providers
have invested more than $1.7 trillion in CapEx since 1996.338 Multiple commenters cite this investment
as a sign of a competitive marketplace. For example, NCTA notes that cable operators now “offer gigabit
services to 80% of American consumers, up from just 9% in 2016.”339 NCTA also reports that “more
than 73% of the population has access to 25/3 Mbps terrestrial broadband service from a non-cable
service provider (fiber, DSL, or fixed wireless).”340 Further, even during the COVID-19 pandemic “over
99% of the customers of major cable operators have not experienced any material impact,”341 which
highlights the benefits of earlier investment. America’s Communications Association (ACA Connects)
notes that its members invest about $1 billion annually to upgrade networks, leading to decreases in the
price per Mbps for consumers.342
107. While deployment data are not synonymous with investment dollars, an increase in
investment likely leads to an increase in deployment, and also an increase in speeds deployed. Figure
II.B.14 shows how each fixed broadband technology covers the U.S. population over time. Investment in
technology and infrastructure is likely a large driver of the increase in the deployment of FTTP and cable
DOCSIS 3.1, two technologies that have considerable download speed capabilities.
337
USTelecom Comments, Attach. at 12, 26.
338
Id. at 12.
339
NCTA Comments at 3.
340
Id. at 4.
341
Id. at 7.
342
ACA Connects Comments at 4.
74
Fig. II.B.14
U.S. Population Coverage by Technology
100%
90%
80% DOCSIS 3.1
70%
Percentage of US Population
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
FTTP
10%
0%
All DSL All FTTP All Cable Cable DOCSIS 3.1 All Fixed Wireless
Source: FCC Form 477 data.

108. Access to FTTP and cable DOCSIS 3.1 differs in rural areas as compared to urban areas.
Figure II.B.15 shows the change in population coverage of FTTP and cable DOCSIS 3.1 technology in
rural, urban, and Tribal lands. The growth rate of FTTP coverage is similar in rural and urban areas:
Each area’s FTTP coverage has increased by a factor of over two since 2015. However, urban areas still
have approximately twice the percentage of population covered by FTTP than rural areas, which suggests
that providers may have invested more in FTTP technology in urban areas than in rural areas. Compared
to other technologies, DOCSIS 3.1 covers the largest number of individuals in the United States as of
2019, and has seen the largest increase in growth over the last five years, suggesting providers have
prioritized investment into DOCSIS 3.1 technology. The widespread deployment of this technology is
likely one of the drivers of the increase in access to 250/25 Mbps speeds, as it is capable of download
speeds up to 10 Gbps. However, there is disparity in where providers invest in this technology. Figure
II.B.15 shows approximately 90% of urban areas have access to DOCSIS 3.1, while approximately only
46% of rural areas and 43% of Tribal lands have access.343 We note, however, that the overall population
covered by cable technologies stayed relatively constant as seen in Figure II.B.14; this is due to
companies retiring older technologies as they deployed DOCSIS 3.1.
343
These deployment patterns correspond to speed availability metrics from the 2020 Broadband Deployment
Report, which shows approximately 94% of the urban population, 52% of the rural population, and 46% of the tribal
population have access to 250/25 Mbps. 2020 Broadband Deployment Report, 35 FCC Rcd at 9007-08, para. 41 &
Fig. 4.
75
Fig. II.B.15
Rural, Urban, and Tribal Population Coverage for Fiber and Cable DOCSIS 3.1 Technology
100%
90%
80%
Percentage of Population Covered
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Urban FTTP Urban DOCSIS 3.1 Rural FTTP

Rural DOCSIS 3.1 Tribal FTTP Tribal DOCSIS 3.1
Source: FCC Form 477 data and Census data.

b. Pricing
109. Pricing for fixed services depends on several factors, including speed tier, technology,
region of service, contract length, and an array of bundling options. USTelecom’s Broadband Pricing
Index compares the prices of both the most popular plans and the plans with the highest speed tiers
between 2015 and 2020, and find that prices for both categories have decreased considerably during this
time.344 Prices have fallen by over 20% for the largest providers’ most popular plans (which now average
16% faster speeds).345 Prices also have decreased for the providers’ highest speed offerings. Compared to
2015, these high-speed plans “are now priced 37.7% lower and offer 27.7% faster speeds in 2020 on an
averaged subscriber-weighted basis.”346 One of the underlying data sources for USTelecom’s pricing
index is the FCC’s Urban Rate Survey. The 2020 Urban Rate Survey reports the following weighted
means for prices of Internet-only packages: $60.30 per month for DSL, $80.67 per month for cable,
$86.48 per month for fixed wireless, and $102.63 per month for fiber.347
344
Arthur Menko, 2020 Broadband Pricing Index Report, USTelecom (Sept. 16, 2020),
https://www.ustelecom.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/USTelecom-2020-Broadband-Pricing-Index.pdf.
345
Id. at 3.
346
Id.
347
The underlying sample design and weighting methodology for the Urban Rate Survey can be found on the
survey’s homepage. FCC, Urban Rate Survey Data & Resources (July 2020), https://fcc.gov/economics-
analytics/industry-analysis-division/urban-rate-survey-data-resources.
76
110. To undertake our pricing analysis in this Report, we use BroadbandNow.com data.348
BroadbandNow.com collects price information from approximately 2,000 providers349 on a monthly basis,
from either the provider’s website or in some cases directly from the provider itself.350 The
BroadbandNow data provide information on 9,185 residential plans as of July 2020.351 We focus on
prices for Internet-only packages.352
111. Fig. II.B.16 shows the average monthly price and download speed by technology for
Internet-only plans, and indicates a positive relationship between price and download speed.353 On
average, for download speeds up to 150.9 Mbps, terrestrial fixed wireless plans are the most expensive,
followed by DSL plans, FTTP plans, and then cable plans, which are priced similarly for this speed range.
The price for terrestrial fixed wireless plans dips in the 151-500 Mbps range compared to slower speeds,
which is likely because there are very few plans for this technology that offer these higher speeds, and
therefore the small sample is limited to providers that offer lower prices.354 Only FTTP and cable plans
offer download speeds over 1 Gbps, and they cost significantly more per month than any other speed tier.
348
While BroadbandNow is an independent website, it does receive advertising revenue and/or a referral fee from
some of the companies whose information they provide. BroadbandNow, Advertiser Disclosure,
https://broadbandnow.com/advertising-disclosure (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).
349
BroadbandNow, The Complete List of Internet Providers in the United States, https://broadbandnow.com/All-
Providers (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).
350
We verified BroadbandNow prices by comparing them to data used in the International Broadband Data Report
which was manually collected by Commission staff. The International Broadband Data Report includes fixed
pricing set of plans across the top four providers of AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and Charter from Los Angeles and
Washington, DC, along with a manual collection of plans from each state capital.
351
Our final sample removed plans that were either part of a bundle, a package specific to a region, or missing non-
promotional prices. This resulted in a sample of 8,517 plans across 1,862 providers.
352
Google Fiber notes that “when providers offer discounts that are tied to the purchase of a bundle, it may distort
consumer understanding of the true price of the individual elements of that service. Consumers may believe that the
broadband element of their bundle is more expensive than it is because of how pricing is structured in a bundle.”
Google Fiber Comments at 7.
353
Average monthly price is a measure of the average monthly Internet-only plan prices after the promotion period
ends; both average monthly price and average promotional price are calculated by excluding $0 prices. Each plan
had a specific download and upload speed, but we grouped these plans by download speed into speed tiers based on
the download speed. Download tiers were chosen so that observations were smoothed across the groups.
354
Plans are grouped by the advertised maximum download speed, in Mbps. In the final sample, there are 16 plans
in the 151-500 Mbps range for terrestrial fixed wireless technology, compared to 98 in the 61-150.9 Mbps range,
358 in the 26-60.9 Mbps range, 554 in the 16-25.9 Mbps range, 878 in the 10-15.9 Mbps range, and 1,466 that are
less than 10 Mbps.
77
Fig. II.B.16
Average Monthly Price for Internet-Only Plans by Download Speed and Technology
Source: Published with permission of BroadbandNow.com.

112. Many providers offer introductory promotional rates for new customers, which can be
considerably discounted from the plan’s regular monthly price.355 Figure II.B.17 shows the average
promotional monthly price and the average non-promotional monthly price for each speed tier.356 On
average, the promotional monthly price is discounted by 32%. There is no evidence of promotional
pricing for plans with download speeds of over 1 Gbps. Packages with download speeds less than 10
Mbps have the least discounted promotional prices, averaging a 12% discount. Conversely, packages
with download speeds between 16 and 26 Mbps have the most discounted promotions, averaging a 41%
discount.
355
BroadbandNow, The Complete List of Internet Providers in the United States, https://broadbandnow.com/All-
Providers (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).
356
Promotional prices ranged from six months to a three-year promotion period. The promotional averages along
with the non-promotional averages exclude $0 values, which represented packages for which BroadbandNow did
not have data.
78
Fig. II.B.17
Promotional Price and Non-Promotional Price by Speed Tier
$284
$300
$250
$200
Average Monthly Price
$134
$150 $90 $99
$79 $82
$71 $85
$100 $54 $70
$63
$47 $44 $46 $51
$50
$0
$0
Speed Tier (in Mbps)
Promotional Price Non-Promotional Price
Source: Published with permission of Broadbandnow.com.

113. Figure II.B.18 illustrates the average monthly promotional price compared to the regular
monthly price for Internet-only cable, DSL, fiber (as described on the provider’s website),357 and
terrestrial fixed wireless packages. Terrestrial fixed wireless packages have the smallest discount for
promotional pricing, averaging an approximate 2% discount. DSL, fiber, and cable have average
promotional prices discounted by 30%, 26%, and 25% respectively.
357
Fiber plans are collected by BroadbandNow and categorized as fiber by the individual provider’s website. Thus,
it is possible FTTC, FTTN, and FTTP are all included in the fiber category.
79
Fig. II.B.18
Promotional Price and Non-Promotional Price by Technology
$94
$100
$90 $73 $74
$68
$80 $70 $72

$70
$60 $55
$47
$50
$40
$30
$20
$10
$0
Cable DSL FTTP Fixed Wireless
Technology
Promotional Price Non-Promotional Price
Source: Published with Permission of BroadbandNow.com.
114. Figure II.B.19 shows the average non-promotional monthly price for fixed technologies
for the top four Internet providers: AT&T, Charter, Comcast, and Verizon. These prices are limited to
Internet-only packages that are available throughout the provider’s service area.358 Of all the
technologies, cable plans have the widest range of prices and download speeds, and are all provided by
either Comcast or Charter. Charter’s 940 Mbps plan is the most expensive cable package, at $129.99, and
Comcast’s 15 Mbps plan is the cheapest cable plan, priced at $49.95. DSL technology only has two
speed plans: Verizon offers download speeds up to 15 Mbps and AT&T offers download speeds up to
100 Mbps; both plans are priced at $59.99. Unlike DSL, fiber exhibits far more variety in prices and
download speeds, with plans provided by Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast. Comcast has the most
expensive fiber plan, priced at $299.95 for download speeds up to 2 Gbps, while Verizon has the cheapest
fiber plan at $39.99 for speeds up to 200 Mbps.
358
This figure displays averages of non-promotional monthly prices; in some cases, BroadbandNow only had data
on promotional prices without a corresponding regular rate. In these cases, promotional prices were used when non-
promotional prices could not be found.
80
Fig. II.B.19
Average Monthly Prices for the Largest Four Providers of Fixed Services
350
$299.95
300
250
200
150
$129.99
$94.99
100 $77.95 $79.99 $79.99
$69.99 $69.99
$59.99 $59.99 $59.99 $69.99
$49.95 $59.99
50 $39.99
0
15 100 300 400 600 940 1000 15 100 200 400 940 1000 2000
Cable DSL FTTP
Technologies by Download Speeds

AT&T Charter Comcast Verizon
Source: Published with Permission of BroadbandNow.com.

c. Speed
115. Measuring Broadband America Report. Our assessment of non-price competition in
fixed broadband services considers quality measures including the actual speed of service experienced by
consumers, consistency of advertised speeds, latency, and packet loss. Each one of these measures
focuses on a different aspect of the consumer experience. Every page, image, and video on the Internet
comes to home devices as small pieces of data, or packets. Upload and download speed refer to
throughput, the rate at which packets reach their destination within a specific time period. Different types
of online applications require different minimum speeds. Speeds experienced by a consumer may
fluctuate during the day. This fluctuation is typically caused by increased traffic demand and the
resulting stress on different parts of the network infrastructure. A significant reduction in speed for more
than a few seconds can force a reduction in video resolution or an intermittent loss of service.
Consistency measures examine how dramatic these fluctuations are across a particular network.
Sometimes, because of the way networks are built and how much traffic they move, there can be delays in
how packets travel. Latency is the time it takes for a data packet to travel across a network from one
point on the network to another. Consumers using services with high latency may experience reduced
quality for interactive services, e.g., voice communications, video chat, video conferencing, and online
multiplayer games. Finally, packet loss measures the fraction of data packets sent that fail to be delivered
to the intended destination. If packet loss occurs with interactive services and streaming applications, it
may affect the consumer’s perceived quality of service. These aspects of consumer experience may affect
the consumer’s ultimate purchasing decision when multiple technology options are available, and
encourage ISPs to ensure high quality services.
81
116. This discussion summarizes results from the Commission’s recently released Tenth
Measuring Broadband America Report.359 The Tenth Measuring Broadband America Report provides a
snapshot of fixed broadband Internet access service performance in the United States. The Tenth
Measuring Broadband America Report is based on data collected from 12 ISP/technology configurations
between September 6 and October 3, 2019 (inclusive) and October 8 and 9, 2019 (inclusive).360 We
measure the network performance delivered on selected service tiers to a representative sample set of the
population. The thousands of volunteer panelists are drawn from subscribers of the ISPs serving a large
percentage of the residential marketplace in the United States.361 The results presented in the Tenth
Measuring Broadband America Report suggest that consumer experience varies noticeably with the
connection technology.362
117. Actual Speed. As reported, actual speed is the median speed experienced by the sampled
panelists within a specific speed tier, by ISP. Specifically, for each ISP, performance is measured by
weighting the median speed for each service tier by the number of subscribers in that tier.363 We continue
to find that consumers’ actual broadband service speeds are generally close to or exceed advertised
speeds.364 Of the 12 ISP/technology configurations included in the report,365 only Cincinnati Bell DSL (at
79%) performed below 90% of its advertised speed.366
118. Consistency of Service. We summarize two measures of consistency of service discussed
in the Tenth Measuring Broadband America Report. The first metric is the percentage of an ISP’s
sampled panelists who experience an actual monthly average download speed that was greater than 95%,
359
See generally Tenth Measuring Broadband America Fixed Broadband Report; see also Ninth Measuring
Broadband America Fixed Broadband Report. The Measuring Broadband America program is a rigorous, ongoing,
nationwide study of consumer broadband performance that relies upon a sample that aims to include those tiers that
constitute the top 80% of the subscriber base per ISP. Tenth Measuring Broadband America Report at 6. The Tenth
Measuring Broadband America Report is based on data gathered from over 2,900 volunteer panelists across the
United States, and includes only panelists that are subscribed to the tiers that were tested as part of the sample plan.
Tenth Measuring Broadband America Report, Technical Appendix at 6-8.
360
Tenth Measuring Broadband America Report at 6. The Tenth Measuring Broadband America Report is based
upon data for ten ISPs: CenturyLink, Charter, Cincinnati Bell, Comcast, Cox, Frontier, Mediacom, Optimum,
Verizon, and Windstream. Id. at 7. For the Ninth Measuring Broadband America Report, although AT&T did not
participate, the Commission continued to evaluate AT&T’s sets of tiers with sufficient numbers of panelists. Ninth
Measuring Broadband America Report, at 6, 20. The participants in the Ninth and Tenth Measuring Broadband
America Reports provide service by DSL, cable, or fiber (FTTP). Tenth Measuring Broadband America Report, at
10. Participation in the program by ISPs is voluntary. For purposes of satisfying the Commission’s transparency
requirements that apply to Internet service providers, fixed providers that choose to participate in the Measuring
Broadband America program may disclose their results as a sufficient representation of the actual performance their
customers can expect to experience. Restoring Internet Freedom Order, 33 FCC Rcd at 441, para. 222 & n.818.
361
Tenth Measuring Broadband America Report at 6.
362
Id. at 14-17.
363
Id. at 7.
364
Id. at 14-17, 29.
365
The ISP/technology configurations are: DSL (CenturyLink, Cincinnati Bell DSL, Frontier DSL, Windstream);
Cable (Altice Optimum, Charter, Comcast, Cox, and Mediacom); and Fiber (FTTP) (Cincinnati Bell, Frontier Fiber,
Hawaiian Telcom Fiber and Verizon Fiber). Tenth Measuring Broadband America Report at 10. AT&T, Hughes
Network Systems and Viasat/Exede have left the program. However, for the Ninth Measuring Broadband America
Report the Commission reported raw data results using lightweight tests for Hughes Network Systems and
Viasat/Exede. Ninth Measuring Broadband America Report at 20 & n.17; see also Ninth Measuring Broadband
America Report, Technical Appendix. Lightweight speed tests, as compared to standard tests, use one rather than
eight concurrent transfer control protocol sessions so as to provide less strain on consumer accounts that are data-
capped. Ninth Measuring Broadband America Report at 23.
366
Tenth Measuring Broadband America Report at 14, 27, 39.
82
between 80% and 95%, and less than 80% of advertised speeds. The seven best performing ISPs when
measured by this metric were Charter, Comcast, Cox, Mediacom, Optimum, Frontier-Fiber, and Verizon-
Fiber; more than 80% of their panelists were able to attain an actual median download speed of at least
95% of the advertised download speed.367
119. The second metric, the “80/80 consistent speed” metric, considers how speeds
experienced by an ISP’s sampled panelists vary during the day. The “80/80 consistent speed metric” is
the minimum actual speed experienced by 80% of the sampled panelists during at least 80% of the peak
usage period. Consistency of speed may be more important to consumers using applications that are both
high-bandwidth and sensitive to variations in actual speed such as video content.368 Measured by this
service metric, Charter, Comcast, Cox, Mediacom, Optimum, Frontier-Fiber, and Verizon-Fiber provided
greater than 90% of the advertised speed during peak usage period to more than 80% of panelists for more
than 80% of the time.369 In contrast, the 80/80 consistent download speed was 46% for Cincinnati Bell’s
DSL.370
120. Latency. The differences in median latency among terrestrial-based services are
relatively small and unlikely to affect the perceived quality of highly interactive applications (voice
communications, video chat, and interactive gaming). Thus, the median latencies ranged from 10 ms to
27 ms in our measurements (with the exception of CenturyLink-DSL and Cincinnati Bell-DSL which had
median latencies of 40 ms and 34 ms, respectively).371
121. Packet Loss. The Measuring Broadband America program denotes a packet to be lost if
the latency exceeds three seconds or if the packet is never received, and that a 1% standard for packet loss
is the point at which highly interactive applications such as Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) would
experience significant degradation.372 ISPs using fiber technologies have the lowest packet loss, while
ISPs using copper-based technologies, e.g., DSL, have the highest packet loss.373
122. Residential Connections and Speed. Figure II.B.20 shows total residential connections
grouped by advertised download speed tier, from June 2015 to December 2019. As of December 2019,
approximately 63% of the 105 million residential connections advertised download speeds of at least 100
Mbps. Thus, almost 66.4 million connections had access to download speeds of 100 Mbps in December
2019, which is more than 5.5 times the number of connections capable of 100 Mbps in June 2015. In
addition, the number of connections with download speeds less than 100 Mbps declined year over year.
367
Id. 16.
368
Id.
369
Id. at 16-17.
370
Id. at 17.
371
Id. Satellite providers no longer participate in the program; however, the Eighth Measuring Broadband America
Report stated that, “Technology-determined latencies are typically small for terrestrial broadband services and are
thus unlikely to affect the perceived quality of applications. The higher latencies of geostationary satellite-based
broadband services may impair the perceived quality of such highly interactive applications.” FCC, Eighth
Measuring Broadband America Fixed Broadband Report (2018) at 8, https://data.fcc.gov/download/measuring-
broadband-america/2018/2018-Fixed-Measuring-Broadband-America-Report.pdf.
372
Tenth Measuring Broadband America Report at 18.
373
Id.
83
Fig. II.B.20
Residential Fixed Connections by Download Speed 2015-2019
1.5 1.3
100.0 2.1 1.7 6.2
2.2 7.2
2.8 2.4 7.9
3.9 10.3 8.8
4.6 11.8
5.2 13.0 11.6 12.6
13.6 13.3
14.4 14.5
Residential Connections in Millions
80.0 15.6 16.2

19.0
18.0
20.8 20.9
21.4 21.0
22.4 24.6
60.0 23.1
31.2
36.8
40.0 36.4
38.5
37.2 66.4
35.6 57.4 60.9
49.9
20.0 39.0
28.2
23.6
14.9 17.7
11.9
0.0
June 2015 Dec 2015 June 2016 Dec 2016 June 2017 Dec 2017 June 2018 Dec 2018 June 2019 Dec 2019
At least 100 Mbps At least 25 Mbps & less than 100 Mbps
At least 10 Mbps & less than 25 Mbps At least 3 Mbps & less than 10 Mbps
Less than 3 Mbps

123. Figure II.B.21 shows a cross section of technology and download speed tiers for all
residential connections in the United States as of December, 2019. Approximately 81% of cable
connections can receive download speeds of at least 100 Mbps, while FTTP technology provides about
23% of its connections with download speeds in the 25 Mbps to 100 Mbps range, and about 68% of its
connections with speeds of 100 Mbps or more. Just under one-third of fixed terrestrial fixed wireless
connections fall in the 3 Mbps to 10 Mbps range, and DSL technology delivers download speeds between
10 Mbps and 25 Mbps to approximately 35% of its connections, and download speeds between 3 Mbps to
10 Mbps to approximately 28% of its connections. Satellite provides speeds between 10 Mbps and 25
Mbps to approximately 30% of its connections.
84
Fig. II.B.21
Residential Fixed Connections by Download Speed Tier and Technology
As of December 31, 2019 (in thousands)374
At least At least
Less At least 3 At least 25
1.5 Mbps 10 Mbps
than Mbps & Mbps & less At least 100
Technology & less & less Total
1.5 less than than 100 Mbps
than 3 than 25
Mbps 10 Mbps Mbps
Mbps Mbps
aDSL 383 701 4,893 6,194 4,951 354 17,476
sDSL 1 # 1 1 * * 5
Other Wireline^ # 1 3 6 8 57 74
Cable 23 17 399 3,508 8,780 54,413 67,140
FTTP 29 21 388 1,043 3,773 11,426 16,681
Satellite 22 3 61 538 * * 1,795
Fixed Wireless 29 73 446 537 316 108 1,501
Total 489 817 6,190 11,826 18,991 66,367 104,680
124. In terms of advertised download speeds available to the end user, Figure II.B.22 shows
that Comcast and Charter each provide 100 Mbps throughout their entire service area, and 500 Mbps to
approximately 97% and 99% of their service areas, respectively. Of the ten providers reported in Figure
II.B.22, only three (AT&T, Cox, and Altice) provide 1 Gbps to a substantial portion of their footprint.
Cox makes this speed tier available to approximately 99% of its service area; AT&T makes it available to
almost 30% of its service area; and Altice provides this speed to approximately 17% of its service area.
While Frontier and Verizon do not report 1 Gbps service within their service areas, Verizon does offer
500 Mbps to about 64% of its service area, and Frontier offers 100 Mbps to approximately 43% of its
service area. JAB Wireless and TDS tend not to offer speeds over 25 Mbps, largely because it is difficult
to do so through terrestrial fixed wireless technology.
374
# = Rounds to Zero; * = Data withheld to maintain firm confidentiality; ^ Power Line and Other are summarized
with Other Wireline to maintain confidentiality.
85
Fig. II.B.22
Available Download Speed within the Provider Footprint for Residential Fixed Services
in the United States (Dec. 31, 2019)
d. Access to Multiple Providers
125. We provide an assessment of the number of fixed broadband provider options available
to consumers in the United States and the U.S. Territories using FCC Form 477 deployment data as of
December 31, 2018 and December 31, 2019. Our analysis considers options for fixed terrestrial at five
minimum speed thresholds—10/1 Mbps, 25/3 Mbps, 50/5 Mbps, 100/10 Mbps, and 250/25 Mbps. Using
these data and ACS demographic data,375 we also analyze the demographics of areas where consumers
have access to multiple broadband providers.
126. Figures II.B.23 and II.B.24 report estimates of the percentage of the U.S. population
where FCC Form 477 data indicate that zero, one, two, and at least three providers of fixed terrestrial
broadband services are deployed as of December 31, 2018 and December 31, 2019. Focusing on the
population with access to two or more providers, the 2019 data show that approximately 84% of
Americans have at least 2 options for 10/1 Mbps fixed terrestrial service; approximately 74% have at least
two options for 25/3 Mbps fixed terrestrial service; approximately 67% have at least two options for 50/5
375
For this analysis, we examine population density, the number of households and median household income. We
rely upon the ACS Five-Year Estimates 2014-2018 for median household income (in 2018 inflation-adjusted
dollars) reported at the census block group level.
86
Mbps service; approximately 56% have at least two options for 100/10 Mbps service; and approximately
35% have at least 2 options for 250/25 Mbps service.376
Fig. II.B.23
Population (millions) by Provider Options for Fixed Terrestrial Services (Dec. 31, 2019)
10/1 Mbps 25/3 Mbps 50/5 Mbps 100/10 Mbps 250/25 Mbps
Providers pop. % pop. % pop. % pop. % pop. %
Zero 7.146 2.2% 14.520 4.4% 20.697 6.2% 27.520 8.3% 42.721 12.9%
One 46.309 14.0% 72.596 21.9% 89.659 27.0% 118.654 35.8% 172.548 52.0%
Two 153.411 46.2% 148.611 44.8% 150.411 45.3% 141.207 42.6% 103.394 31.2%
At Least 124.912 37.6% 96.051 29.0% 71.011 21.4% 44.396 13.4% 13.114 4.0%
Three
Fig. II.B.24
Providers pop. % pop. % pop. % pop. % pop. %
Zero 8.329 2.5% 18.310 5.5% 24.554 7.4% 32.223 9.7% 50.349 15.2%
One 51.198 15.5% 87.650 26.5% 102.548 31.0% 129.725 39.2% 179.582 54.3%
Two 161.009 48.7% 153.147 46.3% 152.212 46.0% 135.435 40.9% 89.391 27.0%
At Least 110.204 33.3% 71.632 21.7% 51.426 15.5% 33.357 10.1% 11.417 3.5%
Three
127. Comparing the data year over year also shows an increase in the service options available
for all speed tiers, where, for example, between 2018 and 2019, the percentage of the population with two
or more provider options offering 25/3 Mbps service increased from approximately 68% to approximately
74%. If we were to include satellite broadband in the analysis below, the FCC Form 477 data indicate
that nearly all areas in the country377 have access to satellite broadband as an alternative for fixed
terrestrial broadband service at both the 10/1 Mbps and 25/3 Mbps levels, but not yet at the higher speed
thresholds reported in the above figures.
128. We next evaluate the population estimates and the percentage of the population with
coverage of multiple fixed terrestrial broadband service providers in rural and urban areas, and on Tribal
lands.378 Our analysis of the population shows that, in general, more Americans had multiple provider
376
The percentage of the population with an estimated number of fixed terrestrial provider options in a census block
is equal to the population covered by the specific number of providers (e.g., zero, one, two, more than two) within
the geographic area divided by the total population in the census block. Throughout this section, percentages
provided may not sum to exactly 100% due to rounding.
377
The FCC Form 477 deployment data for satellite broadband indicate that satellite service offering 25/3 Mbps
speeds is available to all but 0.02% of the population. As we have previously noted, these data could overstate the
availability of satellite services. While satellite signal coverage may enable operators to offer services to wide
swaths of the country, overall satellite capacity may limit the number of consumers that can actually subscribe to
satellite service at any one time. 2020 Broadband Deployment Report, 35 FCC Rcd at 9000, para. 30 & n.99.
378
We separately provide estimates of the percentage of the population with multiple provider options for fixed
terrestrial broadband services, for each state, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territory, as of Dec. 31, 2019. See
(continued….)
87
options in 2019 than in 2018. For example, comparing Figures II.B.25 and II.B.26 below, there was
approximately an 8 percentage point increase between 2018 and 2019 for 25/3 Mbps service in rural
areas, and approximately a 5 percentage increase in urban areas. On Tribal lands, the change in the
percentage of the population with multiple provider options increased by over 7 percentage points for
25/3 Mbps service.
Fig. II.B.25
Providers POP. % POP. % POP. % POP. % POP. %
Rural Areas
Zero 4.854 7.4% 11.261 17.2% 16.364 25.1% 21.636 33.1% 29.024 44.4%
One 19.646 30.1% 26.063 39.9% 29.095 44.5% 30.991 47.4% 29.555 45.2%
Two 24.342 37.3% 19.265 29.5% 15.570 23.8% 10.947 16.8% 6.065 9.3%
At Least 16.481 25.2% 8.734 13.4% 4.294 6.6% 1.749 2.7% 0.679 1.0%
Three
Urban Areas
Zero 2.292 0.9% 3.260 1.2% 4.333 1.6% 5.884 2.2% 13.697 5.1%
One 26.663 10.0% 46.533 17.5% 60.564 22.7% 87.663 32.9% 142.993 53.7%
Two 129.069 48.4% 129.346 48.5% 134.840 50.6% 130.260 48.9% 97.330 36.5%
At Least 108.431 40.7% 87.317 32.8% 66.718 25.0% 42.647 16.0% 12.436 4.7%
Three
Tribal Lands
Zero 0.488 12.0% 0.849 20.9% 1.254 30.9% 1.470 36.3% 2.042 50.4%
One 1.367 33.7% 1.443 35.6% 1.639 40.4% 1.753 43.3% 1.608 39.7%
Two 1.278 31.5% 1.104 27.2% 1.030 25.4% 0.759 18.7% 0.390 9.6%
At Least 0.920 22.7% 0.657 16.2% 0.129 3.2% 0.070 1.7% 0.013 0.3%
Three
infra Appendices C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, and C-6. For these figures, we aggregate census blocks within a state by
competitor count category, i.e., we group census blocks within each state by the number of competitors in the census
block and then sum the population in these census blocks by competitor count category. The census blocks within a
state are aggregated by the number of provider options (zero, one, two, and at least three). We also provide
estimates of the percentage of the population residing in urban areas with multiple provider options fixed terrestrial
services, segmented by urban area type (urban clusters and urbanized areas). The Census Bureau categorizes census
blocks as part of an urbanized area, an urban cluster or neither (rural). Urbanized areas are areas with populations
over 50,000 and urban clusters are in areas with populations from 2500-50,000. Areas with fewer than 2500 people
are considered rural. See U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census Urban Area FAQs,
https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/reference/ua/2010ua_faqs.pdf (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). See also infra Appx.
C-7. Our assessment of Tribal lands is conducted by examining the census blocks that have been identified by the
Census Bureau as federally recognized Tribal lands for the 2010 Census.
88
Fig. II.B.26
Providers Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % Pop. %
Rural Areas
Zero 6.032 9.3% 14.398 22.2% 19.030 29.4% 24.272 37.5% 31.468 48.6%
One 21.210 32.8% 28.121 43.4% 29.808 46.0% 30.365 46.9% 28.311 43.7%
Two 24.156 37.3% 16.709 25.8% 13.237 20.4% 8.799 13.6% 4.567 7.1%
At Least 13.344 20.6% 5.515 8.5% 2.667 4.1% 1.306 2.0% 0.396 0.6%
Three
Urban Areas
Zero 2.297 0.9% 3.912 1.5% 5.524 2.1% 7.951 3.0% 18.881 7.1%
One 29.988 11.3% 59.529 22.4% 72.740 27.3% 99.360 37.4% 151.271 56.9%
Two 136.853 51.4% 136.438 51.3% 138.975 52.2% 126.636 47.6% 84.824 31.9%
At Least 96.860 36.4% 66.118 24.9% 48.758 18.3% 32.051 12.0% 11.021 4.1%
Three
Tribal Lands
Zero 0.527 13.1% 1.117 27.7% 1.400 34.7% 1.619 40.1% 2.202 54.5%
One 1.333 33.0% 1.458 36.1% 1.646 40.7% 1.814 44.9% 1.563 38.7%
Two 1.081 26.8% 0.929 23.0% 0.861 21.3% 0.554 13.7% 0.270 6.7%
At Least 1.098 27.2% 0.534 13.2% 0.132 3.3% 0.051 1.3% 0.005 0.1%
Three
129. Figures II.B.27 to II.B.31 present a demographic analysis of the average percentage of
the population with coverage for the number of provider options and speed tiers by population density
quartile, median household income quartile, and household count quartile.379 We observe that the number
of provider options increases with the number of households in the census block group, population
density, and median household income.380 In general, the census block groups in rural areas will have the
379
For these figures, we include only the areas for which we have complete data. We aggregate census blocks
within a census block group by competitor count category, that is, we group census blocks within a census block
group by the number of competitors and then sum the population in these census blocks by competitor count
category. The census blocks within a state are aggregated by provider number option groups (zero, one, two, and at
least three). The census block group is the smallest geographic area for which income data is available. We use the
ACS Five-Year Estimates 2014-2018 for income measures for the states, District of Columbia and Puerto Rico;
income measures are not available for the other U.S. Territories. Median household income is based on 2018 data
and is measured in 2018 inflation-adjusted dollars. Population Density is the total population residing in the census
block group as of 2018 divided by the square miles of land in the census block group, with the estimate of land area
is based upon the 2010 Census.
380
We use the ACS Five-Year Estimates 2014-2018 for income measures. Median household income in the past
twelve months is measured in 2018 inflation-adjusted dollars.
89
lowest population density and the lowest number of households, and are likely to have the largest
percentage of the population with zero provider options, i.e., no deployment of the reported service.381
Fig. II.B.27
Average Percentage of Population with Multiple Provider Options for 10/1 Mbps by Census Block
Group Demographic Variable (Dec. 31, 2019)
Zero One Two At Least Three
Population Density
First Quartile (Lowest Pop. Density) 7.1% 29.9% 37.4% 25.6%
Second Quartile 1.1% 14.2% 48.5% 36.2%

Third Quartile 0.6% 9.7% 47.1% 42.6%
Fourth Quartile (Highest Pop. Density) 0.5% 6.7% 52.0% 40.7%
Median Household Income ($2018)
First Quartile (Lowest Median Household 2.9% 19.6% 42.9% 34.6%
Income)
Second Quartile 3.0% 17.6% 43.9% 35.5%
Third Quartile 2.0% 13.9% 46.3% 37.8%
Fourth Quartile (Highest Median Household 0.9% 8.8% 52.2% 38.1%
Income)
Household Count
First Quartile (Lowest Household Count) 3.1% 17.5% 46.5% 32.9%
Second Quartile 2.3% 15.5% 46.2% 36.0%
Third Quartile 2.2% 15.0% 46.0% 36.8%
Fourth Quartile (Highest Household Count) 1.8% 12.6% 46.2% 39.4%
381
For these figures, we aggregate census blocks within a census block group by competitor count category, i.e., we
group census blocks within a census block group by the number of competitors and then sum the population in these
census blocks by competitor count category. The census blocks within a state are aggregated by provider number
option groups (zero, one, two, and more than two). The census block group is the smallest geographic area for
which income data are available.
90
Fig. II.B.28
Population Density
Second Quartile 1.8% 25.1% 47.0% 26.1%

Third Quartile 0.8% 16.9% 48.2% 34.0%
Income)
Second Quartile 6.9% 27.1% 41.2% 24.7%
Third Quartile 4.5% 23.4% 44.5% 27.6%
Income)
Household Count
Second Quartile 5.3% 24.7% 43.6% 26.3%
Third Quartile 4.9% 23.8% 43.8% 27.5%
91
Fig. II.B.29
Population Density
Second Quartile 2.3% 32.9% 47.1% 17.7%

Third Quartile 1.0% 22.5% 51.4% 25.0%
Income)
Second Quartile 9.7% 32.6% 40.7% 16.9%
Third Quartile 7.1% 28.9% 44.1% 19.9%
Income)
Household Count
Second Quartile 7.5% 30.2% 43.3% 19.0%
Third Quartile 6.9% 29.0% 43.7% 20.4%
92
Fig. II.B.30
Average Percentage of Population with Multiple Provider Options for 100/10 Mbps by Census
Block Group Demographic Variable (Dec. 31, 2019)
Population Density
Second Quartile 3.4% 44.7% 42.4% 9.5%

Third Quartile 1.3% 33.6% 50.3% 14.7%
Income)
Second Quartile 12.7% 40.6% 36.5% 10.1%
Third Quartile 9.8% 37.5% 40.5% 12.2%
Income)
Household Count
Second Quartile 9.9% 38.0% 39.8% 12.3%
Third Quartile 9.2% 37.2% 40.6% 13.0%
93
Fig. II.B.31
Average Percentage of Population with Multiple Provider Options for 250/25 Mbps by Census
Block Group Demographic Variable (Dec. 31, 2019)
Population Density
Second Quartile 8.7% 59.1% 29.1% 3.0%

Third Quartile 3.7% 54.2% 37.8% 4.3%
Income)
Second Quartile 19.0% 51.7% 26.0% 3.3%
Third Quartile 14.4% 52.2% 29.7% 3.8%
Income)
Household Count
Second Quartile 15.0% 50.4% 30.8% 3.8%
Third Quartile 14.1% 52.1% 30.1% 3.6%
3. Competition between Fixed and Mobile Broadband Service

130. In this section, we provide an assessment of competition between fixed and mobile
broadband services. We first describe the distribution of fixed and mobile Internet usage, including
trends in how consumers access the Internet. We then describe differences in service attributes, including
plan characteristics, that could lead consumers to subscribe to both fixed and mobile broadband or to
substitute one service for the other. Finally, we discuss technological and strategic developments that
likely affect competition between fixed and mobile broadband services.
131. Technological innovation and increased deployment in both the mobile wireless and
fixed broadband services markets have broadened consumers’ choices of how to access the Internet. In
the mobile wireless market, for example, the availability of average and median nationwide download
speeds in excess of 25 Mbps by the end of 2019 have meant that in parts of the United States, consumers
could rely on a mobile connection for a variety of data-intensive applications, including high quality
video, that previously required fixed broadband connectivity.382 Moreover, innovative business plans that
use unlicensed spectrum have led to entry into the mobile wireless market by traditionally fixed
382
See supra Fig. II.A.29. For instance, streaming high definition (HD) video generally requires a minimum
download speed in the 5-8 Mbps range. See FCC, Broadband Speed Guide,
https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/broadband-speed-guide (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). See also 2020
Broadband Deployment Report, 35 FCC Rcd at 8990, para. 11.
94
broadband service providers.383 Nevertheless, many households continue to subscribe to both fixed and
mobile broadband service,384 suggesting that these separate services offer benefits that are either
complementary or independent of each other.385
132. Distribution of fixed and mobile broadband subscribers. Based on 2019 ACS estimates,
of the estimated 122.8 million households in the United States, an estimated 106.4 million households
paid for an Internet service subscription.386 Approximately 95.8 million households paid for a cellular
data plan for a smartphone or other mobile device; 15 million of these cellular data households, which
represents 14% of all households with paid Internet subscriptions, relied on a mobile data plan as their
only means of access.387 In comparison, 86.9 million households subscribed to home fixed broadband
Internet service in 2019; 9.1 million of these fixed broadband households, which represents roughly 9%
of households with paid Internet subscriptions, relied on fixed broadband as their only means of access.388
As Figure II.B.32 shows, the mobile-only percentage has increased somewhat from roughly 13% in 2016
whereas the fixed-only percentage declined from roughly 14% in 2016. The figure indicates that the
relatively steeper decline in the fixed-only percentage compared to the relatively flat mobile-only
percentage contributed to an overall decline in the percentage of households that paid for a mobile or a
fixed subscription, but not for both.
383
See, e.g., CTIA Comments at 23-25; FSF Comments at 7-8. See also 2020 Broadband Deployment Report, 35
FCC Rcd at 8991, para. 12 (stating that “fixed broadband and mobile wireless broadband services are not functional
substitutes in all cases”).
384
See U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, Explore Data, https://data.census.gov/mdat/#/ (last
visited Oct. 27, 2020) (overlap between households subscribing to both fixed and mobile broadband service can be
assessed using the “HISPEED” and “BROADBND” variables, as discussed below).
385
See, e.g., INCOMPAS Comments at 5-6; NTCA Comments at 1-3; Common Cause/NHMC Reply Comments at
3-4.
386
The ACS asks participants who indicate that they gain access to the Internet at their “house, apartment, or mobile
home” by “paying a cell phone company or Internet service provider” whether they, “or a member of [their]
household have access to the Internet using” a “broadband (high speed) Internet service such as cable, fiber optic, or
DSL service installed in [the] household,” “cellular data plan for a smartphone or other mobile device,” or other
means, including satellite or dial-up Internet. See U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, Why We Ask
Questions About Computer and Internet Use, https://www.census.gov/acs/www/about/why-we-ask-each-
question/computer/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). Answers to this survey question do not necessarily correspond with
the Commission’s current definition of advanced telecommunications capability. We note that an additional 3
million households connected to the Internet without a paid subscription. See 2020 Broadband Deployment Report,
35 FCC Rcd at 8987, para. 2 & n.2.
Estimates based on the ACS 1-Year Estimates – Public Use Microdata Sample for year 2019. U.S. Census
387
Bureau, American Community Survey, Explore Data, https://data.census.gov/mdat/#/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).
388
95
Fig. II.B.32
Percentage of Internet-Subscribing Households with Only One Type of Service
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2016-2019 ACS 1-Year Estimates – Public Use
Microdata Sample. Note: “Households Subscribing to One Internet Service” includes “Mobile Data Plan Only,”
“Fixed Broadband Only,” as well as “Satellite Only,” and “Other Only” subscriptions.
133. Figure II.B.33 contrasts the number of households with mobile broadband, fixed
broadband, or any kind of paid Internet subscription, to, respectively, households that pay for services
other than mobile broadband, households that pay for services other than fixed broadband, or households
that do not have Internet service. The figure indicates that growth in mobile data subscribership helps
explain the overall decline in single subscription households.
96
Fig. II.B.33
Total Number and Percentage of Households Accessing the Internet by Technology389
2016 2017 2018 2019
Internet Subscribing Yes 81,016,923 87,137,750 92,022,014 95,803,806
Households with No 16,286,855 13,594,218 11,747,750 10,589,173
Mobile Data 83.3% 86.5% 88.7% 90.0%
Internet Subscribing Yes 80,039,346 82,742,020 84,693,323 86,927,655
Households with Fixed No 17,264,432 17,989,948 19,076,441 19,465,324
Broadband 82.3% 82.1% 81.6% 81.7%
Paid Internet Yes 97,303,778 100,731,968 103,769,764 106,392,979
Subscription Using Any No 17,988,722 15,941,035 14,468,294 13,392,836
Technology 84.4% 86.3% 87.8% 88.8%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2019 ACS 1-Year Estimates - Public Use Microdata
Sample.
134. The increase in mobile-only households shown in Figure II.B.32 is consistent with
findings from Pew Research. Pew reported that in 2019, 37% of Americans mostly use a smartphone
when accessing the Internet, a share that has nearly doubled from 19% in 2013.390 Among the 27% of
adults surveyed who indicated that they do not subscribe to home fixed broadband, 45% stated that a
smartphone does everything they need.391 Of the 27% of survey participants who did not subscribe to
home broadband in 2019, 17% were Americans who were smartphone-only Internet users and another
10% who did not use the Internet.392 The 17% smartphone-only Internet user figure represents a decline
from 20% in 2018, which marks a reversal of a generally increasing trend since 2013, when 8% of
Americans were smartphone-only Internet users.393 As Figure II.B.34 shows, the percentage of
smartphone-only Internet users is higher among groups with lower levels of broadband adoption,
including survey participants who were younger, black or Hispanic, or in lower income brackets.394
389
The first two categories, “Internet Subscribing Households with Mobile Data” and “Internet Subscribing
Households with Fixed Broadband” consist of households that paid for an Internet service. The third category,
“Paid Internet Subscription Using Any Technology,” consists of either households who paid for one or more Internet
subscriptions (“Yes”) or those who did not have Internet access (“No”).
390
Monica Anderson, Mobile Technology and Home Broadband 2019 (June 13, 2019),
https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/06/13/mobile-technology-and-home-broadband-2019/. This increasing
trend applies to all age groups surveyed by Pew, with younger age groups more likely to have said that they mostly
use a smartphone when accessing the Internet than older groups. For example, in 2019, 58% of adults aged 18-29,
47% of those aged 30-49, 27% of those aged 50-64, and 15% of those aged 65 or older responded that they mostly
use a smartphone when accessing the Internet. Id.
391
https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/06/13/mobile-technology-and-home-broadband-2019/. Pew notes that
this is an increase from 27% of adults who did not subscribe to home broadband in 2015. Id.
392
https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/06/13/mobile-technology-and-home-broadband-2019/; Pew Research
Center, Internet/Broadband Fact Sheet (June 12, 2019), https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/internet-
broadband/.
393
See Pew Mobile Fact Sheet (figure illustrating smartphone dependency over time).
394
https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/06/13/mobile-technology-and-home-broadband-2019/. See also Pew
Research Center, Internet/Broadband Fact Sheet (June 12, 2019), https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-
(continued….)
97
135. While the demographic trends reported in Figure II.B.34 suggest that some smartphone
Internet users nevertheless view fixed and mobile broadband as complementary or independent, and only
subscribe to mobile service out of budgetary considerations, additional Pew data suggest that many
smartphone-only subscribers view mobile broadband as a substitute. Specifically, 6 in 10 non-fixed-
broadband users say that they have never had fixed high-speed Internet service at home, and 80% say they
would not be interested in having fixed broadband at home in the future.395 We also note that, based on
ACS data, it is possible that substitution goes in both directions—that is, not only might some Internet
users view mobile broadband as a substitute for fixed broadband, but that fixed broadband may be viewed
by some as a substitute for mobile broadband as well.396
Fig. II.B.34
Smartphone-Only Internet Users by Demographic, Income, and Geographic Group
Source: Mobile Technology and Home Broadband 2019, Pew Research Center, Washington, D.C. (June
13, 2019), replicated from figure entitled “17% of Americans are ‘smartphone only’ Internet users.”
136. Service Attributes of Fixed and Mobile Broadband. A majority of Internet users
subscribe to both fixed and mobile service. For instance, approximately 81% of the 95.8 million ACS-
estimated mobile service subscribing households also subscribe to fixed broadband at home.397 This may
be driven by differences in quality and other plan characteristics, as well as complementary aspects of
fixed and mobile services.
sheet/internet-broadband/ (tracking smartphone dependence over time among subgroups by age, race, gender,
income, education, and community).
395
https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/06/13/mobile-technology-and-home-broadband-2019/.
396
Specifically, of an estimated 106.3 million households with smartphones, ACS estimates that only 92.8 million
households subscribe to a mobile data plan, with an estimated 7.4 million of the remaining households with a
smartphone not paying for Internet access, and 5.6 million subscribing to home fixed broadband. U.S. Census
Bureau, American Community Survey, Explore Data, https://data.census.gov/mdat/#/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).
Although some smartphone owners who indicated that they did not subscribe to a mobile data plan may have been
temporary non-subscribers—for instance, due to lack of income—others may prefer to rely exclusively on Wi-Fi at
home and elsewhere to access the Internet.
397
98
137. Certain commenters have emphasized that fixed broadband (particularly fiber) delivers
faster speeds and permits higher consumption before data caps set in at a lower Mbps price, whereas
mobile broadband offers the convenience of Internet access outside the home.398 For example, in mid-
2020, many mobile wireless 4G LTE-based “unlimited” plans stipulated that during times of network
congestion, subscribers would be deprioritized if they consumed beyond a limit that was typically set to
no greater than 100 GB.399 Most plans also capped the video streaming resolution to 480p.400 By
comparison, many major fixed broadband providers either do not have a data cap or cap access at close to
1 terabyte (TB), typically charging $10 for additional 50 GB increments.401
138. Among mobile wireless service providers, prices for unlimited plans were typically set at
$60 or more for the first line among nationwide facilities-based post-paid mobile wireless providers and
$50 or more among nationwide facilities-based pre-paid providers, with a lower per-line cost for
additional lines.402 By comparison, prices among terrestrial fixed wireless providers were more localized
and varied substantially with the advertised speed.403 Whereas terrestrial fixed wireless prices typically
apply to all devices at the connected premise (either through a physical connection or via Wi-Fi), mobile
hotspots that allow access to devices other than those added to the mobile wireless subscription typically
cost more, require a higher priced (premium) plan, or are limited in speed (e.g., to 3G).404
139. Speed tests also demonstrate that typical mobile broadband speeds are not yet comparable
to fixed broadband speeds. In section II.A.5.d, we find that speed tests showed nationwide mean and
median 4G LTE download speeds of, respectively, 36.3 Mbps and 26.2 Mbps in the second half of
2019.405 While such speeds are comparable to fixed broadband speeds in parts of the United States, they
are well below advertised speeds available in many locations, including, for instance, fiber-connected
homes, where advertised speeds can reach 1 Gbps.406 Higher speeds and greater data allowances lead
many subscribers to offload their traffic to Wi-Fi connected fixed broadband networks.407 For instance,
Cisco estimates that average North American Wi-Fi speeds were 56.8 Mbps, and projected to grow to
109.5 Mbps by 2023, whereas North American mobile speeds would increase from 27 Mbps to 58.4
398
See INCOMPAS Comments at 6; NTCA Comments at 3.
399
Matt Horne, The Best unlimited data plans in the US (October2020) (Oct. 1, 2020),
https://www.androidauthority.com/best-unlimited-data-plans-700314/.
400
See Matt Horne, The Best unlimited data plans in the US (October2020) (Oct. 1, 2020),
401
Dave Schafer and Peter Holslin, Which Internet Service Providers Have Data Caps? (Cara Haynes ed., Sept. 2,
2020), https://www.highspeedinternet.com/resources/which-internet-service-providers-have-data-caps.
402
See supra section II.A.4; see also Matt Horne, The Best unlimited data plans in the US (Nov. 2, 2020),
403
We note that advertised speed has also become a factor in mobile wireless pricing, with some service providers
charging more for 5G speeds. See Matt Horne, The Best unlimited data plans in the US (Nov. 2, 2020),
404
Matt Horne, The Best unlimited data plans in the US (Nov. 2, 2020), https://www.androidauthority.com/best-
unlimited-data-plans-700314/.
405
See supra section II.A.5.
406
For instance, FSF noted that 23% of Americans can access gigabit service and over 67% can access 500 Mbps
services as of the third quarter of 2019. FSF Comments at 9. See also Julia Tanberk, The State of Broadband in
America, Q3 2019 (Oct. 23, 2019), https://broadbandnow.com/research/q3-broadband-report-2019.
407
See NTCA Comments at 3; FSF Comments at 10; USTelecom Comments, Attach. at 34 (showing percent share
of U.S. IP Traffic over Wi-Fi).
99
Mbps during the same time period.408 By 2022, 59% of mobile data traffic is projected to be offloaded to
Wi-Fi,409 as additional spectrum is made available for unlicensed use and with projected increases in
mobile data consumption.410
140. Technological and Strategic Developments. Recent technological advancements and
entry from non-traditional providers of mobile broadband are likely to further bolster competition
between fixed and mobile broadband services. Two such developments are the transition to 5G and entry
by traditional providers of fixed broadband into the mobile broadband market.
141. The Commission has previously found that mobile wireless providers continue to
improve their networks, notably through the deployment of 5G technology, which may have performance
characteristics similar to fixed services in certain environments.411 As 5G networks become more widely
available and consumers transition to 5G-capable devices, mobile connections are expected to become
faster and more reliable.412 Existing mobile broadband service providers have already begun to deploy 5G
networks throughout the United States.413 Moreover, the Commission has taken a number of actions to
spur the development and deployment of 5G networks.414
142. In addition, major cable providers and other firms which have not previously provided
mobile broadband have begun to compete with mobile broadband providers using hybrid-MVNO
strategies.415 While such competitors continue to hold a relatively small market share, some have seen
their subscribership increase. For instance, Comcast has increased its number of mobile wireless
broadband subscribers from 1.2 million at the end of 2018 to 2.1 million by the end of 2019, and Charter
has increased its number from 134,000 at the end of 2018 to 1.1 million in 2019.416 By bundling their
408
Cisco, Cisco Annual Internet Report (2018–2023) at 17, Table 7, 18, Table 8 (Mar. 9, 2020),
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/executive-perspectives/annual-internet-report/white-paper-c11-
741490.html.
409
Cisco Systems, Cisco Visual Networking Index: Global Mobile Data Traffic Forecast Update, 2017-2022 at 17
(Feb. 2019), https://s3.amazonaws.com/media.mediapost.com/uploads/CiscoForecast.pdf.
410
See, e.g., Unlicensed Use of the 6 GHz Band; Expanding Flexible Use in Mid-Band Spectrum Between 3.7 and 24
GHz, ET Docket No. 18-295, GN Docket No. 17-183, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, 35 FCC Rcd 3852, 3853, para. 2 (2020) (6 GHz Report and Order and FNPRM).
411
2020 Broadband Deployment Report, 35 FCC Rcd at 8990, para. 11.
412
See, e.g., GSMA—Global System for Mobile Communications Association, The 5G Guide: A Reference For
Operators at 29 (Apr. 2019), https://www.gsma.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/The-5G-
Guide_GSMA_2019_04_29_compressed.pdf.
413
See Stephen Schenck, Every 5G City and Region for Every Major Carrier in the US (Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile,
and Sprint) (July 16, 2020), https://www.androidpolice.com/2020/03/05/verizon-att-sprint-tmobile-5g-cities/; see
also Sarah Barry James & Taimoor Tariq, As 5G goes nationwide, US carriers’ capex, spectrum plans come into
focus (Mar. 5, 2020), S&P Global Market Intelligence, https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-
insights/latest-news-headlines/as-5g-goes-nationwide-us-carriers-capex-spectrum-plans-come-into-focus-57403396;
Press Release, AT&T, AT&T Continues to Build 5G on the Nation’s Best Wireless Network (July, 23, 2020)
https://about.att.com/newsroom/2020/5g_announcements.html; Press Release, Verizon Wireless, Verizon 5G Ultra
Wideband service available in more cities (Oct. 14, 2020) https://www.verizon.com/about/news/verizon-5g-ultra-
wideband-service-available-more-cities.
As a condition of its merger with Sprint, T-Mobile has committed to provide 5G coverage to 99% of the population
within six years, including serving 90% of the rural population with download speeds of at least 50 Mbps. See T-
Mobile-Sprint Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 10801-28, Appx. G.
414
See infra section V.A.
415
See supra section II.A.
416
See FSF Comments at 7-8. See also Press Release, Comcast, Comcast Reports 4th Quarter and Full Year 2018
Results (Jan, 23, 2019), https://www.cmcsa.com/news-releases/news-release-details/comcast-reports-4th-quarter-
(continued….)
100
mobile broadband services with their fixed broadband and other offerings, non-traditional competitors can
provide their customers with plan options that traditional facilities-based mobile wireless providers do not
offer to many of their customers.417 At the same time, because certain cable MVNOs have only offered
mobile broadband to existing residential broadband subscribers to date, their effect on nationwide mobile
broadband competition has been limited.418
C. Voice Telephone Services
143. For decades, the public switched telephone network (PSTN) was the only means of real-
time, two-way voice communications. However, due to technological advancements, such as mobile
voice telephony and IP-based voice services, there now exists a multitude of other voice service options
for consumers. We focus on voice services interconnected with the PSTN in our reporting, in light of the
continued ubiquitous availability and use of the PSTN and interconnected services, but acknowledge that
there are many other types of offerings, including apps running solely on data networks that provide
similar functionality entirely outside the PSTN and nearly indistinguishable to providers and the
Commission from other network data traffic.419 Many of these apps combine the benefits of voice, video,
and text communications into one data-based service.420
144. Modern interconnected voice services can be divided between fixed and mobile voice
services. Fixed can further divided into traditional switched access connections and interconnected Voice
over IP. VoIP is voice carried simply as data over an Internet Protocol network, and can be a voice
service that is bundled with the underlying broadband connection or offered independent of the necessary
data service (over-the-top, or OTT). Approximately 78% of the traditional switched access voice
connections are provided through ILECs; conversely non-ILEC providers deliver about 82% of all VoIP
subscriptions.421
145. Fixed Voice. As of December 2019, there were 1,311 providers of fixed residential voice
services.422 Of these, the five largest providers in alphabetical order are: AT&T, CenturyLink, Charter,
and-full-year-2018-results (for 1.2 million figure); Comcast Corporation, 2019 SEC Form 10-K at 4 (filed Jan. 30,
2020) (Comcast 2019 SEC Form 10-K), https://www.cmcsa.com/static-files/b5555e74-b063-4638-9503-
07ebd5c1d021 (for 2.1 million figure); Press Release, Charter Communications, Charter Announces Fourth Quarter
2018 Results (Jan. 31, 2019) https://ir.charter.com/news-releases/news-release-details/charter-announces-fourth-
quarter-2018-results (for 134,000 figure); Press Release, Charter Communications, Spectrum Mobile Milestone:
1.1M Subscriber Lines and Counting (Mar. 9, 2020) https://corporate.charter.com/newsroom/spectrum-mobile-
mileston-1.1m-subscriber-lines-and-counting (for 1.1 million figure).
417
For example, Comcast offers mobile wireless services using MVNO rights over Verizon’s wireless network and
its existing network of in-home and outdoor Wi-Fi hotspots. Comcast 2019 SEC Form 10-K at 4. We note that
AT&T and Verizon mobile customers are also able to purchase fixed/mobile broadband service bundles where
available in AT&T’s and Verizon’s fixed broadband footprints. AT&T 2019 SEC Form 10-K at 2; Verizon 2019
SEC Form 10-K at 3.
418
Comcast 2019 SEC Form 10-K at 4.
419
420
Id.
421
Based on FCC Form 477 data (Preliminary December 2019 Voice Telephone Services Report), the totals and
percentages that are reported in this section are preliminary only, are subject to corrections as appropriate by the
service provider, and the final data will be published in due course by the agency. See, e.g., FCC, Wireline
Competition Bureau, Voice Telephone Services: Status as of December 31, 2018 (Mar. 6, 2020),
https://www.fcc.gov/voice-telephone-services-report.
422
Preliminary December 2019 Voice Telephone Services Report at Table 2.
101
Comcast, and Verizon. These five providers together account for approximately 68% of residential fixed
voice connections.423
146. Retail voice subscriptions are provided through two fixed technologies: Traditional
switched access and interconnected VoIP subscriptions. Our most recent data from the December 2019
FCC Form 477 shows that there are 38 million end-user switched access lines, including 15.5 million
residential lines.424 In addition, there are close to 70 million interconnected VoIP subscriptions, including
36 million residential subscriptions.425 Of these combined 108 million fixed retail voice telephone service
subscriptions, 48% were residential connections, and 52% were business connections.426
147. The relative growth trends between fixed switched access and interconnected VoIP
services are illustrative. The number of fixed retail switched-access lines declined over the past three
years at a compound annual rate of 13%, while interconnected VoIP subscriptions increased at a
compound annual growth rate of 3%.427 The number of fixed switched access providers also decreased,
with 967 providers reporting fixed end-user switched access lines in December 2019, down from 992 in
December 2018.428 There were 1,457 providers of interconnected VoIP services in December 2019, up
from 1,321 a year earlier.429 As of December 2019, residential fixed voice connections were about 30%
switched access and 70% interconnected VoIP, with residential switched access connections comprising
only 14.4% of all fixed retail voice connections.430
148. Mobile Voice. As of December 2019, FCC Form 477 data indicate that there were 356
million mobile voice subscriptions in the United States, representing an increase in mobile voice
subscriptions at a compound annual growth rate of 2% over the previous three years.431 The number of
households that eschew fixed subscriptions altogether in favor of relying solely on mobile services has
been increasing. Approximately 59.2% of all households were mobile-only in late 2019, with adults in
lower age-groups more likely to live in mobile-only households.432 In the 25-29 age group, over 80% of
adults lived in mobile-only households; 78.3% of those aged 30-34 lived in mobile-only households;
70.9% of those aged 35-44 lived in mobile-only households; 55.6% of those aged 45-64 lived in mobile-
423
Staff calculations based on FCC Form 477 data.
424
Preliminary December 2019 Voice Telephone Services Report at Fig. 2.
425
Id.
426
Preliminary December 2019 Voice Telephone Services Report at 2.
427
Id.
428
Preliminary December 2019 Voice Telephone Services Report at Table 2.
429
Id.
430
Preliminary December 2019 Voice Telephone Services Report at Fig. 2.
431
Preliminary December 2019 Voice Telephone Services Report at 2. We note that the number of mobile
subscriptions is larger than the population of the United States, in part because many consumers use more than one
mobile device with an assigned telephone number. See also Implementation of Section 6002(b) of the Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Annual Report and Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions With Respect to
Mobile Wireless, Including Commercial Mobile Services, WT Docket No. 10-133, Fifteenth Report, 26 FCC Rcd
9664, 9759, para. 159 (2011).
432
See U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics, Wireless Substitution:
Early Release of Estimates From the National Health Interview Survey, January-June 2019, at 1-2 (2020).
102
only households; and 30.9% of those 65 and older lived in mobile-only households.433 About 1% of
households had neither mobile nor fixed voice subscriptions, as of late 2019.434
149. Over-the-Top VoIP. Fixed VoIP providers distinguish OTT VoIP, where the consumer
uses an independent data service over a broadband connection, from all other types of interconnected
VoIP.435 The December 2019 FCC Form 477 data show 12.9 million OTT VoIP subscriptions and far
more non-OTT VoIP, numbering 56.2 million subscriptions.436 Mobile VoIP presents a more complicated
picture, given the plethora of communications apps in smartphone app ecosystems. Data on how
customers use these apps for voice communication are not reported on FCC Form 477, as many of them
do not permit users to make or receive calls connecting to numbers on the PSTN, and they therefore are
not classified as interconnected VoIP.437 The dynamic nature of this subsector makes it difficult to
quantify the number of users, though consumers benefit from the ever evolving choices available to meet
their voice communication needs.
D. The Video Marketplace
1. Overview of the Video Programming Marketplace
150. In the United States, consumers can access video programming content from multiple
sources, only some of which are licensed or regulated by the Commission. Some video providers, like
broadcast television stations, have been in the marketplace for over 70 years,438 whereas other providers,
like online video providers, have more recently entered the market. The video marketplace continues to
be dominated by the three categories of participants that have defined the market for the past decade:
multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs), online video distributors (OVDs), and broadcast
television stations. While the three primary categories of market participants remain constant, the past
two years have seen a number of changes in terms of competition among these participants, changes in
consumer viewing habits, and the continued expansion of video programming options.
151. MVPDs use wireline or satellite technologies to deliver video programming to
consumers. MVPDs sell channel packages, which typically include linear channels from cable networks
and retransmitted broadcast television stations, as well as video-on-demand (VOD) content.439 Traditional
MVPDs include cable providers like Comcast and Charter, telephone company providers like Verizon
Fios and AT&T U-verse, two direct broadcast satellite (DBS) providers—DISH and DIRECTV (owned
by AT&T)—as well as numerous smaller cable and telephone company MVPDs. Continuing a
downward trend that began in 2013, MVPDs shed 6.4 million video subscribers between 2018 and 2019,
433
Early Release of Estimates From the National Health Interview Survey, July-December 2017, at 2 (2018).
434
Early Release of Estimates From the National Health Interview Survey, January-June 2019, at 3 (2020).
435
Preliminary December 2019 Voice Telephone Services Report at 1.
436
See Preliminary December 2019 Voice Telephone Services Report at Fig. 3. Non-OTT interconnected VoIP
service is delivered to the end-user customer’s premises over a high-capacity connection by the same entity (or
affiliated entity) that provides the interconnected VoIP service. OTT interconnected voice service is offered only as
a stand-alone voice service while a non-OTT interconnected voice service can be offered either as a stand-alone
voice service or bundled with Internet access service.
437
47 C.F.R. § 9.3. Examples of these services are apps such as Skype, Facebook Messenger, Facetime, and
WhatsApp.
438
Commercial television began in the late 1940s. See Mitchell Stephens, History of Television,
https://stephens.hosting.nyu.edu/History%20of%20Television%20page.html (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).
439
Linear channels offer specific video programs at a specific time of day in a manner akin to broadcast television.
VOD programs are stored electronically by the provider and can be viewed by the consumer at any time, i.e., on
demand.
103
ending 2019 with 83.4 million video subscribers. As many MVPDs also provide Internet, voice, and
mobile wireless services, MVPDs continue to compete by offering discounted services to consumers who
purchase video services as part of a bundle that includes some combination of other service offerings.
152. OVDs deliver video content to consumers via the Internet and have continued to
proliferate and grow in the past two years. Using a variety of business models, including advertising-
supported video offerings; a subscription model for access to an entire video library; and a transactional
approach where consumers pay to view a movie or television episode on a per-program basis, OVDs
continue to offer consumers a range of options. In addition to these models, virtual multichannel video
programming distributors (vMVPDs), which deliver packages of streaming linear channels to subscribers
similar to those offered by traditional MVPDs, continue to carve a foothold in the marketplace and to
attract consumers away from traditional MVPDs. While OVDs often provide access to content from
third-party producers, some OVDs continue to increase the amount of original and owned content they
provide as a means of differentiating themselves from competitors. Subscription based OVDs and
vMVPD subscriptions have risen in recent years, appearing to capture attention from consumers at the
expense of traditional MVPDs. OVDs use the Internet to deliver video content to consumers.440 OVDs
include Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime Video, YouTube TV, Disney+, AT&T TV Now,441 and Sling TV,
as well as numerous other providers tending to focus on small or niche audiences.
153. Broadcast television stations offer linear video programming channels over the air to
households that receive this programming using a television set connected to an antenna. Although many
broadcast television stations are affiliated with commercial broadcast networks (e.g. ABC, CBS, FOX,
and NBC), participants in this category also include independent commercial stations442 and
noncommercial educational stations. Programming aired on broadcast television stations includes local
programming produced by stations, network programming, and syndicated programming. Broadcasters
continue to seek to expand their video programming offerings by adding multi-cast streams, exploring
new technologies, and offering content streaming via the Internet. Stations derive their revenue from the
sale of advertisements during the programming and from fees paid by MVPDs for the carriage of the
station’s signal. Advertising revenue accounts for approximately two-thirds of revenue earned by all
stations, with retransmission consent revenue accounting for the remaining one-third of revenue. While
advertising revenue has remained relatively flat in recent years, retransmission consent revenue has grown
substantially as the fees charged by broadcast stations to MVPDs have increased.
2. Multichannel Video Programming Distributors
a. Providers and Subscribers
154. At the end of 2019, seven MVPDs each had over one million video subscribers. These
include four cable companies (Comcast, Charter, Cox, and Altice), DISH (a DBS MVPD), Verizon Fios
(a telephone company MVPD), and DIRECTV (a combined DBS and telephone company MVPD).443
440
For purposes of this section, we define OVD as “an entity that distributes video programming (1) by means of the
Internet or other Internet Protocol (IP)-based transmission path; (2) not as a component of an MVPD subscription or
other managed video service; and (3) not solely to customers of a broadband Internet access service owned or
operated by the entity or its affiliates.” Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the
Delivery of Video Programming, MB Docket No. 16-247, Eighteenth Report, 32 FCC Rcd 568, 570 & n.4 (MB
2017) (18th Video Competition Report).
441
AT&T’s DIRECTV NOW was rebranded as AT&T TV Now in the Summer of 2019. Press Release, AT&T,
DIRECTV NOW Rebrands Under AT&T TV Family (July 30, 2019),
https://about.att.com/newsroom/2019/directv_now_rebrands_under_att_tv.html.
442
Major independent stations include, for example, WGN-TV in Chicago, KCAL-TV in Los Angeles, and WHDH-
TV in Boston.
443
See S&P Global, Top Cable MSOs (last accessed Oct 27, 2020) (Top Cable MSOs); Ian Olgeirson, Tony Lenoir
& Erica Pabst, Multichannel Trends: Multichannel subs tank in 2019 amid shifting operator focus, viewing
(continued….)
104
Twelve cable MVPDs and two telephone company MVPDs each had between 100,000 and 1 million
video subscribers.444 In addition, many small cable and telephone company MVPDs serve significantly
smaller numbers of customers.445
155. Cable MVPDs generally serve non-overlapping franchise areas and, as a result, most
consumers have access to only one cable MVPD, and cable MVPDs do not generally compete directly
with one another for the same subscriber.446 DIRECTV and DISH have national footprints and almost all
consumers have access to both DBS MVPDs.447 Telephone company MVPDs rarely compete with one
another for the same subscribers; however, they almost always overbuild areas already served by at least
one cable company.448 As such, most consumers have access to one cable MVPD and two DBS MVPDs,
and some consumers additionally have access to a telephone company MVPD.
156. MVPD subscribership has been declining since 2013.449 Figure II.D.1 shows that
collectively, MVPDs lost about 6.4 million video subscribers between 2018 and 2019. Cable MVPDs
lost 1.8 million subscribers; DBS MVPDs lost 3.7 million subscribers; and telephone company MVPDs
lost 785,000 subscribers.
Fig. II.D.1
MVPD Video Subscribers
2018 2019 Net Change Percentage Change
Cable 50,483,224 48,646,056 -1,837,168 -3.6%
DBS 29,127,000 25,379,487 -3,747,513 -12.9%
Telephone Company 10,223,618 9,439,003 -784,615 -7.7%
89,833,842 83,464,546 -6,369,296 -7.1%
Source: S&P Global, Multichannel Industry Benchmarks (last accessed Oct. 27, 2020).
157. Figure II.D.2 shows the relative shares of MVPD subscribers for cable, DBS, and
telephone companies. While the total number of MVPD subscribers declined from 89.8 million in 2018,
to 83.5 million in 2019, cable’s relative share increased, the share for DBS fell, and the share for
telephone company MVPDs changed little.
priorities, S&P Global (Mar. 10, 2020) (Multichannel Subs Tank). We do not provide URLs for S&P Global
throughout this section because it is a subscription service that cannot be publicly accessed.
444
The twelve cable MVPDs were Mediacom, Wide Open West, Cable One, Atlantic Broadband, RCN,
Midcontinent Communications, Armstrong Utilities, Service Electric Cable TV, Blue Ridge Cable Technologies,
WaveDivision Holdings, TDS, and Buckeye Broadband. Top Cable MSOs. The telephone company MVPDs were
Cincinnati Bell and Frontier Communications. Multichannel Subs Tank.
445
Top Cable MSOs.
446
Where cable overbuilders exist (for example, RCN) consumers have access to more than one cable MVPD. The
available data, however, do not permit us to calculate how many homes have access to two cable MVPDs.
447
We recognize that physical features (e.g., tall buildings, terrain, and trees) prevent some housing units from
receiving DBS signals. 2018 Communications Marketplace Report, 33 FCC Rcd at 12597 & n.133.
448
S&P Global, Cable TV Investor, at 12-14 (Jan. 2020 Monthly Report) (Jan. 2020 Cable Investor).
449
S&P Global, U.S. Multichannel Industry Benchmarks (last accessed Oct. 27, 2020) (Multichannel Bechmarks).
105
Fig. II.D.2
Percentage of MVPD Subscribers
Year Cable DBS Telephone
2018 56.2 32.4 11.4
2019 58.3 30.4 11.3
Source: S&P Global, U.S. Multichannel Industry Benchmarks (last accessed Oct. 27, 2020).
158. Figure II.D.3 shows the number of subscribers at the end of 2019 for the eight largest
MVPDs, which account for approximately 96% of all MVPD subscribers.
Figure II.D.3
Largest MVPDs
2019 Subscribers
Comcast 21,641,000
450
AT&T 19,473,000
Charter 16,320,000
Dish 12,032,000
Verizon 4,346,000
Cox 3,529,000
Altice 3,255,000
Mediacom 747,000
Source: S&P Global, Multichannel Operator Peer Analysis (last accessed Oct. 27, 2020).
159. According to S&P Global, many of today’s legacy MVPDs experience “paper-thin
margins amid ever-increasing programming costs.”451 ACA maintains that small and rural cable operators
are especially challenged as they tend to pay higher rates for programming, relative to larger MVPDs.452
Some MVPDs have discontinued selling their MVPD service to new customers.453 These MVPDs include
Google Fiber, WideOpenWest, CenturyLink, and twenty smaller MVPDs.454
b. Channel Packages and Bundling
160. MVPDs typically offer a variety of channel packages at different prices. For example, in
mid-2020, DISH offered four packages with channel counts ranging from 190 to more than 290, priced
450
AT&T subscribers include DIRECTV and U-verse. AT&T 2019 Annual Report at 20.
451
Jan. 2020 Cable Investor at 15.
452
ACA Connects Comments at 7-9.
453
ATVA Comments at 5-6. See also John Fingas, Google Fiber stops offering traditional TV service to new
customers, Engadget (Feb. 4, 2020), https://www.engadget.com/2020-02-04-google-fiber-drops-conventional-
tv.html.
454
See S&P Global, Cable TV Investor at 4-5 and 10-11 (Feb. 2020 Monthly Report) (Feb. 2020 Cable Investor);
Phillip Dampier, CenturyLink ends Prism TV Service Expansion, Stop The Cap! (Apr. 10, 2018),
https://stopthecap.com/2018/04/10/centurylink-ends-prism-tv-service-expansion/; S&P Global, Cable TV Investor at
7-8 (Mar. 2020 Monthly Report) (Mar. 2020 Cable Investor).
106
from $59.99 to $94.99 per month.455 Similarly, Verizon offered three packages with channel counts
ranging from 125 to more than 425, priced from $50.00 to $90.00 per month.456 Although no two channel
packages are exactly alike, there is substantial overlap in the packages offered by competing MVPDs.
Traditional MVPDs tend to offer all of the major cable and broadcast networks, similar premium
channels, and little in the way of exclusive content.457 Because of their programming similarities,
households typically subscribe to only one MVPD. As such, MVPDs may view competition for their
channel packages as winner-take-all—an MVPD either wins the household or loses out to a rival’s
channel package.
161. MVPDs also generally offer VOD content and TV Everywhere services, which allows
access to some channels over the Internet and to VOD programs both inside and outside the home.458 The
number of programs and channels offered on TV Everywhere varies widely among providers. For
example, in early 2020, S&P Global determined that DIRECTV offered 10,625 TV Everywhere movie
titles, whereas Charter offered 1,995.459 Some MVPDs also offer their own online channel packages (e.g.,
Sling TV and AT&T TV Now) separate from their MVPD service. More recently, Verizon, Cincinnati
Bell, and WideOpenWest began bundling online channel packages from others (e.g., YouTube TV,
FuboTV, and Philo) with their Internet service offerings.460 These online channel packages are examined
more fully in our discussion of OVDs below.
162. MVPDs offer discounted rates to consumers who purchase video services as part of a
bundle that includes some combination of video, Internet, voice, and mobile wireless services.461
According to S&P Global, wireline MVPDs “have adopted a wide array of bundle options to keep the
video segment relevant.”462 At the end of 2019, only approximately 10% of video subscribers from the
largest cable MVPDs were standalone, approximately 40% of video subscribers purchased two services,
and approximately 50% purchased at least three services.463 Some evidence indicates that the strategy of
bundling services has a positive effect on customer retention.464
455
DISH, Satellite TV Packages, Compare Packages and Prices, https://www.dish.com/programming/packages/
456
Verizon, Verizon Fios TV Packages and Plans, More than Digital Cable TV,
https://www.verizon.com/home/fiostv/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).
457
The NFL Sunday Ticket, offered exclusively by DIRECTV, is perhaps the most well-known exception to this
observation. See Todd Spangler, DirecTV Should Retain NFL Sunday Ticket exclusively, AT&T CEO Says, Variety
(Apr. 24, 2019), https://variety.com/2019/tv/news/att-directv-nfl-sunday-ticket-exclusivity-1203196461/.
458
TV Everywhere uses an authentication process to ensure that users subscribe to an MVPD. Outside the home
refers to any location where a subscriber has access to the Internet. Some MVPDs offer fewer channels outside the
home than inside the home. Charter, for example, offers all channels in the home, but fewer channels outside the
home. Charter Spectrum, Stream TV App – TV Shows, Live TV, & Movies, https://www.spectrum.com/cable-
tv/spectrum-tv-app.html (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).
459
Mar. 2020 Cable Investor at 12-14.
460
See Jan. 2020 Cable Investor at 14-15; Feb. 2020 Cable Investor at 4-5.
461
Michelle McLean, Cheap Cable & Internet Packages, TV Bundle Deals, Money Saving Pro,
https://www.moneysavingpro.com/internet-providers/tv-bundles/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020); LowerMyBills, The
Best TV and Internet Bundles in 2020, https://www.lowermybills.com/personal-finance/save-money/the-best-tv-and-
internet-bundles-in-2020/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).
462
Kamran Asaf, Pricing & Packaging, Comcast bundle strategy relies on providing maximum options, S&P Global
(Mar. 30, 2020).
463
S&P Global, U.S. cable double-and triple-play subscribers, Q4’19 (last accessed Oct. 27, 2020).
464
See, e.g., Jeffrey Prince and Shane Greenstein, Does Service Bundling Reduce Churn?, 23 J. of Economics &
Management Strategy, 839-75 (2014) (finding that bundling reduces subscriber churn); Jeffrey Prince, The Dynamic
(continued….)
107
c. Pricing
163. The prices displayed to consumers on MVPD websites, in mailings, or in television
advertisements typically target new subscribers, and are often for a limited time, with prices increasing
once the promotional period ends.465 For example, in 2020, DIRECTV offered new subscribers price
discounts for 12 months with a 24-month agreement,466 while Comcast offered new subscribers their
Signature Double Play bundle of TV and Internet for $99 per month for the first year, and $119 a month
for the second year with a two-year agreement.467
164. With traditional MVPDs, the introductory prices are often below the prices paid by long-
term subscribers whose initial contracts have expired. In addition to the advertised prices, MVPDs
explain that the monthly bill may include additional broadcast fees, regional sports fees, and equipment
rental fees. For example, in 2020, the Comcast Signature Double Play bundle of TV and Internet
included equipment, installation, taxes and fees, Broadcast TV Fee (up to $14.95 per month), Regional
Sports Fee (up to $8.75 per month) and other applicable extra charges, which were subject to change
during and after the introductory term.468 Any fees over-and-above prominently displayed advertised
prices are typically included in the advertisements and listed on a subscriber’s monthly billing
statement.469
165. Subscriptions to traditional MVPD channel packages generally include the use of set-top
boxes. Some MVPDs include one set-top box with the subscription and monthly rental fees for additional
set-top boxes, which vary in price depending on the HD and DVR features. Some MVPDs have
integrated access to a few streaming services like Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, and Amazon Video Prime into
their set-top boxes, which gives MVPD subscribers the ability to access these streaming services without
having to purchase additional streaming equipment.470 The largest MVPDs also provide application
software that can be downloaded to PCs, smart phones, smart TVs and streaming devices (e.g., Roku,
Amazon Fire, Google Chromecast, and Apple TV) allowing subscribers to stream MVPD programming
to additional TVs and other devices, without the need for additional set-top boxes.471
Effects of Triple Play Bundling in Telecommunications, Time Warner Cable, Research Program on Digital
Communications (Winter 2012),
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f911/191f666a1353aad808f3a44a7c8a603718f8.pdf.
465
This is a practice that is common in subscription and other repeat-purchase markets, in which firms exercise
market power over consumers who face switching costs, while also seeking to attract existing customers of rival
firms. Consumer switching costs could include transaction costs, learning costs, or contractual costs. See, e.g., Paul
Klemperer, Markets with consumer switching costs, 102 The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 375-394 (1987);
Curtis R. Taylor, Supplier surfing: Competition and consumer behavior in subscription markets, 34 RAND Journal
of Economics, 223-246 (2003).
466
DIRECTV, DIRECTV Official Site, https://www.directv.com/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).
467
Comcast, Digital Cable TV Service – XFINITY, https://www.xfinity.com/learn/digital-cable-tv (last visited Oct.
27, 2020).
468
Comcast, Offer Details, https://www.xfinity.com/learn/offers/details?offerId=1776000348 (last visited Oct. 27,
2020).
469
For example, Comcast’s website offers TV and Internet for $89.99 per month. Right below the price, however, it
says “Pricing and Other Info”. When clicked a box opens that provides additional details including information
about equipment fees, broadcast fees, and regional sports fees. Comcast, Internet, TV, Phone, Smart Home and
Security – Xfinity, https://www.xfinity.com (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).
470
Mar. 2020 Cable Investor at 4-7.
For example, Charter offers the Spectrum TV App. Charter, How to Download the Spectrum TV App – Phone,
471
PC, & Streaming Devices | Spectrum, https://www.spectrum.com/app (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).
108
166. S&P Global maintains that traditional MVPD video service has become less affordable
over the past 20 years.472 Specifically, inflation adjusted average monthly MVPD revenue per subscriber
increased from $37.85 per month to $65.29 per month (approximately 73%) between 1999 and 2019.473
Meanwhile, inflation adjusted average annual household income increased from $54,737 to $60,539 over
the 20-year interval (approximately 11%).474 However, at the same time, DVR service, VOD service, and
additional channels have been added over this time period, so that service quality has changed as well.475
d. Video Revenue
167. Video Revenue. Video revenues for the largest MVPDs are shown in Figure II.D.4.
According to S&P Global, video revenue from cable, DBS, and telephone company MVPDs has fallen
from a peak of $116.4 billion in 2016, to $109.0 billion in 2018, and $105.0 billion in 2019.476 Although
the bulk of MVPD video revenue comes from subscriptions, MVPDs also earn revenue by selling
advertising. S&P Global reports that cable MVPDs earned net local advertising revenue of $4.5 billion in
2018 and $4.2 billion in 2019.477
Fig. II.D.4
MVPD Video Revenue (in millions)
2018 2019 Percentage Change
AT&T478 $33,357 $32,110 -3.7%
Comcast $22,455 $22,270 -0.8%
Charter $17,348 $17,607 1.5%
DISH479 $13,621 $12,808 -6.0%
Source: AT&T 2019 Annual Report at 20; Comcast 2019 SEC Form 10-K;
Charter 2019 SEC Form 10-K at 32; DISH 2019 SEC Form 10-K at 81.
e. Content Ownership
168. Some traditional MVPDs have ownership interests in cable, broadcast, and regional
sports networks that allow them to vertically integrate their ownership of a distribution network with
ownership of video programming. For example, Comcast owns a dozen cable channels, including the
NBC Sports Network, USA, E!, Syfy, MSNBC, CNBC, Bravo, Oxygen, and the Golf Channel; regional
sports networks in Baltimore/Washington, Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia, Portland (Oregon),
Sacramento, and San Francisco; the NBC and Telemundo broadcast networks; 11 NBC-affiliated
broadcast stations, 30 Telemundo-affiliated broadcast stations; and Universal Pictures.480 AT&T owns
472
Feb. 2020 Cable Investor at 5-7.
473
Id. at 5. S&P Global asserts that average monthly MVPD revenue per subscriber is a good proxy for the average
monthly MVPD bill. MVPDs include cable, DBS, and telephone company MVPDs. Id.
474
Calculations are derived from data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Id.
475
Id. at 5-6.
476
Tony Lenoir, US multichannel video revenues reel from deep sub erosion in 10-year outlook, S&P Global (Dec.
13, 2019).
477
Multichannel Bechmarks.
478
Video revenue for AT&T includes revenue from AT&T TV Now and other streaming video services.
479
Video revenue for DISH includes revenue from Sling TV. Satellite TV 2019 revenues totaled $34 billion, a
decrease from $35.5 billion in 2018. SIA Comments at 5, Appx. B; SIA Ex Parte, Attach. For total satellite TV
revenues from 2013 through 2017, see 2018 Communications Marketplace Report, 33 FCC Rcd at 12673, Fig F-1.
480
Comcast 2019 SEC Form 10-K at 6-8.
109
WarnerMedia, which consists of Turner, Home Box Office, Warner Bros., and regional sports
networks.481
169. Common ownership of entities that deliver and entities that supply video programming
may have implications for competition and programming diversity in the MVPD market. Thus, Congress
enacted various provisions related to vertical integration between cable operators and programming
networks (e.g., program access, program carriage, channel occupancy limit).482 The FCC has reviewed
vertical mergers between MVPDs and owners of video content.483 In its reviews of vertical mergers, the
FCC seeks to identify and assess the potential harms and benefits that might arise. The FCC’s Office of
Economics and Analytics (OEA) recently commented on the analysis of vertical mergers in response to
the DOJ/FTC draft vertical merger guidelines.484 The 2020 Vertical Merger Guidelines were released on
June 30, 2020.485
f. Commercial Availability of Equipment Used to Access MVPD
Programming and Services
170. Consistent with section 629 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 486 and in response
to a recent report from the Government Accountability Office, the Commission recently committed to
gather data, solicit comments, and analyze issues relevant to whether there is a need for further
regulations to ensure the commercial availability of devices to access MVPD programming.487
481
AT&T 2019 Annual Report at 22-24.
482
See 47 U.S.C. §§ 533, 536, 548. In 1992, many of the most popular cable programming networks were owned by
cable operators. Congress was concerned that cable operators had the ability and incentive to thwart the competitive
development of additional programming networks by refusing to carry unaffiliated networks or by insisting on an
ownership stake in return for carriage. See id. § 536. Congress was also concerned that cable operators had the
ability and incentive to thwart competition in the video distribution market by withholding their most popular
programming networks from rival MVPDs. See id. § 548.
483
See, e.g., Applications of Charter Communications, Inc., Time Warner Cable Inc., and Advance/Newhouse
Partnership For Consent to Assign or Transfer Control of Licenses and Authorizations, MB Docket No. 15-149,
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 31 FCC Rcd 6327 (2016); Applications of AT&T Inc. and DIRECTV for Consent
to Assign or Transfer Control of Licenses and Authorizations, MB Docket No. 14-90, Memorandum Opinion and
Order, 30 FCC Rcd 9131 (2015); Applications of Comcast Corporation, General Electric Company and NBC
Universal, Inc. For Consent to Assign Licenses and Transfer Control of Licensees, MB Docket No. 10-56,
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 4238 (2011); Applications of General Motors Corporation, Hughes
Electronics Corporation and The News Corporation LTD, MB Docket No. 03-124, Memorandum Opinion and
Order, 19 FCC Rcd 473 (2004); Applications for Consent to the Transfer of Control of Licenses and Section 214
Authorizations by Time Warner Inc., and America Online, Inc., et al., CS Docket No. 00-30, Memorandum Opinion
and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 6547 (2001).
484
Letter from Giulia McHenry, Chief, Office of Economics and Analytics, FCC, to Joseph J. Simons, Chairman,
Ian R. Conner, Director, Bureau of Competition, and Andrew Sweeting, Director, Bureau of Economics, Federal
Trade Commission (Mar. 2, 2020), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/attachments/798-draft-vertical-merger-
guidelines/vertical_merger_guidelines_fcc_to_ftc.pdf.
485
See Vertical Merger Guidelines, U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (June 30, 2020).
486
This provision requires the Commission to “adopt regulations to assure the commercial availability—to
consumers of multichannel video programming and other services offered over multichannel video programming
systems—of converter boxes, interactive communications equipment, and other equipment used by consumers to
access multichannel video programming and other services offered over multichannel video programming systems,
from manufacturers, retailers, and other vendors not affiliated with any multichannel video programming
distributor.” 47 U.S.C. § 549(a).
487
In 2016, the Commission proposed regulations for navigation devices (i.e., set-top boxes) that consumers use to
access MVPD video services. Expanding Consumers’ Video Navigation Choices; Commercial Availability of
Navigation Devices, MB Docket No. 16-42 and CS Docket No. 97-80, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking &
(continued….)
110
Accordingly, the 2020 Public Notice sought data and comment to “help the Commission analyze how the
ongoing evolution in the video programming market affects competition in the . . . market for set-top
boxes and devices, including how it affects the extent to which consumer choice for devices to access
MVPD content remains a relevant aspect of the competitive environment.”488 As detailed below, our
review of relevant comments and other available information revealed: A decline in consumer rental of
set-top-boxes; increased usage of apps to watch MVPD programming on devices other than set-top-
boxes; and increased availability of video programming services that resemble traditional MVPD
products but do not require use of a set-top-box.
171. The Commission received several filings relevant to this issue,489 each of which suggest
that, due to increased competition, subscribers now rent fewer devices from their MVPDs than
previously. NCTA notes that section 629 directed the Commission to “ensure that consumers have the
option to purchase set-top boxes capable of accessing multichannel video programming” from entities not
affiliated with their MVPD.490 NCTA contends that “Congress’s primary objective was to give
consumers one new option: To buy from retail stores a device that could take the place of the device they
otherwise rented from their incumbent cable operator.”491 NCTA maintains that all of the nation’s largest
MVPDs now support apps that can be used to watch MVPD programming without using an MVPD
leased set-top box.492 According to NCTA, in 2019, “only 47 percent of all TV sets were connected to an
MVPD leased set-top box, the lowest figure ever in the era of all-digital cable television.”493 NCTA also
notes that consumers now have access to video streaming services that resemble traditional MVPD
services, but do not require use of a set-top box.494 Accordingly, NCTA notes that “[f]ueled by the rise of
cord-cutting, the shift to online video services, and the availability of traditional cable services through
apps that run on third party devices and smart TVs, the major manufacturers of these video devices –
including Roku, Apple, Google, and Amazon – now have tens of millions of active users.”495
172. FSF notes that section 629 requires the FCC to sunset its navigation device rules when:
(1) the market for MVPDs is fully competitive; (2) the market for converter boxes, and interactive
equipment used for MVPDs services is fully competitive; and (3) elimination of the regulations would
promote competition and the public interest.496 FSF argues that traditional MVPDs are subject to
effective competition from OVDs, including vMVPDs, device choice continues to expand, and existing
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 31 FCC Rcd 1544 (2016). In 2017, the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) concluded that the Commission’s proposed regulations did not sufficiently analyze “the extent to which
Internet-based providers affect consumer choice for video programming and what that change means for the
importance of consumer choice for devices in the context of the Act.” U.S. Government Accountability Office,
GAO-17-785, FCC Should Conduct Additional Analysis to Evaluate Need for Set-Top Box Regulation, at 22 (2017)
(2017 GAO Report). Following the 2017 GAO Report, the Commission indicated that it would use future
Communications Marketplace Reports to gather data, solicit comments, and perform analysis on issues relevant to
whether there is a need for further regulations to ensure the commercial availability of devices to access MVPD
programming. Letter from Michelle Carey, Chief, Media Bureau, FCC to Mark Goldstein, Director, Physical
Infrastructure Issues, Government Accountability Office (Sept. 21, 2017).
488
See 2020 Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd at 1580.
489
See generally NCTA Comments; FSF Comments; AELP/OMI Comments.
490
NCTA Comments at 21.
491
Id.
492
Id. at 21-22.
493
Id. at 22.
494
Id. at 23.
495
NCTA Nov. 6 Ex Parte at 2.
496
FSF Comments at 24 (citing 47 U.S.C. § 549(e)).
111
regulations are “unnecessary, one-sided [and] result in higher prices for consumers.”497 Accordingly, FSF
maintains, the triggering conditions for section 629’s sunset requirement have been met.498 AELP/OMI
argues that they “would have allowed viewers to subscribe and watch programs through applications that
would reach the set-top boxes of their—not their providers’—choice while also reducing unnecessary set-
top box fees,” but also noting that they do “not necessarily agree with the specifics of the rule.”499
173. Marketplace data support NCTA’s assertions that MVPD subscribers are increasingly
able to use applications that reach the devices of their choice and that set-top box rentals are declining.
Specifically, S&P Global shows that the number of set-top boxes used by MVPD subscribers peaked in
2016 at 258 million units and declined to 222 million units in 2019.500 Although some of the decline has
been attributed to the reduction in the number of MVPD subscribers, some has been attributed to the
growing usage of MVPD apps.501 When section 629 was adopted, MVPD subscribers seeking to view
their MVPD service on multiple TVs often rented a set-top box for each TV.502 Today, MVPD
subscribers can use apps to distribute MVPD service to additional TVs.
174. For example, Comcast’s Xfinity TV Partner Program is expanding the range of devices
that can access the Xfinity TV service and Stream app,503 and Charter’s Spectrum TV app gives
subscribers the ability to access their MVPD service on a range of devices.504 NCTA states that “[a]ll of
the nation’s largest MVPDs” support apps that can be used to watch their content on hundreds of millions
of consumer-owned devices, such as smart TVs; tablets; streaming sticks and devices such as Apple TV,
Roku, Google Chromecast, and Amazon Fire; smartphones; game consoles; and personal computers.”505
Further, NCTA asserts that almost all TV households have at least one of these devices, the average TV
household has twelve of them, and consumers used more than 36.5 million such devices to watch MVPD
programming without a leased set-top box in 2018—a 35% increase from the previous year.506 In
addition, the decline in the use of set-top boxes has resulted from the growth of vMVPDs which provide
channel packages and VOD programming similar to those offered by traditional MVPDs, but deliver that
content to consumers exclusively via the Internet and usually do not require use of any leased equipment.
At the end of 2019, as shown in Figure II.D.12 below, 9.3 million households subscribed to vMVPDs.
Although the data indicate that an increasing number of MVPD subscribers have the ability to use apps to
view MVPD programming, whether MVPD subscribers still need a set-top box to receive their MVPD
497
Id. at 24-25.
498
Id. at 25.
499
AELP/OMI Comments at 9.
500
Ian Olgeirson & Neil Barbour, Cable, telco and DBS set-tops dwindle in US installed forecast, S&P Global (July
16, 2019) (Set-Tops Dwindle).
501
Id.
502
It was not until 2007 (11 years after section 629 was enacted) that consumers began using the Internet to stream
video programming. Netflix began streaming video on demand in 2007 and PlayStation Vue and Sling TV began
offering TV Channel Packages in 2015. NCTA notes that in 1996, “most consumers considered their incumbent
cable operator to be their sole option for multichannel video services and set-top box equipment.” NCTA
Comments at 21.
503
Comcast, Xfinity TV Partner Program, https://developer.comcast.com/tv-partner (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).
504
Charter, Stream TV App – TV Shows, Live TV, & Movies, https://www.spectrum.com/cable-tv/spectrum-tv-app
505
NCTA Comments at 21. NCTA specifically lists Comcast, AT&T/DIRECTV, Charter, DISH, Cox, Altice,
Verizon, Mediacom, and Frontier. Id. at 21 & n.62.
506
Id. at 21-22 (citing Kagan Market Intelligence, US Ownership of Smart TVs, SMPs, Smart Speaker Devices
Continues to Climb (Jan. 17, 2020); Kagan Market Intelligence, US Connected Video Device Projections through
2022 (Nov. 2018); D+R International Ltd., 2018 Annual Report, Voluntary Agreement for Ongoing Improvement to
the Energy Efficiency of Set-Top Boxes at 20-22 (Aug. 13, 2019)).
112
programming appears to depend on the MVPD.507 S&P Global claims, for example, that cable operators
prefer to maintain at least one set-top box in the home, and offer application software to stream MVPD
programming to additional televisions and other devices. 508
175. COVID-19 Pandemic Impact on MVPDs. S&P Global argues that the decline in
traditional MVPD subscribers did not significantly accelerate in the first half of 2020.509 Collectively,
MVPDs lost 2.1 million video subscribers in the first quarter of 2020 and another 2.2 million in the
second quarter for a six month loss of 4.3 million video subscribers.510 According to S&P Global, losses
in the first six months of 2020 reflect both the impact of the economic downturn and the longer-term
consumer shift to streaming services.511
3. Online Video Distributors
176. As noted above, an OVD is an entity that distributes video programming to consumers
over the Internet, not as a component of an MVPD subscription, and not solely to customers of an ISP
owned or operated by the entity or its affiliates.512 OVD content typically is available to U.S. consumers
on a nationwide basis, although in some cases (e.g., OVDs that offer cable and broadcast channels)
geographic availability of OVD content can be limited.513
a. OVD Service Offerings
177. The OVD marketplace contains many participants, employing a variety of business
models and strategies. We discuss four types of service provided by OVDs: Advertising-based Video On
Demand (AVOD); Subscription Video On Demand (SVOD); Transactional Video On Demand (TVOD);
and vMVPD.514
178. AVOD. These providers allow consumers to access video programming online free of
charge.515 AVODs generate revenue by including advertisements with their content.516 Some AVOD
providers are owned by large media or technology companies. For example, Google’s YouTube offers a
wide variety of content, including user-created videos, professionally produced video content, music
507
Set-Tops Dwindle.
508
Id.
509
Ian Olgeirson, Tony Lenoir and Erica Pabst, Traditional multichannel drop nears 2.2 million, virtual subs
rebound in Q2, S&P Global (Aug. 14, 2020) (Traditional Multichannel Drop).
510
S&P Global, US multichannel video market share trends (last accessed Oct. 27, 2020) (Multichannel Video
Market Share Trends).
511
Traditional Multichannel Drop.
512
Although online video includes both professional and amateur content, our focus is on content similar to the
programming offered by cable and broadcast networks.
513
For example, geographic availability may depend on contractual arrangements with cable networks, broadcast
stations, and other content owners. 2018 Communications Marketplace Report, 33 FCC Rcd at 12609, para. 86.
Availability may also require building, or contracting with, content distribution networks (CDNs) to enhance the
speed and quality of video content delivered to consumers. Id.
514
The information in this section is current as of June 2020. We note that OVD offerings and prices continue to
change.
515
See Seth Shafer, Economics of Internet: State of US online video: Ad-supported video, S&P Global (Nov. 7,
2019) (Shafer Ad Supported Video); Imagen, What are SVOD, TVOD, AVOD?, https://imagen.io/resources/what-
are-svod-tvod-avod/ (last visited June 12, 2020); Uscreen, SVOD, AVOD, TVOD - How to Pick a Monetization
Model for Your VOD, https://www.uscreen.tv/video-business-school/svod-tvod-avod-monetization-models/ (last
visited June 12, 2020).
516
Uscreen, SVOD, AVOD, TVOD - How to Pick a Monetization Model for Your VOD,
https://www.uscreen.tv/video-business-school/svod-tvod-avod-monetization-models/ (last visited June 12, 2020).
113
videos, and clips from TV shows and movies.517 Several AVOD services provide access to movies and
TV shows, including NBCUniversal’s Vudu Movies On Us,518 Amazon’s IMDb TV,519 Fox’s Tubi,520 and
Crackle, which is a joint venture between Sony and Chicken Soup for the Soul Entertainment.521
ViacomCBS’s ad-supported Pluto TV service provides multi-device access to more than 250 linear
channels of content, including movies, TV shows, news, and sports, as well as thousands of on-demand
movies.522 In addition, broadcast networks have branded AVOD products, including NBC News Now,
CBSN, and CBS Sports HQ, which feature live news programming and news video clips.523 Launched in
July 2020, NBC’s Peacock Free provides access to live and on-demand programming, including some
original content.524
179. SVOD. SVOD providers charge consumers a recurring subscription fee for access to the
provider’s video content.525 While it is not possible to list all providers in this report, significant SVODs
include Netflix and Amazon Prime Video, both of which provide access to large libraries of video content
such as television shows, movies, documentaries, and original content.526 These services are similarly
priced. Netflix costs from $8.99 to $15.99 per month,527 while consumers can subscribe to Amazon Prime
Video as a standalone service for $8.99 per month or as part to an Amazon Prime membership, which
517
YouTube, YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/ (last visited June 12, 2020); Shafer Ad Supported Video.
518
Vudu, Movies On Us, https://www.vudu.com/moviesonus (last visited June 12, 2020). NBCUniversal acquired
Vudu from Walmart in April 2020. Dade Hayes, NBCUniversal’s Fandango Acquiring Vudu From Walmart,
Deadline (Apr. 20, 2020), https://deadline.com/2020/04/nbcuniversal-fandango-acquiring-vudu-walmart-comcast-
streaming-1202912755/.
519
IMDB, IMDB TV, https://www.imdb.com/tv/ (last visited June 12, 2020).
520
Tubi TV, tubi, https://tubitv.com/home (last visited June 12, 2020).
521
See Sarah Perez, Sony’s streaming service Crackle sells majority stake to Chicken Soup for the Soul, TechCrunch
(Mar. 29, 2019), https://techcrunch.com/2019/03/29/sonys-streaming-service-crackle-sells-to-chicken-soup-for-the-
soul/; Janko Roettgers, Sony Sells Stake in Crackle, Launches Joint Venture With Chicken Soup for the Soul, Variety
(Mar. 28, 2019), https://variety.com/2019/digital/news/sony-crackle-sale-joint-venture-1203174804/.
522
Pluto TV, Drop In. It’s Free., https://pluto.tv/welcome (last visited June 12, 2020); Pluto TV, Channel Lineup,
https://pluto.tv/live-tv/americas-test-kitchen (last visited June 12, 2020).
523
NBC, NBC News Now, https://www.nbcnews.com/now (last visited June 12, 2020); CBS, CBSN,
https://www.cbsnews.com/live/ (last visited June 12, 2020); CBS, CBS Sports HQ, https://www.cbssports.com/cbs-
sports-hq/ (last visited June 12, 2020).
524
See Blair Marnell, What is Peacock?, Digital Trends (Oct. 25, 2020),
https://www.digitaltrends.com/movies/what-is-peacock/ (What is Peacock?); Rick Marshall, Peacock: Everything
we know about NBCUniversal’s streaming video service, yahoo!finance (Sept. 21, 2020),
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/everything-know-peacock-nbcuniversal-streaming-234935742.html (Peacock:
Everything We Know).
525
Imagen, What are SVOD, TVOD, AVOD?, https://imagen.io/resources/what-are-svod-tvod-avod/ (last visited
June 12, 2020); Uscreen, SVOD, AVOD, TVOD - How to Pick a Monetization Model for Your VOD,
526
Netflix, What is Netflix?, https://help.netflix.com/en/node/412 (last visited June 12, 2020); Melody Hahm, Eye-
popping chart shows how much original content Netflix is creating, Yahoo! Finance (Dec. 17, 2019),
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/netflix-original-content-disney-and-apple-plus-230418533.html; Amazon, Prime
Video, https://www.amazon.com/gp/video/offers/ (last visited June 12, 2020).
527
Prices vary according to how many simultaneous users are permitted and the picture quality of streamed content.
Netflix, Choose the plan that’s right for you, https://netflix.com/signup/planform (last visited June 12, 2020);
Netflix, Netflix Streaming Plans, https://help.netflix.com/en/node/24926 (last visited June 12 2020).
114
costs $12.99 per month or $119 per year.528 Amazon Prime Video also provides access to some live
events, including Thursday night NFL games, as part of its membership.529
180. Disney controls three SVOD providers: Hulu, ESPN+, and Disney+. Like Netflix and
Amazon Prime Video, Hulu provides access to a library of movies, television shows and other video
content, including original programming.530 A Hulu subscription costs $5.99 per month with commercials
or $11.99 per month without commercials.531 ESPN+ provides access to live sporting events and sports-
related programing for $4.99 per month.532 Disney+, which launched in November 2019, provides shows
and movies from Disney, content Disney acquired from 20th Century Fox in March 2019, and original
programming for $6.99 per month.533
181. Other major media companies operate SVODs as well. NBCUniversal’s Peacock
Premium, which costs $5 per month with commercials or $10 per month without commercials, includes
approximately twice as many hours of programming as the free version and streams content in 4K.534
CBS All Access provides access to a library of CBS shows and original content, as well as live channels
such as local CBS stations, CBSN, CBS Sports HQ, and ET Live.535 Subscribers pay $5.99 per month for
the ad-supported CBS All Access service, and $9.99 monthly for a commercial-free plan.536
528
Amazon, Amazon Prime Price Change,
https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=202213110 (last visited June 12, 2020); Amazon,
What is Prime Video? - Amazon Prime Insider, https://www.amazon.com/primeinsider/video/prime-video-qa.html
(last visited June 12, 2020); Amazon, About the Amazon Prime Membership Fee,
https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=201910200 (last visited June 12, 2020).
529
Amazon, Prime Video, https://www.amazon.com/gp/video/offers/ (last visited June 12, 2020); Amazon, Live
Events Help: Frequently Asked Questions, https://www.amazon.com/b?ie=UTF8&node=19343854011 (last visited
June 12, 2020); Amazon, About the Amazon Prime Membership Fee,
https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=201910200 (last visited June 12, 2020).
530
Previously, Hulu was a joint venture owned 30% each by Disney, 20 th Century Fox, and Comcast, and 10% by
AT&T. Laura Bradley, How Disney Gained Full Control of Hulu—and What That Means, Vanity Fair (May 14,
2019), https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/05/disney-full-control-hulu-comcast-nbcuniversal-deal. Several
recent transactions altered the ownership and control of Hulu, and in March 2019, Disney gained majority control of
Hulu as a result of Disney’s acquisition of 20th Century Fox. Id. Press Release, The Walt Disney Company,
Disney’s Acquisition of 21st Century Fox Will Bring an Unprecedented Collection of Content and Talent to
Consumers Around the World (Mar. 19, 2019), https://thewaltdisneycompany.com/disneys-acquisition-of-21st-
century-fox-will-bring-an-unprecedented-collection-of-content-and-talent-to-consumers-around-the-world/
(Disney’s Acquisition of 21st Century Fox). In April 2019, AT&T sold its minority interest in Hulu back to the joint
venture. Press Release, AT&T, Hulu Buys AT&T’s Minority Stake in Joint Venture (Apr. 15, 2019),
https://about.att.com/story/2019/hulu_buys_att_minority_stake_in_joint_venture.html. Finally, in May 2019,
Comcast ceded full operational control of Hulu to Disney, with Disney committing to purchase Comcast’s minority
stake in Hulu in the future. Edmund Lee, Disney to Buy Comcast’s Hulu Stake and Take Full Control of Streaming
Service, New York Times (May 14, 2019), https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/14/business/media/disney-hulu-
comcast.html.
531
Hulu, Watch Thousands of TV Shows and Movies on Hulu, http://hulu.com/content (last visited June 12, 2020).
532
ESPN+, ESPN+ Programming, http://dtcimedia.disney.com/espn-plus/programming (last visited June 12, 2020);
ESPN+, Stream Your Favorite Sports and ESPN+ Originals, https://plus.espn.com/sign-up-bundle (last visited June
12, 2020).
533
Disney+, hulu Disney+ ESPN+, https://www.disneyplus.com/ (last visited June 12, 2020); Mike Sorrentino, Joan
E. Solsman, Disney Plus: Everything to know about the streaming service amid coronavirus lockdown, CNET (May
6, 2020), https://www.cnet.com/news/disney-plus-everything-to-know-early-release-dates-prices-shows-movies-
coronavirus/; Disney’s Acquisition of 21st Century Fox.
534
See What is Peacock?; Peacock: Everything We Know.
535
CBS, CBS All Access, https://www.cbs.com/all-access/ (last visited June 12, 2020).
536
Ben Moore, CBS All Access Review, PC Mag (Feb. 27, 2020), https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/cbs-all-access.
115
WarnerMedia, a subsidiary of AT&T, operates HBO Now, offering original content from HBO, including
series, documentaries, and specials, and movies,537 as well as HBO Max, which includes 10,000 hours of
content, such as HBO Max originals, HBO programming, shows like Friends and The Big Bang Theory,
and movies from Studio Ghibli.538 Both HBO services cost $14.99 per month.539
182. In addition, certain technology companies operate SVOD services. For example, in
November 2019, Apple launched Apple TV+, which the company touted as “the first all-original video
subscription service.”540 Consumers can subscribe to Apple TV+ for $4.99 per month.541 Google’s
YouTube Premium provides ad-free access to YouTube, YouTube Music (YouTube’s music streaming
service), and some original content for $11.99 per month.542
183. Certain SVODs focus on niche content. For example, BritBox provides access to British
television shows from ITV and the BBC for $6.99 per month or $69.99 per year.543 DC Universe starts at
$7.99 per month and provides access to TV shows and movies based on DC Comics.544 In addition,
SVODs from many sports leagues and organizations, such as the NBA, NHL, and WWE, provide online
access to live and archived events and programs.545
184. TVOD. Unlike the subscription models that offer access to a catalog of programs for a
set monthly price, TVOD providers allow consumers to purchase specific video content (movies,
television programs, or live events) on a transactional or per-program basis.546 Electronic-sell-through
transactions provide consumers with permanent access to video content, while download-to-rent
537
HBO, How to Watch HBO Max, https://www.hbo.com/hbo-news/hbo-max-hbo-go-hbo-now-difference (last
visited June 12, 2020).
538
HBO, How to Watch HBO Max, https://www.hbo.com/hbo-news/hbo-max-hbo-go-hbo-now-difference (last
visited June 12, 2020); see also Kevin Webb, HBO Max is WarnerMedia's ambitious attempt to take on Netflix, and
it's now available to stream — here's how to sign up, Business Insider (July 31, 2020),
https://www.businessinsider.com/hbo-max-streaming-service (WarnerMedia's Ambitious Attempt).
539
HBO Now | Help Center, How much does HBO NOW cost?, https://help.hbonow.com/Answer/Detail/13 (last
visited June 12, 2020); see also WarnerMedia's Ambitious Attempt.
540
Press Release, Apple, Apple TV+ launches November 1, featuring originals from the world’s greatest storytellers
(Sept. 10, 2019), https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/09/apple-tv-launches-november-1-featuring-originals-
from-the-worlds-greatest-storytellers/.
541
Apple, Apple TV+, https://www.apple.com/apple-tv-plus/ (last visited June 12, 2020).
542
YouTube, YouTube Premium, https://www.youtube.com/premium (last visited June 12, 2020); YouTube Using
YouTube Premium benefits, https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6308116 (last visited June 12, 2020);
YouTube, Watch YouTube Originals, https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6358146 (last visited June 12,
2020). YouTube Premium subscribers also can download videos to watch offline and play videos on a mobile
device while using other apps or when the screen is off. YouTube, Using YouTube Premium benefits,
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6308116 (last visited June 12, 2020).
543
BritBox, Welcome to BritBox, https://www.britbox.com/us/ (last visited June 12, 2020).
544
Jordan Minor, DC Universe Review, PC Mag (Mar. 20, 2020), https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/dc-universe;
Brett White, Everything You Need to Know about DC Universe, Decider (Feb. 27, 2019),
https://decider.com/2019/02/27/what-is-dc-universe/.
545
See, e.g. NBA, Watch the NBA On Demand, https://www.nba.com/watch/pricing (last visited June 12, 2020);
NHL, Watch live games online with NHL GameCenter LIVE, https://www.nhl.com/news/watch-live-games-online-
with-nhl-gamecenter-live/c-500925 (last visited June 12, 2020); WWE, WWE Network,
https://www.wwe.com/wwenetwork?gclsrc=aw.ds&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIpNKEztXl6QIVA4nICh35lwsREAAYA
SAAEgKYlfD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds (last visited June 12, 2020).
546
June 12, 2020); Uscreen, SVOD, AVOD, TVOD - How to Pick a Monetization Model for Your VOD,
116
transactions give consumers access to video content for a limited period of time.547 Examples include
Amazon’s Video Store,548 Apple’s iTunes Store,549 and Google Play.550
185. vMVPD. Like traditional MVPDs, vMVPDs offer consumers access to a package of
streaming linear channels.551 While MVPDs make use of cable, fiber, or satellite infrastructure to deliver
their pay television products, like other OVD services, vMVPDs deliver content to consumers via the
Internet.552 In 2015, these services launched in select metropolitan markets with comparatively limited
access to local broadcast networks, sports, and news.553 Today, however, vMVPD services often include
local broadcast channels and a wide variety of cable networks, and tend to be marketed to consumers who
wish to “cut the cord” and no longer subscribe to a traditional MVPD service.554 In general, vMVPDs are
available to consumers on a wide variety of devices.555
186. vMVPD pricing tends to vary depending on many factors, including the number and type
of channels, and the availability of local broadcast stations. Some vMVPDs provide fewer channels for a
lower cost. For example, Philo subscribers pay $20 per month for close to 60 channels, but the service
does not include sports or broadcast channels.556 DISH’s Sling TV offers two channel packages, one with
approximately 30 channels and one with approximately 50 channels, which cost $30 per month
547
June 12, 2020).
548
Amazon, Prime Video: Store,
https://www.amazon.com/b/?_encoding=UTF8&filterId=OFFER_FILTER%3DTVOD&node=2858778011&ref=ins
ider_ar_video_pvqa (last visited June 12, 2020).
549
Apple, Buy movies and TV shows from the Apple TV app, https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT203375 (last visited
June 12, 2020).
550
Google Play Help, Watch Google Play movies & TV shows,
https://support.google.com/googleplay/answer/2851683?co=GENIE.Platform%3DiOS&hl=en (last visited June 12,
2020).
551
See, e.g., Susan Engleson, When Linear TV and Digital Collide: The Rise of the Virtual MVPD, Comscore (Aug.
14, 2018), https://www.comscore.com/Insights/Blog/When-Linear-TV-and-Digital-Collide-The-Rise-of-the-Virtual-
MVPD.
552
See, e.g., id.
553
See Seth Shafer, Economics of Internet: State of US online video: virtual multichannel, S&P Global (Oct. 22,
2019) (Shafer Virtual Multichannel). Sony’s PlayStation Vue launched in March 2015 and was one of the first
vMVPDs, but the service ceased operations in January 2020. Sarah Perez, Why Sony’s PlayStation Vue Failed,
TechCrunch (Jan. 30, 2020), https://techcrunch.com/2020/01/30/why-sonys-playstation-vue-failed/.
554
See, e.g., Brad Adgate, Virtual MVPD Subscriber Growth Is Slowing, Forbes (Dec. 9, 2019),
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradadgate/2019/12/09/virtual-mvpd-subscriber-growth-is-slowing/#6f65a8bb7016
(“virtual MVPDs . . . have been marketed as replacement cable/satellite systems”); Sling TV, The best of cable, for
less, https://www.sling.com/value/cable-tv-alternatives (last visited June 12, 2020) (“Between the low monthly cost,
versatile lineup options and wide variety of supported streaming devices, it’s no wonder that Sling is often called the
best alternative to cable”); Mindy Woodall, Philo Streaming Review 2020, Reviews.org (Dec. 11, 2019),
https://www.reviews.org/tv-service/philo-live-tv-streaming/ (“Most [vMVPDs] offer a bunch of different channels
and add-ons to try to mimic your cable TV provider so you can cut the cord and stream live channels”) (Philo
Streaming Review).
555
See Shafer Virtual Multichannel.
556
See Philo Streaming Review; Philo, Live and On Demand TV, https://try.philo.com/ (last visited June 12, 2020).
Users can add premium channels from Epix and Starz at additional cost. Philo, Live and On Demand TV,
https://try.philo.com/ (last visited June 12, 2020).
117
individually or $45 per month for both.557 These packages include some news and sports content, but
local broadcast availability is limited to NBC and Fox stations in select markets.558
187. More expansive vMVPD offerings include Hulu + Live TV, which combines access to
Hulu’s SVOD library with more than 65 live and on-demand TV channels for $54.99 per month.559 The
service includes news and sports content, and local broadcast stations and regional sports networks are
available in select markets.560 For $64.99 per month, YouTube TV offers consumers access to more than
85 channels, including sports and news programming,561 and asserts that it provides “complete local
network coverage in over 98% of U.S. TV households.”562 AT&T TV Now offers subscription-based
channel packages ranging from 45 to 125 channels, priced from $55 to $135 per month.563 In March
2020, AT&T launched AT&T TV, which offers channel packages ranging in price from $49.99 per month
to $64.99 per month, not including regional sports fees.564 Both services continue to add local stations,
but availability varies by market.565 Fubo TV offers three plans—Family (99 channels for $59.99 per
month), Ultra (168 channels for $84.99 per month) and Latino (29 channels for $29.99 per month)566 and
also offers local CBS, Fox, and NBC stations in many markets.567 In recent years, many vMVPD
providers have added more channels (including broadcast channels, news, and sports) and functionality to
557
Sling TV, Personalize your channel lineup, https://www.sling.com/service (last visited June 12, 2020).
558
Sling TV, Personalize your channel lineup, https://www.sling.com/service (last visited June 12, 2020); Sling TV,
Can I get local channels on Sling TV?, https://help.sling.com/en/support/solutions/articles/46000000093-can-i-get-
local-channels-on-sling-tv- (last visited June 12, 2020). For additional cost, subscribers can add focused channel
packages (e.g., sports, news, kids, comedy), some premium networks (e.g., Showtime, Starz), Spanish-language
channels, international programming, and world sports. Sling TV, Customize Your Channel Lineup With Sling
Extras, https://www.sling.com/service/extras (last visited June 12, 2020).
559
Hulu, Watch Thousands of TV Shows and Movies on Hulu, http://hulu.com/content (last visited June 12, 2020).
Subscribers also receive 50 hours of cloud DVR storage. Hulu, Watch Thousands of TV Shows and Movies on Hulu,
http://hulu.com/content (last visited June 12, 2020).
560
Austin Meadows, Hulu Live TV channel list 2020: What channels are on Hulu + Live TV?, Soda (Mar. 14, 2020),
https://www.soda.com/video/hulu-channels-list/.
561
YouTube, YouTube TV, https://tv.youtube.com/welcome/ (last visited July 10, 2020). YouTube TV subscribers
also can record programming with unlimited storage space. Id.
562
YouTube, YouTube TV, https://tv.youtube.com/welcome/ (last visited July 10, 2020).
563
AT&T, Get More TV Freedom, https://www.atttvnow.com/ (last visited June 12, 2020). VOD content, premium
channels, and Spanish-language and international add-ons are also available. Id.
564
Press Release, AT&T, AT&T TV Launches Nationwide Starting Today (Mar. 2, 2020),
https://about.att.com/story/2020/att_tv.html; AT&T, Get AT&T TV and enjoy a year of HBO® included,
https://www.att.com/tv/ (last visited June 12, 2020). AT&T TV customers also can access more than 40,000 on-
demand titles. Id. Like a traditional cable or satellite MVPD, AT&T TV’s price is good for 12 months with a two-
year initial agreement, and customers are required to use equipment provided by the company. Id.; see also Michael
Timmermann, AT&T TV vs. AT&T TV Now: What’s the Difference?, Clark (Apr. 6, 2020),
https://clark.com/streaming-tv/att-tv-att-tv-now-comparison/.
565
See Dennis Restauro, AT&T TV NOW Review, Channels, and Cost, Grounded Reason (Jan. 3, 2020),
https://www.groundedreason.com/att-tv-now-review-channels-and-cost/; Jess Barnes, AT&T TV NOW and AT&T
TV Add More Locals, Cord Cutters News (Mar. 27, 2020), https://www.cordcuttersnews.com/att-tv-now-and-att-tv-
add-more-locals/.
566
Fubo TV, Welcome, https://www.fubo.tv/welcome (last visited July 10, 2020). Plans also provide 500 hours of
Cloud DVR and the ability to watch on multiple screens simultaneously. Id.
John-Michael Bond, Here’s how to see which local channels you’ll get with FuboTV, The Daily Dot (Feb. 25,
567
2020), https://www.dailydot.com/upstream/fubotv-local-channels/.
118
their offerings and increased their prices.568 As a result, many vMVPD offerings available today look
quite a bit like more traditional pay TV offerings.569
188. Bundles and Combinations. Sometimes OVDs are offered in bundles or in combination
with other services. For example, consumers can bundle all three Disney OVD products—Hulu, ESPN+,
and Disney+—for $12.99 per month.570 AT&T TV subscribers get a free year of HBO Max, and a
discount is available to customers who bundle AT&T TV with Internet access service from AT&T.571
Amazon Prime members also can add on-demand or live streaming content from providers like HBO,
SHOWTIME, STARZ, CBS, PBS, and Major League Baseball for an additional $4.99 to $14.99 per
month.572 Amazon’s Twitch, a platform for live video streaming, includes a “Watch Parties” feature that
allows streamers with subscriptions to Prime Video to watch movies together as part of a social online
experience.573
b. Original Content and Content Ownership
189. As the OVD marketplace has evolved, providers have begun to include original
content.574 Recently, Apple stated that it would spend over $6 billion on original content for its rollout of
Apple TV+,575 and while estimates vary, they tend to show that OVD spending on original content is
increasing generally. Figure II.D.5 shows original content spending for select OVDs576 We also note that
while Amazon’s 2019 production of 70 first-run original titles and 314 hours of original content
represented slight decreases from the previous year, Netflix produced 2,701 hours and 657 new titles in
2019, up 78% and 70%, respectively, from 2018.577 As of the middle of 2020, Disney+ listed more than
568
See Shafer Virtual Multichannel (“expanded availability, content and functionality has come with a price, with
most virtual multichannel services significantly bumping up prices in 2018 and 2019”); Ben Munson, An updated
timeline of price hikes at YouTube TV and other vMVPDs, Fierce Video (July 1, 2020),
https://www.fiercevideo.com/video/updated-timeline-price-hikes-at-youtube-tv-and-other-vmvpds (detailing
vMVPD price increases since 2018, many of which occurred when services added channels to their lineups).
569
See Shafer Virtual Multichannel.
570
Disney+, hulu Disney+ ESPN+, https://www.disneyplus.com/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). This bundle provides
ad-supported access to Hulu’s on-demand library and does not include Hulu + Live TV. Id.
571
AT&T, Get AT&T TV and enjoy a year of HBO® included, https://www.att.com/tv/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).
572
Amazon, What is Prime Video? - Amazon Prime Insider, https://www.amazon.com/primeinsider/video/prime-
video-qa.html (last visited Oct. 27, 2020); see also David Katzmaier, Amazon Prime Video Channels: Everything
you need to know, CNET (May 23, 2019), https://www.cnet.com/news/amazon-prime-video-channels-everything-
you-need-to-know/.
573
See Joseph Yaden, What Is Twitch, DigitalTrends (Oct. 25, 2020), https://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/what-
is-twitch/; Twitch, Watch Parties, https://help.twitch.tv/s/article/watch-parties?language=en_US (last visited Oct.
27, 2020).
574
See, e.g., 2018 Communications Marketplace Report, 33 FCC Rcd at 12606-07, paras. 78-79.
575
Mike Murphy, Apple TV+ spending more than $6 billion on new shows, plans to launch before Disney+: report,
MarketWatch (Aug. 19, 2019), https://www.marketwatch.com/story/apple-tv-spending-more-than-6-billion-on-new-
shows-plans-to-launch-before-disney-report-2019-08-19.
576
Figures for 2020 and certain months in 2019 are projections.
577
Joseph O’Halloran, Netflix overwhelms Amazon in original programming in 2019, Rapid TV News (Mar. 18,
2020), https://www.rapidtvnews.com/2020031858218/netflix-overwhelms-amazon-in-original-programming-in-
2019.html#axzz6O9Ase0rx (citing Omdia Original Online Production Report – 2020).
119
50 original movies and shows,578 and Apple TV+ had 30 original shows and films, with more in
development and a commitment to add new content each month.579
Fig. II.D.5
Original Content Spending, Select OVD Providers ($ millions)
Percentage Percentage
Provider 2018 2019 2020
Change Change
Amazon 734.0 1,253.0 70.7% 1,783.0 41.3%
Apple --- 115.5 --- 438.4 279.6%
Disney+ --- 63.0 --- 426.0 576.2%
Netflix 2,090.9 2,812.2 34.5% 3,568.1 26.9%
Source: S&P Global, Amazon Prime, Apple TV+, Disney+, Netflix estimated streaming programming costs
(last accessed Oct. 27, 2020).
190. Additionally, spending by Amazon and Netflix on original content as a percentage of
overall content spending generally has been increasing. Figure II.D.6 shows that Amazon’s spending on
original content has increased from approximately 6% of overall content spending in 2014 to a projected
24% in 2020. Similarly, Netflix spent approximately 7% on original content in 2014, but was projected
to spend 29% in 2020.
Fig. II.D.6
Comparison of Spending on Original and Acquired Content, Amazon and Netflix
($ millions, Percentage of Overall Content Spending)
Provider and
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Content Type
Amazon $52 $131 $320 $492 $734 $1,253 $1,783
Original Content (5.7%) (9.0%) (13.9%) (13.4%) (14.5%) (19.5%) (23.7%)
854 1,330 1,978 3,186 4,312 5,177 5,755
Acquired Content
(94.3%) (91.0%) (86.1%) (86.6%) (85.5%) (80.5%) (76.3%)
Netflix $180.2 $428.9 $842.3 $1,449.1 $2,090.9 $2,812.2 $3,568.1
Original Content (6.8%) (12.6%) (17.6%) (23.4%) (27.8%) (27.4%) (28.9%)
2,476.1 2,976.5 3,946.2 4,748.8 5,441.2 7,449.3 8,773.0
Acquired Content
(93.2%) (87.4%) (82.4%) (76.6%) (72.2%) (72.6%) (71.1%)
Source: S&P Global, Amazon Prime, Netflix estimated streaming programming costs (last accessed Oct. 27, 2020).
191. As larger media companies like Disney, NBCUniversal, and WarnerMedia Disney launch
their own OVD services, they are working to assemble substantial libraries of programming to offer to
consumers.580 Increasingly, large content owners are electing to use their own OVD services, instead of
third-party platforms, to make their content available online. For example, in advance of the Disney+
launch, Disney announced that it would pull all Disney and Pixar movie titles from Netflix, and that
578
Disney+, All Disney+ Originals, https://disneyplusoriginals.disney.com/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).
579
Benjamin Mayo, Apple TV+ Guide: Here are all the Apple TV shows and movies available now, 9 to 5 Mac Oct.
23, 2020), https://9to5mac.com/2020/05/29/apple-tv-plus-tv-shows-movies-guide/.
580
Lesley Goldberg, ‘The Office' to Leave Netflix in 2020, Stream Exclusively on NBCUniversal's Forthcoming
Service, The Hollywood Reporter (June 25, 2019), https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/office-leave-
netflix-2020-stream-exclusively-nbcuniversals-forthcoming-service-1220954 (‘The Office' to Leave Netflix).
120
Disney+ would be the home for all Disney movies going forward.581 After the company’s acquisition of
21st Century Fox (later rebranded 21st Century), Disney-owned Hulu became the exclusive streaming
home of FX network content.582 The Office, which is owned by NBCUniversal’s TV studio, currently
streams on Netflix, but will stream exclusively on Peacock beginning in 2021.583 The agreement by
which NBCUniversal and Comcast gave Disney full control of Hulu allows both Hulu and Peacock to
offer NBC programming, but gives NBCUniversal the right to pull programming off of Hulu in 2022.584
Some popular shows owned by Warner Brother’s Television—including Friends (which was pulled from
Netflix at the beginning of 2020) and The Big Bang Theory—will now stream on WarnerMedia’s HBO
Max exclusively.585
192. This trend is not universal, however. For example, shows co-produced by Universal
Television (an NBCUniversal subsidiary) and Wolf Entertainment, including Law and Order: SVU,
several seasons of Law and Order and Law and Order: Criminal Intent, as well as Chicago Fire,
Chicago P.D., and Chicago Med, will stream on NBCUniversal’s OVD offering Peacock, but that deal is
not exclusive, allowing those series to stream on other platforms as well.586 At least two shows produced
by Warner Bros. Television—The George Lopez Show (which was broadcast on ABC) and Two and a
Half Men (which was broadcast on CBS)—will stream on Peacock, not HBO Max.587
c. OVD Usage, Subscribers, and Revenue
193. AVOD. Figure II.D.7 shows widespread usage of AVOD services among U.S.
consumers. 84% of respondents to the Kagan Consumer Insights Spring 2019 Survey indicated that they
or someone in their household used one or more free websites or services to watch online video.588
Among individual websites and services, YouTube, Facebook, and broadcast network websites were the
most popular.589
581
Michelle Castillo, Disney will pull its movies from Netflix and start its own streaming services, CNBC (Aug. 9,
2017), https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/08/disney-will-pull-its-movies-from-netflix-and-start-its-own-streaming-
services.html.
582
See Julia Alexander, Disney is using FX to ensure people don’t forget about Hulu, The Verge (Nov. 17, 2019),
https://www.theverge.com/2019/11/7/20954171/disney-hulu-fox-fx-series-movies-searchlight-streaming-wars-
netflix-hbo; Adam B. Vary, Disney Drops Fox Name, Will Rebrand as 20th Century Studios, Searchlight Pictures,
Variety (Jan. 17, 2020), https://variety.com/2020/film/news/disney-dropping-fox-20th-century-studios-1203470349/.
583
See Joan E. Solsman, NBC's Peacock: Everything about NBCUniversal's semi-free streaming app, CNET (Oct.
23, 2020), https://www.cnet.com/news/nbc-peacock-streaming-prices-devices-us-launch-dates-shows-movies-
originals/, (Peacock: Everything About); ‘The Office’ to Leave Netflix.
584
Peacock: Everything About.
585
Andrea Francese, This is the Real Reason 'The Big Bang Theory' Isn't Streaming on Netflix in the United States
and Probably Never Will, Showbiz Cheat Sheet (Jan. 6, 2020), https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/this-is-
the-real-reason-the-big-bang-theory-isnt-streaming-on-netflix-in-the-united-states-and-probably-never-will.html/.
Jennifer Maas, ‘Two and a Half Men’ to Stream Exclusively on NBCUniversal’s Peacock, Instead of HBO Max,
586
The Wrap (Jan. 16, 2020), https://www.thewrap.com/two-and-a-half-men-peacock-streaming-nbcuniversal-not-hbo-

max/.
587
Id.
588
See Shafer Ad Supported Video; S&P Global, Estimated US instream and outstream video ad revenues, 2014-
2023 (last accessed Oct. 27, 2020) (Estimated Instream and Outstream Revenues). The survey of 2,511 respondents
was conducted in March 2019. See Shafer Ad Supported Video.
589
See id.; Estimated Instream and Outstream Revenues.
121
Fig. II.D.7
U.S. AVOD Usage, Kagan Consumer Insights Spring 2019 Survey
Percentage of Respondents
AVOD Service
That Reported Using Service
YouTube 71%
Facebook 46%
Network TV Websites 27%
The Roku Channel 13%
Crackle 10%
IGTV (Instagram) 8%
Pluto TV 8%
Vudu Movies On Us 8%
Snapchat Discover 7%
Tubi TV 6%
Crunchyroll 5%
Source: Seth Shafer, Economics of Internet: State of US online video:
Ad-supported video, S&P Global at 6 (Nov. 7, 2019) (last accessed Oct. 27, 2020).
194. Revenue for AVOD providers continues to increase. Figure II.D.8 shows AVOD
revenue figures for instream advertisements (advertisements shown within video content) and outstream
advertisements (advertisements not connected to a content video stream, e.g. video ads in social media
feeds/streams, and pause, menu, and lock screens).590
Fig. II.D.8
U.S. AVOD Video Advertising Revenue ($ millions)
2018 2019 2020
Change Change
Instream Advertisements $12,573 $14,312 13.8% $15,660 9.4%
Outstream Advertisements $2,865 $3,851 34.4% $4,731 22.9%
Total $15,438 $18,163 17.7% $20,391 12.3%
Source: Seth Shafer, Economics of Internet: State of US online video: Ad-supported video, S&P Global at 3
(Nov. 7, 2019); S&P Global, Estimated US instream and outstream video ad revenues, 2014-2023.
195. SVOD. Figure II.D.9 shows that SVOD subscribership is increasing. In addition, it is
common for households to subscribe to more than one SVOD service. 19% of the respondents to the
Kagan Consumer Insights Fall 2019 Survey indicated that they subscribed to two SVODs, and 37%
indicated that they subscribed to three or more.591 According to a September 2018 S&P Global survey,
21% of U.S. consumers use two SVOD services, and 29% use three or more subscription OTT services.592
These numbers increase for younger consumers. Among U.S. consumers aged 38 to 52, 22% use two
SVOD services, and 33% use three or more SVOD services.593 These figures are 25% and 42%,
590
See Shafer Ad Supported Video; Estimated Instream and Outstream Revenues.
591
Seth Shafer, Economics of Internet: State of US online video: Subscription video on demand, S&P Global (Oct.
31, 2019) (Shafer Subscription Video).
592
Ali Choukeir and Seth Shafer, State of US OTT, S&P Global (Apr. 25, 2019).
593
Id.
122
respectively, for consumers aged 18 to 37.594 Online video subscription revenue is also increasing. This
revenue was $16.11 billion in 2019, an increase of 17.3% from $13.73 billion in 2018.595 Projected
revenue for 2020 is $18.55 billion, an increase of 15.1% from the previous year.596
Fig. II.D.9
U.S. SVOD Subscribers
Q4 2018 Q4 2019 Percentage Change
Subscribers (millions) 164.0 219.8. 34.1%
Source: S&P Global, Q4'19 top US video provider rankings (Apr. 23, 2020) (last accessed Oct. 27, 2020).
196. TVOD. Figure II.D.10 indicates that online rental of video content by U.S. consumers is
increasing slightly, resulting in slight revenue growth for TVOD providers.597
Fig. II.D.10
U.S. Online Rental of Video Content
2018 2019 2020
Change Change
Rentals (millions) 346.3 353.2 2.0% 358.1 1.4%
Revenue ($ millions) $1,682.1 $1,717.5 2.1% $1,743.3 1.5%
Source: S&P Global, US Online Video Projections (last accessed Oct. 27, 2020).
197. Figure II.D.11 indicates that since 2018, online sale of movie titles by U.S. consumers
have increased slightly, while online sale of TV television titles decreased, resulting in modest revenue
growth for OVD providers.598
594
Id.
595
See Shafer Subscription Video; S&P Global, US Online Video Projections (last accessed Oct. 27, 2020) (Online
Video Projections).
596
See Shafer Subscription Video; Online Video Projections.
597
Id.
598
Id.
123
Fig. II.D.11
U.S. Online Sale of Video Content
2018 2019 2020
Change Change
Movie Title Purchases (millions) 109.6 117.7 7.4% 124.1 5.4%
Movie Title Revenue ($ millions) $1,507.3 $1,619.4 7.4% $1,710.1 5.6%
TV Title Purchases (millions) 325.2 308.9 -5.0% 301.2 -2.5%
TV Title Revenue ($ millions) $682.9 $650.7 -4.7% $636.3 -2.2%
Total Revenue ($ millions) $2,190.2 $2,270.1 3.6% $2,346.4 3.4%
Source: S&P Global, US Online Video Projections (last accessed Oct. 27, 2020).
198. vMVPD. Figure II.D.12 shows that both subscriber numbers and revenues for vMVPD
providers have been increasing.
Fig. II.D.12
U.S. vMVPD Subscribers and Revenue
2018 2019 2020
Change Change
Subscriber Households (millions) 7.1 9.3 31.0% 10.8 16.1%
Revenue ($ billions) 2.78 4.64 66.9% 6.01 29.5%
Source: Seth Shafer, Economics of Internet: State of US online video: virtual multichannel, S&P Global at 4 (Oct.
22, 2019).
199. Finally, we provide subscriber numbers for select SVOD and vMVPD providers. With
some exceptions, Figure II.D.13 indicates that individual OVDs have seen subscribership increases
between 2018 and 2019.
124
Fig. II.D.13
Total Subscribers, Select SVOD and vMVPD Providers (millions)599
Percentage
OVD Q4 2018 Q4 2019
Change
Amazon * 63.1 71.6 13.5%
Netflix 58.5 61.0 4.3%
Hulu * 22.8 30.4 33.3%
Disney+ * --- 25.2 ---
HBO * # 6.5 10.4 60.0%
ESPN+ * 1.4 6.6 371.4%
Starz * # 3.6 5.6 55.6%
Showtime * # 4.0 5.2 30.0%
CBS All Access * 4.0 5.0 25.0%
Hulu Live TV 1.7 3.2 88.2%
Sling TV 2.4 2.6 8.3%
YouTube TV * 0.8 2.0 150.0%
Source: S&P Global, Top US video subscription services, ranked by Q4’19 subscribers (last
accessed Oct. 27, 2020).
200. COVID-19 Pandemic Impact on OVDs. MoffettNathanson reports a strong first half in
2020 for the top SVOD services, but notes that growth of these services is moderating as penetration
approaches 75% of U.S. households.600 According to S&P Global, vMVPDs collectively gained 856,000
subscribers in the second quarter of 2020, after losing 125,000 in the first quarter, for a six-month gain of
731,000 subscribers.601 S&P Global attributes the growth in vMVPD subscriptions largely to AT&T's
efforts to transition customers to AT&T TV.602
4. Broadcast Television Stations
201. Broadcast television stations offer linear video programming channels over the air to
households. In addition, households may also receive broadcast television station programming channels
from MVPDs and, in some cases, OVDs. Many commercial broadcast stations air programming
produced by the station itself, typically local news, sports, and events, in addition to programming
acquired from affiliated broadcast networks or syndicators.603 Commercial broadcast television stations
generate revenue from two main sources: Advertising sales and payments negotiated with MVPDs and
OVDs for the right to retransmit broadcast station signals.
599
Figures for providers marked with a * are estimates. Figures for premium networks marked with a # include all
OTT sources and exclude traditional multichannel units. Figures for Hulu include subscribers who have access
through a Hulu + Live TV subscription. See S&P Global, Top US video subscription services, ranked by Q4’19
subscribers (last accessed Oct. 27, 2020).
600
Jason Aycock, MoffettNathanson sees growth maturing for streaming VOD platforms, Seeking Alpha (Oct. 14,
2020), https://seekingalpha.com/news/3622188-moffettnathanson-sees-growth-maturing-for-streaming-vod-
platforms.
601
Multichannel Video Market Share Trends.
602
Traditional Multichannel Drop.
603
See, e.g., Nexstar Media Group, Inc., SEC Form 10-K at 5 (filed Mar. 13, 2020) (Nexstar 2019 SEC Form 10-K).
125
a. Station Licensing and Ownership

202. The Commission licenses broadcast television stations consistent with the
Communications Act.604 Licenses were formerly granted pursuant to comparative hearings among
interested applicants.605 Today, the Commission awards broadcast television licenses by auction,
although the Commission has not auctioned a license for a new full-power commercial television station
since 2011.606 Figure II.D.14 shows that the number of licensed broadcast television stations has
remained stable in recent years.
Fig. II.D.14
Number of Licensed Broadcast Television Stations
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
607
Commercial UHF 1,031 1,031 1,033 1,011 1,013 1,001
Commercial VHF 359 356 350 364 370 371
Non-Commercial 395 395 394 390 378 387
Total Stations 1,785 1,782 1,777 1,765 1,761 1,759
Source: FCC, Broadcast Totals as of Mar. 31, 2015; Mar. 31, 2016; Mar. 31, 2017; Mar. 31, 2018; Mar.31,
2019; and Mar. 31, 2020.608
203. Whereas Figure II.D.14 shows the number of television stations in the United States, each
viewer can only access the stations in his or her market. Figure II.D.15 is a scatterplot of the number of
stations per market by market size (measured in TV households), where each point represents a market.609
The data show that the number of television stations available increases with market size. While the
median market has seven stations, because the population is concentrated in the largest markets, most TV
households have access to at least 13 stations. In addition, many television broadcast stations use digital
transmission technologies to offer multiple programming streams (digital multicast channels) to
604
47 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. See also 47 CFR §§ 73.601-73.699, 73.1001-73.4280. In this section, we focus on full-
power broadcast television stations. In addition to these stations, the Commission licenses Class A and low-power
television stations, as well as television translator and satellite stations which are used to increase the geographic
reach of the associated main station.
605
KPMG, History of Broadcast License Application Process at 4 (Nov. 2000),
https://transition.fcc.gov/opportunity/meb_study/broadcast_lic_study_pt1.pdf.
606
607
Very high frequency (VHF) stations operate on channels 2-13, while ultra-high frequency (UHF) stations operate
on channels 14-51.
608
Press Release, FCC, Broadcast Station Totals as of March 31, 2015 (Apr. 9, 2015),
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-332923A1.pdf; Press Release, FCC, Broadcast Station Totals as of
March 31, 2016 (Apr. 6, 2016), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-338754A1.pdf; Press Release, FCC,
Broadcast Station Totals as of March 31, 2017 (Apr. 11, 2017), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-
344256A1.pdf; Press Release, FCC, Broadcast Station Totals as of March 31, 2018 (Apr. 9, 2018),
363515A1.pdf.
609
Fig. II.D.15 defines broadcast television markets using Nielsen’s designated market area (DMA) definitions.
Each DMA is a group of counties that form an exclusive geographic area in which the home market television
stations capture a dominance of total hours viewed. There are 210 DMAs, covering the entire continental United
States, Hawaii, and parts of Alaska. The DMA boundaries and DMA data are owned solely and exclusively by
Nielsen. Nielsen, DMA Regions, https://www.nielsen.com/us/en/intl-campaigns/dma-maps/ (last visited Oct. 27,
2020).
126
viewers.610 This suggests that the number of stations shown in Figure II.D.15 is a lower bound for the
number of broadcast channels available in each market.
Fig. II.D.15
Television Stations by Market Size
Number of Television Stations 30
25
20
15
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Television Households (millions)
Source: FCC, Licensing and Management System; BIA, Media Access Pro; Nielsen, DMA
Universe Estimates 2019-2020 (Sept. 2019).
204. Most television stations are owned by companies that own multiple stations, called
station groups.611 Figure II.D.16 shows information about the twelve largest station groups in the United
States by share of TV households reached. These station groups each reach more than 20% of TV
households. The table lists the number of stations owned by each group and the number of markets in
which the station group owns at least one station. The share of TV households reached by the station
group is the total number of TV households living in markets where the station group owns at least one
station divided by the total number of TV households in the United States.
610
See, e.g., Nexstar 2019 SEC Form 10-K at 9-12.
611
About 85% of stations are part of station groups. S&P Global, Top TV Station Owners (last accessed Oct. 27,
2020).
127
Fig. II.D.16
Largest Broadcast Television Station Groups by TV Households Reached612
Share of TV
Station Group Stations Markets Households
Reached
ION 71 61 69.5%
Nexstar 162 116 62.1%
Univision 40 25 45.5%
Fox 30 18 39.2%
TEGNA 62 51 39.0%
ViacomCBS 28 17 38.4%
Sinclair 115 84 38.3%
Comcast 27 20 37.5%
E.W. Scripps 48 41 31.4%
WRNN-TV Associates 11 9 25.3%
Gray 126 92 24.0%
Disney 8 8 22.7%
Source: S&P Global, Top TV Station Owners (last accessed Oct 27, 2020);
Nielsen, DMA Universe Estimates 2019-2020 (Sept. 2019).
b. Distribution and Delivery
205. Broadcast television stations reach viewers by broadcasting signals directly over the air to
homes, as well as through carriage agreements with MVPDs and OVDs, which retransmit the signals of
stations to households subscribing to their services.613 The over-the-air reach of a broadcast television
station is determined largely by the height of the transmission tower and the power of the transmitter.614
Buildings, hills, and other objects, however, may interfere with over-the-air signals.615
206. MVPDs offering service within a DMA typically carry the local broadcast television
stations assigned to the DMA, and each MVPD rebroadcasts the stations’ signals to all its subscribers in
the DMA.616 This is because broadcast stations typically hold exclusive rights to broadcast network
programming in a DMA.617 Thus, unlike cable networks that are available nationwide, most broadcast
television stations’ signals are retransmitted by MVPDs only within the station’s assigned DMA.618
612
Fig. II.D.16 shows stations, markets, and TV households reached as of October 27, 2020. On September 24,
2020, E.W. Scripps announced its intention to purchase ION Media. Press Release, E.W. Scripps, Scripps Creates
National Television Networks Business with the Acquisition of ION Media, (Sept. 24, 2020),
https://scripps.com/press-releases/scripps-creates-national-television-networks-business-with-acquisition-of-ion-
media/. ION submitted applications for transfer of control to the Commission on October 13, 2020. See FCC File
Nos. BTCCDT-20201013AAO, ABV, ACH. As of October 27, 2020, the transaction had not yet been consented.
613
614
Id. at 12614, para. 94 & n.260.
615
Id. at 12614, para. 94.
616
Id.
617
Id.
618
Id.
128
Rebroadcast of television stations’ signals by online vMVPDs follows a similar pattern—subscribers

located in a DMA receive signals of local broadcast television stations from the same DMA.619
207. When a broadcast station negotiates with MVPDs and OVDs for carriage of its
programming, it is in the business of content distribution—similar to a cable network.620 When a
broadcast station delivers programming over the air, it is in the business of content delivery—similar to
facilities-based MVPDs.621
c. Programming and Content Ownership
208. Programming. Broadcast television stations air network programming, programming
produced by the station, and syndicated programming.622 Network programming is provided by broadcast
television networks to stations through affiliation agreements. In an affiliation agreement, the station
receives network programming and, in exchange, the network receives affiliation fees and the right to sell
some portion of the advertising time during the programming.623 The major broadcast television networks
(ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC) generally offer entertainment, news, and live sports programming.624 In
addition, major Spanish language networks (Telemundo and Univision) now reach most U.S. TV
households and offer entertainment, news, and sports programming primarily aimed at Hispanic
viewers.625
209. Smaller networks, including networks that air exclusively on digital multicast channels,
often offer niche programming, aimed at a particular demographic group or focusing on specific subject
matter. For example, Bounce offers programming primarily aimed at African-American viewers, MeTV
airs classic television series, Dabl is a lifestyle network, Comet airs science fiction programming, and
Justice Network airs true crime programming.626 Much of the programming aired on smaller networks is
syndicated programming, but some smaller networks also air original programming.627
210. In addition to network programming, many stations also produce local news
programming. A joint study by the Radio Television Digital News Association and Hofstra University
619
Id.
620
Id. at 12614, para. 96.
621
Id. at 12614, para. 96. Although we discuss the wider business of television broadcasting, we focus on
competition in the market for the delivery of video programming. We therefore consider most closely the role
played by the over-the-air broadcast service.
622
See, e.g., Nexstar 2019 SEC Form 10-K at 5; Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc, SEC Form 10-K at 5 (filed Mar. 2,
2020) (Sinclair 2019 SEC Form 10-K).
623
See, e.g., Nexstar 2019 SEC Form 10-K at 14.
624
See, e.g., Comcast 2019 SEC Form 10-K; Fox Corporation, SEC Form 10-K, at 2 (filed Aug. 9, 2019) (Fox SEC
Form 10-K); ViacomCBS, SEC Form 10-K, at I-2 (filed Feb. 20, 2020) (ViacomCBS 2019 SEC Form 10-K).
625
See Comcast 2019 SEC Form 10-K at 7; Univision, Univision Network,
https://corporate.univision.com/blog/portfolio/properties/univision/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). Both Univision and
Telemundo affiliated broadcast stations reach about 60% of U.S. TV households. S&P Global, TV Stations by
Market and Affiliation (last accessed Oct. 27, 2020).
626
The E.W. Scripps Company, SEC Form 10-K, at 10 (filed Feb. 28, 2020) (E.W. Scripps 2019 SEC Form 10-K);
Weigel Broadcasting, National Networks, https://www.weigelbroadcasting.com/national/ (last visited Oct. 27,
2020); ViacomCBS 2019 SEC Form 10-K at I-5; Sinclair 2019 SEC Form 10-K at 12; TEGNA Inc., SEC Form 10-
K, at 5 (filed Mar. 2, 2020) (TEGNA 2019 SEC Form 10-K).
627
Marc Berman, No longer just for reruns, diginets grab the eye of major advertisers, Campaign (Nov. 8, 2016),
https://www.campaignlive.com/article/no-longer-just-reruns-diginets-grab-eye-major-advertisers/1414937.
129
found that about 42% of stations produced local newscasts.628 These stations produced newscasts that
aired on their own stations and on other stations. In total, about 63% of stations aired a local newscast,
and stations airing local news aired about six hours of local news per weekday.629 Some large station
groups have also established news bureaus in Washington, DC. These news bureaus provide national
news coverage and interviews with members of Congress to local broadcast stations owned by the
associated station group.630
211. In addition to providing broadcast network and local news programming, broadcast
television stations negotiate with national program distributors and syndicators to be exclusive providers
of first-run and rerun content in their DMAs.631 Syndicated programming agreements are structured in a
similar way to network affiliation agreements—the station obtains the rights to syndicated programming
in exchange for advertising time, fees, or both.632 Syndicated programming often represents a long-term
financial commitment; stations usually purchase syndicated programming several years in advance and
sometimes must make multi-year commitments.633
212. Ownership of Content. In addition to owning broadcast stations and other properties,
Disney, ViacomCBS, Fox, Comcast, and Univision each own interest in at least one broadcast network
(ABC, CBS and the CW, Fox, NBC and Telemundo, and Univision, respectively).634 Further, Disney,
Comcast, and ViacomCBS each own large television production studios.635 These studios produce
programming that is licensed to broadcast networks.636 Univision also owns a television studio which
produces video content for its network.637 Owning video content allows its owner to generate revenue
from fees to license the content internationally or domestically. In addition, several other broadcast
groups also produce and own programming. Sinclair Broadcasting Group and Gray Television produce
628
The study reports that 706 TV stations originated local news out of 1,685 operating, non-satellite television
stations. Bob Papper, A Shocking Development: A Small Increase in Local TV Newsrooms ... and a Record Amount
of Local News, RTDNA/Hofstra University at 1, 6 (2019), https://www.rtdna.org/uploads/files/2019%20RTDNA-
Hofstra%20Survey%20TV%20News%20Numbers.pdf (2019 RTDNA/Hofstra Study).
629
The study reports that 1,069 TV stations aired local news out of 1,685 operating, non-satellite television stations.
See 2019 RTDNA/Hofstra Study at 1, 3, 6.
630
Sinclair 2019 SEC Form 10-K at 13; Nexstar 2019 SEC Form 10-K at 6; E.W. Scripps SEC Form 10-K at 4.
631
Nexstar 2019 SEC Form 10-K at 15; Gray Television, Inc., SEC Form 10-K at 12 (filed Feb. 27, 2020) (Gray
2019 SEC Form 10-K).
632
Nexstar 2019 SEC Form 10-K at 13; Gray 2019 SEC Form 10-K at 11.
633
Sinclair 2019 SEC Form 10-K at 34-35.
634
The Walt Disney Company, SEC Form 10-K, at 4 (filed Nov. 20, 2019) (Disney SEC Form 10-K); ViacomCBS
2019 SEC Form 10-K at I-2, I-3; Fox 10-K at 8; Comcast 2019 SEC Form 10-K at 7; Univision, Univision Network,
https://corporate.univision.com/portfolio/properties/univision/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).
635
Disney SEC Form 10-K at 4; Comcast 2019 SEC Form 10-K at 7; ViacomCBS 2019 SEC Form 10-K at I-3. Fox
owned its own television production studios, Twentieth Century Fox Television and Fox 21 Television Studios, until
it sold the studios to Disney in 2019. See also Georg Szalai, Paul Bond, Disney Closes $71.3 Billion Fox Deal,
Creating Global Content Powerhouse, The Hollywood Reporter (Mar. 19, 2019),
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/disney-closes-fox-deal-creating-global-content-powerhouse-1174498.
636
Studios may license shows to either the associated broadcast network or other broadcast networks. Emily
VanDerWerff, Brooklyn Nine-Nine and Last Man Standing were saved from cancellation for the same reason, Vox
(May 15, 2018), https://www.vox.com/culture/2018/5/15/17352724/brooklyn-nine-nine-last-man-standing-
cancellation-revival-saved.
637
Univision owns W Studios, which is a production studio that develops primetime series for U.S. Hispanic
audiences. Univision, W Studios, https://corporate.univision.com/portfolio/properties/w-studios/ (last visited Oct.
27, 2020).
130
weekly national political programs which air on their stations.638 TEGNA produces a daily news and
entertainment program which airs on its stations.639
d. Broadcast Television Revenue
213. Advertising Revenue. Broadcast television stations air advertising spots during breaks in
programming. A station sells all the advertising spots aired during programming produced by the station
itself and some of the advertising spots aired during network and syndicated programming.640 A
broadcast television station also earns advertising revenue from any banner or video ads placed on its
website.641
214. The price of an advertising spot is generally determined by the size and demographic
composition of the program’s audience.642 High demand for television advertising in a market (e.g., due
to many advertisers competing for available time or the absence of alternative advertising media) raises
the price of an advertising spot.643 Demand for television ads is also higher during election years
(generally even-numbered years), when national, state, and local political campaigns purchase ads,644 and
during the second and fourth quarters of the year due to consumer spending patterns.645 Conversely, a
weak local or national economy reduces demand for advertising and ad prices fall.646
215. Both local and national businesses buy advertising spots from broadcast television
stations. Advertising spots are sold to local advertisers directly through a station’s local sales staff while
national advertisers generally work with national advertising sales representative firms to buy advertising
time.647 Figure II.D.17 shows annual gross revenues for broadcast stations for the period 2016-2019.
Total advertising revenue was about $21.9 billion in 2019. Local advertising revenue makes up the
largest share of advertising revenue. Specifically, local news programs produced by the station generate a
large share of local ad revenue.648 Advertising revenue has remained relatively flat over the past five
years, but its share of total gross revenue has fallen from more than 75% in 2015 to about 65% in 2019.
638
Sinclair Broadcasting Group produces Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson and America this week with Eric
Bolling. Sinclair SEC Form 10-K at 12. Gray Television produces Full Court Press with Greta Van Susteren. Gray
News, Gray Television Launches Syndicated Weekend Political Show with Greta Van Susteren (Sept. 4, 2019),
https://graytv.gcs-web.com/static-files/9375070f-3b71-48e6-a567-fedac4024f58.
639
TEGNA produces Daily Blast LIVE. TEGNA, TEGNA Announces Host Lineup, Fall Premiere Date for “Daily
Blast LIVE” (July 20, 2017), https://www.tegna.com/tegna-announces-host-lineup-fall-premiere-date-for-daily-
blast-live/.
640
See, e.g., Nexstar SEC Form 10-K at 13; TEGNA SEC Form 10-K at 3.
641
See, e.g., Gray SEC Form 10-K at 39.
642
See, e.g., Nexstar SEC Form 10-K at 13; Gray SEC Form 10-K at 4; TEGNA SEC Form 10-K at 3; Sinclair SEC
Form 10-K at 23.
643
See, e.g., Nexstar SEC Form 10-K at 13; Gray SEC Form 10-K at 4; Sinclair SEC Form 10-K at 23.
644
See, e.g., Nexstar SEC Form 10-K at 14; Gray SEC Form 10-K at 10; TEGNA SEC Form 10-K at 3; Sinclair
SEC Form 10-K at 6.
645
See, e.g., Nexstar SEC Form 10-K at 14; Gray SEC Form 10-K at 10, 14; TEGNA SEC Form 10-K at 19;
Sinclair SEC Form 10-K at 56.
646
See, e.g., id. at 34; Gray SEC Form 10-K at 20; TEGNA SEC Form 10-K at 15; Nexstar SEC Form 10-K at 32.
647
See, e.g., id. at 13, 14; TEGNA SEC Form 10-K at 3.
648
See, e.g., Nexstar SEC Form 10-K at 6; Gray SEC Form 10-K at 4; Sinclair SEC Form 10-K at 13.
131
Fig. II.D.17
Broadcast Television Station Industry Gross Revenue Trends (millions)
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Total Advertising $20,888 $22,855 $21,302 $23,516 $21,890
Local $12,071 $12,028 $12,173 $12,124 $12,342
National $6,211 $6,055 $5,934 $5,839 $5,921
Political $717 $2,654 $866 $3,037 $960
Online $1,890 $2,117 $2,329 $2,515 $2,666
Retransmission Consent $6,423 $7,979 $9,374 $10,570 $11,715
Total $27,312 $30,834 $30,676 $34,086 $33,605
Source: S&P Global, U.S. TV station industry total revenue projections, 2009-2024 (June 2019).
216. Retransmission Consent Revenue. Many broadcast television stations generate revenue
by granting MVPDs and OVDs the right to carry their signals. Pursuant to section 325 of the Act,
MVPDs may not retransmit a broadcast television station’s signal without the station’s express
permission.649 If a station elects retransmission consent, the station and MVPD negotiate a carriage
agreement, which often includes monetary or other types of compensation for the television station.650
Monetary compensation is often based on the number of MVPD subscribers in the carriage agreement.651
If a carriage agreement cannot be negotiated, the MVPD must stop retransmitting the station’s broadcast
signal and viewers lose access to the station through the MVPD, in what is known as a blackout. Figure
II.D.17 also shows retransmission consent revenue over the period 2015-2019. Retransmission consent
revenue continued to grow, although its growth rate had declined from nearly 25% from 2016 to 2017 to
about 10% from 2018 to 2019.
217. COVID-19 Pandemic Impact on Broadcast Television Stations. Advertising revenue fell
in both the first and second quarters of 2020 compared to the first and second quarters of 2019.652 For a
group of four prominent television broadcasters (Sinclair Broadcasting Group, Nexstar Media Group,
Gray Television, and E.W. Scripps Company), advertising revenue declines, excluding political
advertising revenue, ranged from 1.0% to 8.1% in the first quarter and from 16.5% to 36.0% in the second
quarter.653 Executives from these companies, however, reported improvements in advertising revenue
each month of the second quarter.654 Retransmission consent revenues have not been meaningfully
affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Although traditional MVPD subscribers declined during the first
half of 2020, it is unclear whether this decline can be attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic. Even with
subscriber declines, retransmission consent revenue earned by major station groups increased in both the
first and second quarters of 2020 by nearly 20% compared to the first and second quarters of 2019.655
649
47 U.S.C. § 325(b). Every three years, commercial television stations must elect either the right to grant consent
for the MVPDs in the DMA to retransmit the station’s signal or the right to receive mandatory carriage by those
MVPDs. Id. § 325(b)(3)(B); 47 CFR §§ 76.56(b), 76.64.
650
651
See, e.g., Nexstar SEC Form 10-K at 14.
652
See Atif Zubair, Broadcast ad revenues to slide further post Q1 mid-single digit ad pullback, S&P Global (June
4, 2020) (Broadcast TV 2020 Q1 Results); Atif Zubair, Broadcasters see improvement in core ad revenue after
double-digit dip in Q2, S&P Global (Aug. 26, 2020) (Broadcast TV 2020 Q2 Results).
653
Advertising revenue declines are based on same station results. See Broadcast TV 2020 Q1 Results, Broadcast
TV 2020 Q2 Results.
654
See Broadcast TV 2020 Q2 Results.
655
Atif Zubair, TV station retrans growth keeps double-digit momentum in Q2, S&P Global (Aug. 19, 2020).
132
5. Competition in Video
218. We now discuss various aspects of competition among MVPDs, OVDs, and broadcast
television stations. In doing so, we present data on household subscription to, and use of, multiple video
services, as well as total subscription figures for the top video services. We also examine competition in
advertising by presenting advertising revenue estimates by sector.
219. Time, Location, and Device Flexibility. As noted above, many consumers value the
ability to watch video programming at any time and in any place. In response to consumer preferences,
MVPDs, which traditionally offered linear video programming channels to view on a television set in the
home, today also offer VOD content and DVR services as discussed above. In addition, many MVPDs
offer TV Everywhere which allows subscribers to watch programming on devices other than a television
set anywhere that has an internet connection. Among OVDs, vMVPDs also offer linear programming
channels with some VOD programming and DVR capabilities, while AVOD, SVOD, and TVOD services
are built around VOD programming. OVDs also offer location and device flexibility, as noted above, as
OVDs are available via an internet connection and many are available on multiple devices. Broadcast
stations offer linear video programming channels over the air and therefore cannot provide flexibility in
viewing time, location, or device. However, consumers who view these stations through an MVPD or
OVD may have additional flexibility.
220. Programming Content. MVPDs often hold significant content assets, and both OVDs
and broadcast television stations have sought to own more content. Because MVPDs usually make their
networks available to other MVPDs and vMVPDs, exclusive content is typically not a point of
competition between MVPDs or between MVPDs and vMVPDs, as previously noted. MVPDs and
vMVPDs, however, differentiate their services from other OVDs and broadcast television stations by
offering a full complement of live sports programming.656 While other OVDs offer live sports
programming, these services offer a limited variety of sports and a limited number of games.657
Broadcast television stations offer a variety of sports through network programming, but many games are
aired only on national cable networks and regional sports networks.
221. To draw customers to their services, OVDs such as Netflix, Amazon, HBO Max, and
Disney+ offer exclusive programming content—both new TV shows and movies and already released
video content—on their services.658 As programming content owners, like Disney, Comcast, and AT&T,
develop their own online video services, they have pulled back popular video programming content
licensed to competitive OVDs to offer it exclusively on their own services.659 In addition, many OVDs
develop exclusive original programming. In 2019, as shown in Figure II.D.5 above, Netflix spent an
estimated $2.8 billion on original content, while Amazon and Apple spent $1.3 billion and $116 million,
respectively.
656
MVPDs and vMVPDs offer national broadcast and cable networks as well as regional sports networks which air
live sports programming.
657
For example, Amazon continues to expand live sports programming on its service, but it is not expected to gain
exclusive streaming rights to all live sports in the near term. See Audrey Schomer, Amazon will be streaming the
Yankees for Prime Members, Business Insider (Mar. 5, 2020), https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-expands-
sports-streaming-ambitions-2020-3. In addition, sports league-specific OVDs offer only one sport, and games are
often blacked out in the teams’ home markets. See NBA, Watch the NBA On-Demand,
https://www.nba.com/watch/pricing (last visited Oct. 27, 2020); MLB, MLB.TV, https://www.mlb.com/live-stream-
games/subscribe?affiliateId=MLBTVREDIRECT (last visited Oct. 27, 2020); NHL, NHL.TV,
https://www.nhl.com/subscribe#features (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).
658
Allegra Frank, Alissa Wilkinson, Emily VanDerWerff, and Alex Abad-Santos, The best and worst of the biggest
streaming services, Vox (July 24, 2020), https://www.vox.com/culture/2020/5/29/21263715/hbo-max-netflix-hulu-
disney-plus-amazon-apple-cbs-all-access-streaming-service-guide.
659
Tali Arbel, AT&T pulls ‘Friends’ from Netflix for its streaming service, AP News (July 9, 2019),
https://apnews.com/557110226d10440c905f9563e70c4bc2.
133
222. Pricing and Contracts. As discussed above, MVPD subscriptions are declining. Many
subscribers who cancel their MVPD subscriptions cite rising prices as a cause.660 In contrast, vMVPDs
market themselves as a cheaper alternative to a traditional MVPD subscription.661 SVOD services are
even less expensive, with some SVOD services also offering a lower priced service tier which includes
ads.662
223. OVDs further distinguish themselves from MVPDs by prominently advertising their full
subscription prices. In contrast, the service prices advertised by MVPDs typically do not include
additional fees or equipment rental costs. 663 Beginning in December 2020, however, MVPDs will be
subject to section 1004 of the Television Viewer Protection Act of 2019, which requires them to disclose
the total monthly cost to subscribers before sign-up and to clarify promotional discounts and when they
expire.664 OVDs also offer flexible cancellation and free product trials.665 Many MVPDs, on the other
hand, offer service under long-term contracts, and consumers often pay a fee to terminate the contract
before its end date.666 Finally, initiating or terminating service from an OVD, which can be done online,
is easier than initiating or terminating service from an MVPD, which may require a visit to the home by a
service technician.667
224. Consumer Access. Consumer access to video providers depends on the geographic
market and type of service. As noted above, most households have access to at least one cable provider
and two DBS providers, and some also have access to a telephone company MVPD. To obtain service
from an OVD, a consumer must have internet access. With respect to over-the-air television, the number
of available stations depends both on the number of stations allocated to the consumer’s DMA and the
consumer’s ability to receive a useable over-the-air signal from the station.668
225. Video Subscription and Use Data. In 2019, about 75% of TV households (about 90
million households) subscribed to a multichannel television service (MVPD or vMVPD service), while
660
James K. Willcox, Cord Cutting Continues, Fueled By High Cable Pricing, Consumer Reports’ Survey Finds,
Consumer Reports (Sept. 17, 2019), https://www.consumerreports.org/telecom-services/cord-cutting-continues-
high-cable-pricing/.
661
Sling, Stop paying too much for TV, https://www.sling.com/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020); YouTubeTV, Cut the
Cord and Save $500/year*, https://tv.youtube.com/learn/switch/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).
662
The top five SVOD services in the United States by subscribership are Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, and
HBO Max. See supra Fig. II.D.13. Among these, a premium subscription to Netflix costs the most at $15.99 per
month while Hulu offers the least expensive service at $5.99 per month with commercials. Allegra Frank, Alissa
Wilkinson, Emily VanDerWerff, and Alex Abad-Santos, The best and worst of the biggest streaming services, Vox
(July 24, 2020), https://www.vox.com/culture/2020/5/29/21263715/hbo-max-netflix-hulu-disney-plus-amazon-
apple-cbs-all-access-streaming-service-guide.
663
These additional charges are, however, generally included in the fine print of the advertisement. See, e.g.,
Comcast, Pricing and Other Info, https://www.xfinity.com/learn/offers/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).
664
Section 1004 of the Television Viewer Protection Act of 2019, Pub. L. No. 116-94, 133 Stat. 3200 (codified at 47
U.S.C. § 562) (2019). The Commission granted an extension of the effective date of the Television Viewer
Protection Act truth-in-billing requirements until December 20, 2020. Implementation of Section 1004 of the
Television Viewer Protection Act of 2019, MB Docket No. 20-61, Order, 35 FCC Rcd 3008 (MB 2020).
665
See, e.g., HBOMax, Where HBO Meets So Much More, https://www.hbomax.com/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020);
YouTubeTV, Watch & DVR Live Sports, Shows, and News, https://tv.youtube.com/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).
666
Clark, How to get out of a cable or internet contract without paying a penalty (May 13, 2019),
https://clark.com/technology/get-out-cable-internet-contract-no-penalty/.
667
See, e.g., Xfinity, Comcast Xfinity TV Packages and Plans, https://www.cabletv.com/xfinity/cable-tv (last visited
Oct. 27, 2020).
668
FCC, DTV Reception Maps, https://www.fcc.gov/media/engineering/dtvmaps (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).
134
about the same share (74%) subscribed to SVOD service.669 Further, about 54% of TV households (about
65 million households) subscribed to both an MVPD or vMVPD and an SVOD service.670 That leaves
approximately 21% of TV households (about 25 million households) that subscribed to an MVPD or
vMVPD service but not an SVOD service and 20% of TV households (about 24 million households) that
subscribed to an SVOD service but not an MVPD or vMVPD service.671 Further, consumers who
subscribe to an SVOD service are likely to subscribe to multiple SVOD services. A 2019 survey, for
example, found that 63% of respondents who subscribed to at least one prominent SVOD service,
subscribed to multiple SVOD services.672
226. By comparison, Nielsen estimates that in 2018, 16 million households (about 13% of TV
households) received broadcast station signals over the air using an antenna.673 Many over-the-air
households also subscribe to OVD services. Nielsen estimates that about 60% of households that receive
broadcast station signals over the air subscribe to an SVOD service, including 8% that also subscribe to a
vMVPD service.674
227. Figure II.D.18 approximately summarizes the household subscription patterns described
above.675 Each circle represents the approximate size of the population segment subscribing to the listed
service category. The overlapping areas represent population segments that subscribe to multiple service
categories.
669
Estimates referencing the share of TV households come from Leichtman Research Group. Leichtman Research
Group, 4Q 2019 Research Notes at 4 (2020), https://www.leichtmanresearch.com/wp-
content/uploads/2020/01/LRG-Research-Notes-4Q-2019.pdf (LRG Research Notes). The number of households in
parentheses is the product of Nielsen’s estimate of total TV households and the TV household share estimates.
Nielsen defines a TV household as a home that must have at least one operable TV/monitor with the ability to
deliver video via traditional means of antennae, cable set-top-box or satellite receiver and/or with a broadband
connection. Nielsen, Nielsen Estimates 120.6 Million TV Homes in the U.S. for the 2019-2020 TV Season (Aug. 27,
2019), https://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/article/2019/nielsen-estimates-120-6-million-tv-homes-in-the-u-s-
for-the-2019-202-tv-season/.
670
LRG Research Notes at 4.
671
Id.
672
The survey asked whether respondents subscribed to Amazon, HBO Now, Hulu, and Netflix. See Brian Bacon,
Which of the big four SVOD services do you use? S&P Global (Apr. 8, 2020).
673
Nielsen, How the Growth and Evolution of the Over-the-Air TV Home Fits into Today’s Viewing Landscape (Jan.
31, 2019), https://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/article/2019/how-the-growth-and-evolution-of-the-over-the-air-
tv-home-fits-into-media-landscape/ (Nielsen Report on OTA Homes). The percentage of TV households is based on
Nielsen’s estimate of TV households for the 2018-2019 TV season. Nielsen, Nielsen Estimates 119.9 Million TV
Homes in the U.S. for the 2018-2019 TV Season (Sept. 7, 2018),
https://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/article/2018/nielsen-estimates-119-9-million-tv-homes-in-the-us-for-the-
2018-19-season/.
674
See Nielsen Report on OTA Homes.
675
We did not find reliable information on use of the over-the-air broadcast service by subscribers to an MVPD
service. We expect the practice to be uncommon because local broadcast stations are generally available with
MVPD service. However, if MVPDs do not carry all available multicast channels transmitted by broadcast stations
or if disputes over retransmission consent payments cause broadcast station blackouts, households may both
subscribe to an MVPD service and use the over-the-air broadcast service.
135
Fig. II.D.18
TV Households by Subscription to or Use of Video Programming Services
MVPD or
vMVPD
Households Over the Air
Broadcast
Households
SVOD Households
Source: LRG Research Notes; Nielsen Report on OTA Homes.

228. Figure II.D.19 shows year-end subscribers for the period 2015-2019 for all video
providers with at least 10 million subscribers at some point during this time period, including major
MVPDs and OVDs.676 In 2019, Amazon and Netflix had approximately 70 and 60 million subscribers,
respectively, giving each more than twice as many subscribers as the next most popular video provider,
Hulu, which had about 30 million subscribers. Disney+, which entered the market in 2019, had over 25
million subscribers by the end of that year. MVPDs (Comcast, Charter, DIRECTV, and DISH) saw
subscriber declines from 2015 to 2019, while OVDs (Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, and HBO) saw subscriber
increases over the same period.
676
Amazon subscribers include all Prime members, including those who do not use video. HBO subscribers include
all OVD sources and exclude MVPD subscriptions.
136
Fig. II.D.19
Video Subscribers 2015 - 2019
80
Subscribers (millions) 60
40
20
0
Q4'15 Q4'16 Q4'17 Q4 '18 Q4 '19
Amazon Netflix Hulu

Disney+ Comcast Charter
DIRECTV HBO DISH Network
Source: S&P Global, Q4'19 top US video provider rankings (Apr. 23, 2020).
229. Similarly, Figure II.D.20 shows vMVPD subscribers over the period 2015-2019.
Subscribers to Hulu Live TV, Sling TV, and YouTube TV increased over the full period, while
subscribers to AT&T Now increased until 2018 and declined in 2019. In spite of gains since 2015, by
2019, the number of vMVPD subscriptions remained relatively small compared to the number of MVPD
and SVOD subscribers. No vMVPD had more than 4 million subscribers in 2019. In total, in 2019, there
were approximately 9 million vMVPD subscriptions.
Fig. II.D.20
vMVPD Subscribers 2015 - 2019
3.5
3
Subscribers (millions)
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Q4'15 Q4'16 Q4'17 Q4 '18 Q4 '19
Hulu Live TV Sling TV YouTube TV AT&T TV NOW
230. Figure II.D.21 aggregates the information in Figures II.D.19 and II.D.20 to show total
video subscriptions by service type. As discussed in previous sections, MVPDs subscriptions have
declined over the past five years while OVD (SVOD and vMVPD) subscriptions have risen. In the fourth
quarter of 2019, there were 79 million MVPD subscriptions, 9 million vMVPD subscriptions, and 220
million SVOD subscriptions.
137
Fig. II.D.21
Video Subscriptions by Service Type
250.0
Subscribers (millions) 200.0
150.0
100.0
50.0
0.0
Q4'15 Q4'16 Q4'17 Q4 '18 Q4 '19
Total MVPD Total vMVPD Total SVOD
231. Advertising Revenue. Figure II.D.22 provides a breakdown of local advertising revenue
by sector over the period 2010-2019.677 Over this time period, online local advertising revenue increased
to more than five times its 2010 value, and its share of local advertising revenue rose to more than 50%.678
While local advertising revenue for most other sectors declined or remained flat, local advertising revenue
earned by newspapers declined the largest amount, falling from $21.5 billion to $8.8 billion. Over the
past two years, local advertising revenue earned by broadcast television stations and cable TV and
telecommunications companies remained relatively flat at $12 billion and $6 billion, respectively. In
contrast, online platforms earned nearly $10 billion more in local advertising revenue in 2019 than in
2018.
677
Local advertising refers to advertising sold to businesses with a physical presence in the local market, while
national advertising refers to advertising sold to national brands.
678
Three companies, Facebook, Google, and Amazon earn almost 70% of online advertising revenue. See Greg
Sterling, Almost 70% of digital ad spending going to Google, Facebook, Amazon, says analyst firm, Marketing Land
(June 17, 2019), https://marketingland.com/almost-70-of-digital-ad-spending-going-to-google-facebook-amazon-
says-analyst-firm-262565 (Online Ad Spending Analysis). Local advertising revenues earned by broadcast TV
stations from online advertisements are counted in the Internet/Online category. Online advertising accounted for
about 12% of all advertising (local and national) revenues for broadcast stations. See supra Fig. II.D.17.
138
Fig. II.D.22
Local Advertising Gross Revenue by Sector (2010 - 2019)
$100,000
$90,000
$80,000
Revenue (millions)
$70,000
$60,000
$50,000
$40,000
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Internet/Online Broadcast TV Stations Radio Stations

Newspapers Cable TV and Telco Regional Sports Networks
Other
Source: S&P Global, Local versus National Advertising Revenues, 2010-2019 (2020).
232. Figure II.D.23 provides a breakdown of national advertising revenue by sector over the
period 2010-2019. By 2019, national advertising revenue earned by online platforms increased to nearly
four times its 2010 value.679 National advertising revenues for broadcast television stations, broadcast
networks, and cable networks were relatively flat over the same period. Between 2018 and 2019, national
advertising earned by cable networks remained flat at $28 billion, while revenue earned by broadcast
networks and broadcast television stations fell by about $1 and $2 billion, respectively, to $18.1 and $6.9
billion. Because national advertising revenue earned by broadcast television stations includes political
advertising revenue, the decline in broadcast station revenue from 2018 to 2019 likely does not reflect a
significant downward trend. National advertising revenue earned by broadcast stations was similar in
2010 and 2018 at slightly below $9 billion.
679
See Online Ad Spending Analysis.
139
Fig. II.D.23
National Advertising Gross Revenue by Sector (2010 - 2019)
$200,000
Revenue (millions)
$150,000
$100,000
$50,000
$0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Internet/Online Cable Networks Broadcast Networks

Broadcast TV Stations Barter Syndication Radio Stations
DBS Newspapers Radio Networks
Other
Source: S&P Global, Local versus National Advertising Revenues, 2010-2019 (2020).
6. Report on Cable Industry Prices
233. In the context of the discussion of MVPDs in the video marketplace, we report on the
average rates charged by cable operators for basic cable service and other cable programming, as well as
cable equipment to access such programming,680 as required by section 623(k) of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection Act of 1992 (Cable Act)681 and
RAY BAUM’s Act of 2018.682 Consistent with the statute, the Commission is required to compare the
rates of operators subject to effective competition to the rates of operators not subject to effective
competition under a statutorily defined standard (hereinafter referred to as “effective competition”).683 In
680
A “cable operator” (or operator) refers to an entity that operates a wireline system and is a multichannel video
programming distributor (MVPD) that makes available for purchase, by subscribers or customers, multiple channels
of video programming. 47 U.S.C. § 522(5). “Service tier” (or service) refers to a cable service for which a separate
rate applies. 47 U.S.C. § 522(l7). With regard to the statutory provision for regulation of rates, operators must
provide a separately available “basic cable service” (or basic service) to which customers must subscribe before
accessing any other tier of service. 47 U.S.C. § 543(b)(7)(A). “Other cable programming” service means any video
programming other than programming offered with the basic service or programming offered on a per channel or per
program basis. Id. § 543(l)(2).
681
Section 623(k), adopted as section 3(k) of the Cable Act, Pub. L. No. 102-385, 106 Stat. 1460, codified at 47
U.S.C. § 543(k).
682
See RAY BAUM’S Act of 2018, Act, Pub. L. No. 115-141, 132 Stat. 1087 § 402(e) (amending 47 U.S.C.
§ 543(k)).
683
Commission findings of effective competition generally are made in reference to a cable community identified by
a cable community unit identifier (CUID). The Commission assigns a unique CUID to each operator for each
community the operator serves. As discussed in Appx. E, the Commission recently changed its process and
presumption for determining effective competition. In 2015, the Commission adopted a rebuttable presumption that
cable operators in all cable communities are subject to effective competition. See generally Amendment to the
Commission’s Rules Concerning Effective Competition, Implementation of Section 111 of the STELA
Reauthorization Act, MB Docket No. 15-53, Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 6574 (2015) (Effective Competition in
Cable Report and Order). As a result of this change, operators in nearly all communities became subject to
effective competition. In addition, in October 2019, the Commission found, for the first time, that a cable operator
was subject to effective competition from a local exchange carrier (LEC)-affiliated online video distributor (OVD)
under the LEC effective competition test. See Petition for Determination of Effective Competition in 32
Massachusetts Communities and Kauai, HI (HI0011), MB Docket No. 18-283, Memorandum Opinion and Order,
34 FCC Rcd 10229 (2019), appeal pending in Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Cable v.
(continued….)
140
addition, section 110 of the STELA Reauthorization Act of 2014 requires the Commission to report on
retransmission consent fees paid by cable systems to broadcast stations or groups.684 The following
presents an overview of the Commission’s findings as of January 1, 2020, and fulfills these statutory
directives.685
234. Average price over all communities. Cable prices increased over the 12 months ending
January 1, 2020, at a relatively high rate compared to the average annual increase over the past five years.
The monthly price for cable subscribers who take only the basic service grew by 10.7%, to $34.79, over
the year ending January 1, 2020. Over the five years ending January 1, 2020, basic prices rose by an
average of 7.9% per year. Prices for expanded basic service increased by 7.1%, to $86.70, over the year
ending January 1, 2020. This compares to an average increase of 4.7% annually over the last five years.
To account for growth in the number of channels offered with cable services, we also report price per
channel (service and equipment lease price divided by number of channels). Over the year ending
January 1, 2020, price per channel for basic and expanded basic service grew by 8.8% and 7.0% to 55
cents and 39 cents per channel, respectively. Over the past five years, price per channel for expanded
basic service declined on average by 0.1% annually. In comparison to cable prices, the rate of general
inflation measured by the Consumer Price Index (all items) rose by 2.5% over the 12 months ending
January 1, 2020, and at an average annual rate of 2.0% over the last five years.686
235. Average price in the communities with a finding of effective competition compared to
average price in communities without a finding. On January 1, 2020, the average price of basic service
was 37.8% higher in effective competition communities than in the noncompetitive communities. The
average monthly price of basic service was $25.30 in noncompetitive communities and $34.88 in
effective competition communities. For basic service, price per channel for the noncompetitive group
was 24 cents on average. For the effective competition group, price per channel was 55 cents per channel
on average. While the average price of expanded basic service was 3.5% lower in effective competition
communities ($86.68) than in noncompetitive communities ($89.85), the average price per channel for
expanded basic service was higher in effective competition communities (39 cents per channel) than in
noncompetitive communities (31 cents per channel). These price differences likely reflect a complicated
mix of factors, with operators providing different service offerings in response to competition and
regulation. In noncompetitive communities, the local franchise authority may regulate the price of basic
service. In addition, since the reversal of the effective competition presumption, the number of
communities in the noncompetitive group has been significantly reduced in comparison to the effective
competition group. More than 99% of cable communities are now subject to effective competition.687
FCC, No. 19-2282 (1st Cir.). Rates of an operator subject to effective competition are not subject to regulation by a
local franchising authority (LFA). 47 U.S.C. § 543(a)(2); 47 CFR § 76.905(a). An LFA may elect to regulate the
rate of basic service of an operator not subject to effective competition. Id.
684
See section 110 of the STELA Reauthorization Act of 2014 (STELAR). See Pub. L. No. 113-200, 128 Stat. 2059
(2014) enacted December 4, 2014 (H.R. 5728, 113th Cong.). Specifically, STELAR instructs the Commission to
include in its now-biennial Report on Cable Industry Prices “the aggregate average total amount paid by cable
systems in compensation under section 325 [of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,]” and to report such
information “in a manner substantially similar to the way other comparable information is published” in the report.
47 U.S.C. § 543(k)(2), as amended.
685
The Commission’s complete Report on Cable Industry Prices, containing additional data, information, and
findings, can be found in Appx. E.
686
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: All Items in U.S. City Average
(CPIAUCNS), https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CPIAUCNS (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).
687
See Appx. E, Fig. 1 for the number of cable communities subject to effective competition.
141
236. Broadcast retransmission consent compensation fees. From 2018 to 2019,688 total
retransmission consent fees paid by cable systems to television broadcast stations increased, on average,
by 11.2%. Annual fees paid per subscriber increased, on average, by 17.8%, rising from $109.70 to
$129.27 over the same period. Average monthly retransmission consent fees per subscriber per broadcast
station increased by 20.5%, increasing from $1.07 to $1.29 from 2018 to 2019. Over the period 2013-
2019, the compound average annual increase in fees per subscriber was 32.3%.
237. Comparison of DBS to cable programming services. Direct broadcast satellite (DBS)
providers, DIRECTV and DISH, offer multichannel video services similar to the services offered by cable
operators. Accordingly, we compared DBS services to the most popular cable offering as part of the
Report on Cable Industry Prices, though not explicitly required by the statute. We looked at the DBS
services which appeared most comparable to expanded basic cable service: DIRECTV’s Choice and
DISH’s America’s Top 120 Plus (AT120+). 689
238. As of January 2020, the average monthly price for cable’s expanded basic service was
$86.70, less than the price of DIRECTV’s Choice service ($123.52) and less than the price of DISH’s
AT120+ service ($90.44). 690 Each cable and DBS service offered a core package of national channels
along with local broadcast channels and regional sports networks depending on service location.691 From
2019 to 2020, the average monthly price for cable’s expanded basic service increased by $5.72, an annual
increase of 7.1%. In comparison, Choice service increased by $6.75 (annual increase of 5.5%) and
America’s Top 120+ increased by $5.45 (annual increase of 7.3%). Cable’s expanded basic service had
an average price per channel of 39 cents. This is lower than the average price per channel for both Choice
service (55 cents per channel) and AT120+ service (53 cents per channel).
239. DIRECTV’s Choice service offered 225 channels and DISH’s AT120+ service offered
171 channels, compared to 257 channels offered with cable’s expanded basic service. Though generally
comparable, there were differences in the types of channels carried by cable operators and DBS providers.
On average, cable operators carried 43 local broadcast channels, while DIRECTV and DISH each carried
21 local broadcast channels. The difference mostly results from cable operators carrying relatively more
broadcast multicast channels. Cable operators carried 3 regional sports networks, on average, with
expanded basic service, while DIRECTV’s Choice service had 3.9 regional sports networks and DISH’s
AT120+ had 0.6 regional sports networks, on average.692
E. The Audio Market
240. Three categories of audio providers dominate the audio marketplace in the United States:
1) terrestrial radio providers, 2) satellite radio, and 3) online audio providers. The numbers of AM and
688
The data for retransmission consent fees are collected somewhat differently than the rest of the data in the Report
on Cable Industry Prices. Retransmission consent fee data are collected for complete years, whereas all other data
are collected as of a certain date (January 1) of the survey year and the previous year. As a result, the retransmission
consent fee data are for the complete years 2018 and 2019 (the latest two years for which annual retransmission
consent data were available at the time of the 2020 survey), whereas the other data in the survey, by contrast, are
snapshots as of January 1, 2019 or January 1, 2020.
689
We sampled DBS services in 40 communities separately from our cable survey, based on publicly available
information. Attach. 15 to the Report on Cable Industry Prices reports detailed statistics and data sources regarding
this DBS survey sample.
690
The average cable service price reflects prices charged by cable operators who bundle equipment and cable
service and those who do not. DBS service prices include equipment.
691
Besides the core price of service, prices include local broadcast and regional sports network fees if these channels
were billed as separate items.
692
For the purposes of this Report on Cable Industry Prices, a regional sports network is a network that carries a
substantial number of live games from at least one nearby professional sports team that is a member of the National
Football League, Major League Baseball, National Basketball Association, or National Hockey League.
142
FM stations have remained steady in recent years, while the number of low-power FM stations has
increased. Terrestrial radio revenue primarily depends on advertising and has generally remained steady,
except for a sharp dip in 2020 associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Satellite radio consists of one
company, SiriusXM, which relies on both advertising and subscription revenue, which has been growing.
Finally, online audio providers offer both interactive and non-interactive programming over the Internet
and mobile devices. Online radio revenue includes both paid subscriptions and advertising, however in
recent years there has been a shift toward greater reliance on paid subscriptions.
1. Overview of the Audio Programming Market
241. Consumers can access audio programming from multiple sources, from terrestrial
broadcast radio stations, which have existed in the marketplace for nearly a century, to more recent
marketplace entrants, such as entities that use Internet and mobile technologies to deliver audio content to
consumers. Distinguishing features of audio providers include methods of delivery (which include
various consumer devices), the ability to download rather than solely stream or listen live, and type and
quantity of content offered. The major participants in today’s marketplace for the delivery of audio
programming can be divided into three categories.693
242. Terrestrial radio broadcasters use terrestrial radio stations licensed by the Commission to
broadcast audio content over the air to consumers, who use radios to receive the stations’ programming.
Participants in this category include AM, FM, and low power FM (LPFM) radio stations. There are
thousands of terrestrial radio stations in the United States, providing linear channels of music, news,
sports, entertainment, educational, and other content.694 As discussed below, terrestrial radio
programming has become available online via computers, smartphones, and other devices accessing the
Internet.
243. For satellite radio, SiriusXM is the only provider in the United States. It uses satellite
technology to offer subscription-based audio programming to consumers, primarily in automobiles, where
subscribers access content using specially designed receivers that come standard or can be installed by the
factory/dealer for every major automaker. Consumers can also use computers, smartphones, and other
devices to access this content over the Internet. SiriusXM provides multiple linear channels of
programming, including exclusive content and features.695
244. Online audio providers use the Internet to deliver audio content to consumers.
Consumers, in turn, can access this content using computers, smartphones, and other devices. Certain
online audio providers offer linear audio channels similar to those offered by terrestrial radio stations.
Others, such as Pandora, allow listeners to search by artist or music genre and to avoid advertisements by
paying subscription fees. Certain providers also allow users to access and download audio content and
listen to it at any time (e.g., podcasts). Participants in this latter category include larger, well-known
entities such as Apple Music and Spotify, as well as numerous other providers, some of which focus on
specialty content for niche audiences.
2. Terrestrial Radio Broadcasters
245. Terrestrial radio broadcasters, which include full power AM and FM radio stations and
LPFM stations,696 have long been the mainstay of the audio programming market. Most radio stations
693
These three categories do not include music channels on cable and satellite TV as well as pre-recorded music
(such as CDs).
694
Linear channels provide specific audio content or programs at a specific time of day. By contrast, podcasts or
audio downloads allow users to access pre-packaged audio content and listen to it at any time.
695
Sirius XM, Home Page, https://www.siriusxm.com/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).
696
The Commission created the LPFM radio service in January 2000. LPFM stations operate at a much lower
power, and serve a much smaller area, than full power FM stations. FCC, Low Power FM (LPFM) Broadcast Radio
Stations, https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/lpfm (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). LPFM stations are authorized for
(continued….)
143
broadcast analog signals over the air to consumers,697 with some stations also transmitting high-quality
digital audio to consumers.698 FM stations that broadcast digital signals are able to provide multiple
streams of programming to consumers, as well as other data, such as information about music airing on
the station, weather updates, traffic reports, and other news. However, consumers must have a receiver
with both an analog tuner and a digital tuner in order to receive all the broadcast signals.699
246. Terrestrial radio stations must receive authorization from the Commission before they
may construct and operate in the United States and are subject to both the Communications Act of 1934,
as amended, and regulations promulgated by the Commission thereunder.700 In allocating and authorizing
terrestrial radio stations, the Commission is charged with ensuring that such stations are distributed across
the country and licensed to communities in a manner that serves the public interest.701 In addition,
licensees of terrestrial broadcast stations must comply with certain obligations and rules to ensure that the
licensed spectrum is used to serve the public interest.702 Licenses for broadcast radio stations have an
eight-year term, but can be renewed by the Commission upon application by the licensee.703
247. As Figure II.E.1 shows, the number of AM and FM radio stations in the United States has
remained steady in recent years, while the number of LPFM stations has increased. New stations are
noncommercial educational broadcasting only and must be licensed to government or non-profit educational
institutions; non-profit organizations, associations, or entities with an educational purpose; or government or non-
profit entities providing local public safety or transportation service. See 47 CFR § 73.853; FCC, Low Power FM
(LPFM) Radio, https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/low-power-fm-lpfm-radio (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).
LPFM license applicants must be based in the community in which they intend to broadcast. 47 CFR § 73.853;
FCC, Low Power FM (LPFM) Radio, https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/low-power-fm-lpfm-radio (last visited
Oct. 27, 2020). LPFM stations typically provide opportunities for local and niche programming. See Mariella Rudi,
A Homegrown Radio Station Is Keeping Venice Weird, Los Angeleno (Aug. 15, 2019),
https://losangeleno.com/strange-days/venice-fm/.
697
The Commission has authorized a few AM radio stations to provide all-digital broadcasts on an experimental
basis. As discussed in section V.C, the Commission recently authorized AM stations to adopt all-digital
broadcasting voluntarily.
698
Digital audio transmission and reception is more resistant to interference and eliminates many imperfections of
analog radio transmission and reception, offering better sound quality than analog. FM digital radio can provide
clear sound comparable in quality to CDs, and AM digital radio can provide sound quality equivalent to that of
standard analog FM. FCC, Digital Radio, https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/digital-radio (last visited Oct. 27,
2020).
699
See FCC, Digital Radio, https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/digital-radio (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).
700
47 U.S.C. § 301. The Commission licenses broadcast spectrum to applicants and approves any assignment or
transfer of control of broadcast licenses. Id. §§ 303(c), 308(a), 309(a), 310(d). In addition, certain obligations and
rules are imposed on licensees to ensure that the licensed spectrum is used to serve the public interest during each
license term. See, e.g., id. § 307(c); 47 CFR §§ 73.1020, 73.3555.
701
47 U.S.C. §§ 303, 307.
702
See, e.g., 47 CFR §§ 73.1020, 73.3555.
703
47 U.S.C. §309(k); 47 CFR § 73.1020.
144
possible only through new allocations and award of licenses, either via an auction in the case of
commercial stations,704 or a comparative system for non-commercial stations.705
Fig. II.E.1
Number of Licensed Broadcast Radio Stations706
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
AM Stations 4,702 4,680 4,666 4,633 4,613 4,580
FM Commercial 6,659 6,715 6,754 6,741 6,762 6,726
FM Non-Commercial 4,081 4,096 4,112 4,125 4,139 4,172
Low Power FM 1,029 1,516 1,924 2,150 2,171 2,159
Total Stations 16,471 17,007 17,456 17,649 17,685 17,637
Source: FCC, Broadcast Station Totals, 2015-2020.
248. Revenue. The primary source of revenue for commercial terrestrial radio stations is
advertising. To secure the highest rates and to compete for advertising market share, stations strive to
gain the largest audience of listeners possible to maximize the price for ad time sold. Broadcast stations
receive advertising revenue, from entities seeking to reach consumers listening to programming broadcast
over-the-air, as well as listeners via Internet or mobile platforms.707 Figure II.E.2 shows the top 10 largest
704
See Reexamination of the Comparative Standards for Noncommercial Educational Applicants, MM Docket No.
95-31, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 7386, 7427-33, paras. 101-11 (2000) (NCE Comparative Standards R&O).
The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 amended section 309(j) of the Communications Act “to require the Commission
to use competitive bidding to resolve application conflicts, but exempted NCE stations from this process.”
Reexamination of the Comparative Standards for Noncommercial Educational Applicants, MM Docket No. 95-31,
Memorandum Opinion and Third Order on Reconsideration, 23 FCC Rcd 17423, 17424, para. 3 (2008) (citing
Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105-33, Title III, 111 Stat. 251 (1997), amending 47 U.S.C. § 307(j)).
705
See NCE Comparative Standards R&O, 15 FCC Rcd at 7393-7420, paras. 16-79. The Commission recently
adopted changes to its rules and procedures for considering competing applications for new and major modifications
to noncommercial educational (NCE) FM radio stations. Reexamination of the Comparative Standards and
Procedures for Licensing Noncommercial Educational Broadcast Stations and Low Power FM Stations, MB Docket
No. 19-3, Report and Order, 34 FCC Rcd 12519 (2019); aff’d Reexamination of the Comparative Standards and
Procedures for Licensing Noncommercial Educational Broadcast Stations and Low Power FM Stations, MB Docket
No. 19-3, Order on Reconsideration, 35 FCC Rcd 10180 (2020). With these changes in place, the Commission intends
to open a filing window in 2021 for FM reserved band (channels 201–220) applications for NCE FM new station
applications. The Media Bureau will issue a forthcoming Public Notice to announce the specific dates of the 2021
window. The Media Bureau will also provide detailed information about filing procedures and requirements by a
future Public Notice.
706
Press Release, FCC, Broadcast Station Totals as of March 31, 2015 (Apr. 9, 2015),
344256A1.pdf; Press Release, FCC, Broadcast Station Totals as of March 31, 2018 (Apr. 9, 2018),
March 31, 2019 (Apr. 2, 2019), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-356801A1.pdf; ; Press Release, FCC,
363515A1.pdf.
707
musicFIRST Coalition and Future of Music Coalition note that terrestrial broadcast radio station clusters in small
markets “find it difficult to sell advertising revenue when competing against larger local clusters.
musicFIRST/FMC Comments at 6-7. A “cluster” refers to several stations owned by the same broadcaster in a
particular geographic market.
145
radio station owners,708 ranked by revenue. These owners control stations that are not confined to
particular geographic regions; they are spread out across various geographical markets.
Fig. II.E.2
Top 10 Radio Station Owners
Ultimate Parent Stations Markets Station Net
Ad Revenue
($M)
iHeartMedia, Inc. 746 150 2,328
Entercom Communications Corp. 219 48 1,294
Cumulus Media Inc. 366 87 602
Beasley Broadcast, Inc. 58 14 263
Apollo Global Management, Inc. 45 10 238
Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc. 33 8 222
Townsquare Media, Inc. 223 52 211
Univision Communications Inc. 48 15 206
Urban One, Inc. 47 14 197
Salem Media Group, Inc. 63 32 138
Source: S&P Global, Top Radio Station Owners (last accessed Oct. 27, 2020).
249. We show U.S. radio broadcast revenues from 2004 to 2020 in Figure II.E.3. Total radio
broadcast advertising revenue had been virtually flat between 2010 and 2019, going from $17.3 billion in
2010 to $17.8 billion in 2019, for an average annual growth rate of approximately 0.32%.709 However,
preliminary projections for 2020 indicate that total radio broadcast revenue will likely drop to $15.1
billion, a decline of 15.2% from 2019. This can be primarily attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic and
the consequent drop in demand for advertising.710 While these numbers are preliminary, the predicted
decline in advertising revenue is substantial. Figure II.E.3 also indicates that the advertising revenue in
the radio industry never fully recovered from the decline in advertising experienced during the recession
following the 2008 financial crisis. In a recent report, S&P Global predicts that advertising revenue for
terrestrial radio stations will face a tougher road to recovery from the pandemic-induced recession
compared to broadcast television stations.711
250. Figure II.E.3 also breaks down radio revenues between over-the-air radio (which includes
network, national spot, and local spot advertising) and digital or online broadcasting (which includes
online versions of broadcasts). Online broadcast radio has had more substantial revenue growth than
over-the-air radio, i.e., 13.1 % between 2010 and 2019. The share of online broadcast advertising within
total advertising revenue has also grown from 3.6% in 2010 to 7.6% in 2019.712 Online radio is
considered to be an important area of potential growth for radio advertising revenue, especially given the
708
The Commission recently granted Cumulus Media Inc. approval to permit up to and including an aggregate of
100% direct and/or indirect foreign ownership. Petition for Declaratory Ruling Under Section 310(b)(4) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as Amended, MB Docket No. 19-143, Declaratory Ruling, 35 FCC Rcd 5461
(2020). The Commission granted similar approval for iHeart Media to have aggregate direct and/or indirect foreign
ownership up to 100%. Petition for Declaratory Ruling Under Section 310(b)(4) of the Communications Act of
1934, as Amended, MB Docket No. 20-51, Declaratory Ruling, DA 20-1318 (Nov. 5, 2020).
709
For Fig. II.E.3, total US radio ad revenues include advertising for network, national spots, local spots, and
digital/online advertising, and off-air radio advertising. Revenue for off air advertising includes sponsoring events
such as concerts or contests that are covered by the station.
710
Justin Nielson, Radio/TV station annual outlook, S&P Global at 1 (Aug. 4, 2020).
711
Id.
712
S&P Global projections for 2020 indicate an even higher share of 9.8%.
146
various new devices for accessing online radio, which include smartphones, tablets, and smart speakers.
Several large owners of radio stations view podcasting as an important growth opportunity.713
Fig. II.E.3
US Terrestrial Radio Revenue 2004-2020 ($m)
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Over the Air Digital

Source: S&P Global, US Radio Station Ad Revenues, 1970-2030 (last accessed Oct. 27, 2020).
251. Programming. Types of radio programming include categories of music and talk. In
addition, this programming may be live or taped. Further, because terrestrial stations are located in
specific geographic markets, its programming may target local listeners in that market.714 Alternatively,
some stations may choose to broadcast non-local programming that is not specifically targeted to listeners
living in a particular market.715 Since producing a show specific for a market is likely more costly (per
broadcast) than distributing a similar show across many stations, cost considerations may favor non-local
programming. On the other hand, promoting a local on-air personality as the “face” of a station may be
an important way for a station to distinguish or brand itself from other stations in its market. Some
stakeholders have argued that stations that are part of a group of stations whose owner is not local to that
market broadcast less programming produced in that market and may be less sensitive to the needs and
interests of that market.716
713
See Justin Nielson, Radio in Transition Phase as Podcasting, Smart Speakers Show Growth Potential, S&P
Global at 1 (Oct. 3, 2018).
714
Because stations have a duty to serve the needs of their local communities, localism has been a cornerstone of
broadcast regulations for decades. In the Mater of Broadcast Localism, Report on Broadcast Localism and Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, MB Docket No. 04-233, 23 FCC Rcd 1324, 1328, para 5. The Commission has heard
complaints from public interest groups that practices such as voice tracking and national playlists have diminished
localism. Broadcast Localism, Notice of Inquiry, 19 FCC Rcd 12425, at para 38, 39.
715
An example of programming that is both live and local would be a live DJ who alternatively plays music and
provides commentary on local events, local traffic, and/or the weather.
716
Advocates of musicians and radio personnel have argued that the consolidation of ownership among AM/FM
radio stations has led to reduced local staff, including DJs, in favor of programming that is selected and distributed
from a central office. musicFIRST/FMC Comments at 20-22.
147
Fig. II.E.4
Number of Stations per Market versus Market Size (Rank)
80
70
Number of Stations per Market
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Rank of Market
Source: Generated by Commission staff using BIA Media Access Pro (BIA) data on radio stations using
BIA’s measure of geographic market rank. Geographic markets with larger populations are ranked lower,
with New York City holding market rank 1.
252. Terrestrial radio allows listeners to switch to other stations within their geographic
markets.717 Figure II.E.4 shows a scatterplot of the number of stations within a market against the market
size, measured by rank.718 The number of radio stations available decreases as the market size decreases,
suggesting more choice in markets with higher populations. Not shown in the table, however, are
additional choices that listeners have that include satellite and online radio, as discussed below.
253. We have noted in previous proceedings that AM broadcasting services face persistent
interference issues.719 Such interference may have contributed to AM stations favoring talk formats
relative to music formats, which are more common on FM stations. This is illustrated in Figure II.E.5,
which presents the distribution of different kinds of programming across AM, FM, and LPFM stations.720
63% of FM stations identify with a music format, while only approximately 34% of AM stations identify
as a music format. However, as Figure II.E.5 shows, AM stations favor Spanish and Ethnic, News,
Sports, and Talk formats relative to FM stations (13.6% versus 5.5%, 17.6% versus 6.1%, 12.5% versus
1.4%, and 5.6% versus 0.8%, respectively). The percentages of stations that use a Religion format, which
717
The terrestrial radio markets are generally named for the largest city within a geographic region, which includes
areas outside of the city. Such geographical markets for terrestrial radio are identified by The Nielsen Company
(Nielsen). Nielsen, Radio Market Survey Population, Rankings & Information (Fall 2019),
https://www.nielsen.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/09/market-populations-and-rankings.pdf.
718
Geographical market rank is determined by its population size. New York, which has the largest population
among radio markets, is assigned rank 1 by Nielson. See Nielsen, Radio Market Survey Population, Rankings &
Information (Fall 2019), https://www.nielsen.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/09/market-populations-and-
rankings.pdf.
719
See generally Revitalization of the AM Service, MB Docket No. 13-249, First Report and Order, Further Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking, and Notice of Inquiry, 30 FCC Rcd 12145 (2015).
720
This analysis was based on data downloaded from BIA Media Access Pro, www.biakelsy.com/data-
platforms/media-access-pro/media-access-pro-login/ (June 22, 2020). These data included 4,500 AM stations,
10,881 FM stations, and 2,149 LPFM stations.
148
involves both music and talk, are more similar for AM and FM stations (16.6% for AM and 21.6% for
FM). The Public and Education format stations predominantly use FM frequencies, reflecting the fact
that most non-commercial educational stations are FM stations.721 Approximately 1.5% of FM stations
are designated Public and Education format, while there are only four AM stations within that format.
254. Figure II.E.5 also presents the distribution of programming formats for LPFM stations,
which have much smaller geographic reach than conventional FM stations. Because LPFM stations are
authorized for non-commercial educational broadcasting only, they may provide programming of interest
to listeners and community stakeholders that other FM or AM stations do not provide. As Figure II.E.5
shows, nearly half of LPFM stations are classified as Music stations. However, the music LPFM stations
are predominantly classified as Miscellaneous, as opposed to music formats such as Rock and Country.722
Further, 36.2% provide religious community programming (considerably more, in percentage terms, than
AM or FM stations), reflecting local churches’ or local religious organizations’ use of the medium.
Additionally, 4.8% of LPFM stations are classified as Public and Education format.
Fig. II.E.5
Programming Formats for Terrestrial Radio723
Format AM FM LPFM
Music 33.9% 63.0% 46.6%
Spanish and Ethnic 13.6% 5.5% 11.2%
Religion 16.6% 21.6% 36.2%
Public and Education 0.1% 1.5% 4.8%
News 17.6% 6.1% 0.7%
Sports 12.5% 1.4% 0.1%
Talk 5.6% 0.8% 0.4%
Source: Generated by Commission staff using BIA data from June 22, 2020.
3. Satellite Radio
255. In 1995, the Commission allocated spectrum in the 2310–2360 MHz band for satellite
digital audio radio service (SDARS).724 This delivery of service using satellite technology is distinct from
the digital radio offered by terrestrial radio stations as a supplement to their analog signals. The
721
See FCC, The Licensing of TV and Radio Stations, The Public and Broadcasting,
https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/public-and-broadcasting#NCECOMM (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).
722
Approximately 75% of music LFPM stations are classified as Miscellaneous. These stations play a wider range
of music than what might fall into a particular category, such as Country, Rock, Adult Contemporary, and so forth.
Thus, with Miscellaneous, programming decisions are not restricted by a particular format or marketing strategy.
723
Staff analysis based on BIA data, accessed June 22, 2020. BIA assigns each radio station a Category Format,
which is a relatively broad format designation. Examples of these include Country, Jazz, Talk, and Ethnic. The
Music category in Table II.E.2.e is constructed by combining the following BIA music category formats: Adult
Contemporary, Album Oriented Rock/Classic Rock, Alternative, Classical, Contemporary Hit Radio/Top 40,
Country, Easy Listening/Beautiful Music, Jazz/New Age, Middle of the Road, Miscellaneous, Nostalgia/Big Band,
Oldies, Rock, and Urban. The Spanish and Ethnic format categories were combined to create Spanish and Ethnic.
The Miscellaneous category is most often used by stations that play music that does not necessarily fall into one of
the other music formats.
Amendment of the Commission’s Rules with Regard to the Establishment and Regulation of New Digital Audio
724
Radio Services, GEN Docket No. 90-357, Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 2310, 2310, para. 1 (1995) (SDARS Rules
Order).
149
Commission established rules for SDARS in 1997.725 Two SDARS licensees—Sirius and XM—
purchased their licenses at auction, successfully launched their satellite systems, and commenced
commercial service to the public.726 SDARS provides nationally distributed subscription radio service
and requires a significant investment of capital for operation.727 In 2008, Sirius and XM merged and
formed SiriusXM,728 which is currently the only provider of SDARS in the audio marketplace. SiriusXM
acquired Pandora Media, a streaming service, on February 1, 2019.729 SiriusXM reports that it had nearly
30 million U.S. subscribers paying for Pandora at the end of 2019.730
256. Revenue. SiriusXM has historically relied on subscription fees as its primary revenue
source.731 However, since its acquisition of Pandora, a streaming service which has substantial
advertising revenue, advertising has accounted for an increasing share of SiriusXM’s revenues. In 2019,
the SiriusXM unit (which excludes Pandora) reported $6.2 billion in revenue,732 a 7.2% increase from
2018, and approximately 13% of total U.S. satellite services revenue.733 Subscription revenue was the
largest source of revenue, constituting $5.6 billion, while advertising revenue represented $205 million.734
Pandora’s subscriber and advertising revenue for 2019 was $476 million and $1.1 billion, respectively.735
SiriusXM’s total revenue, including Pandora, was $7.8 billion for 2019.736
257. Programming and Subscription Plans. SiriusXM offers over 150 channels via satellite
and online streaming, as well as over 250 additional channels that are available only through online
725
See generally Establishment of Rules and Policies for the Digital Audio Radio Satellite Service in the 2310-2360
MHz Frequency Band, GEN Docket No. 90-357, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, 12 FCC Rcd 5754 (1997) (SDARS MO&O and FNPRM).
726
XM began nationwide commercial service on November 12, 2001; Sirius began commercial service on February
14, 2002. See Establishment of Rules and Policies for the Digital Audio Radio Satellite Service in the 2310-2360
MHz Frequency Band, IB Docket No. 95-91, Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 22 FCC Rcd 22123,
para. 1, n. 4 (2007) (SDARS Second FNPRM).
727
See id. at 22150, Appx. B.
728
See Applications for Consent to the Transfer of Control of Licenses from XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc. to
Sirius Satellite Radio Inc., MB Docket No. 07-57, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Report and Order, 23 FCC
Rcd 12348, 12349, para. 1 (2008) (XM/Sirius Order).
729
Press Release, SiriusXM, SiriusXM Completes Acquisition of Pandora (Feb. 1, 2019),
http://investor.siriusxm.com/investor-overview/press-releases/press-release-details/2019/SiriusXM-Completes-
Acquisition-of-Pandora/default.aspx.
730
Press Release, SiriusXM, SiriusXM Reports Fourth Quarter and Full-Year 2019 Results (Feb. 4, 2020),
http://investor.siriusxm.com/investor-overview/press-releases/press-release-details/2020/SiriusXM-Reports-Fourth-
Quarter-and-Full-Year-2019-Results/default.aspx.
731
SiriusXM, Will I hear commercials on SiriusXM?,
https://listenercare.siriusxm.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3562/~/will-i-hear-commercials-on-siriusxm%3F (last
732
SiriusXM, SEC Form 10-K, at 33 (filed Feb. 4, 2020) (SiriusXM 2019 SEC Form 10-K),
https://sec.report/Document/0000908937-20-000011/. Its revenues for 2013-2017 can be found in the 2018
Communications Marketplace Report, 33 FCC Rcd at 12673, Fig F-1.
733
SIA Comments at 5, Appx. B; SIA Ex Parte, Attach.
734
Equipment revenue of $173 million and $165 million in other revenue made up the remainder. SiriusXM 2019
10-K at 33.
735
Id. at 33.
736
Id.
150
streaming.737 These provide content and features not available from other sources. SiriusXM offers
consumers three principal subscription packages: Select ($16.99/month), All Access ($21.99 per month),
and Mostly Music ($10.99 per month).738 All three packages offer access to all of SiriusXM’s
commercial-free music channels; Select and All Access also offer exclusive artist-dedicated channels,
comedy channels, news channels, college sports, and traffic and weather.739 All Access additionally
includes Howard Stern’s channels and professional sports channels.740 These channels available online
and in automobiles follow a linear format, so that (like terrestrial stations) various programs are scheduled
to play at particular times during the day. Unlike commercial terrestrial stations, this programming is ad-
free. And while such linear programming does not include interactive features, the acquisition of Pandora
has allowed SiriusXM to also offer customized, ad-free music stations online and on an app. SiriusXM
also offers two standalone non-satellite (i.e., online audio) streaming plans: SiriusXM Essential ($8.00 per
month) and SiriusXM Premier at ($13.00 per month).741
258. Pandora continues to offer plans for listening to music and podcasts online. Listeners can
have free access to ad-supported music and podcasts. Consumers can upgrade to ad-free programming
with Pandora Plus ($4.99 per month) or Pandora Premium ($9.99 per month), which allows the creation
and sharing of playlists.742
4. Online Audio Providers
259. In addition to terrestrial broadcast radio stations and satellite-delivered radio service,
audio programming delivered via the Internet and mobile devices has emerged as a third provider
category in the audio marketplace. Generally, online audio providers may be classified as non-interactive
or interactive, with the latter involving user choice, such as choosing specific songs and downloading
content. In addition, as discussed above, both terrestrial radio broadcasters and SiriusXM have
supplemented their traditional offerings with online audio access.
260. Online audio providers generally offer various options that include subscription payments
for services or free service accompanied by advertising. In general, these providers make their content
available on various mobile applications and smart speakers. Some higher priced packages are designed
for multiple users, such as family members. The providers with the top three largest number of paid
subscribers are Spotify (124 million), Apple (68 million), and Amazon (55 million).743
737
See SiriusXM, SiriusXM Select, View the Channel Lineup, https://www.siriusxm.com/packages/siriusselect
738
See SiriusXM, Our Packages,
https://www.siriusxm.com/ourmostpopularpackages?intcmp=GN_HEADER_NEW_Subscriptions_SubscribeNow_
CompareAllPackages (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).
739
740
741
CompareAllPackages (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). SiriusXM Essential provides ad-free music as well as various
news, talk, entertainment, and sports channels. Sirius XM Premier offers additional features, such as personalized
stations and two Howard Stern channels.
742
See Pandora, Choose how you want to listen, https://www.pandora.com/plans (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).
743
These figures are year-end subscriptions for 2019. S&P Global, Leading Digital Music Subscriptions Services,
Global (last accessed Oct. 27, 2020).
151
261. Revenues. Online audio providers’ sources of revenue include both paid subscriptions
and advertising for ad-supported tiers that are free to consumers. However, in recent years, a shift toward
paid subscriptions has led to revenue streams less reliant on advertising. This trend has demonstrated a
willingness by consumers to pay for monthly subscriptions to such popular streaming services as Apple
Music, Spotify, Amazon Music, and Pandora. For music revenue, paid subscriptions grew by 33%, up
from $3.5 billion in 2017 to $4.66 billion in 2018.744 Streaming music services in 2018 contributed 75%
of total U.S. music revenue, according to the Recording Industry of America.745 In the United States,
Spotify achieved the highest revenue of any music service, reporting $2.26 billion in total U.S. revenues
in 2018, compared to Pandora’s $1.57 billion.746
262. Programming. Online audio providers allow listeners to access a wide range of music.
The most popular music streaming services, which include Spotify, Apple Music, Google Play, and
Amazon Prime Music, provide listeners with access to music libraries of approximately 40 million
songs.747 Users on premium plans create their own playlists or genre stations, where they may discover
new music within a small preference niche. Some streaming services have also experimented with
exclusives such as album launches, live events, artist commentary, and interviews.748 With competing
major online audio providers generally each offering a wide range of music and programming around
music, subscribers tend to use only a single streaming service.749
263. Music. The widespread availability of most songs through a variety of services and
sources has created a challenge for music services seeking to differentiate themselves.750 The fact that
online music providers share a large common pool of music tracks likely contributes to why their
subscribers usually chooses only one service. In order to differentiate themselves, online audio providers
have experimented with various exclusives such as live events, artist commentary, and interviews.751
264. Podcasting. Podcasting, which offers a large variety of spoken word programming, has
provided another option for differentiation among online audio providers. Podcasts can be streamed on a
personal device at any time, in contrast to audio programs on linear channels. There is a wide range of
content and personalities featured, with subjects that include economics,752 scientific research, slice of life
journalism, self-help, fringe topics, comedy, stories and many others. Recently, among the U.S.
population aged 12 and over, the number of people who have ever listened to a podcast passed 50% for
the first time.753 Approximately 90 million users listen to podcasts each month.754 According to one
744
Peter Leitzinger, Economics of Internet Music and Radio 2019, S&P Global at 4 (Sept. 5, 2019) (Economics of
Internet Music and Radio).
745
Id. (Sept. 5, 2019).
746
Id. at 2 (Sept. 5, 2019).
747
S&P Global, US Internet Music & Radio Service Profiles and Statistics (last accessed Oct. 27, 2020).
748
Economics of Internet Music and Radio at 1.
749
A recent S&P Global survey suggests that, unlike listeners consuming radio from a variety of terrestrial broadcast
stations, most users of online music services tend to use just one service, especially those who use a pay music
service. The survey found that of those that subscribed to a pay music service, 74% subscribed to one service only.
See Brian Bacon, Online Music User Profiles, S&P Global, (July 12, 2018), at 1.
750
751
Id.
752
See, e.g., Stephen J. Dubner, Can You Hear Me Now, Freakonomics Radio (Feb. 19, 2020),
https://freakonomics.com/podcast/ajit-pai/.
753
See The Infinite Dial 2019, Podcasting and Audiobooks Both Attain 50% Reach; Facebook Usage Continues to
Drop, Edison Research (Mar. 6, 2019), https://www.edisonresearch.com/infinite-dial-2019/.
754
Id.
152
report, monthly podcast listeners increased by 123% from 2015 to 2019.755 Podcasting is seen as an
important growth area by Spotify, Pandora, and other streaming services. Both Spotify and Pandora have
made investments in podcasting over the last few years.756
5. Competition in Audio Programming
265. Although providers in these three main categories of audio services all deliver audio
programming to consumers, there are significant differences in the availability, reach, consumer
engagement, and cost of the services. In its 2018 audio report, Nielsen estimated weekly reach among
audio marketplace participants as follows: 228.5 million consumers for terrestrial broadcast radio, 35.7
million for satellite radio, 68.5 million for streaming audio, and 21.9 million for podcasts (note that
streaming music and podcasts are both delivered via the Internet).757 In 2019, 92% of Americans ages 12
and older listened to terrestrial broadcast (AM/FM) radio in a given week, a percentage that has held
steady in recent years.758 Edison Research’s most recent “Share of Ear” report allocates the share of time
spent listening to audio sources for Americans 13 and over as follows: 46% for terrestrial broadcast radio,
14% streaming audio, 12% owned music, 11% YouTube, 7% SiriusXM satellite radio, 5% TV Music
channels, 3% podcasts, and 2% other sources.759
266. Music as Input. As noted above, the ubiquity of music creates a challenge for music
providers seeking to differentiate themselves. Streaming services allow their subscribers access to a
much larger range and quantity of music than listeners to terrestrial stations, which are constrained within
a linear format, can expect to hear.760 The large range and quantity of music of online audio providers
likely also exceeds what listeners can experience with satellite radio when the latter is confined to a linear
format, despite the relatively large number of channels offered. In addition to their large libraries, online
audio providers offer their subscribers the flexibility to choose particular songs anytime, create playlists,
or listen to songs chosen by algorithm-generated radio stations.
267. Regulations. Different audio marketplace participants are subject to different regulatory
regimes, which may affect how they compete with one another. For example, because they use the public
airwaves, terrestrial broadcast radio must comply with a wide range of FCC regulations that impose costs
on licensees. Online audio providers, on the other hand, are not regulated by the FCC and thus do not
incur the same regulatory compliance costs.
268. Music Licensing. Different marketplace participants are subject to different music
licensing conditions under law, which means they face different costs in gaining access to the music they
distribute. For example, terrestrial broadcast radio—as non-subscription, non-interactive audio
transmission—is exempted from paying royalties for the use of sound recordings over the air.761 In
755
Paul Heine, Podcasting Is Growing Faster but Streaming Audio Audience Is Bigger, Inside Radio (Sept. 3, 2019),
http://www.insideradio.com/podcasting-is-growing-faster-but-streaming-audio-audience-is-
bigger/article_d9894e74-ce0c-11e9-934b-0f2e1e9e8f74.html.
756
757
The Nielsen Company, Audio Today 2018: How America Listens (Apr. 5, 2018),
https://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/reports/2018/state-of-the-media--audio-today-2018.html#.
758
The Nielsen Company, Audio Today 2019: How America Listens (June 2019), https://www.nielsen.com/wp-
content/uploads/sites/3/2019/06/audio-today-2019.pdf.
759
Edison Research, Share of Ear, https://www.shareofear.com/#audiomesurement (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).
760
According to a recent S&P Global report, Apple Music makes 60 million tracks available to their listeners and
listeners to Spotify and Amazon Music have access to 50 million tracks. See John Fletcher, Rob Parungo &
Theodore Vincent Calaor, Economics of Mobile Music, 2020, S&P Global at 4 (July 2, 2020) (Economics of Mobile
Music).
See Jason B. Baznet, et al., Putting the Band Back Together – Remastering the World of Music, Citi-GPS, at 18
761
(Aug. 2018), https://www.citivelocity.com/citigps/music-industry/ (Citi GPS); musicFIRST/FMC Comments at 18.

153
contrast, SiriusXM pays a copyright royalty for the use of sound recordings, but the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act granted pre-existing services such as SiriusXM a compulsory copyright license for sound
recordings,762 the rate for which is set by the Copyright Royalty Board through a rate determination
proceeding.763 Subscription interactive services like Spotify must reach commercial agreements with
music labels. Despite its increased licensing costs, Spotify’s licensing cost as a percent of its total
revenue has declined from 83% in 2013 to 75% in 2019, as reported by S&P Global.764
269. Platforms as Factors for Competition. Before the advent of satellite radio and various
streaming platforms, listeners of audio programming had access to AM or FM radio through radio devices
that included car radios. Easy access to AM/FM radio inside automobiles presented terrestrial radio with
an advantage over other forms of media such as television and newspapers. However, new technology
has allowed other modes of audio, specifically satellite radio and online audio providers, to gain a
foothold, not just in new platforms such as tablets and smartphones, but also within automobiles. In
terms of partnerships with manufacturers, one unique aspect of SiriusXM’s marketplace position is that
the service comes as a standard (or factory/dealer-installed) option with every major automaker,765 and car
dealerships have long offered free trials or free year-long subscriptions when customers buy a satellite-
equipped new or pre-owned vehicle.766 In recent years, streaming services such as Spotify and Apple
Music have also become available in automobiles integrated with cellular technology.767 S&P Global
estimates that AT&T has added over 8 million cars integrated with cellular to its network, including over
2 million in the first quarter of 2019.768
270. Audio streaming service platforms connected to the Internet via workstations, laptops,
tablets, and smartphones have also contributed to audio competition. Audio streaming services such as
Spotify, Pandora, and Apple Music provide their diverse music libraries and podcasts through
applications downloaded from the Internet. As noted above, certain platforms also create access to online
AM/FM stations and satellite radio programming. Additionally, some terrestrial broadcasters have
adapted online mediums. An example is iHeartMedia repurposing its broadcasts as podcasts, resulting in
low-cost programming that contributes additional advertising revenue.769 iHeartMedia has also released
an application on Apple iOS for discovering new podcasts using machine learning inputs such as music
preferences, favorite stations, and liked songs.770
271. However, online audio providers generally have stronger relationships (perhaps in some
cases through direct ownership) with some of the most popular platforms. For example, the widespread
use of Apple’s iPhone has facilitated its relatively rapid growth in listeners for its Apple Music streaming
service. Apple was able to leverage its customer base of iPhone users to grow Apple Music to 50 million
762
Dana A. Scherer, Money for Something: Music Licensing in the 21st Century, Congressional
Research Service, at 22 (June 7, 2018), https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43984.
763
Dana A. Scherer, Money for Something: Music Licensing in the 21st Century, Congressional
Research Service, at 22-23 (June 7, 2018), https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43984.
764
John Fletcher, Rob Parungo, and Theodore Vincent Calaor, Economics of Mobile Music, 2020, S&P Global at 1
(July 2, 2020).
765
NAB Comments at 9-11.
766
Nicole Lyn Pesce, These companies are now offering free Netflix, Hulu, Spotify and more, Moneyish (Sept. 9,
2017), https://moneyish.com/upgrade/these-companies-are-now-offering-free-netflix-hulu-spotify-and-more/.
767
Connected cars access digital audio programming through wireless technology (3G, 4G, and 5G). See Peter
Letzinger, Connected Car Projections through 2024: Connectivity Growing as Cars Get Smarter, S&P Global (July
11, 2019).
768
Id. at 2.
769
Economics of Mobile Music at 2.
770
Id.
154
subscribers.771 Spotify, in turn, has partnered with electronics manufacturer, Samsung, to integrate
Spotify into Galaxy phones, tablets and watches, as well as Samsung’s smart refrigerators, smart TVs,
Galaxy Home smart speakers, and the Bixby digital assistant.772
272. Smart speakers have also begun to emerge as an important focus for audio marketplace
participants. These devices provide users with voice-controlled interaction and are able to connect with a
wide range of other devices in the home via Wi-Fi and Bluetooth. Listeners can use their smartphones to
navigate programming on streaming services that are in turn played through their smart speakers.
According to a recent survey, 24% of adults 18 and over (approximately 60 million people) own a smart
speaker, a substantial increase from 2017, when only 7% owned one.773 This survey also finds that the
share of time spent listening to music has declined by 5% from 2014 to 2019, while the share of time
spent listening to spoken word content, such as podcasting, has increased by 20% over the same time
period.774 However, for those listening using a smart speaker, the shares of time listening to music and
spoken word audio are 77% and 23%, respectively.775 The survey also finds that the share of time
listening to different audio sources on a smart speaker is broken down as follows: 46% streaming audio,
24% terrestrial audio, 10% owned music, 8% SiriusXM satellite, 5% podcasts, and 7% other.776 Overall,
if adoption of smart speakers continues, more users will have access to a platform that provides access to
various audio providers.
273. We note that many popular smart speakers are produced by some of the owners of major
audio streaming service platforms. This link is relevant, given that, as noted above, paid subscribers of
streaming music or podcasting likely subscribe to just one service. A recent survey found that Amazon’s
Echo and Google’s Home had the highest shares (28% and 14%, respectively) among owners of smart
speakers.777 Samsung’s Smart Things and Apple’s HomePod were a distant third and fourth (3% and
2%).778 Both Amazon and Google announced free ad-supported streaming built in (Amazon Music
Unlimited and YouTube Music, respectively) to their respective smart speakers.779
274. While broadcast terrestrial radio remains dominant in some respects, as Figure II.E.6
illustrates, the gap in usage between broadcast terrestrial and online audio has declined over time. Figure
II.E.6 shows the number of weekly listeners to broadcast radio in the US remained relatively stable, while
the audience for online radio grew steadily. According to this figure, over the past decade, the number of
listeners to terrestrial broadcast radio grew annually around 0.55% on average, while the annual growth in
online radio was 29%. However, it is important to note that online radio here included online AM or FM
771
Adam Levy, Your Smart Speaker Now Comes with Free Music, The Motley Fool (Apr. 22, 2019)
https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/04/22/your-smart-speaker-now-comes-with-free-music.aspx.
772
Eli Blumenthal, Spotify stock pops after company links up with Samsung to take on Apple, Amazon and Google,
USA Today (Aug. 9, 2018), https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/08/09/spotify-and-samsung-partner-up-
take-apple-amazon-and-google/949470002/.
773
National Public Radio and Edison Research, The Smart Audio Report, Winter 2019, (Jan. 8, 2020),
https://www.edisonresearch.com/the-smart-audio-report-winter-2019-from-npr-and-edison-research/. Findings are
based on a 1,002 person telephone survey of adults age 18 and older conducted December 31, 2019 to January 5,
2020. Id.
774
Id.
775
Id.
776
Id.
777
S&P Global, Consumer Insights U.S. 1Q 2020 Survey Summary Report, Table 30 (last accessed Oct. 27, 2020).
778
Id.
779
Id.
155
broadcasts;780 thus, part of this growth was due to listeners accessing AM/FM broadcasts online.
Nevertheless, Figure II.E.6 illustrates the dynamic nature of audio as listeners continue to access online
radio across a diverse range of devices.
Figure II.E.6
US Terrestrial and Online Radio Weekly Audience (M)
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Broadcast radio (M) Online radio (M)
Source: Peter Leitzinger, Economics of Internet Music and Radio 2019, S&P Global at 5 (Sept.
5, 2019). Audience includes listeners 12 years and older.
III. ASSESSMENT OF BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT
275. We assess in this section the state of deployment of communications capabilities as
required by RAY BAUM’S Act of 2018.781 We also provide comparative international data on broadband
services, and, where possible, a year-to-year measure of the extent of broadband service capability,
including speeds and prices, in the United States and select communities and countries abroad.782
A. Access to Advanced Telecommunications Capability
276. We rely primarily on the FCC Form 477 deployment data to evaluate consumers’
broadband options for fixed terrestrial and mobile services because, notwithstanding its flaws, these data
currently remain the most reliable and comprehensive data to assess the availability of broadband services
to American consumers.783 We provide deployment estimates for fixed terrestrial services at speeds of
10/1 Mbps, 25/3 Mbps, 50/5 Mbps, 100/10 Mbps, and 250/25 Mbps based upon year-end data from 2015
780
See Economics of Internet Music and Radio at 5. The table comparing terrestrial and online radio defines online
radio as “listening to AM/FM radio stations and/or listening to streamed audio content only on the [I]nternet.” Id.
781
This assessment is not intended to fulfill the Commission’s statutory responsibility under section 706 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 to “determine whether advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed
to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.” 47 U.S.C. § 1302(b).
782
47 U.S.C. § 1303(b). The Broadband Data Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 110-385, 122 Stat. 4096 (2008), is
codified in Title 47, Chapter 12 of the United States Code. 47 U.S.C. § 1301 et seq.
783
See, e.g., 2020 Broadband Deployment Report, 35 FCC Rcd at 8997-8, para. 24; 2019 Broadband Deployment
Report, 34 FCC Rcd at 3868, para. 25; 2018 Communications Marketplace Report 34 FCC Rcd at 12651, para.184.
For this Report, we exclude Barrier Communications Corporation’s deployment data because the Commission
proposed a $163,912 forfeiture penalty based on a finding that the company had vastly overstated its data, failed to
provide accurate FCC Form 477 data, and failed to provide response and accurate responses to the Enforcement
Bureau’s Letters of Inquiry. Barrier Communications Corporation d/b/a BarrierFree, Notice Of Apparent Liability
for Forfeiture, FCC 20-123, at 1-2, para. 2 (Sept. 2, 2020).
156
to 2019. We exclude the U.S. Territories from the figures that report the five-year progression of
deployment because of anomalies in the historical deployment data for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin
Islands.784 However, we include the U.S. Territories in the figures that report current deployment
estimates wherever possible,785 including in Figure III.A.3e where we present the overall state of fixed
and mobile deployment data for the entire United States.786
277. Satellite Services. We find that FCC Form 477 deployment data for satellite broadband
service may overstate the extent to which satellite broadband is available. The FCC Form 477
deployment data for satellite broadband indicate that satellite service offering 25/3 Mbps speeds is
available to nearly all of the population.787 However, other FCC Form 477 data indicate that satellite
services have a relatively low subscription rate despite their apparent widespread availability.788 In
Appendix F-7, we provide deployment estimates for all fixed services, including satellite, from 2015 to
2019.789 Unless stated otherwise, our analysis in this section is based on all fixed terrestrial services,
which do not include satellite.
278. Terrestrial Fixed Wireless Services. We note that the FCC Form 477 data for terrestrial
fixed wireless services appear to show that these services are widely available. However, these services
have a sufficiently low subscription rate to potentially support a conclusion that the FCC Form 477
deployment data may overstate the extent to which terrestrial fixed wireless services are available.790 In
Appendix F-8, we provide deployment estimates for terrestrial fixed wired services, that is, fixed services
excluding fixed wireless and satellite services, for 2015 to 2019.791
279. Mobile Services. We continue to conclude that the best way to evaluate mobile
broadband deployment and availability is to rely on FCC Form 477 data with a minimum advertised
784
See 2020 Broadband Deployment Report, 35 FCC Rcd at 8999, para. 28. The historical data suggests a 21.7
percentage point increase in deployment between 2015 and 2016. 2019 Broadband Deployment Report, 34 FCC
Rcd at 3878, para. 39, Fig. 5. In addition, the year-end 2017 deployment data most likely significantly overstate
deployment in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands at that time, because the data do not reflect infrastructure
damage caused by Hurricanes Maria and Irma. See 2019 Broadband Deployment Report, 34 FCC Rcd at 3877-78,
para. 39.
785
Ookla data are unavailable for the U.S. Territories, thus figures and appendices presenting 10/3 Mbps mobile
broadband based on Ookla data will not include the U.S. Territories, even for 2019.
786
We also include data for Puerto Rico in our presentation of demographic data. Further, Appendices F-1–F-5
include data for the U.S. Territories.
787
More specifically, the FCC Form 477 data indicate that satellite service offering 25/3 Mbps speeds is available to
331.274 million of the 331.777 million Americans, or approximately 100% of the U.S. population.
788
FCC Form 477 data show that the adoption rate for satellite services (residential subscriptions divided by
deployed households) for 10/1 Mbps is 1%. FCC Form 477 Data as of Dec. 31, 2019. While satellite signal
coverage may enable operators to offer services to wide swaths of the country, overall satellite capacity may limit
the number of consumers that can actually subscribe to satellite service at any one time. 2020 Broadband
Deployment Report, 35 FCC Rcd at 9000, para. 30 & n.99; 2019 Broadband Deployment Report, 34 FCC Rcd at
3870, para. 28 & n.98; Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All
Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, GN Docket No. 17-199, 2018 Broadband Deployment Report, 33
FCC Rcd 1660, 1681, para. 51 & n.48 (2019) (2018 Broadband Deployment Report)). For this reason, we will
continue to report satellite broadband deployment data separately.
789
See infra Appx. F-7.
790
For example, as of December 31, 2019, the adoption rate for fixed wireless services of at least 10/1 Mbps was
2%. This contrasts with the 60% adoption rate for cable and the 32% adoption rate for fiber-based services at the
same speeds where these services are available in the United States. FCC Form 477 Data as of Dec. 31, 2019.
791
See infra Appx. F-8.
157
speed of 5/1 Mbps,792 supplemented with Ookla’s speed test data. These data sets serve as a proxy for the
likely consumer experience in a given area while providing objective data to assess deployment progress.
In future Reports, we anticipate using the data arising from the Digital Opportunity Data Collection as
they become available.793 As the Commission has done in previous analyses of advanced
telecommunications capability, we employ the centroid methodology in evaluating the FCC Form 477 4G
LTE deployment data.794 We consider a census block to be covered by 4G LTE services if there is at least
one service provider serving that census block that reports 5/1 Mbps as the minimum advertised speed,
based on their FCC Form 477 submission.
280. We recognize, however, that actual speeds may be considerably faster than the minimum
advertised speed. Therefore, we also present estimates based on Ookla speed test data to evaluate the
availability of 4G LTE with a median actual speed of 10/3 Mbps or higher.795 We rely on the Ookla data
to supplement our FCC Form 477 analysis primarily because they provide us with a large set of
observations of actual speeds that customers receive.796 As the Commission has done previously, our
analysis of the availability of mobile 4G LTE services with a median speed of 10/3 Mbps includes actual
speed test data in counties with at least 300 test observations.797 The more densely populated counties
792
For fixed services, the Commission has been able to rely upon FCC Form 477 reported maximum advertised
speeds to track actual speeds. However, we note that the relationship between actual speeds and the advertised
speed reported in the FCC Form 477 for mobile services is more complex, because minimum advertised speed is
reported by the mobile providers, and different mobile providers estimate their minimum advertised speed based on
various points of their actual speed distribution. 2020 Broadband Deployment Report, 35 FCC Rcd at 9000-01,
para. 32 & n.104. By contrast, the Ookla data provide us with the actual speeds that consumers experience.
793
See generally Digital Opportunity Data Collection proceeding.
794
See, e.g., 2020 Broadband Deployment Report, 35 FCC Rcd at 9000-01, para. 32.
795
The data collected by the Ookla Speedtest mobile app include test results for download speed, upload speed, and
latency, as well as other information, such as the location of the test and operating system of the handset. 2020
Broadband Deployment Report, 35 FCC Rcd at 9001-02, para. 33 & n.107; see also https://www.speedtest.net/about
(last visited Oct. 27, 2020). The Ookla results presented in this Report are based on tests that were executed in the
second half of the year for 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 on the smartphone’s cellular connection, and using 4G
LTE technology. Test data were excluded if they had missing GPS location data or if the reported download or
upload speed was less than zero. For all years up to and including 2017, test data were excluded if the reported
download or upload speed was greater than 100 Mbps; however, beginning in 2018 this rule was no longer applied,
due to changes in network engineering that increased the theoretical maximum upload and download speeds.
Multiple tests by a single phone in the same locality and in the same day were averaged (using the median). All
Ookla speed tests are user-initiated.
796
We note that, in general, crowd-sourced data can offer the advantage of generating a large volume of data at a
very low cost, and of measuring actual consumer experience on a network in a wide variety of locations, indoor and
outdoor. Crowd-sourced data, however, often are not collected pursuant to statistical sampling techniques, and may
require adjustments to construct a representative sample from the raw data. For instance, crowd-sourced mobile
data come from a self-selected group of users, and there often is little control for most tests regarding such
parameters as when people implement the test, whether the test is performed indoors or outdoors, the geographic
location of the tester, and the vintage of the consumer’s device. 2020 Broadband Deployment Report, 35 FCC Rcd
at 9000-01, para. 33 & n.109.
797
See 2020 Broadband Deployment Report, 35 FCC Rcd at 9000-01, para. 33. This sample size threshold applies
to each county for each time frame (2H2015, 2H2016, 2H2017, 2H2018, and 2H2019). If a county does not have at
least 300 observations during one of these time frames, the county is not included in the actual speed analysis for the
period during which the number of observations falls below 300. The 300 observations threshold is a conservative
threshold and is based on a general mean and median sample size analysis. We consider a county to have a
sufficient sample size if there are at least 300 total observations in a given year, after the cleaning and trimming
rules have been applied. In contrast, in prior reports we considered a county to have a sufficient sample size if there
were at least 300 total observations in all of the five years after cleaning and trimming rules had been applied. See
2020 Broadband Deployment Report, 35 FCC Rcd at 9000-01, para.33 & n.111. This change in methodology
(continued….)
158
have a higher likelihood of being included in this analysis because there generally are more observations
in those geographical areas with a higher population density.798 Although we do not have reliable on-the-
ground speed data for every county in the United States, the Ookla data cover approximately 97% of the
population of the United States, excluding the U.S. Territories, for which we do not have data.799 Using
the existing FCC Form 477 data combined with on-the-ground speed testing data provides the most
reliable and comprehensive available data that are currently available on the extent of mobile coverage,800
and our continued use allows for a consistent measure of progress over time.
1. Broadband Deployment Estimates
281. In Figures III.A.1 through III.A.3 below, we compare deployment in the most recent year
of data available to deployment in the previous four years.801 For purposes of this Report, we also report
results for federally-recognized Tribal lands as identified in the 2010 Census. We aggregate federally
recognized Tribal lands into four Tribal lands categories (the Lower 48 States,802 Tribal Statistical
increases the population considered in this analysis; thus, the results reported in prior Reports cannot be compared to
the results reported in this Report. See, e.g., 2020 Broadband Deployment Report, 35 FCC Rcd at 9004-05, para.37.
County geography is assigned using the latitude and longitude coordinates that are collected during each Ookla
speed test, via the device’s GPS. This allows us to evaluate actual median upload and download speeds at the
county level, in each year of the five-year time period, for counties in which approximately 97% of the U.S.
population live (not including the U.S. Territories). If a census block has 4G LTE coverage of at least 5/1 Mbps
based on the FCC Form 477 minimum advertised speeds, it is assigned the median upload and download speeds that
are calculated for the county in which it is located, which allows us to evaluate the mobile broadband speeds for
each census block within the United States.
798
Wireless mobile speeds vary over even small local areas. Therefore, ascribing the median county Ookla speed to
an entire county will sometimes overestimate or underestimate realized local speeds. Use of Ookla data alone would
overestimate coverage as counties with only partial coverage would be represented as having 100% coverage. Use
of FCC Form 477 data alone would necessitate reliance on the 5/1 Mbps reporting standard.
799
The percentage of the population in our analysis is based on the total U.S. population, not including the U.S.
Territories, for which we separately report our results. The Ookla speed data population in Fig. III.A.2b is a subset
of the total U.S. population evaluated in Fig. III.A.2a and refers to the population in the counties for which we
believe there are a statistically significant number of on-the-ground speed test observations. In 2019, for example,
the U.S. population, not including the U.S. Territories, was 328.210 million, whereas in Fig. III.A.2b, we use
319.341 million as the basis for our 2019 calculations. The population evaluated figure, 319.341 million, is the
population for the U.S., excluding the U.S. Territories and the population in the counties without a sufficient number
of reliable on-the-ground speed test data observations.
800
See 2020 Broadband Deployment Report, 35 FCC Rcd at 9000-01, paras. 32-33 (discussing use of FCC Form
477 combined with Ookla data to account for limitations in both data sets).
801
Unless otherwise noted, the deployment percentage estimate for fixed terrestrial services and/or mobile services
is the population in the census blocks with coverage for the service divided by the total population in the area being
considered (e.g., United States, all rural areas, and all urban areas).
802
These areas include: (1) Joint Use Areas; (2) legal, federally-recognized American Indian Area consisting of
reservation and associated off-reservation trust land; (3) legal, federally recognized American Indian Area consisting
of reservation only; and (4) legal, federally recognized American Indian Area consisting of off-reservation trust land
only.
159
Areas,803 Alaskan Villages,804 and Hawaiian Home Lands)805 and report deployment for these four
geographic categories separately and jointly.806
a. Deployment of Fixed Advanced Telecommunications Capability
282. Figure III.A.1 shows the deployment of fixed terrestrial broadband at speeds of 25/3
Mbps, the Commission’s current benchmark for fixed advanced telecommunications capability.807 As of
year-end 2019, approximately 96% of the overall population had coverage of such services, up from 94%
in 2018. Nonetheless, the gap in rural and Tribal America remains notable: The data demonstrate,
however, that the gap between urban and rural or Tribal areas has narrowed each year over the last five
years. Approximately 17% of Americans in rural areas and 21% of Americans in Tribal lands lack
coverage from fixed terrestrial 25/3 Mbps broadband, as compared to only 1% of Americans in urban
areas.808 Indeed, while the gap between urban and rural areas was 30 percentage points as of year-end
2016, it was approximately 16 percentage points only as of year-end 2019.
Fig. III.A.1
Deployment (millions) of Fixed Terrestrial 25/3 Mbps Services
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % Pop. %
United States 287.853 89.9% 296.320 91.9% 304.473 93.5% 309.000 94.4% 313.749 95.6%
Rural Areas 38.271 61.5% 42.628 67.7% 46.982 73.7% 50.146 77.7% 53.834 82.7%
Urban Areas 249.582 96.7% 253.692 97.7% 257.491 98.3% 258.854 98.5% 259.915 98.8%
Tribal Lands 2.290 57.8% 2.520 63.1% 2.734 68.1% 2.922 72.3% 3.203 79.1%
Pop. Evaluated 320.289 100.0% 322.518 100.0% 325.716 100.0% 327.167 100.0% 328.210 100.0%
b. Deployment of Mobile 4G LTE

283. Figure III.A.2a shows that almost all of the American population lives in geographical
areas covered by mobile 4G LTE with a minimum advertised speed of at least 5/1 Mbps. From 2015 to
2019, the percentage of Americans living in rural areas with coverage of 4G LTE at 5/1 Mbps increased
from approximately 98% to 99%. Figure III.A.2b shows that between 2018 and 2019, the percentage of
Americans living in the United States with mobile 4G LTE services coverage at median speeds of 10/3
Mbps increased from approximately 94% to 97%. In addition, gains have been made in rural areas, where
803
Tribal Statistical Areas are statistical American Indian Areas defined for a federally recognized Tribe that does
not have reservation or off-reservation trust land; specifically a Tribal Designated Statistical Area (TDSA) or
Oklahoma Tribal Statistical Area (OTSA).
804
Alaskan Native Village Statistical Area.
805
Hawaiian Home Lands were established by the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1921.
806
See infra Figs. III.A.9 and III.A.10.
807
Unless stated otherwise, all references in this Report to data for the “United States,” include the 50 States and the
District of Columbia, but not the U.S. Territories. The estimates reported for years prior to 2019 may differ slightly
from those reported in the 2020 Broadband Deployment Report and the 2018 Communications Marketplace Report
because these estimates are based upon the most recent updates of the fixed broadband data previously released by
the Commission.
808
For purposes of presenting estimates for rural and urban areas, in this section, we aggregate all similarly
categorized areas. The designation of a census block as urban is based upon the 2010 Census. An urban census
block encompasses all population, housing, and territory included within a census block categorized as in an urban
area or urban cluster. A rural census block encompasses all population, housing, and territory not included within
urban census blocks. U.S. Census Bureau, Urban and Rural, https://www.census.gov/programs-
surveys/geography/guidance/geo-areas/urban-rural.html (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).
160
coverage increased from approximately 80% to almost 91% between 2018 and 2019.809 And between
2017 and 2019, deployment of mobile 4G LTE services at median speeds of 10/3 Mbps expanded to
cover an additional 16.6 million Americans living in rural areas.
Fig. III.A.2a
Deployment (millions) of Mobile 4G LTE with a Minimum Advertised Speed of 5/1 Mbps
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Area Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % Pop. %
United States 318.923 99.6% 321.347 99.6% 325.117 99.8% 326.727 99.9% 327.817 99.9%
Rural Areas 60.969 97.9% 61.802 98.2% 63.204 99.1% 64.097 99.4% 64.722 99.4%
Urban Areas 257.954 100.0% 259.545 100.0% 261.912 100.0% 262.630 100.0% 263.095 100.0%
Tribal Lands 3.722 93.9% 3.788 94.9% 3.896 97.0% 3.937 97.5% 3.959 97.7%
Pop. Evaluated 320.289 100.0% 322.518 100.7% 325.716 100.0% 327.167 100.0% 328.210 100.0%
Fig. III.A.2b
Deployment (millions) of Mobile 4G LTE with a Median Speed of 10/3 Mbps810
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
United States 247.649 82.2% 265.270 86.4% 275.091 86.8% 298.401 93.8% 310.923 97.4%
Rural Areas 33.260 68.4% 35.112 68.1% 36.585 64.3% 45.904 79.7% 53.156 90.8%
Urban Areas 214.389 84.8% 230.158 90.1% 238.506 91.8% 252.497 96.9% 257.767 98.8%
Pop. Evaluated 301.457 92.6% 307.067 95.2% 316.793 97.3% 318.269 97.3% 319.341 97.3%
809
We present additional deployment data for mobile 4G LTE services for each state, the District of Columbia, U.S.
Territory, and each category of Tribal land in the appendices. See infra Appendices F-1, F-2, and F-3 (reporting
figures by state, the District of Columbia, and U.S. Territory), Appendices F-4 and F-5 (reporting figures by county
and county equivalent, state, the District of Columbia, and U.S. Territory), and Appx. F-6 (reporting figures for
Tribal lands).
810
The analyses in Figs. III.A.2a to III.A.3d exclude the U.S. Territories. The analyses in Figs. III.A.2a, III.A.3a,
and III.A.3c are based on FCC Form 477 data. In contrast, the analyses in Figs. III.A.2b, III.A.3b, and III.A.3d are
based on Ookla data, and exclude any county (and its associated census blocks) for which there is insufficient Ookla
data. In addition, we do not report results for Tribal lands in Figs. III.A.2b, III.A.3b, and III.A.3d because we have
concerns with the reliability of the Ookla data for these areas. Tribal areas not only typically have fewer speed tests,
but there are also fewer of these areas relative to urban and rural areas. Thus, deployment estimates for tribal areas
are more sensitive to sample variance. The population figure reported in the bottom row of Figures III.A.2b,
III.A.3b, and III.A.3d is the population evaluated for the reported time period and the percentage is the percentage of
the U.S. population evaluated. Figures that include the availability of 4G LTE with a median speed of 10/3 Mbps
show less than 100% of the population evaluated due to the unavailability of such Ookla data in certain places.
Thus, for example, the 319.341 million population evaluated figure for 2019 in Fig. III.A.2b represents
approximately 97% of the overall population in the 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia
(319.341/328.210=0.973). Regardless of our deployment estimates for mobile 4G LTE with a median speed of 10/3
Mbps, Americans residing in the counties without sufficient Ookla data to create a statistically significant county
sample to be included in Fig.III.A.2b, III.A.3b, and III.A3d, receive minimum advertised speeds of 5/1 Mbps, and
likely receive mobile services with speeds higher than 5/1 Mbps.
161
c. Deployment of Fixed Services and Mobile 4G LTE

284. Figure III.A.3a shows deployment across all geographic areas for both fixed terrestrial
25/3 Mbps services and 5/1 Mbps mobile 4G LTE.811 Overall, as of year-end 2019, approximately 313.6
million Americans, or 96% of the population, are covered by both 25/3 Mbps fixed terrestrial service and
mobile 4G LTE with a minimum advertised speed of 5/1 Mbps. In rural areas, approximately 82% of
Americans are covered by both services, up from 78% in 2018. On Tribal lands, approximately 79% of
Americans have coverage from both services, up from 72% in 2018. Figure III.A.3b shows deployment
of fixed terrestrial speeds of 25/3 Mbps and mobile 4G LTE with median speed of 10/3 Mbps. As of
December 31, 2019, approximately 94% of Americans live in geographic areas covered by both services,
an increase of four percentage points since 2018. Further, these data indicate that, between 2018 and
2019, deployment increased from approximately 66% to over 77% for Americans living in rural areas.
285. Figure III.A.3c reports deployment of fixed terrestrial 25/3 Mbps service or mobile 4G
LTE with a minimum advertised speed of 5/1 Mbps, and shows that services have been deployed to well
over 99% of Americans since 2015. Figure III.A.3d shows that approximately 99% of the population in
the evaluated areas are covered by either 25/3 Mbps fixed terrestrial service or mobile 4G LTE with a
median speed of at least 10/3 Mbps.
Fig. III.A.3a
Deployment (millions) of Fixed Terrestrial 25/3 Mbps and Mobile 4G LTE
with a Minimum Advertised Speed of 5/1 Mbps
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
United States 287.387 89.7% 295.853 91.7% 304.216 93.4% 308.811 94.4% 313.579 95.5%
Rural Areas 37.840 60.8% 42.182 67.0% 46.731 73.3% 49.981 77.5% 53.686 82.4%
Urban Areas 249.547 96.7% 253.671 97.7% 257.485 98.3% 258.830 98.5% 259.892 98.8%
Tribal Lands 2.258 57.0% 2.491 62.4% 2.722 67.8% 2.914 72.1% 3.196 78.9%
Pop. Evaluated 320.289 100.0% 322.518 100.7% 325.716 100.0% 327.167 100.0% 328.210 100.0%
811
We present additional deployment data for fixed terrestrial 25/3 Mbps and/or mobile 4G LTE services in the
appendices. See infra Appendices F-1, F-2 and F-3 (reporting figures by state, District of Columbia, and U.S.
Territory), Appx. F-4 (reporting figures by state, county and county equivalent), Appx. F-5 (reporting figures by
urban and rural areas within each state, county or county equivalent, state, the District of Columbia, and U.S.
Territory), and Appx. F-6 (reporting figures for Tribal lands).
162
Fig. III.A.3b
Deployment (millions) of Fixed Terrestrial 25/3 Mbps and Mobile 4G LTE
with a Median Speed of 10/3 Mbps
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
United States 231.815 76.9% 252.232 82.1% 264.364 83.5% 287.046 90.2% 300.156 94.0%
Rural Areas 23.134 47.6% 26.241 50.9% 29.223 51.4% 37.780 65.6% 45.346 77.4%
Urban Areas 208.681 82.5% 225.991 88.5% 235.142 90.5% 249.266 95.6% 254.810 97.7%
Pop. Evaluated 301.457 92.6% 307.067 95.2% 316.793 97.3% 318.269 97.3% 319.341 97.3%
Fig. III.A.3c
Deployment (millions) of Fixed Terrestrial 25/3 Mbps or Mobile 4G LTE
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
United States 319.389 99.7% 321.814 99.8% 325.373 99.9% 326.916 99.9% 327.987 99.9%
Rural Areas 61.400 98.6% 62.248 98.9% 63.455 99.5% 64.262 99.6% 64.869 99.7%
Urban Areas 257.989 100.0% 259.567 100.0% 261.919 100.0% 262.653 100.0% 263.117 100.0%
Tribal Lands 3.753 94.7% 3.817 95.6% 3.907 97.3% 3.944 97.7% 3.967 97.9%
Pop. Evaluated 320.289 100.0% 322.518 100.7% 325.716 100.0% 327.167 100.0% 328.210 100.0%
Fig. III.A.3d
Deployment (millions) of Fixed Terrestrial 25/3 Mbps or Mobile 4G LTE
with a Median Speed of 10/3 Mbps
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
United States 293.287 97.3% 299.722 97.6% 309.194 97.6% 313.987 98.7% 317.452 99.4%
Rural Areas 42.270 86.9% 45.431 88.1% 50.185 88.2% 53.719 93.3% 56.816 97.0%
Urban Areas 251.017 99.3% 254.291 99.5% 259.008 99.7% 260.269 99.8% 260.635 99.9%
Pop. Evaluated 301.457 92.6% 307.067 95.2% 316.793 97.3% 318.269 97.3% 319.341 97.3%
286. Figure III.A.3e reports deployment over the entire United States, including the U.S.
Territories, for both fixed terrestrial 25/3 Mbps services and 5/1 Mbps mobile 4G LTE as of December
31, 2019. These data show year-end 2019 deployment rates comparable to those presented in Figures
III.A.1, III.A.2a, III.A.3a and III.A.3c in which the U.S. Territories are excluded.812
812
Appendices F-1 through F-5 include data for the U.S. Territories.
163
Fig. III.A.3e
Deployment (millions) of Fixed Terrestrial 25/3 Mbps and Mobile 4G LTE with a Minimum
Advertised Speed of 5/1 Mbps for the United States, Including U.S. Territories
(Dec. 31, 2019)
Fixed Terrestrial Fixed Terrestrial

25/3 Mbps and 25/3 Mbps or
Fixed Terrestrial Mobile 4G LTE Mobile 4G LTE Mobile 4G LTE 5/1
25/3 Mbps 5/1 Mbps 5/1 Mbps Mbps
Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % Pop. %
United States 317.257 95.6% 331.333 99.9% 317.035 95.6% 331.554 99.9%
Rural Areas 54.062 82.8% 64.952 99.4% 53.906 82.5% 65.108 99.7%
Urban Areas 263.195 98.8% 266.381 100.0% 263.129 98.8% 266.447 100.0%
Pop. Evaluated 331.777 100.0% 331.777 100.0% 331.777 100.0% 331.777 100.0%
d. Additional Deployment Estimates

287. Figure III.A.4 shows deployment of fixed terrestrial services at various speed tiers from
year-end 2015 through 2019.813 As of December 2019, fixed terrestrial 50/5 Mbps service is deployed to
approximately 94% of the population, up from 93% in 2018. Between 2018 and 2019, the deployment of
100/10 Mbps increased from approximately 91% to 92% of the population, and the deployment of 250/25
Mbps also increased from approximately 86% to over 87% of the population. While deployment in rural
areas and on Tribal lands lags behind deployment in urban areas at all five speed tiers, the data show year-
over-year improvements for all speeds in these areas. For example, between 2018 and 2019, the
deployment of 250/25 Mbps increased from approximately 52% to almost 56% in rural areas, and from
approximately 46% to almost 50% on Tribal lands.
813
We present deployment estimates for all fixed services, including satellite broadband, in Appx. F-7, and
deployment estimates for all fixed wired services, excluding satellite and fixed wireless services, in Appx. F-8. See
infra Appendices F-7, F-8. The data in Fig. III.A.4 and Appendices F-7 and F-8 exclude the U.S. Territories.
164
Fig. III.A.4
Deployment (millions) of Fixed Terrestrial Services at Different Speed Tiers
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
10/1 Mbps
United States 302.138 94.3% 309.095 95.8% 315.656 96.9% 318.854 97.5% 321.066 97.8%
Rural Areas 48.361 77.7% 52.424 83.3% 56.169 88.1% 58.480 90.7% 60.231 92.5%
Urban Areas 253.777 98.4% 256.671 98.9% 259.487 99.1% 260.373 99.1% 260.835 99.1%
Tribal Lands 2.886 72.8% 3.201 80.2% 3.348 83.3% 3.511 86.9% 3.565 88.0%
25/3 Mbps
United States 287.853 89.9% 296.320 91.9% 304.473 93.5% 309.000 94.4% 313.749 95.6%
Rural Areas 38.271 61.5% 42.628 67.7% 46.982 73.7% 50.146 77.7% 53.834 82.7%
Urban Areas 249.582 96.7% 253.692 97.7% 257.491 98.3% 258.854 98.5% 259.915 98.8%
Tribal Lands 2.290 57.8% 2.520 63.1% 2.734 68.1% 2.922 72.3% 3.203 79.1%
50/5 Mbps
United States 283.329 88.5% 291.260 90.3% 298.242 91.6% 303.268 92.7% 307.736 93.8%
Rural Areas 35.316 56.7% 39.147 62.2% 42.312 66.3% 45.569 70.6% 48.742 74.9%
Urban Areas 248.013 96.1% 252.114 97.1% 255.930 97.7% 257.699 98.1% 258.994 98.4%
Tribal Lands 2.116 53.4% 2.269 56.9% 2.462 61.3% 2.639 65.3% 2.799 69.1%
100/10 Mbps
United States 215.582 67.3% 244.110 75.7% 288.497 88.6% 296.249 90.5% 300.933 91.7%
Rural Areas 20.481 32.9% 25.781 41.0% 37.223 58.4% 40.390 62.6% 43.476 66.8%
Urban Areas 195.101 75.6% 218.329 84.1% 251.275 95.9% 255.859 97.4% 257.457 97.8%
Tribal Lands 1.669 42.1% 1.875 47.0% 2.198 54.7% 2.420 59.9% 2.582 63.7%
250/25 Mbps
United States 67.912 21.2% 140.577 43.6% 190.041 58.3% 280.162 85.6% 286.185 87.2%
Rural Areas 5.460 8.8% 9.871 15.7% 17.991 28.2% 33.267 51.6% 36.209 55.6%
Urban Areas 62.452 24.2% 130.707 50.4% 172.050 65.7% 246.895 94.0% 249.976 95.0%
Tribal Lands 0.276 7.0% 1.330 33.3% 1.604 39.9% 1.837 45.5% 2.011 49.6%
Pop. Evaluated 320.289 100.0% 322.518 100.0% 325.716 100.0% 327.167 100.0% 328.210 100.0%
165
B. Demographic Data
288. In Figures III.A.5, III.A.6, III.A.7, and III.A.8, we present demographic data with our
deployment analysis.814 Figures III.A.5 and III.A.6 compare the available demographic data for
Americans with and without coverage by fixed terrestrial 25/3 Mbps service and mobile 4G LTE. Figure
III.A.5 presents this analysis for the United States (excluding U.S. Territories other than Puerto Rico) as a
whole, urban and rural areas, and Tribal lands for fixed terrestrial 25/3 Mbps service and mobile 4G LTE
with a minimum advertised speed of 5/1 Mbps in 2019.815 The data show that, generally, Americans
living in areas where these services are deployed typically live in census block groups with lower poverty
rates and with higher average populations, population densities, per capita incomes, and median
household incomes than Americans living in areas without coverage by these services.
814
To present demographic data and compare the demographic data between areas where services are and are not
deployed, we aggregate the census block data up to the census block group level, the lowest aggregation level for
which demographic information is available. This unavoidable aggregation leads to census blocks with differing
characteristics being grouped together. In the case of differing levels of deployment, we designate a census block
group as without deployment if more than 5% of the population in the census block group is without services,
regardless of the level of deployment in any particular census block in the group. Further, some census block groups
are a mix of census blocks that are designated as rural and urban. In such instances, we designate a census block
group as rural if more than 50% of the population in the census block group resides in census blocks designated as
rural. Finally, we designate a census block group as Tribal lands if more than 50% of the land area in the census
block group is designated as Tribal lands. We use the most recently available Census Bureau’s ACS Five-Year
Estimates 2014-2018 for income and poverty measures for the states, District of Columbia and Puerto Rico; income
measures are not available for the other U.S. Territories. Per capita income and median household income for 2018
are measured in 2018 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars. The household poverty rate is the proportion of households living
below the poverty level. Population Density is the total population residing in the census block group as of 2019
divided by the square miles of land in the census block group, with the estimate of land area is based upon the 2010
Census.
815
Demographic data are not available for U.S. Territories other than Puerto Rico. We provide state-by-state and
county-by-county demographic deployment information (including for Puerto Rico) in Appendices F-4 and F-5.
166
Fig. III.A.5
Comparison of Demographic Data Between Areas With and Without Fixed Terrestrial 25/3 Mbps
and Mobile 4G LTE with a Minimum Advertised Speed of 5/1 Mbps (Dec. 31, 2019)
Household
Population Per Capita Income Median Household Poverty
Population Density ($2018) Income ($2018) Rate
816
United States
With 1,517.0*** 7,182.3*** $33,074.43*** $67,442.92*** 14.7%***
Deployment
Without 1,423.5 1,171.7 $27,342.03 $53,894.49 15.7%
Deployment
Rural Areas
With 1,438.1*** 185.9*** $31,608.93*** $64,190.42*** 11.3%***
Deployment
Without 1,353.9 69.3 $26,919.99 $53,285.35 14.6%
Deployment
Urban Areas
With 1,527.7*** 8,142.5*** $33,275.44*** $67,895.73*** 15.1%***
Deployment
Without 1,588.4 3,780.4 $28,276.33 $55,406.90 18.6%
Deployment
Tribal Lands (Rural and Urban Areas)
With 1,397.2** 1,886.6*** $27,122.36*** $53,463.90*** 16.3%***
Deployment
Without 1,333.9 295.9 $21,963.42 $44,749.57 21.9%
Deployment
Tribal Rural Areas
With 1,387.8 159.3*** $25,673.49 $53,020.00 16.4%
Deployment
Without 1,346.3 65.0 $22,471.52 $45,821.08 21.0%
Deployment
Tribal Urban Areas
With 1,401.3** 2,593.1*** $27,714.10*** $53,607.11*** 16.2%***
Deployment
Without 1,292.2 1,074.7 $20,262.86 $41,129.25 24.7%
Deployment
We test for a statistical difference in the reported means between areas with and without deployment of
these services. The level of statistical significance is indicated by the number of stars. The absence of a
star indicates no statistical difference between the reported figures. * signifies statistical significance at
a 90% level of confidence, ** signifies statistical significance at a 95% level of confidence, and ***
signifies statistical significance at a 99% level of confidence.
289. Figure III.A.6 compares the available demographic data across urban and rural areas for
Americans in the 50 states and the District of Columbia with and without coverage by both fixed
terrestrial 25/3 Mbps service and mobile 4G LTE service with a median speed of 10/3 Mbps in 2019.817
Like Figure III.A.5, Figure III.A.6 shows that Americans living in areas where these services are
deployed typically live in census block groups where there are lower poverty rates, and where there are
higher average populations, population densities, per capita incomes, and median household incomes than
areas without such service deployment.
816
Data exclude U.S. Territories other than Puerto Rico.
817
As above, we exclude the U.S. Territories from this analysis due to a lack of Ookla data for these areas, and we
do not report separately for Tribal lands because of concerns with the representativeness of the Ookla data for these
areas.
167
Fig. III.A.6
Comparison of Demographic Data Between Areas With and Without Fixed Terrestrial 25/3 Mbps
and Mobile 4G LTE with a Median Speed of 10/3 Mbps (Dec. 31, 2019)
Per Capita Median
Population Income Household Household
Population Density ($2018) Income ($2018) Poverty Rate
United States818
With Deployment 1,517.7*** 7,194.7*** $33,336.42*** $67,970.89*** 14.3%***
Without 1,439.8 1,302.2 $27,441.02 $54,245.57 15.7%
Deployment
Rural Areas
With Deployment 1,407.7*** 172.9*** $31,212.33*** $63,254.26*** 11.6%***
Without 1,385.0 78.1 $27,291.17 $54,067.27 14.1%
Deployment
Urban Areas
With Deployment 1,533.7 8,221.2*** $33,646.93*** $68,669.25*** 14.7%***
Without 1,543.21 3,615.0 $27,728.41 $54,599.34 18.7%
Deployment
We test for a statistical difference in the reported means between areas with and without
deployment of these services. The level of statistical significance is indicated by the number of
stars. The absence of a star indicates no statistical difference between the reported figures. *
signifies statistical significance at a 90% level of confidence, ** signifies statistical significance
at a 95% level of confidence, and *** signifies statistical significance at a 99% level of
confidence.
290. Figure III.A.7 shows, for 2019, how the average proportion of the population with
coverage by fixed terrestrial 25/3 Mbps service and mobile 4G LTE service with a minimum advertised
speed of 5/1 Mbps varies with median household income, population density, and poverty rate at the
census block group level.819 On average, deployment is highest in census block groups with the highest
median household incomes, the highest population densities, and the lowest poverty rates.
818
819
We present these results at the census block group, the smallest geographic areas for which income data are
available, to examine how the deployment rate varies with income measures in the geographic area.
168
Fig. III.A.7
Average Percentage of Population with Fixed Terrestrial 25/3 Mbps and Mobile 4G LTE with a
Minimum Advertised Speed of 5/1 Mbps by Census Block Group Level Demographic Variables
(Dec. 31, 2019)820
Mobile 4G Both Fixed
Fixed Terrestrial LTE 5/3 and Mobile
25/3 Mbps Mbps 4G LTE
First Quartile (Lowest Median Household Income) 93.7% 99.7% 93.5%
Second Quartile 93.1% 99.8% 93.0%
Third Quartile 95.5% 99.9% 95.5%
Fourth Quartile (Highest Median Household Income) 98.5% 100.0% 98.5%
Population Density
First Quartile (Lowest Pop. Density) 83.5% 99.3% 83.2%
Third Quartile 99.2% 100.0% 99.2%
Fourth Quartile (Highest Pop. Density) 99.3% 100.0% 99.3%
First Quartile (Lowest Household Poverty Rate) 97.4% 99.9% 97.3%
Third Quartile 93.5% 99.8% 93.4%
Fourth Quartile (Highest Household Poverty Rate) 94.6% 99.7% 94.4%
291. Figure III.A.8 depicts how the average proportion of the population with coverage by
fixed terrestrial services by speed tier varies with median household income population density, and
household poverty rate at the census block group level. On average, deployment is highest in census
blocks with the highest median household incomes, the highest population densities, and the lowest
household poverty rates.
820
169
Fig. III.A.8
Average Percentage of Population With Fixed Terrestrial Services
by Census Block Group Level Demographic Variables (Dec. 31, 2019)821
10/ 25/ 50/ 100/ 250/
1 Mbps 3 Mbps 5 Mbps 10 Mbps 25 Mbps
First Quartile (Lowest Median 97.1% 93.7% 92.1% 90.0% 83.6%
Household Income)
Second Quartile 97.0% 93.1% 90.3% 87.3% 81.0%
Third Quartile 98.0% 95.5% 92.9% 90.2% 85.6%
Fourth Quartile (Highest Median 99.1% 98.5% 97.7% 96.8% 94.6%
Household Income)
Population Density
First Quartile (Lowest Pop. Density) 92.9% 83.5% 76.5% 69.3% 58.2%
Second Quartile 98.9% 98.2% 97.7% 96.6% 91.3%
Third Quartile 99.4% 99.2% 99.0% 98.7% 96.3%
Fourth Quartile (Highest Pop. Density) 99.5% 99.3% 99.3% 99.1% 98.4%
First Quartile (Lowest Household 98.6% 97.4% 95.9% 94.3% 91.1%
Poverty Rate)
Second Quartile 97.9% 95.3% 92.9% 90.4% 85.6%
Third Quartile 97.2% 93.5% 90.9% 88.2% 82.4%
Fourth Quartile (Highest Household 97.4% 94.6% 93.2% 91.3% 85.6%
Poverty Rate)
1. Tribal Lands Data

292. In Figures III.A.9 and III.A.10, we present additional deployment estimates for
Americans living on Tribal lands for each Tribal lands category.822 The Commission’s data indicate that
deployment in rural Tribal lands continues to lag behind deployment on urban Tribal lands, although this
gap is shrinking. Figure III.A.9 presents deployment on Tribal lands from 2015 to 2019 of fixed
terrestrial 25/3 Mbps services and mobile 4G LTE service with a speed of at least 5/1 Mbps. Overall, in
2019, approximately 79% of Tribal lands are covered by fixed terrestrial 25/3 Mbps services and mobile
4G LTE with a speed of 5/1 Mbps, an increase from 72% in 2018 based on FCC Form 477 data.
Deployment on rural Tribal lands continues to lag behind urban Tribal lands, with only approximately
65% of all Tribal lands in rural areas having deployment of both services, as compared to 95% of Tribal
lands in urban areas. But this Tribal urban-rural divide is narrowing: the gap between the percentage of
Americans living on urban Tribal lands and the percentage of Americans living on rural Tribal lands with
access to 25/3 Mbps fixed broadband and Mobile 4G LTE with a minimum advertised speed of 5/1 Mbp
has been nearly halved between 2015 and 2019, falling from more than 55 points to 30 points.
821
822
We present more granular state-by-state Tribal lands data in Appx. F-6.
170
Fig. III.A.9
Deployment (millions) on Tribal Lands of Fixed Terrestrial 25/3 Mbps and Mobile 4G LTE
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Tribal Lands 2.258 57.0% 2.491 62.4% 2.722 67.8% 2.914 72.1% 3.196 78.9%
Rural Areas 0.614 30.1% 0.780 37.8% 0.954 45.7% 1.114 52.9% 1.364 64.5%
Urban Areas 1.644 85.6% 1.711 88.8% 1.768 91.6% 1.799 93.1% 1.831 94.5%
Alaskan Villages 0.110 42.7% 0.135 51.5% 0.151 57.0% 0.176 65.9% 0.185 69.3%
Rural Areas 0.039 23.7% 0.061 36.2% 0.073 42.4% 0.093 54.1% 0.102 59.3%
Urban Areas 0.071 76.7% 0.074 79.0% 0.079 83.3% 0.083 87.3% 0.083 87.5%
Hawaiian Home 0.030 88.9% 0.030 88.6% 0.030 89.4% 0.030 89.1% 0.032 93.1%
Lands
Rural Areas 0.002 43.9% 0.002 43.5% 0.003 47.7% 0.003 47.8% 0.004 64.6%
Urban Areas 0.027 98.0% 0.027 98.0% 0.027 98.2% 0.027 98.2% 0.028 99.5%
Lower 48 States 0.452 41.5% 0.508 46.1% 0.595 53.3% 0.638 56.5% 0.758 66.8%
Rural Areas 0.207 28.4% 0.239 32.3% 0.311 41.3% 0.344 45.1% 0.434 56.5%
Urban Areas 0.245 67.8% 0.270 74.1% 0.284 78.1% 0.293 80.2% 0.324 88.4%
Tribal Statistical 1.666 64.5% 1.818 70.2% 1.946 74.8% 2.070 79.4% 2.221 84.9%
Areas
Rural Areas 0.365 32.0% 0.478 41.5% 0.567 49.0% 0.674 57.9% 0.824 70.5%
Urban Areas 1.301 90.3% 1.341 93.0% 1.378 95.4% 1.396 96.6% 1.397 96.5%
Pop. Evaluated 3.964 100.0% 3.991 100.0% 4.017 100.0% 4.039 100.0% 4.052 100.0%
293. In Figure III.A.10, we present deployment estimates for fixed terrestrial 25/3 Mbps
service and mobile 4G LTE service with a speed of at least 5/1 Mbps on Tribal lands. As of December
31, 2019, fixed terrestrial 25/3 Mbps services was deployed to over 79% of Americans on Tribal lands,
almost 98% were covered by mobile 4G LTE at speeds of at least 5/1 Mbps, and almost 79% were
covered by both services. The figures show variability in deployment across the Tribal lands categories,
with the least deployment in Alaskan Villages.
Fig. III.A.10
Deployment (millions) of Fixed Terrestrial 25/3 Mbps and/or Mobile 4G LTE with a Minimum
Advertised Speed of 5/1 Mbps on Tribal Lands (Dec. 31, 2019)
Fixed 25/3
Mobile 4G Fixed 25/3 Mbps Mbps or
Fixed 25/3 LTE 5/1 and Mobile 4G Mobile 4G
Mbps Mbps LTE 5/1 Mbps LTE 5/1 Mbps
Pop. % of % of % of % of
Evaluated Pop. Pop. Pop. Pop. Pop. Pop. Pop. Pop.
All Tribal Lands 4.052 3.20 79.1% 3.959 97.7% 3.196 78.9% 3.967 97.9%
Alaskan Villages 0.267 0.187 69.9% 0.208 78.0% 0.185 69.3% 0.210 78.6%
Hawaiian Home Lands 0.034 0.032 93.2% 0.034 99.9% 0.032 93.1% 0.034 100.0%
Lower 48 States 1.134 0.763 67.3% 1.104 97.3% 0.758 66.8% 1.109 97.8%
Tribal Statistical 2.617 2.222 84.9% 2.613 99.9% 2.221 84.9% 2.614 99.9%
Areas
171
C. International Broadband Data Report

294. As part of its statutory requirement for the Communications Marketplace Report, the
Commission must include “information comparing the extent of broadband service capability (including
data transmission speeds and price for broadband service capability) in a total of 75 communities in at
least 25 countries abroad for each of the data rate benchmarks for broadband service used by the
Commission to reflect different speed tiers.”823 We must choose international communities comparable to
various communities in the United States with respect to population size, population density, topography,
and demographic profile.824 The Commission is required to include “a geographically diverse selection of
countries” and “communities including the capital cities of such countries.”825 The Commission must
“identify relevant similarities and differences in each community, including their market structures, the
number of competitors, the number of facilities-based providers, the types of technologies deployed by
such providers, the applications and services those technologies enable, the regulatory model under which
broadband service capability is provided, the types of applications and services used, business and
residential use of such services, and other media available to consumers.”826
295. Selection of Comparison Countries. We selected 35 Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development (OECD) countries to meet the statutory directive of developing a
geographically diverse set of countries for comparison with the United States concerning international
broadband services capability.827 These 35 comparison countries in alphabetical order are Australia,
Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece,
Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New
Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland,
Turkey, and the United Kingdom.828 The 28 comparison countries in the 2018 Communications
Marketplace Report are a subset of the 35 comparison member countries chosen for the current Report.829
Retaining these same 28 countries for comparison will facilitate and enhance consistent assessments of
international broadband developments over time. For the fixed and mobile broadband price comparisons,
we rely on a smaller subset of 25 comparison countries.830 For the fixed and mobile deployment
823
47 U.S.C. § 1303(b)(1).
824
47 U.S.C. § 1303(b)(2). Fig. III.A.8 depicts how the average proportion of the U.S. population with coverage by
fixed terrestrial services at different speed tiers varies with median household income population density, and the
household poverty rate at the census block group level. On average, deployment is highest in census blocks with the
highest median household incomes, the highest population densities and the lowest household poverty rates. See
supra Fig. III.A.8.
825
47 U.S.C. § 1303(b)(2).
826
47 U.S.C. § 1303(b)(3).
827
Colombia, the 37th OECD member country, joined the OECD in April 2020 and is not included in any
International Broadband Data Report analysis due to unavailability of the data. OECD, List of OECD Member
countries Ratification of the Convention on the OECD, https://www.oecd.org/about/document/list-oecd-member-
countries.htm (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).
828
OECD, List of OECD Member countries - Ratification of the Convention on the OECD,
https://www.oecd.org/about/document/list-oecd-member-countries.htm (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).
829
830
The countries excluded from the pricing analysis are Chile, Hungary, Israel, Japan, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia,
Slovenia, South Korea, and Turkey. Due to the time intensive nature of collecting both fixed broadband and mobile
broadband pricing data from multiple providers in each country, we limited the pricing analysis to the same
countries analyzed in the 2018 International Broadband Data Report except for Chile, Japan, and South Korea. See
generally International Comparison Requirements Pursuant to the Broadband Data Improvement Act, International
Broadband Data Report, GN Docket No. 17-199, Sixth Report, 33 FCC Rcd 978 (2018) (2018 International
Broadband Data Report).
172
comparison, we rely on the 26 European comparison countries (EU26).831 A complete list of comparison
countries is presented in Appendix G-1.
1. Broadband Speed and Performance Comparison
296. In Appendix G-2, based on Ookla data, we present a comparison of fixed broadband and
a comparison of mobile broadband performance metrics in terms of data transmission speeds (download
and upload speeds) and latency for the United States and the 35 comparison countries. For fixed
broadband, we consider all technologies accounted for by Ookla,832 and for mobile broadband, we
consider 4G LTE only, which is the baseline industry standard for the marketing of mobile broadband
service during the period under consideration.833 Our analysis covers a five-year time horizon for fixed
broadband and a four-year time horizon for mobile broadband.834 We rank speeds from fastest (1st) to
slowest (36th) and latency from shortest (1st) to longest (36th).835
297. Fixed Broadband Results. The mean download speed in the United States in 2019 was
119.6 Mbps, ranking 5th—a substantial improvement from 14th out of 35 countries in 2015 when the mean
download speed was 40.4 Mbps.836 The mean upload speed in the United States in 2019 was 46.3 Mbps,
ranking 17th—a slight improvement from 18th out of 35 countries in 2015. For latency, although the
United States maintained the same ranking at 24th out of the 36 countries in both 2015 and 2019, latency
improved significantly from 37.5 ms in 2015 to 23.7 ms in 2019.
298. Mobile Broadband Results. The mean download speed in the United States in 2019 was
37.0 Mbps, ranking 25th, compared to 35th in 2016. The U.S. rankings in upload speed and latency
remained stable between 2015 and 2019. The mean upload speed in the United States in 2019 was 11.1
Mbps, with a ranking of 35th. For latency, the United States ranked 34th in 2019 at 46.7 ms, although
latency improved from 52.5 ms in 2016.
2. Broadband Price Comparison
299. In Appendix G-3, we present analyses of fixed broadband and mobile broadband prices
for the United States and 25 comparison countries. We collected fixed broadband and mobile broadband
prices from the websites of the largest providers in each country between February and September 2020.
We compare broadband prices using two methods: (1) a broadband price index and (2) a hedonic price
index. The broadband price index ranks countries by their weighted average price, while the hedonic
price index accounts for quality differences as well as market-level cost and demographic differences,
such as population density, income, terrain ruggedness, and education levels, that are likely to affect
831
Relative to the 2018 International Broadband Data Report, this 2020 International Broadband Data Report also
includes five additional European OECD member countries: Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia.
Non-European OECD member countries are not included in the deployment analysis due to data comparability
issues with these other countries.
832
Ookla does not specify which technologies are included in their fixed results because Ookla is unable to
distinguish which technology the test taker is on. Data based on Wi-Fi-using devices are included in these results.
833
Prior IBDRs considered all mobile technologies available. This 2020 IBDR has been updated to present 4G LTE
data only.
834
We use a shorter time horizon for mobile broadband because the Ookla 4G LTE data are available from 2016 to
2019.
835
In the 2018 Communications Marketplace Report, our fixed broadband and mobile broadband speed analysis
considered 28 OECD comparison countries, but as noted in the 2018 Communications Marketplace Report Data
Update, we have access to Ookla data with seven additional OECD countries: Hungary, Israel, Lithuania, Poland,
Slovakia, Slovenia, and Turkey.
836
For both fixed broadband download and upload speeds, Luxembourg is excluded in 2015 due to data concerns.
173
pricing across countries. Compared to earlier International Broadband Data Reports,837 these analyses
seek to better assess how the U.S. market performed relative to other markets. We rank the countries
from the least expensive (1st) to most expensive (26th) based on the two price indexes.
300. Fixed Broadband Results. Based on the broadband price index approach, the United
States ranked 21st among the 26 comparison countries. However, using the hedonic price index approach,
which adjusted for cost, demographics, and quality differences across countries, the United States ranked
2nd among the 26 countries.
301. Mobile Broadband Results. Based on the broadband price index approach, the United
States ranked 21st among the 26 comparison countries. However, using the hedonic price index approach
which adjusted for cost, demographics, and quality differences across countries, the United States ranked
7th among the 26 countries.
3. Broadband Deployment Comparison with Europe
302. In Appendix G-4, we compare fixed high-speed broadband deployment and mobile
broadband deployment in the United States and 26 European comparison countries. We relied on
European Commission (EC) deployment data published in the European Commission Broadband Report
and FCC Form 477 data for the United States.
303. Fixed Broadband Results. Between 2015 and 2019, the United States fixed high-speed
broadband coverage for all households increased from 89% to 94%. In 2019, the United States ranked 8th
among the 27 countries—a slight drop from 7th out of 27 countries in 2018. The percent high-speed
coverage of rural households in the United States in 2019 was 77%, ranking 9th—a slight drop from 8th
out of 27 countries in 2018. During this period, the 26 European comparison countries increased their
high-speed coverage for all households from 72% to 84%.
304. Mobile Broadband Results. The United States continued to have nearly 100% 4G LTE
coverage for all households, including those in rural areas, through June 2019. The 26 European
comparison countries increased their 4G LTE broadband coverage from 99% in 2018 to a rounded 100%
for all households in 2019. Similarly, the 26 European comparison countries increased their 4G LTE
broadband coverage for rural households from 97% in 2018 to 99% in 2019.
4. Demographics
305. As discussed above, the comparison countries selected are geographically diverse, but
comparable to the United States in terms of population size, population density, terrain ruggedness,
topography, and demographic profile. We summarize the demographic information, including income,
population density, and educational levels, at the country-level for the United States and the 25 countries
used to compare broadband prices in Figure G-43 of Appendix G-3. During the reference period, the
United States ranked as the 5th richest country in terms of income measured by the gross national income
(GNI) per capita after adjusting for purchasing power parity. With an average population density of 93
persons per square mile, the United States ranked as the 17th most densely populated country among the
26 countries. The United States ranked as the 17th most rugged country among the comparison countries.
With regards to educational attainment, the United States was one of the most highly educated countries,
with 36.7% of the U.S. labor force attaining the level of tertiary education. For detailed demographic
837
See, e.g., 2016 International Broadband Data Report, which only looked at simple averages in different speed
and/or bundle combinations. See generally International Comparison Requirements Pursuant to the Broadband
Data Improvement Act, International Broadband Data Report, GN Docket No. 15-191, Fifth Report, 31 FCC Rcd
2667 (2016) (2016 International Broadband Data Report).
174
information by country or city for selected variables, please refer to prior International Broadband Data
Reports as well as the OECD website.838
5. International Regulatory Developments
306. Below, we discuss several new market and regulatory developments, including national
broadband, satellite, and 5G developments.839 We limit our discussion to developments that have occurred
since the 2018 Communications Marketplace Report, and identify the relevant similarities and differences
between the United States and the comparison countries based on multiple criteria.840
307. Market Developments. Providers in a number of countries have continued to launch new
broadband services and increase broadband speeds through the deployment of additional broadband
technologies.841 For example, in July 2019, NBN Co, the company managing the construction of
Australia’s National Broadband Network (NBN), reported 1 Gbps download speeds in a DOCSIS 3.1
trial.842 In January 2020, Mexico’s Comisión Federal de Electricidad (CFE) awarded Italian vendor
Prysmian Group a $38 million cable supply contract to extend broadband services to 52 Mexican towns
and cities.843 In June 2020, Technicolor announced that Megacable, the Mexican cable operator and
provider of Internet and phone offerings, is deploying the country’s first DOCSIS 3.1 services.844 In July
2020, Shaw Communications in Canada introduced a new service under the Shaw Mobile brand,845 which
integrates Shaw’s home broadband/Wi-Fi services and a public Wi-Fi infrastructure with more than
838
In prior International Broadband Data Reports we included a demographics Appendix which presented the
following additional variables for the United States and comparison countries, both nationwide and for select
regions: Households with Broadband (%); Total Population; Population Density; Total GDP; Per Capita GDP; and
Education (% of Labor Force with Tertiary Education). See 2018 Communications Marketplace Report, Appx. E-5.
Updated demographic data are available for the comparison countries, excluding the United States and Canada, on
the OECD’s website. OECD, OECD.Stat, https://stats.oecd.org/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). Updated U.S. data are
available on the U.S. Census Bureau website. U.S. Census Bureau, Explore Census Data,
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). Updated Canadian data are available on the Canadian
Radio-television and Communications Commission data website. Canadian Radio-television and
Telecommunications Commission, Communications Monitoring Report 2019,
https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/publications/reports/policymonitoring/2019/index.htm (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).
839
47 U.S.C. § 1303(b)(3) (“The Commission shall identify relevant similarities and differences in each community,
including their market structures, the number of competitors, the number of facilities-based providers, the types of
technologies deployed by such providers, the applications and services those technologies enable, the regulatory
model under which broadband service capability is provided, the types of applications and services used, business
and residential use of such services, and other media available to consumers.”).
840
2018 Communications Marketplace Report, 33 FCC Rcd at 12707-13, paras. 280-89.
841
See TeleGeography GlobalComms Database (TeleGeography GlobalComms Database),
http://www.telegeography.com (last updated Aug. 2020).
842
TeleGeography CommsUpdate, NBN Co Records 1 Gbps Downlink Speeds in DOCSIS 3.1 Trial (July 17, 2019),
https://www.commsupdate.com/articles/2019/07/17/nbn-co-records-1gbps-downlink-speeds-in-docsis-3-1-trial/.
843
TeleGeography CommsUpdate, Mexican govt awards Prysmian USD38m broadband contract (Jan. 17, 2020),
https://www.commsupdate.com/articles/2020/01/17/mexican-govt-awards-prysmian-usd38m-broadband-contract/.
844
LightReading, Mexico’s Megacable Deploys Technicolor Gateway for DOCSIS 3.1 (Jan. 23 2020),
https://www.lightreading.com/cable/mexicos-megacable-deploys-technicolor-gateway-for-docsis-31-/d/d-id/757037
845
TeleGeography CommsUpdate, Shaw launching second cellular service, Shaw Mobile (July 28, 2020),
https://www.commsupdate.com/articles/2020/07/28/shaw-launching-second-cellular-service-shaw-mobile/.
175
450,000 hotspots and its own 4G LTE network.846 Vodafone Germany and the United Kingdom’s Virgin
Media successfully launched new services offering broadband at higher speeds via DOCSIS 3.1.847
308. Providers in several countries are in the process of increasing fiber deployment, with
fiber deployment now exceeding copper broadband connections in at least one country. In June 2020, for
example, the largest UK incumbent, BT’s Openreach subsidiary, put the upgrade of its copper network to
G.fast on hold, and will instead focus on deploying FTTP technology to 3.2 million rural homes by
2025.848 The United Kingdom and Italy have begun formulating proposals to retire copper to accelerate
investment in fiber.849 As of September 2019, fiber became the dominant fixed broadband technology in
New Zealand, with fiber broadband connections outnumbering copper broadband connections for the first
time.850
309. The use of Internet services such as online news, video on demand, voice and video
calling, social networks participation, online shopping, and online banking has also continued to grow in
many countries. For example, the proportion of Internet users in Austria that read news online increased
from 70% in 2015 to 75% in 2019.851 The proportion of Internet users in Greece that use video calls
increased from 61% in 2018 to 67% in 2019.852 Downloads of video calling applications have surged
during the COVID-19 pandemic.853 And with online and mobile banking common in many countries,
mobile operators themselves started to offer banking and financial services, as Orange has done in France
846
LightReading, Shaw Mobile banks on network convergence (July 30, 2020),
https://www.lightreading.com/4g3gwifi/shaw-mobile-banks-on-network-convergence-/d/d-id/762794.
847
See Jeff Baumgartner, DOCSIS 3.1 Takes Hold in Europe (Nov. 13, 2019),
https://www.lightreading.com/cable/docsis-31-takes-hold-in-europe-/d/d-id/755575; Ken Wieland, Virgin Media
Makes DOCSIS 3.1 Upgrade Splurge (July 2, 2020), https://www.lightreading.com/cable-video/docsis/virgin-media-
makes-docsis-31-upgrade-splurge/d/d-id/762133.
848
See Mark Jackson, Openreach Confirm G.fast Broadband Rollout Paused Until 2021 UPDATE (June 24, 2020),
https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2020/06/openreach-confirm-g-fast-broadband-rollout-paused-until-
2021.html; TeleGeography, Openreach to Extend Full Fibre to 3.2m More Rural Premises; Ofcom Proposes New
Regulations (July 30, 2020), https://www.commsupdate.com/articles/2020/07/30/openreach-to-extend-full-fibre-to-
3-2m-more-rural-premises-ofcom-proposes-new-regulations/.
849
See TeleGeography CommsUpdate, Ofcom Consulting on Copper Retirement Regulation Proposals (June 26,
2020), https://www.commsupdate.com/articles/2020/06/26/ofcom-consulting-on-copper-retirement-regulation-
proposals/; Giuseppe Fonte, Exclusive: Italy up the Ante in Plan to Create Single Broadband Network, Sources Say
(Aug. 6, 2020), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-italy-broadband-telecom-italia-enel-e/exclusive-italy-ups-the-
ante-in-plan-to-create-single-broadband-network-sources-say-idUSKCN2520M1.
850
Commerce Commission, Annual Telecommunications Monitoring Report: 2019 Key Facts (Mar. 12, 2020),
https://comcom.govt.nz/regulated-industries/telecommunications/monitoring-the-telecommunications-
market/annual-telecommunications-market-monitoring-report.
851
Reuters Institute, Digital News Report 2019 at 70 (2019),
https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2019-06/DNR_2019_FINAL_0.pdf.
852
European Commission, Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) 2020, DESI Country Profile Greece at 9,
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/scoreboard/greece (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).
853
Sarah Perez, Videoconferencing Apps Saw a Record 62M Downloads During One Week in March (Mar. 30,
2020), https://techcrunch.com/2020/03/30/video-conferencing-apps-saw-a-record-62m-downloads-during-one-
week-in-march/.
176
and Spain.854 The proportion of Internet users in Canada that shop online remains quite high – 87% in
2019, and 85% in 2020.855
310. National Broadband Developments.856 Many countries continue to develop
comprehensive broadband agendas,857 increasingly with a view towards future applications and services
such as 5G, IoT, and artificial intelligence .858 For example, in August 2019, Austria released its new
Broadband Strategy 2030 that emphasizes nationwide availability of gigabit broadband.859 In November
2019, Ireland partnered with private investment firm, Granahan McCourt, to deliver its National
Broadband Plan to connect areas without high-speed fiber broadband and provide free Wi-Fi in public
places in all 26 counties.860 In May and June 2020, Hungary opened its window for receiving bids for
building broadband connections above 100 Mbps to 62,000 households in 72 districts using $13 million
in funding in the second phase of its Superfast Internet Program.861 Canada issued its spectrum outlook
plan for the period 2018 to 2022, which discusses the development of the digital economy and 5G
854
TeleGeography CommsUpdate, Orange Bank Launches in Spain; Offers Best Interest Rate in the Country (Nov.
26, 2019), https://www.commsupdate.com/articles/2019/11/26/orange-bank-launches-in-spain-offers-best-interest-
rate-in-the-country/.
855
Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA), CIRA Internet Factbook 2020 (2020),
https://www.cira.ca/resources/factbook/canadas-internet-factbook-2020.
856
Many countries continue to adopt national broadband plans to expand broadband access and use. According to
the ITU, as of September 2019, 164 countries have national broadband plans, digital strategies, or ICT plans that
include broadband, up from 159 countries the previous year. See Broadband Commission for Sustainable
Development, The State of Broadband: Broadband as a Foundation for Sustainable Development at 33 (2019),
https://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-s/opb/pol/S-POL-BROADBAND.20-2019-PDF-E.pdf (State of Broadband Report
2019). The United Nations’ Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development has set seven global broadband
targets, including a target for all countries to have a funded national broadband plan or strategy, or to include
broadband in their universal access and services definition, by 2025. See generally State of Broadband Report 2019
(discussing overall progress towards the targets). Progress towards these targets has been challenging. Carlos
Iglesias, As Internet Access Proves Critical, We are Missing Targets to Connect Everyone (Apr. 17, 2020),
https://a4ai.org/as-internet-access-proves-critical-we-are-missing-targets-to-connect-everyone/.
857
State of Broadband Report 2019 at 33.
858
Some countries, such as Korea, have also developed separate strategies directed towards individual future
applications and services. See, e.g., Ministry of Science & ICT, National Strategy for Artificial Intelligence (Dec.
17, 2019), http://english.msip.go.kr/english/msipContents/contentsView.do?cateId=tst60&artId=2771576.
859
Federal Ministry for Transport, Innovation and Technology, Broadband Strategy 2030 (2019),
https://www.bmlrt.gv.at/dam/jcr:b4b67c21-89c5-48e5-b344-c0ccf37d6d16/broadbandstrategy2030_ua.pdf.
According to the EU’s common broadband targets, by 2025, all schools, transport hubs, and main providers of
public services, as well as digitally intensive enterprises, should have access to Internet connections with
download/upload speeds of 1 Gbps/second. Additionally, all European households should have access to networks
offering a download speed of at least 100 Mbps, which can be upgraded to 1 Gbps. See European Commission,
Digital Single Market: Connectivity for a European Gigabit Society, https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-
market/en/policies/improving-connectivity-and-access (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).
860
Department of the Environment, Climate, and Communications, National Broadband Plan (last updated Oct. 13,
2020), https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/c1b0c9-national-broadband-plan/; TeleGeography CommsUpdate, NBI
Inks Contract with Government to Deliver National Broadband Plan (Nov. 20, 2019),
https://www.commsupdate.com/articles/2019/11/20/nbi-inks-contract-with-government-to-deliver-national-
broadband-plan/.
861
Stephen Hardy, Hungary Opens Tender Process for Superfast Internet Program 2.0 (Apr. 20, 2020),
https://www.lightwaveonline.com/fttx/ftth-b/article/14174386/hungary-opens-tender-process-for-superfast-internet-
program-20.
177
deployment, among other topics.862 Sweden is offering €150 million in subsidies to support rollouts in
rural areas, and Greece is offering vouchers to business and residential users.863 Under the Iceland
Initiative, the country created a fund to help cover 99.9% of premises with next generation broadband
with download speeds of 100 Mbps.864 The United Kingdom has established a Universal Service
Obligation for broadband that provides UK residents and businesses with a legal right to a “decent” and
“affordable” connection, defined as 10/1 Mbps connection with a 100 GB per month minimum data
allowance at a cost of £45 per month.865
311. Over the past several years, as part of modernization of its universal service programs,
the Commission has instituted a number of reforms to target support for broadband expansion and
adoption in the United States.866 Other regulators are likewise increasingly including broadband in their
universal service obligations. For example, in July 2020, the Australian government finalized the
legislative framework for its Universal Service Guarantee, introduced in December 2018, which extends
not only to voice telephony, but also broadband access.867
312. Satellite Developments. Many countries are also increasingly recognizing the possible
impact of innovative satellite technologies, such as nanosatellites868 and advanced laser communication
networks. In August 2019, for example, the European Space Agency launched the second European Data
Relay System, EDRS-C, into geostationary orbit.869 EDRS-C and its sister satellite, EDRS-A, use lasers
to communicate with Earth-observation satellites that are closer to the planet’s surface and circle the
Earth approximately every 90 minutes. This enables them to beam their data back to Europe in almost
real time. These satellites offer an almost constant connection with Earth-observation satellites, without
862
Government of Canada, Spectrum Outlook 2018 to 2022 (last updated June 6, 2018),
https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf11403.html
863
See TeleGeography CommsUpdate, Sweden to Offer EUR150m Broadband Subsidy This Year (Jan. 21, 2020),
https://www.commsupdate.com/articles/2020/01/21/sweden-to-offer-eur150m-broadband-subsidy-this-year/;
TeleGeography CommsUpdate, Greece Expands Broadband Subsidy Scheme (Feb. 12, 2020),
https://www.commsupdate.com/articles/2020/02/12/greece-expands-broadband-subsidy-scheme/.
864
TeleGeography CommsUpdate, Iceland Grants ISK450M to 24 Municipalities for Fibre Optic Rollouts (Mar. 28,
2018), https://www.commsupdate.com/articles/2018/03/28/iceland-grants-isk450m-to-24-municipalities-for-fibre-
optic-rollouts/.
865
Georgina Hutton, The Universal Service Obligation (USO) for Broadband (Oct. 02, 2020),
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8146/.
866
For a more detailed description of the Commission’s recent universal service reforms, see
https://www.fcc.gov/general/universal-service (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).
867
TeleGeography CommsUpdate, New Legislation Guarantees Broadband Access for All Australians (July 3,
2020), https://www.commsupdate.com/articles/2020/07/03/new-legislation-guarantees-broadband-access-for-all-
australians/; Press Release, Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications,
New Universal Service Guarantee Announced (Dec. 5, 2018), https://www.communications.gov.au/departmental-
news/new-universal-service-guarantee-announced.
868
Nanosatellites are small satellites that have a small fraction of the mass and cost of a more traditional satellite.
They were originally developed as educational tools but are increasingly being used in orbit for technology
demonstrations, scientific studies, and commercial purposes. European Space Agency, CubeSats,
https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Preparing_for_the_Future/Discovery_and_Preparation/CubeSats (last visited
Oct. 27, 2020).
869
Press Release, European Space Agency, Data-relay satellite beams at light speed (July 16, 2020),
https://www.esa.int/Applications/Telecommunications_Integrated_Applications/Data-
relay_satellite_beams_at_light_speed.
178
which reportedly there would be delays of close to 90 minutes. Norway,870 Finland,871 France,872 and
Slovenia873 are all developing and launching nanosatellites for increased communication capabilities
while other countries are building partnerships for cooperation to expand their space programs. For
example, in October 2019, the Polish Space Agency signed a Joint Statement of Intent for Space with
NASA.874 In December 2019, Luxembourg followed suit by signing a Memorandum of Understanding
with NASA.875 Likewise, the United Kingdom876 and Finland877 have both engaged in private
development of satellite manufacturing services with U.S. companies.
313. Regulators in other countries are examining how best to deploy this new generation of
satellite technologies, both independently and collectively. In August 2020, for example, the Canadian
Radio-Television and Telecommunications announced that its Broadband Fund will support satellite
projects in Northern Manitoba, Yukon, and the Northwest Territories.878 In July 2020, the EC agreed to
reduce its space budget to focus on continuing the Galileo and Copernicus satellite programs, and other
initiatives include GovSatCom, an initiative aimed at providing secure satellite communications for EC
members, and the European space situational awareness investments.879 As part of its Five-Year Spectrum
Outlook 2019-2023, the Australian Communications and Media Authority is considering how best to
address spectrum management challenges in response to the deployment of novel satellite systems,
including possible changes to the Ku- and Ka-bands.880
314. 5G Developments. Many countries have been examining regulatory frameworks to
consider and address possible barriers to broadband infrastructure investment and deployment, with a
particular focus on 5G infrastructure. Approaches to 5G development and the status of deployment
efforts vary across countries. As of August 2020, 92 operators had launched commercial 5G networks in
870
Rachel Jewett, GomSpace to Develop Norwegian Military Satellite (June 11, 2020),
https://www.satellitetoday.com/government-military/2020/06/11/gomspace-to-develop-norwegian-military-satellite/.
871
YLE, Finland needs its own space research centre, gov't report says (Feb. 16, 2020),
https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/finland_needs_its_own_space_research_centre_govt_report_says/11206877.
872
Annamarie Nyirady, Arianespace to Launch ANGELS, France’s 1st Nanosatellite (Jan. 9, 2019)
https://www.satellitetoday.com/launch/2019/01/09/arianespace-to-launch-angels-frances-1st-nanosatellite/.
873
STA, Slovenia to launch its first nanosatellite this summer (Apr. 5, 2019), https://english.sta.si/2623691/slovenia-
to-launch-its-first-nanosatellite-this-summer.
874
Spacewatch Europe, Polish Space Agency Signs Cooperation Agreement With NASA,
https://spacewatch.global/2019/10/polish-space-agency-signs-cooperation-agreement-with-nasa/ (last visited Oct.
27, 2020).
875
Jeff Foust, Luxembourg expands its space resources vision (Dec. 6, 2019), https://spacenews.com/luxembourg-
expands-its-space-resources-vision/.
876
Caleb Henry, British government and Bharti Global buy OneWeb, plan $1 billion investment to revive company,
(July 3, 2020), https://spacenews.com/british-government-and-bharti-global-buy-oneweb-plan-1-billion-investment-
to-revive-company/.
877
Debra Werner, Iceye establishes U.S. office, considers U.S. manufacturing (Feb. 13, 2020),
https://spacenews.com/iceye-us-opens/.
878
Mirage News, Over 10,100 households in northern communities to have access to improved broadband Internet
service (Aug. 18, 2020), https://www.miragenews.com/over-10-100-households-in-northern-communities-to-have-
access-to-improved-broadband-internet-service/.
879
Austria in Space, Space Law, https://austria-in-space.at/en/space-law/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).
880
Australian Communications & Media Authority (ACMA), Five-Year Spectrum Outlook 2019-2023: The ACMA’s
Spectrum Management Work Program (Sept. 2019), https://www.acma.gov.au/publications/2019-
09/publication/five-year-spectrum-outlook-2019-23.
179
38 countries.881 The Commission’s 5G strategy includes three key components: (1) making additional
spectrum available for 5G services, (2) updating infrastructure policy and encouraging the private sector
to invest in 5G networks, and (3) modernizing outdated regulations to promote 5G backhaul deployment
and promote digital opportunity for all Americans.882 Some countries and regions have developed or are
developing 5G plans that cover a range of policy initiatives, such as the EC’s 2016 5G Action Plan, and
Chile’s July 2018 consultation to develop a national 5G plan.883 In line with its 5G Action Plan and the
2018 European Electronic Communications Code, in June 2020 the EC adopted an implementing
regulation that defines the small cells that should be exempt from local planning permits.884
315. As well as in the United States, regulators around the world are also in the midst of
allocating, auctioning, and/or licensing additional spectrum across various bands to support 5G
services.885 As of February 2020, 40 countries had completed allocations of dedicated or technology-
neutral 5G-suitable spectrum, and 54 countries had announced plans for allocating 5G-suitable
frequencies by the end of 2022.886 For example, in June 2020, Korea announced plans to reallocate
spectrum in the 3.7-4 GHz range, currently used for satellite communications, for 5G wireless use.887
Similarly, in May 2020, Australia outlined plans to reallocate the 850 MHz and 900 MHz bands for 5G
services, culminating in an auction planned for late 2021.888 Australia also intends to auction spectrum in
the 26 GHz band in March 2021.889 Israel concluded its auction of 5G-suitable spectrum in August 2020,
with three operator partnerships each winning spectrum in the 700 MHz, 2.6 GHz, and 3.5 GHz bands.890
In April 2019, Japan approved the allocation of 5G spectrum in the 3.7 GHz and 28 GHz bands to
881
Global Mobile Suppliers Association (GMSA), 5G Market Snapshot (Aug. 2020), https://gsacom.com/paper/5g-
market-snapshot-august-2020/.
882
FCC, The FCC’s 5G FAST Plan, https://www.fcc.gov/5G (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). For a detailed discussion
of 5G, see section II.A.5.b.
883
TeleGeography CommsUpdate, Subtel opens consultation on 5G plan, (July 26, 2018),
https://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2018/07/26/subtel-opens-consultation-on-5g-plan/.
884
European Commission, The Commission Adopts Implementing Regulation to Pave the Way for High Capacity 5G
Network Infrastructure (June 30, 2020), https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/commission-adopts-
implementing-regulation-pave-way-high-capacity-5g-network-infrastructure.
885
See generally Global Mobile Suppliers Association, 5G Spectrum Report: February 2020 (2020),
https://gsacom.com/paper/5g-spectrum-report-february-2020/.
886
See id.
887
See Cho Mu-Hyun, South Korea to Reallocate Spectrum for 5G Use, ZDNet (June 29, 2020),
https://www.zdnet.com/article/south-korea-to-reallocate-spectrum-for-5g-use/. MSIT previously concluded a 5G
auction in the 3.5 GHz and 28 GHz bands. TeleGeography CommsUpdate, MSIT Announces Results of 5G
Spectrum Auction (June 19, 2018), https://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/
2018/06/19/msit-announces-results-of-5g-spectrum-auction/.
888
ACMA, 850/900 MHz Band, https://www.acma.gov.au/850900-mhz-band (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).
889
ACMA, 26 GHz Band, https://www.acma.gov.au/26-ghz-band (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). ACMA previously
allocated 5G spectrum in the 3.6 GHz band in Dec. 2018. TeleGeography CommsUpdate, Australia’s 3.6 GHz 5G
Auction Earns AUD853m (Dec. 10, 2018), https://www.commsupdate.com/articles/2018/12/10/australias-3-6ghz-
5g-auction-earns-aud853m/.
890
TeleGeography CommsUpdate, Israel Concludes 5G Spectrum Auction; MoC Approves Cellcom’s Purchase of
Golan Telecom (Aug. 14, 2020), https://www.commsupdate.com/articles/2020/08/14/israel-concludes-5g-spectrum-
auction-moc-approves-cellcoms-purchase-of-golan-telecom/.
180
various companies, including Softbank, and a new fourth operator, Rakuten Mobile, which is part of the
local e-commerce company Rakuten.891
316. In line with the EC’s 5G Action Plan,892 European Union member states are focusing on
several “pioneer band[s]” to harmonize the initial launch of 5G services across Europe,893 with an initial
emphasis on the 700 MHz, 3.4-3.8 GHz, and 26 GHz bands.894 Spectrum in the 700 MHz band has been
licensed in Denmark, France, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Italy, and Sweden, as has spectrum in the 3.4-
3.8 GHz band in Austria, Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Spain, and
the United Kingdom.895 Italy and Finland have auctioned spectrum in the 26 GHz band,896 and auctions
are planned in several countries including Poland and Portugal by the end of 2020.897 5G is now
commercially available in at least 10 European countries.898 Operators around the world are looking at
using open radio access networks (ORAN) to upgrade their networks to 5G.899 Recognizing that ORAN
networks offer an alternative to traditional cellular network architecture and could enable diversity in
suppliers, better network security, and lower costs, in September 2020, the Commission convened a
forum on 5G ORANs for leading experts in this area to discuss related technologies and the path forward.
The forum also featured U.S. Secretary of State Michael Pompeo and reflects the FCC’s efforts to ensure
the United States leads the way in researching and developing innovative approaches to mobile network
deployment.900
317. In the Americas, in August 2020, Chile established a timeline for four separate, parallel
5G spectrum auctions, to take place in the 4th quarter of 2020 for the following bands: 700 MHz, AWS
891
TeleGeography CommsUpdate, MIC Approves Allocation of 5G Spectrum to Japanese Operators, with
Conditions (Apr. 11, 2019), https://www.commsupdate.com/articles/2019/04/11/mic-approves-allocation-of-5g-
spectrum-to-japanese-operators-with-conditions/.
892
See generally European Commission, 5G for Europe: An Action Plan (Sept. 14, 2016),
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single- market/en/news/communication-5g-europe-action-plan-and-accompanying-staff-
working-document.
893
Radio Spectrum Policy Group, Strategic Roadmap Towards 5G for Europe: Opinion of Spectrum-Related
Aspects for Next-Generation Wireless Systems (5G) (Nov. 9, 2016), https://rspg-spectrum.eu/wp-
content/uploads/2013/05/RPSG16-032-Opinion_5G.pdf (identifying the following “pioneer band[s]”: 3400-3800
MHz; below 1 GHz, particularly the 700 MHz band; 24.25-27.5 GHz; and upper bands, including 31.8-33.4 GHz
and 40.5-43.5 GHz).
894
Radio Spectrum Policy Group, Strategic Spectrum Roadmap Towards 5G in Europe: RSPG Second Opinion on
5G Networks (Jan. 30, 2018), https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/fe1a3338-b751-43e3-9ed8-a5632f051d1f/RSPG18-
005final-2nd_opinion_on_5G (identifying the 3.4-3.8 GHz band as the “key for success of 5G in Europe”).
895
Press Release, European 5G Observatory, Some European 5G Spectrum Auctions Postponed Due to COVID-19
(Apr. 3, 2020), https://5gobservatory.eu/some-european-5g-spectrum-auctions-postponed-due-to-covid-19/.
896
Id.; see also TeleGeography CommsUpdate, Finland’s 26GHz Auction Concludes Swiftly (June 9, 2020),
https://www.commsupdate.com/articles/2020/06/09/finlands-26ghz-auction-concludes-swiftly/.
897
TeleGeography CommsUpdate, Poland Still Expects 5G Auction and Network Launches this Year (May 13,
2020), https://www.commsupdate.com/articles/2020/05/13/poland-still-expects-5g-auction-and-network-launches-
this-year/; TeleGeography CommsUpdate, Portuguese 5G Auction Earmarked to Start in October (July 14, 2020),
https://www.commsupdate.com/articles/2020/07/14/portuguese-5g-auction-earmarked-to-start-in-october/.
898
See e.g., GSMA Intelligence, The Mobile Economy 2020 at 13 (2020),
https://www.gsma.com/mobileeconomy/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/GSMA_MobileEconomy2020_Global.pdf.
899
Eugina Jordan, Open RAN 101–Open RAN Adoption in in different regions: Why, What, When, How? (Reader
Forum) (Aug. 6, 2020), https://www.rcrwireless.com/20200806/opinion/readerforum/open-ran-101-open-ran-
adoption-in-different-regions-why-what-when-how-reader-forum.
900
FCC, Forum on 5G Open Radio Access Networks, https://www.fcc.gov/news-events/events/forum-5g-virtual-
radio-access-networks.
181
(1.7/2.1 GHz), 3.5 GHz, and 28 GHz.901 I Canada will start the country’s 3500 MHz 5G spectrum auction
on June 15, 2021, with an April 6, 2021 deadline for receipt of applications and pre-auction financial
deposits. The new 3500 MHz licenses will be valid for 20 years.902 Similarly, Mexico has prepared its
5G roadmap with a specific set of milestones for the industry.903 Mexico’s plan to license 70 megahertz
of the 600 MHz band and 150 megahertz of the 3.4 GHz band for fixed internet 5G deployment has been
delayed until 2021.904
318. COVID-19. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Commission has undertaken a
variety of initiatives to keep Americans connected.905 Regulators worldwide have likewise leveraged
broadband technologies as a critical component in coronavirus response and recovery.906 For example, in
August 2020, New Zealand allocated US$33 million for rural broadband connectivity as part of its
COVID Response and Recovery Fund.907 Saudi Arabia offered temporary spectrum or additional
spectrum for the service providers to successfully handle the increase in demand and any interferences to
Internet traffic in March 2020.908 Europe took a different approach at the beginning of the pandemic. In
March 2020, the EC asked Netflix, YouTube, and Amazon Prime to temporarily downgrade the quality of
their services to reduce load on broadband networks.909 In September 2020, France announced that its
next COVID-19 stimulus bill would include €240 million for fiber networks in addition to €280 million
for fiber already allocated to local governments.910 Nigeria called on service providers to share resources
such as fiber optic cables and align their corporate social responsibility programs to help mitigate the
spread of the virus.911 And South Africa engaged with licensees and requested service providers to
901
Press Release, Subsecretaría de Telecomunicaciones, Presidente Pinera anuncia la primera licitación 5G de
Latinoamérica y la creación de un ecosistema digital público privado (Aug. 17, 2020),
https://www.subtel.gob.cl/presidente-pinera-anuncia-la-primera-licitacion-5g-de-latinoamerica-y-la-creacion-de-un-
ecosistema-digital-publico-privado/.
902
TeleGeography CommsUpdate, Canada delays 3500MHz 5G auction to June 2021 (June 8, 2020),
https://www.commsupdate.com/articles/2020/06/08/canada-delays-3500mhz-5g-auction-to-june-2021/.
903
IFT, Panorama del Espectro Radioeléctrico en México para servicios móviles de quita generación (Mar. 2019),
http://www.ift.org.mx/sites/default/files/panoramadelespectroradioelectricoenmexicopara5g.pdf.
904
Id.
905
See section V; see generally FCC, Keep Americans Connected, https://www.fcc.gov/keep-americans-connected
906
See generally e.g., ITU, COVID-19 Response and Recovery, https://www.itu.int/en/Pages/covid-19.aspx (last
visited Oct. 27, 2020) (providing an overview of global actions to use digital technologies to respond to and recover
from the coronavirus pandemic).
907
TeleGeography CommsUpdate, UFB Programme Hits 1m Connections; Govt Allocates Further NZD50m for
Rural Broadband (Aug. 6, 2020), https://www.commsupdate.com/articles/2020/08/06/ufb-programme-hits-1m-
connections-govt-allocates-further-nzd50m-for-rural-broadband/.
908
Press Release, Communications and Information Technology Commission, CITC Provides Additional Spectrum
for Saudi Telecom Providers to Boost Mobile Network Performance (Mar. 31, 2020),
https://www.citc.gov.sa/en/mediacenter/pressreleases/Pages/20200330.aspx.
909
Foo Yun Chee, YouTube, Amazon Prime Forgo Streaming Quality to Relieve European Networks (Mar. 20,
2020), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-youtube-exclusive/youtube-amazon-prime-forgo-
streaming-quality-to-relieve-european-networks-idUSKBN2170OP.
910
Anne Morris, France Stokes Fiber's Embers with Extra €240M (Sept. 4, 2020),
https://www.lightreading.com/opticalip/fttx/france-stokes-fibers-embers-with-extra-euro-240m/d/d-id/763703.
Press Release, Nigerian Communications Commission, What We're Doing to Support Stakeholders’ Efforts to
911
Deal with COVID-19 (Mar. 26, 2020), https://www.ncc.gov.ng/media-centre/news-headlines/813-press-release-

what-we-re-doing-to-support-stakeholders-efforts-to-deal-with-covid-19-by-ncc.
182
facilitate easy and affordable access to data. South Africa released emergency spectrum in the 700 MHz,
800 MHz, 2600 MHz, and 3500 MHz bands as a key intervention to stimulate economic recovery.912
IV. ENTRY AND EXPANSION CONDITIONS IN THE COMMUNICATIONS
MARKETPLACE
319. New entry and incumbent expansion occurs in the context of underlying regulatory and
market conditions that directly influence the total number of firms that can successfully compete and
grow. To evaluate the competitiveness of any market, one must consider multiple factors, including, as
discussed in section II, prices and trends in prices, non-price competition, investment, innovation, as well
as any barriers to entry or expansion by incumbents.913 While there is no single definition in the
economics literature of what constitutes a barrier to entry,914 it is nonetheless the case that high barriers to
entry reduce the threat to incumbents of new entry.915 In addition, barriers to expansion reduce the ability
of existing competitors to successfully enter new geographic areas.
A. The Mobile Wireless Communications Marketplace
320. In the mobile wireless marketplace, there are both regulatory and non-regulatory factors
that can affect entry or expansion. Regulatory barriers to entry arise from government regulations, rules,
and restrictions that may have the effect of discouraging entry or expansion. For the most part, they are
related to the inputs necessary to offer mobile wireless services. Spectrum policy, which affects the
spectrum capacity available for mobile wireless services and infrastructure regulations that govern tower
and antenna siting may constitute barriers to entry or expansion. As discussed in more detail in section
V.A., the Commission has made significant efforts to make more spectrum available and to reduce the
cost of infrastructure deployment.
321. Non-regulatory or market conditions that may determine the number of providers that can
operate in the market, or may deter entry or expansion, include efficiencies of size and scale, permanent
asymmetries across service providers’ costs, and capital cost requirements, such as those costs incurred in
acquiring spectrum or deploying a nationwide network.916
912
Press Release, Independent Communications Authority of South Africa, Temporary radio frequency spectrum
issued to qualifying applicants in an effort to deal with covid-19 communication challenges (Apr. 17, 2020),
https://www.icasa.org.za/news/2020/temporary-radio-frequency-spectrum-issued-to-qualifying-applicants-in-an-
effort-to-deal-with-covid-19-communication-challenges.
913
Applications of AT&T Inc. and DIRECTV For Consent to Assign or Transfer Control of Licenses and
Authorizations, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 9131, 9140, paras. 19-20 (2015); Applications of
AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. and Cingular Wireless Corporation, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd
21522, 21544-45, paras. 41-42 (2004).
914
See, e.g., Joe S. Bain, Barriers to New Competition (1950); George J. Stigler, The Organization of Industry
(1968); Carl Christian von Weizsacker, A Welfare Analysis of Barriers to Entry, 11 Bell Journal of Economics 399
(1980); Richard Gilbert, Mobility Barriers and the Value of Incumbency, Handbook of Industrial Organization 475
(Richard Schmalensee and Robert Willig eds. 1989); R. Preston McAfee, Hugo M. Mialon & Michael A. Williams,
What is a Barrier to Entry?, 94 AEA Papers and Proceedings, 461 (2004).
915
High economic profits encourage entry into the market, low economic profits discourage entry, and prolonged
negative economic profits induce exit from the market. See e.g., Hal R. Varian, Intermediate Microeconomics: A
Modern Approach, 433-34 (9th ed. 2014); Dennis W. Carlton and Jeffrey M. Perloff, Modern Industrial
Organization, 61, 76 (4th ed. 2005). See also George S. Ford, et al., Competition After Unbundling: Entry, Industry
Structure, and Convergence, 59 Fed. Com. L.J. 344 (2007).
916
Relatively high fixed costs in relation to the number of customers may limit the number of firms that can enter
and survive in a market. See, e.g., John Sutton, Sunk Costs and Market Structure (1991); Luis Cabral, Introduction
to Industrial Organization (2000); Dennis W. Carlton and Jeffrey M. Perloff, Modern Industrial Organization 41
(4th ed. 2005); George S. Ford, et al., Competition After Unbundling: Entry, Industry Structure, and Convergence,
59 Fed. Com. L.J. 59:2, 332, 337 (2007).
183
322. Spectrum. As already noted, spectrum is a critical input in the provision of mobile
wireless services. Increasing the total supply of spectrum bandwidth that the Commission allocates and
licenses is important, and since the release of the 2018 Communications Marketplace Report, the
Commission has continued its efforts to expand access to spectrum to support 5G and other advanced
wireless services. The Commission has pursued a comprehensive strategy that emphasizes the need to
free up spectrum in the low-, mid-, and high-frequency bands.917
323. In July 2020, for example, the Commission announced the successful completion of the
39-month transition period following the broadcast incentive auction, which identified 70 megahertz of
licensed spectrum in the 600 MHz band for repurposing from television broadcasting to commercial
wireless operations.918 This milestone signals that all of the valuable low-band airwaves sold in the
ground-breaking broadcast incentive auction are now available for wireless mobile broadband services.919
In addition to low-band spectrum, the Commission also has taken significant steps to improve access to
high-band spectrum. Since 2019, the Commission has conducted three Spectrum Frontiers auctions to
make mmW spectrum available to mobile providers for licensed use. Auctions 101, 102, and 103
collectively made available nearly five gigahertz of spectrum in the 28 GHz, 24 GHz, and Upper 37 GHz,
39 GHz, and 47 GHz bands.920
324. The demand for mid-band spectrum for 5G networks has especially increased in recent
years.921 The Commission’s comprehensive mid-band spectrum strategy will further the deployment of
5G, IoT, and other advanced spectrum-based services. In July 2019, for example, the Commission
reformed the regulatory framework for a portion of the 2.5 GHz band to make this spectrum more
conducive for advanced wireless services, including 5G.922 Auction 105, an auction of Priority Access
Licenses in the Citizens Broadband Radio Service in the 3550-3650 MHz band (3.5 GHz band),
concluded at the end of August of this year,923 and offered the greatest number of spectrum licenses ever
made available for bidding in a single auction. In addition, the Commission has freed up spectrum in the
917
Expanding Flexible Use of the 3.7 to 4.2 GHz, GN Docket No. 18-122, Report and Order and Order of Proposed
Modification, 35 FCC Rcd 2343, 2344, para. 1 (2020) (3.7 GHz Report and Order).
918
Press Release, FCC, Post-Incentive Auction Transition Successfully Meets 39-Month Deadline (July 13, 2020),
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-365479A1.pdf (Post-Incentive Auction Transition Press Release).
919
Post-Incentive Auction Transition Press Release.
920
Auction of 28 GHz Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service Licenses for Next-Generation Wireless Services
Closes; Gross Winning Bids Amounts Announced for Auction 101, AU Docket No. 18-85, Public Notice, 34 FCC
Rcd 75 (WTB 2019) (28 GHz Auction Public Notice); Auction of 24 GHz Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service
Licenses Closes, Winning Bidders Announced for Auction 102, AU Docket No. 18-85, Public Notice, 34 FCC Rcd
4294 (OEA, WTB 2019) (24 GHz Auction Public Notice); Incentive Auction of Upper Microwave Flexible Use
Service Licenses in the Upper 37 GHz, 39 GHz, and 47 GHz Bands for Next-Generation Wireless Services, Notice of
Filing Requirements, Minimum Opening Bids, Upfront Payments, and Other Procedures for Auction 103, AU
Docket No. 19-59, Public Notice, 34 FCC Rcd 5532 (2019) (37 GHz, 39 GHz, and 47 GHz Auction Procedures
Public Notice); Incentive Auction of Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service Licenses in the Upper 37 GHz, 39 GHz,
and 47 GHz Bands for Next-Generation Wireless Services, Winning Bidders Announced for Auction 103, AU
Docket No. 19-59, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 2015 (OEA, WTB 2020) (37 GHz, 39 GHz, and 47 GHz Auction
Public Notice); see also CTIA Comments at 59.
921
CTIA and CCA assert that in order to meet exponential growth in mobile data demand driven by consumers and
reap the benefits of the 5G economy, wireless providers need resources to build high-capacity, low-latency 5G
networks and emphasized mid-band spectrum for exclusive licensed use. CTIA Comments at 58-60; CCA
Comments at 14-15.
922
2.5 GHz Report and Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 5447, para. 3.
923
3.5 GHz Public Notice.
184
3.45-3.55 GHz band924 and reformed the use of the 3.7-4.2 GHz band, commonly known as the C-band, to
make 280 megahertz of that band available for the next generation of wireless services.925
325. Infrastructure. Wireless infrastructure constitutes another major input in the provision of
mobile wireless services. State and local zoning rules for deploying new wireless towers or attaching
equipment to existing towers or other structures can pose an impediment to the deployment of mobile
wireless networks. Delays in local approvals can lengthen the time and cost for deployment, which
increases the costs for new or existing providers to enter into new markets. Section 706 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 directs the Commission to encourage deployment of advanced
communications capability by “remov[ing] barriers to infrastructure investment.”926 Encouraging
investment in broadband deployment is essential to closing the digital divide, and the Commission has
continued its efforts to facilitate the deployment of infrastructure necessary to support modern wireless
networks.
326. The Commission has continued to help reduce barriers to infrastructure investment that
can impede the deployment of mobile wireless networks. For example, in June 2020, the Commission
clarified the meaning of its rules927 implementing in section 6409(a) of the Spectrum Act of 2012,928
which recognized the efficiency of using existing infrastructure for the expansion of advanced wireless
networks.929 The Commission recognized that uncertainty regarding application of federal law to aspects
of State and local government review of modifications to existing wireless equipment remained a
deterrent to rapid deployment of 5G wireless infrastructure.930
B. The Fixed Communications Marketplace
1. Fixed Terrestrial
327. Wireline Broadband Services. In the fixed marketplace, as in the mobile wireless
marketplace, there are both regulatory and non-regulatory barriers to entry. Regulatory barriers include
provider difficulties in obtaining the legal right to deploy facilities (such as on poles, in rights-of-way, and
in Multiple Tenant Environments–MTEs) and unequal regulatory treatment of providers. Geography, the
general cost of deploying wireline networks, and access to spectrum (for terrestrial fixed wireless
providers) are examples of non-regulatory barriers. Issues concerning the cost of deploying networks
include access, rates, terms and conditions to pole attachments, limitations to access to rights of way, and
924
Facilitating Shared Use in the 3100-3550 MHz Band, WT Docket No. 19-348, Report and Order and Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 20-138, at 2, paras. 2-4 (Oct. 2, 2020) (3.45-3.55 GHz Order and FNPRM).
925
926
47 U.S.C. § 1302(a).
927
47 U.S.C. § 1455(a); 47 CFR § 1.6100; Acceleration of Broadband Deployment by Improving Wireless Facilities
Siting Policies, WT Docket Nos. 13-238 and 13-32, WC Docket No. 11-59, Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd 12865,
12922-66, paras. 135-241 (2014), aff’d, Montgomery Cty. v. FCC, 811 F.3d 121 (4th Cir. 2015).
928
Section 6409(a) of the Spectrum Act of 2012 provides that a state or local government may not deny, and shall
approve, any request for collocation, removal, or replacement of equipment on a wireless tower or base station that
does not substantially change the physical dimensions of the tower or base station. Middle Class Tax Relief and Job
Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-96, Title VI (Spectrum Act of 2012), § 6409(a), 126 Stat. 156 (Feb. 22, 2012)
(codified as 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a)).
929
Implementation of State and Local Governments’ Obligation to Approve Certain Wireless Facility Modification
Requests Under Section 6409(a) of the Spectrum Act of 2012, WT Docket No. 19-250, Declaratory Ruling and
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 35 FCC Rcd 5977, 5979, para. 3 (2020) (Section 6409 Declaratory Ruling and
Notice), pets. for review pending, League of California Cities et al. v. FCC et al., No. 20-71765 (9th Cir. filed June
22, 2020); City of Seattle, Washington et al. v. FCC et al., No. 20-1300 (D.C. Cir. filed Aug. 7, 2020); City of
Boston, Massachusetts et al. v. FCC et al., No. 20-1301 (D.C. Cir. filed Aug. 10, 2020).
930
Section 6409 Declaratory Ruling and Notice at 2-3, para. 2.
185
incumbent providers’ exclusive agreements to inside wiring with multi-unit dwellings and multi-tenant
environments.
328. Commenters primarily point to the high cost of deploying networks.931 In particular,
commenters argue that, without high-cost subsidies, providers cannot make the business case to build and
maintain high-quality networks at affordable prices in hard-to-serve areas.932 INCOMPAS claims that the
high cost of network deployment means that competitive entry frequently requires leasing portions of
incumbents’ networks (as unbundled network elements–UNEs) at cost-based rates or obtaining finished
incumbent services at a wholesale discount for resale.933 With regard to providers’ needs for network
access, we note that the Commission recently conducted its first comprehensive examination of
competitive access to UNEs and services for resale at regulated rates in nearly 16 years, updating the
Commission’s rules to better account for what is required of a reasonably efficient competitor.934 With
respect to challenges specifically facing fixed wireless providers, WISPA argues that while the costs of
network deployment are much lower, access to licensed and unlicensed spectrum over which to provide
service is arguably the biggest challenge that terrestrial fixed wireless providers face.935
329. Commenters acknowledge the Commission’s efforts to remove regulatory barriers to
entering and competing in the provision of fixed communications, particularly the provision of broadband
Internet service.936 The record also reflects notable remaining regulatory obstacles. Multiple commenters
contend that access to poles and government rights of way should be further streamlined to relieve these
obstacles.937 Commenters allege that the current regulatory environment still allows pole and right-of-
way owners to impose unreasonable fees938 and unnecessary delays,939 sometimes creating restrictions that
serve as outright refusals to provide access,940 and excluding broadband-only providers.941
330. Commenters submit that further work remains to be done with respect to access barriers
to apartment buildings, condominium complexes, and office buildings, collectively known as multi-tenant
environments, or MTEs. According to these commenters, current obstacles include exclusive agreements
between MTE owners and incumbent providers pertaining to inside wiring,942 marketing and revenue
931
ACA Connects Comments at 6; INCOMPAS Comments at 27-28; NTCA Comments at 6.
932
NTCA Comments at 6. See also ACA Comments at 7 (discussing, without reference to subsidies, how certain
areas are cost-prohibitive to serve).
933
INCOMPAS Comments at 32-34.
934
Modernizing Unbundling and Resale Requirements in an Era of Next-Generation Networks and Services, WC
Docket No. 19-308, Report and Order, FCC 20-152 (Oct. 28, 2020) (Modernizing Unbundling Order).
935
WISPA Comments at 6, 8-9.
936
ACA Comments at 5; NCTA Comments at 8; USTelecom Comments at 1, 7.
937
ACA Comments at 6, NCTA Comments at 10; INCOMPAS Comments at 28-32; USTelecom Comments at 8-9.
938
INCOMPAS Comments at 29; USTelecom Comments at 8-9.
939
INCOMPAS Comments at 29; NCTA Comments at 10 (although not seeking formal Commission action,
observing that the COVID-19 pandemic has led to delays in responding to permitting requests, and asking the
Commission to “consider using its persuasive powers to remind local governments and pole owners that broadband
providers are actively working to ensure that all consumers can work and learn from home and that flexibility would
be helpful in situations where normal processes have been disrupted”).
940
INCOMPAS Comments at 31-32. ACA Connects suggests that the Commission should monitor implementation
of reforms already undertaken. ACA Connects Comments at 6 & n.16.
941
Google Fiber Comments at 2-3, 6; INCOMPAS Comments at 28 & n.75; WISPA Comments at 21.
942
Google Fiber Comments at 4-5.
186
sharing arrangements,943 and rooftop access.944 In addition, WISPA argues that all current and future state
and local mandatory access laws, which permit certain providers to access MTEs over owners’ objections,
should be technologically neutral.945
331. Some commenters allege that Commission and state regulations unnecessarily favor or
disfavor certain types of providers, which ultimately distorts competition. For example, USTelecom
argues that asymmetric regulation of incumbent LECs, as compared to their competitors, distorts
competition, citing ex ante price regulation as an example.946 USTelecom also suggests that the
Commission “work with states to bring their regulations current with modern competitive realities.”947
Others assert that the Commission’s universal service policies unnecessarily disadvantage certain
providers.948 Further, some commenters discuss legal barriers to entry by public-private partnerships and
public entities, contending that state laws limiting or blocking public-private partnerships and community
or municipal broadband networks inhibit competition in the fixed broadband marketplace.949
2. Satellite
332. Satellite Services. In recent years, there has been an expanded interest in NGSO orbits,
ESIMs, and commercial use of small, short-duration satellites for the provision of broadband services to
943
INCOMPAS Comments at 34-35; WISPA Comments at 13.
944
INCOMPAS Comments at 34.
945
WISPA Comments at 14-15.
946
USTelecom Comments at 9-10 (referring specifically to Eliminating Ex Ante Pricing Regulation and Tariffing of
Telephone Access Charges, WC Docket No. 20-71, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 35 FCC Rcd 3165 (2020)
(Telephone Access Charges Notice). Other commenters also encouraged the Commission to take actions which
have now been taken. These actions include: waiving certain letter of credit requirements for the CAF Phase II and
Stage 2 funding for the Uniendo a Puerto Rico and Connect USVI Fund auction winners (see WISPA Comments at
21-22); completing the order responding to the remand of the Restoring Internet Freedom Order (see FSF
Comments at 15); and reducing incumbent LEC obligations to provide UNEs at cost-based rates (see FSF
Comments at 16, USTelecom Comments at 8). See also Connect America Fund et al., Order, WC Docket No. 10-
90, 35 FCC Rcd 6556 (WCB 2020); The Uniendo a Puerto Rico Fund and the Connect USVI Fund; Connect
America Fund, Order on Reconsideration and Order, WC Docket Nos. 18-143, 10-90, DA 20-838 (WCB Aug. 6,
2020); Restoring Internet Freedom; Bridging the Digital Divide for Low-Income Consumers; Lifeline and Link Up
Reform and Modernization, WC Docket Nos. 17-108, 17-287 & 11-42, Order, FCC 20-151 (Oct. 29, 2020)
(Restoring Internet Freedom Remand Order); Modernizing Unbundling Order. Commenters also point to the
importance of completing the establishment of the Digital Opportunity Data Collection. ACA Connects Comments
at 19-20; USTelecom Comments at 9. The Commission has taken further important steps in that regard and is well-
positioned to complete the process, particularly once we receive sufficient Congressional appropriations. See
generally Digital Opportunity Data Collection Second Order and Third Further Notice. Further, USTelecom
requests that the Commission prioritize completing Phase I of the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund auction which
began on October 29, 2020. USTelecom Comments at 9; Press Release, FCC, FCC Announces Kickoff of
Groundbreaking $16 Billion Rural Digital Opportunity Fund Phase I Auction (Oct. 29, 2020),
947
USTelecom Comments at 9.
948
NCTA Comments at 9-10 (Eligible Telecommunications Carrier obligations artificially limit potential recipients
of universal service by requiring providers to offer retail voice services); WISPA Comments at 16-19 (government-
subsidized overbuilding).
949
Google Fiber Comments at 3 (“Partnerships between providers and municipalities (or municipal utilities) are one
way that local governments can encourage new providers to offer the service their customers most need—
broadband—while facilitating access to streets and sidewalks by those providers”); OTI Reply at 9-11 (“The
Commission must recognize that state laws that inhibit localities’ ability to create these networks are deeply anti-
competitive; they often only serve to strengthen the position of an incumbent; and they can also prevent
improvements to internet service and consumer benefits that community networks and public-private partnerships
bring.”).
187
remote locations, Earth observation, and IoT. Some operators are planning to provide services, such as
intersatellite connectivity, to other satellite service providers to provide data backhaul or satellite mission
extension capability. As discussed in Section V, the Commission has acted to remove regulatory barriers
in order to enable market-based efficient use of spectrum and facilitate the deployment of these systems.
333. Technological Developments. Recent trends in the satellite industry include the increased
use of LEO and MEO satellite systems.950 For example, in April 2019, SES completed its first generation
MEO O3B 20 satellite constellation.951 In 2021, SES plans on launching its next general MEO
constellation with seven O3B satellites.952 In February 2019, Iridium completed its Iridium® NEXT
program, replaced its first generation fleet of 66 LEO satellites with a new fleet of 75 LEO satellites
(including, nine on-orbit spare satellites).953 As of June 13, 2020, SpaceX has launched 540 LEO Starlink
satellites, including two prototypes.954 SpaceX anticipates that before the end of 2020 it will begin
offering commercial service in the northern United States and southern Canada, and then will rapidly
expand to near global coverage of the populated world in 2021, offering high-speed, low-latency
broadband service direct to customers in rural and other underserved locations.955 Kepler launched two
demonstration LEO cubesats in 2018.956 In January 2018, Telesat launched a LEO satellite as part of its
planned advanced global LEO constellation, and is using that satellite for testing and live
demonstrations.957 Telesat entered into an agreement with the Government of Canada to enter a
partnership to ensure access to affordable high-speed internet connectivity in rural and remote areas of
Canada with the Telesat LEO satellite constellation.958
334. Other developments include new satellite launch technologies, and next generation high
throughput satellite systems.959 Advances in launch technology include the development of reusable
hardware and vehicles designed to launch smaller satellites.960 In addition, several high throughput
systems are under construction or have been recently launched. For example, Telesat’s Telestar 19
VANTAGE satellite launched in July of 2018 and entered into service in August 2018. It is part of a new
generation of Telesat satellites that combine broad regional beams and powerful high throughput satellite
950
SIA Comments at 13.
951
SIA Comments at 13-14. Caleb Henry, Soyuz Launch Completes first-generation O3b Constellation, SpaceNews
(Apr. 4, 2019), https://spacenews.com/soyuz-launch-completes-first-generation-o3b-constellation/. SES 2019
Annual Report at 34 (filed Feb. 29, 2020) (SES 2019 Annual Report), https://www.ses.com/sites/default/files/2020-
04/SES_Annual_Report_2019_HighRes_1.pdf.
952
SES 2019 Annual Report at 36.
953
Iridium Comments at 2-3.
954
Caleb Henry, SpaceX launches 58 Starlink satellites, three Planet SkySats on Falcon 9, SpaceNews (June 13,
2020), https://spacenews.com/spacex-launches-58-starlink-satellites-three-planet-skysats-on-falcon-9/.
955
SpaceX Comments at 1-2.
956
Caleb Henry, Kepler Communications opens launch bids for Gen-1 LEO constellation, SpaceNews (Aug. 29,
2018), https://spacenews.com/kepler-communications-opens-launch-bids-for-gen-1-leo-constellation/; Kepler, A
Network to Connect the Globe, https://www.keplercommunications.com/network (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).
957
SIA Comments at 14. Telesat Canada 2019 SEC Form 20-F at 50.
958
959
Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2019) at 108, The Space Economy in
Figures: How Space Contributes to the Global Economy, https://doi.org/10.1787/c5996201-en. SIA Comments at
11-14. HTS capacity is becoming increasingly available and HTS rely on multiple spot beams and frequency reuse
to deliver greatly increased throughput versus traditional satellites for the same amount of allocated frequency.
960
Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), The Evolving Role of Satellite Networks in
Rural and Remote Broadband Access (2017) at 21-22, https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/science-and-technology/the-
evolving-role-of-satellite-networks-in-rural-and-remote-broadband-access_7610090d-en.
188
(HTS) spot beams in a design optimized for high bandwidth applications.961 In early 2019, Intelsat placed
in service Horizons 3e, the sixth of the company’s fleet of Intelsat EpicNG high throughput satellites.962
EchoStar XXIV (Jupiter 3), a next generation, high throughput geostationary satellite is under
construction with a planned 2021 launch.963 SES will be launching its first GSO Ka-band HTS satellite,
SES-17, in early 2021.964
335. Other Developments. The current period of innovation in the space industry has resulted
and will likely continue to result in a significant increase in the number of satellites and types of
operations in orbit. The development of less expensive delivery systems, along with the production of
small imaging satellites such as CubeSats, has lowered the cost of entry into the satellite imaging
business.965 The Commission has implemented amateur and experimental satellite rules to facilitate use
of satellites for scientific and research missions and experimental testing.966 The Commission recently
made available a new, optional licensing process for commercial deployment of small satellites, which
allowed small satellite applicants to choose a streamlined part 25 licensing procedure and thereby take
advantage of an easier application process, a lower application fee, and a shorter timeline for review.967
There is also ongoing development of optical laser technologies for satellite communications, which may
well enhance the capacity, flexibility, and reliability of satellite communications.968 Proposed
deployments of large satellite constellations in the intensely used LEO region, along with other satellites
961
SIA Comments at 12; see also Telesat Canada SEC Form 20-F at 5, 53.
SIA Comments at 12. Horizons 3e, Intelsat’s final first generation HTS, is a joint venture with JSAT. Intelsat
962
2019 SEC Form 10-K at 91.

963
EchoStar, SEC Form 10-K at 4 (filed Feb. 20, 2020),
https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1415404/000141540420000005/sats12311910kdocument1.htm;
see also Hughes Comments at 2.
964
SES Reply Comments at 9; see also SES 2019 Annual Report at 36.
965
Streamlining Licensing Procedures for Small Satellites, IB Docket 18-86, Report and Order, 34 FCC Rcd 13077,
13078 at para. 1 (2019) (Small Satellites Report and Order),
966
The Commission’s rules set forth three different procedures for licensing satellites. Part 25 of the Commission’s
rules govern licensing and operation of space stations and earth stations for the provision of satellite communication
services, including commercial communication and remote sensing satellites. 47 CFR §§ 25.101-25.702. Part 5 of
the Commission’s rules govern experimental operations. 47 CFR §§ 5.1-5.602. Part 97 of the Commission’s rules
govern amateur radio service satellite operations. See generally 47 CFR §§ 97.111-97.117, 97.207. See also
Guidance On Obtaining Licenses For Small Satellites, Public Notice, 28 FCC Rcd 2555 (2013).
967
10378, para. 2 (2019) (Small Satellites Report and Order). The streamlined licensing process is available to
commercially deployed small satellite systems as well as other small satellite systems that that also have the option
of applying under the amateur or experimental rules. Small Satellites Report and Order, 34 FCC Rcd 13080-81,
para. 12.
968
See TNO, Superfast Internet Using Laser Satellite Communications, (May 18, 2018), https://www.tno.nl/en/tno-
insights/articles/superfast-internet-using-laser-satellite-communications/; Sydney J. Freedberg, Jr., Army, NASA
Want Laser Micro-Satellites For 50 Times The Bandwidth (Aug. 2, 2018),
https://breakingdefense.com/2018/08/army-nasa-want-laser-micro-satellites-for-50-times-the-bandwidth/. See
Streamlining Licensing Procedures for Small Satellites, IB Docket 18-86, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 33 FCC
Rcd 4152, 4176 at para. 58 (2018) (Small Satellites NPRM); Space Exploration Holdings, LLC, Application for
Approval for Orbital Deployment and Operating Authority for the SpaceX NGSO Satellite System, IBFS File No.
SAT-LOA-20161115-00118 (filed Nov. 15, 2016), Narrative at 2 (“The system will also employ optical inter-
satellite links for seamless network management and continuity of service, which will also aid in complying with
emissions constraints designed to facilitate spectrum sharing with other systems.”).
189
deployed in the LEO region, will have the potential to increase the risk of debris-generating events.969 In
April 2020, the Commission updated the Commission’s existing rules regarding orbital debris mitigation,
which were adopted in 2004, to provide a clear regulatory framework for applicants for non-Federal
satellite communications.970
C. The Video and Audio Communications Marketplace
336. Regulatory Barriers. Many video and audio marketplace participants need authorization
to operate from either the federal government or a local municipality. In addition, they often are subject
to a range of regulations, including technical and interference standards, as well as programming and
public interest obligations. As a result, some market participants face barriers to entry or compliance
costs that are greater than or different from those of other participants. Many regulated entities, however,
often enjoy a strong position as the legacy service provider in the marketplace. We discuss below a few
of the basic regulatory issues that industry participants confront.
337. Broadcast television and radio stations operate pursuant to a license from the
Commission and must receive authorization before they may construct and operate in the United States.971
Further, broadcast stations are subject to the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and regulations
promulgated by the Commission thereunder. In allocating and authorizing broadcast stations, the
Commission is charged with ensuring that such stations are distributed across the country and licensed to
communities in a manner that serves the public interest.972 In addition, licensees of broadcast stations
must comply with certain obligations and rules to ensure that the licensed spectrum is used to serve the
public interest.973 These include structural limits governing ownership of broadcast television and radio
stations.974 Broadcast licenses are awarded for an eight-year term that can be renewed upon application
and Commission approval.975
338. Licenses for new broadcast television and radio stations are awarded by auction, however
the Commission has not auctioned a license for a new full power commercial television station since
2011. While authorizations for new radio stations are available from the Commission periodically,
frequencies for radio stations are typically in high demand. In fact, in many areas of the country no
frequencies are available on which a new station could commence operation without causing
impermissible interference to existing stations.976 As a result, the Commission does not allocate many
new broadcast radio stations, and stations that are allocated tend to be outside the top markets and for
lower power. Given the limited number of new broadcast licenses, particularly in the television service or
969
Mitigation of Orbital Debris in the New Space Age, IB Docket No. 18-313, Report and Order and Further Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking, 35 FCC Rcd 4156, 4158-9 at para. 3-4 (2020) (Orbital Debris Report and Order and
FNPRM). Orbital debris, also known as “space debris,” consists of artificial objects orbiting the Earth that are not
functional spacecraft. Mitigation of Orbital Debris in the New Space Age; Mitigation of Orbital Debris, IB Docket
No. 18-313, IB Docket No. 02-54 (Terminated), Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order on Reconsideration, 33
FCC Rcd 11352, 11353-4 at para. 2 (2018) (Orbital Debris NPRM).
970
Mitigation of Orbital Debris in the New Space Age, IB Docket No. 18-313, Report and Order and Further Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking, 35 FCC Rcd 4156, 4157 at para. 2 (2020) (Orbital Debris Report and Order and
FNPRM).
971
47 U.S.C. § 301. The Commission licenses broadcast spectrum to respective applicants and approves any
assignment or transfer of control of broadcast licenses. Id. §§ 303(c), 308(a), 309(a), 310(d).
972
Id. §§ 303, 307.
973
Id. §§ 301, 303(c), 308(a), 309(a), 310(d).
974
47 CFR § 73.3555.
975
Id. § 73.1020.
976
See, e.g., FCC, How to Apply for a Radio or Television Broadcast Station, https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/how-
to-apply (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).
190
in large metropolitan areas, new entrants typically enter the broadcast television or radio business by
purchasing a construction permit, a station, or a group of stations on the secondary market (i.e., by
purchasing from an existing permitee or station owner).
339. MVPDs must obtain appropriate regulatory authority before providing video services and
are subject to several Commission rules implicating the operation of their services, which vary depending
on whether the entity is a cable MVPD or a non-cable MVPD.977 These rules include regulations that
govern an MVPD’s franchising and licensing, effective competition, program carriage, program access,
must-carry and retransmission consent, protection of exclusive broadcast distribution rights, public
interest programming, access to multiple dwelling units, and over-the-air reception devices.978
340. In addition to broadcast radio stations, the Commission has authorized satellite-delivered
digital radio service. After the Commission allocated spectrum for SDARS in 1995979 and established
general service rules for the service in 1997,980 two licensees—Sirius Satellite Radio Inc. and XM Radio
Inc.—were awarded licenses at auction, successfully launched satellite systems, and commenced
commercial service to the public.981 In 2008, these two entities merged and formed SiriusXM,982 which is
currently the only provider of SDARS in the audio marketplace. Because there are no additional SDARS
licenses available, any new entity wishing to provide SDARS service would be required to purchase
licenses from SiriusXM. In addition, because the service is delivered via satellite, SDARS requires a
significant capital investment for operation.983
341. Because they do not use public spectrum, online audio and video providers generally are
not subject to Commission regulation.984 Nonetheless, statutes and regulations that are outside of the
Commission’s purview can also have a competitive impact on non-broadcast service providers. For
example, federal copyright law requires streaming and satellite audio providers, but not terrestrial radio
licensees, to pay royalties to music creators for the use of sound recordings.985 MusicFirst Coalition and
Future of Music Coalition argue that this gives broadcast radio stations a significant competitive
advantage over their non-broadcast competitors.986 The National Association of Broadcasters disagrees
that this differential treatment under copyright law confers any significant competitive advantage to
terrestrial radio broadcasters, because terrestrial radio broadcasters have many other costs and burdens
that do not apply to satellite and online marketplace competitors.987
342. Marketplace Barriers. Some commenters argue that consolidation and vertical
integration raise barriers to entry and expansion in video and audio markets. ACA Connects asserts that
programming fees have risen more rapidly than prices that consumers pay for MVPD services and that
977
See, e.g., 18th Video Competition Report, 32 FCC Rcd at 578, para. 25.
978
See, e.g., id. at 578-79, para. 25.
979
SDARS Rules Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 2310, para. 1.
980
See generally SDARS MO&O and FNPRM.
981
XM began nationwide commercial service on November 12, 2001. Sirius began commercial service on February
14, 2002. See SDARS Second FNPRM, 22 FCC Rcd at 22123, para. 1 & n. 4.
982
XM/Sirius Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 12349, para. 1.
983
See SDARS Second FNPRM at 22150, Appx. B.
984
There are some exceptions. For example, the Commission’s closed captioning rules, 47 CFR § 79.4, require
programming distributed via IP to be captioned if the programming was previously shown on television with
captions.
985
musicFIRST/FMC Comments at i-ii, 17; musicFIRST/FMC Reply Comments at 9-10.
986
musicFIRST/FMC Comments at i-ii, 17-20; musicFIRST/FMC Reply Comments at 9-10.
987
NAB Reply Comments at 19-22.
191
this has been particularly harmful for smaller cable operators, which tend to pay higher rates for
programming than larger ones.988 ACA Connects maintains that the situation is especially dire in the
retransmission consent marketplace, where retransmission fees and station blackouts have continued to
increase.989 The major factor driving these trends, according to ACA Connects, is industry consolidation
where large station groups have continued to grow nationally and use their leverage to extract ever-
increasing fees from MVPDs in exchange for “must-have” broadcast programming.990 ACA Connects
contends that some MVPDs have found the situation so untenable they have exited the video business.991
ACA Connects also maintains that MVPDs that are vertically integrated with broadcast and cable
networks enjoy cost advantages and have incentives to raise prices to harm their MVPD rivals.992
343. The American Television Alliance also reports that broadcasters have continued to
consolidate in local markets.993 ATVA claims that the use of multicast feeds on a single station and the
use of low-power or Class A stations have enabled TV broadcasters to acquire top-four duopolies,
triopolies, or quadropolies.994 ATVA claims that with these consolidations, broadcasters control
negotiations with MVPDs, and this has led to an increasing disruption of service, rising retransmission
consent rates, and the exit of some smaller MVPDs from the video business.995
344. Media Captioning Services asserts that the number of captioning companies providing
both real-time and offline (post production) captioning has contracted sharply.996 MCS maintains that the
decline can be attributed to anticompetitive business practices creating barriers to entry, and curtailing the
competitive expansion of existing providers.997 Specifically, MCS argues that the consolidation of cable
and sports networks by media entities has led to processes designed to lower the captioning rates charged
by captioning services, which in turn has led to consolidation in the captioning services industry.998 MCS
contends that two or three companies in the captioning industry have developed significant market power
through vertical integration in providing captioning for offline and real-time (live) captioning, and
through horizontal integration by providing captioning across national and local markets.999 MCS argues
that industry sourcing practices prevent the entry and growth of small-business captioning companies.1000
345. With respect to intramodal competition, musicFIRST/FMC maintains that consolidation
of radio station ownership harms independent radio stations and smaller regional artists and music
communities.1001 According to musicFIRST/FMC, additional consolidation will harm ownership diversity
and create barriers to entry for minority broadcasters.1002 Additional consolidation, they argue, will also
988
ACA Connects Comments at 7-8.
989
Id. at 8.
990
Id.
991
Id.
992
Id. at 11.
993
ATVA Comments at 1.
994
Id. at 2.
995
Id. at 2-6.
996
MCS Comments at 1.
997
Id.
998
Id. at 1-2.
999
Id. at 2.
1000
Id. at 2-3.
1001
musicFIRST/FMC Comments at 4-5.
1002
Id. at 9; musicFIRST/FMC Reply Comments at 11-12.
192
create barriers to smaller radio entities and cause harm to those stations that are not able to take advantage
of economies of scale.1003
346. The American Economic Liberties Project (AELP) and the Open Markets Institute (OMI)
assert that telecommunications markets are concentrated.1004 According to ALEP/OMI, the top four radio
broadcasters have over 50% market share, the top four broadcast television stations have 40% national
market share, the top four cable networks have almost 60% national market share, and the top three cable
providers have almost 50% market share.1005 AELP/OMI maintain that economic benefits follow from
having multiple competitors and dispersed market structures, and they oppose removing local television
and radio ownership rules.1006
347. American Independent Media argues that the video market has been negatively impacted
by vertical integration, especially independent media companies and the underserved communities they
serve.1007 They maintain that the marketplace practices used by vertically integrated conglomerates
inhibit entrepreneurial initiatives and stifle innovation.1008 Specifically, AIM asserts that small MVPDs
and vMVPDs are harmed by vertically integrated conglomerates that leverage their most popular channels
to distribute less popular channels via entry level MVPD and vMVPD packages.1009 AIM also asserts that
vertically integrated MVPDs impose onerous contract terms on programmers, including most favored
nations requirements and restrictions on alternative means of content distribution that stifle innovation
and reduce diversity and competition.1010
348. Common Cause and the National Hispanic Media Coalition stress that the free nature of
radio and local television broadcasting continues to make those services relevant for communities of
color, low-income families, and those on the wrong side of the digital divide.1011 According to Common
Cause/NHMC, large media conglomerates have proven their inability to provide unbiased, unique, and
locally sourced news programming, and they oppose further consolidation.1012 Common Cause/NHMC
contend that streaming services are a source of news and programming only if one can afford reliable
access to the Internet, which continues to be a barrier for low income individuals, communities of color,
and other marginalized groups.1013 Without reliable, affordable, and universal access to the Internet at
home, Common Cause/NHMC assert that disadvantaged populations of our country will continue to rely
on free broadcast programming.1014
349. The Internet & Television Association (formerly the National Cable &
Telecommunications Association-NCTA) maintains that further consolidation of the top-four broadcast
1003
musicFIRST/FMC Comments at 11; musicFIRST/FMC Reply Comments at 2-4.
1004
AELP/OMI Comments at 2.
1005
Id. at 2-3.
1006
Id. at 3-6.
1007
AIM Comments at 1.
1008
Id.
1009
Id. at 2-3.
1010
Id. at 7-9.
1011
Common Cause/NHMC Reply Comments at 9.
1012
Id. at 11.
1013
Id.
1014
Id. at 12-13.
193
stations in local markets would harm competition, lead to unfair increases in retransmission consent costs,
and ultimately raise consumer prices.1015
350. In contrast to statements by other commenters discussed above, NAB asserts that
competition from online video and audio services for audiences and advertising revenue has placed
significant financial stress on television and radio broadcasters.1016 NAB also argues that the pandemic
has negatively impacted advertising, resulting in a number of radio companies laying off or furloughing
employees and/or reducing salaries, and some stations going silent.1017 To help radio and television
stations remain meaningful competitors, NAB argues that the Commission and other government
agencies should adopt a broad definition of the relevant competitive markets, including the advertising
market, and allow broadcasters greater economies of scale, thereby enabling necessary investments in
data-driven and automated sales operations, programming and physical plants.1018
V. COMMISSION ACTIONS ALREADY TAKEN TO CLOSE DIGITAL DIVIDE,
ENHANCE COMPETITION, AND ENCOURAGE DEPLOYMENT OF
COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES
351. RAY BAUM’S Act of 2018 requires the Commission to describe the actions it has taken
over the previous two years in addressing the challenges and opportunities in the communications
marketplace.1019 In this Report, we take this opportunity to describe the significant steps the Commission
has taken since the 2018 Communications Marketplace Report was released to close the digital divide,
enhance competition and encourage the deployment of communications services.
1. Universal Service Support
352. The Commission has continued its work to ensure universal access to mobile services
since the release of the 2018 Communications Marketplace Report. In April 2020, the Commission
adopted a notice of proposed rulemaking proposing to establish a “5G Fund for Rural America” to
retarget universal service funding for mobile broadband and voice in high cost areas and support
deployment of advanced networks in rural areas.1020 And in October 2020, the Commission adopted a
Report and Order establishing the 5G Fund rules, that will use a multi-round reverse auction to distribute
a total of $9 billion through the Universal Service Fund across rural America for voice and 5G wireless
broadband connectivity.1021 Phase I of the auction will make $8 billion available to support 5G
deployment in rural areas that are unlikely to see unsubsidized deployment of 5G-capable networks,1022
while Phase II will make at least $1 billion available to facilitate connected precision agriculture
technologies in high cost and hard to serve areas.1023 The 5G Fund Report and Order will also make $680
million of Phase I funds available to support networks serving eligible areas in Tribal lands.1024
Furthermore, the 5G Fund Report and Order adopted a framework to determine which areas will be
1015
NCTA Reply Comments at 8-9.
1016
NAB Comments at 1-5.
1017
Id. at 23.
1018
Id. at 26-28, 33-34; NAB Reply Comments at 1-2.
1019
See RAY BAUM’S Act of 2018.
1020
See 5G Fund NPRM and Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3995-96, para. 1.
1021
Establishing a 5G Fund for Rural America, GN Docket No. 20-32, Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd 12174,
12176, para. 4 (2020) (5G Fund Report and Order).
1022
See id. at 12184, 12185, 12187, paras. 22, 28, 31.
1023
Id. at 12187, para. 31.
1024
Id. at 12188, para. 35.
194
eligible for 5G Fund support through improved mobile broadband coverage data that will be gathered
through the Commission’s Digital Opportunity Data Collection proceeding, and adopted an adjustment
factor to ensure that sufficient support will be available to the hardest-to-serve areas such as those with
rugged terrain or sparse populations.1025
353. In the Digital Opportunity Data Collection proceeding, the Commission established a
new data collection and created more granular geospatial broadband availability maps specifically
targeted toward advancing the Commission’s universal service goals.1026 The Digital Opportunity Data
Collection implements the Broadband DATA Act and will significantly improve the Commission’s
collection of mobile broadband deployment data.1027
2. Spectrum Challenges
354. Congress requires that the Commission implement spectrum policies that promote
competition, innovation, and the efficient use of spectrum to serve the public interest, convenience, and
necessity.1028 Therefore, the Commission has established policies to make spectrum available to mobile
providers and new entrants through initial licensing, primarily by competitive bidding,1029 and through
secondary market transactions.1030 Over the past two years, the Commission has worked vigorously to
make spectrum available in the low-, mid-, and high-frequency bands for mobile providers to develop and
deploy new technologies like 5G and support existing 4G LTE networks.
355. With respect to low-band spectrum, the Commission successfully met the July 2020
deadline established for transitioning television stations from their pre-auction channel assignments in the
600 MHz band following the broadcast incentive auction.1031 The completion of this transition makes all
of this valuable 600 MHz spectrum available for wireless mobile broadband.1032 In May 2020, the
Commission took further action to make low-band spectrum available for the development of critical
wireless broadband technologies and services.1033 Specifically, the Commission realigned the 900 MHz
band to make available six of the band’s ten megahertz for the deployment of broadband services and
1025
See Id. at 12176, 12179-81, paras. 4, 11-16; see also generally WC Docket No. 19-195.
1026
Digital Opportunity Data Collection Order and Second Further Notice, 34 FCC Rcd at 3506, para. 2.
1027
See Digital Opportunity Data Collection Order and Second Further Notice, 34 FCC Rcd at 7524, 7530, 7549-
59, paras. 44, 58, 112-34.
1028
47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(3)(B).
1029
The Commission generally provides a bidding credit—or discount—to promote participation by small
businesses and rural service providers, including businesses owned by members of minority groups and women. 47
U.S.C. § 309(j)(3)(B), (j)(4)(D); see also 47 CFR § 1.2110; Updating Part 1 Competitive Bidding Rules et al., WT
Docket No. 14-170 et al., Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration of the First Report and Order, Third Order on
Reconsideration of the Second Report and Order, and Third Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 7493 (2015) (modified
by erratum, Aug. 25, 2015).
1030
Mobile Spectrum Holdings Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd 6133, 6143-44, 6167-68, 6190, 6193, 6221-22,
6223-24, paras. 17, 67-69, 135, 144, 225-27, 231-32. The Commission generally has adopted “flexible use”
policies, thereby allowing licensees to decide which services to offer and what technologies to deploy on spectrum
used for the provision of mobile wireless services.
1031
FCC, Broadcast Incentive Auction and Post-Auction Transition, https://www.fcc.gov/about-fcc/fcc-
initiatives/incentive-auctions (last visited Oct. 27, 2020); Press Release, FCC, Post-Incentive Auction Transition
Successfully Meets 39-Month Deadline (July 13, 2020), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-
365479A1.pdf (Post-Incentive Auction Transition Press Release).
1032
Post-Incentive Auction Transition Press Release.
Review of the Commission’s Rules Governing the 896-901/935-940 MHz Band, WT Docket No. 17-200, Report
1033
and Order, Order of Proposed Modification, and Orders, 35 FCC Rcd 5183 (May 14, 2020) (900 MHz Report and
Order); Press Release, FCC, FCC Transforms 900 MHz Band to Enable Broadband Deployment by Utilities and
Other Industries (May 13, 2020), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-364320A1.pdf.
195
technologies to meet the spectrum capacity demands of a wide range of industries, including utilities and
railroads.1034
356. The Commission also has taken significant steps to make high-band spectrum available.
In March 2019, the Commission concluded the first of its Spectrum Frontiers auctions, Auction 101,
which made a total of 850 megahertz of 28 GHz band spectrum available.1035 Shortly thereafter, Auction
102 made 700 megahertz of 24 GHz band spectrum available.1036 The Commission’s third Spectrum
Frontiers auction, Auction 103, concluded in March 2020 and made 3,400 megahertz of mmW spectrum
available in the Upper 37 GHz, 39 GHz, and 47 GHz bands—the largest amount of spectrum offered in an
auction in U.S. history.1037 These three auctions made more spectrum available than is currently used for
terrestrial mobile broadband by all wireless service providers in the United States combined.1038 In
addition, the Commission has explored new commercial uses of the 70/80/90 GHz bands for wireless 5G
backhaul and broadband services on-board aircraft and ships.1039
357. The Commission also has pursued a comprehensive strategy to make available more mid-
band spectrum, which is uniquely suited for 5G deployment because of its propagation characteristics.1040
The 2.5 GHz Report and Order, for example, adopted rules to facilitate advanced wireless services,
including 5G, in the 2.5 GHz band—the largest swath of contiguous spectrum in the country below 3
GHz.1041 The 2.5 GHz Report and Order included a pre-auction priority window for Tribal Nations to
apply to obtain unassigned spectrum on rural Tribal lands to address the needs of their communities.1042
The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau received over 400 applications through the Rural Tribal
Priority Window, has already granted 154 of those applications, and accepted another 60 applications for
filing.1043 The Commission plans to schedule an auction of the 2.5 GHz band in 2021.1044
1034
900 MHz Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 5184, para. 1.
1035
28 GHz Auction Public Notice 34 FCC Rcd 75; see also 2020 Broadband Deployment Report, 35 FCC Rcd at
9007-08, paras. 41-42.
1036
24 GHz Auction Public Notice, 34 FCC Rcd 4294.
1037
37 GHz, 39 GHz, and 47 GHz Auction Procedures Public Notice, 34 FCC Rcd 5532; 37 GHz, 39 GHz, and 47
GHz Auction Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 2015.
1038
Press Release, FCC, FCC Concludes Largest Ever Spectrum Auction, Advancing American Leadership in 5G
(Mar. 12, 2020), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-363000A1.pdf.
1039
Modernizing and Expanding Access to the 70/80/90 GHz Bands et. al., WT Docket No. 20-133, Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking and Order, 35 FCC Rcd 6039 (2020) (70/80/90 GHz NPRM).
1040
See, e.g., CTIA Comments at 32-33.
1041
1042
2.5 GHz Report and Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 5463-69, paras. 47-65; 2.5 GHz Tribal Priority Window Public
Notice, 35 FCC Rcd at 308; see also FCC, 2.5 GHz Rural Tribal Window, https://www.fcc.gov/25-ghz-rural-tribal-
window (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). The Tribal priority window was extended until September 2, 2020 due to the
COVID-19 pandemic. Transforming the 2.5 GHz Band, WT Docket No. 18-120, Memorandum Opinion and Order,
35 FCC Rcd 8112, 8113, para. 3 (WTB July 31, 2020).
1043
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Announces First Round of 2.5 GHz Rural Tribal Priority Window License
Applications Accepted for Filing, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 10294 (WTB Sept. 15, 2020); Press Release, FCC,
FCC Grants First Licenses in 2.5 GHz Rural Tribal Priority Window (Oct. 23, 2020),
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-367726A1.pdf; Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Announces
Additional 2.5 GHz Rural Tribal Priority Window License Applications Accepted for Filing, Public Notice, DA 20-
1335 (WTB Nov. 10, 2020).
1044
Press Release, FCC, FCC Announces Close of First-Ever Rural Tribal Priority Window for Spectrum (Sept. 3,
2020), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-366657A1.pdf.
196
358. In addition, in August 2020, the Commission concluded its auction of Priority Access
Licenses in the 3.5 GHz band.1045 This auction offered the greatest number of spectrum licenses ever
made available for bidding in a single auction.1046 Earlier in 2020, the Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau and the Office of Engineering and Technology announced that they had certified Spectrum Access
System Administrators to coordinate operations among different tiers of users in the 3.5 GHz band, which
paved the way for full commercial operations in the band.1047 The auction’s net proceeds exceeded $4.54
billion, with a total of 228 bidders winning 20,625 of 22,631, or more than 91%, of available licenses.1048
359. In December 2019, the Commission released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding
shared use in the 3.45-3.55 GHz band between federal operations and commercial wireless services.1049
In August 2020, the White House announced that, in collaboration with the Department of Defense, it
would make available 100 megahertz of contiguous spectrum in the 3.45-3.55 GHz band for mobile
wireless providers to build and operate 5G networks.1050 The Commission subsequently adopted the 3.45-
3.55 GHz Order and FNPRM in October 2020 to take steps to bring this mid-band spectrum to market.1051
The Order eliminated the non-federal radiolocation service and non-federal amateur allocations in the 3.3-
3.5 GHz band as a step toward future shared use between federal incumbents and commercial
operators.1052 The Further Notice proposed to make 100 megahertz of spectrum in the 3.45-3.55 GHz
band available for flexible use.1053
360. In March 2020, the Commission adopted an order to make 280 megahertz of the 3.7-4.2
GHz band (C-band) available for next-generation wireless services, to compensate incumbent operators
for relocating out of that portion of the band, and to provide accelerated relocation payments to incumbent
satellite operators that meet early clearance benchmarks for the band.1054 By repacking existing satellite
operations into the upper 200 megahertz of the C-band, the Commission is making a significant amount
of spectrum available for flexible terrestrial use throughout the contiguous United States in a manner that
ensures the continuous and uninterrupted delivery of services currently offered in the band.1055 The
1045
Auction of Priority Access Licenses for the 3550-3650 MHz Band; Notice and Filing Requirements, Minimum
Opening Bids, Upfront Payments, and Other Procedures for Auction 105; Bidding in Auction 105 Scheduled to
Begin June 25, 2020, AU Docket No. 19-244, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 2140 (2020) (3.5 GHz Procedures Public
Notice) (rescheduled from June 25, 2020 to July 23, 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic); 3.5 GHz Public Notice
at 1, para. 1.
1046
3.5 GHz Procedures Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd at 2142, para. 1.
1047
Press Release, FCC, FCC Authorizes Full Commercial Deployment in 3.5 GHz Band, Advancing American 5G
Leadership (Jan. 27, 2020), https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-authorizes-full-commercial-deployment-35-ghz-
band.
1048
Auction of Priority Access Licenses in the 3550-3650 Mhz Band Closes; Winning Bidders Announced for
Auction 105, AU Docket No. 19-244, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 9287 (OEA & WTB 2020),
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-20-1009A1.pdf; Press Release, FCC, FCC Announces Winning Bidders
of 3.5 GHz Band Auction (Sept. 2, 2020), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-366624A1.pdf.
1049
Facilitating Shared Use in the 3.45-3.55 GHz Band, WT Docket No. 19-348, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
34 FCC Rcd 12662 (2019).
1050
Press Release, Exec. Off. of President, President Donald J. Trump Is Unleashing America’s 5G Potential (Aug.
10, 2020), https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trump-unleashing-americas-5g-
potential/; see also Press Release, FCC, Chairman Pai Statement on the Administration Announcement Freeing Up
3.45-3.55 GHz Band for 5G (Aug. 10, 2020), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-366068A1.pdf.
1051
See generally 3.45-3.55 GHz Order and FNPRM.
1052
Id. at 11079, para. 4.
1053
Id. at 11091, para. 38.
1054
3.7 GHz Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 2345, 2413, paras. 3-4, 168.
1055
197
Commission established competitive bidding procedures for the auction of this valuable mid-band
spectrum, Auction 107, which will begin in December 2020.1056
361. The Commission has also pursued ways to promote innovative and efficient uses of
spectrum. In October 2020, the Commission revised its rules to facilitate the development of new and
innovative narrowband Internet of Things devices in TV white spaces and expand the ability of
unlicensed white space devices to deliver wireless broadband services in rural areas and areas where
fewer broadcast stations are on the air.1057
362. The Commission also adopted new rules in April 2020 to allow unlicensed devices to
operate in the 6 GHz band (5.925-7.125 GHz) without interfering with the operation of the licensed
services that will continue to use this spectrum.1058 The Commission’s actions made 1,200 megahertz of
spectrum available for unlicensed operations, such as Wi-Fi. Under the 6 GHz Report and Order,
unlicensed devices operating at low power levels indoors would have access to the full 1,200 megahertz
of spectrum.1059 In the 5.925-6.425 GHz and 6.525-6.875 GHz sub-bands, unlicensed access points are
permitted to transmit both indoors and outdoors at standard power levels that are currently permitted in
the 5 GHz band when operated under an automated frequency control (AFC) system.1060 The
Commission sought comment on several additional issues in the 6 GHz FNPRM, including permitting
unlicensed devices to operate both indoors and outdoors across the entire 6 GHz band at very-low power
levels and increasing the transmit power of indoor access points.1061 The new rules will facilitate
deployment of Wi-Fi 6, the next generation of Wi-Fi that allows for speeds more than two-and-a-half
times faster than the current standard while improving performance.
363. Similarly, in December 2019, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
that proposed rule changes to allow unlicensed and innovative uses like next-generation Wi-Fi in the
5.850-5.925 GHz band.1062 The Commission allocated this 75 megahertz of spectrum for Dedicated
Short-Range Communications over 20 years ago.1063 Since that time, however, the technology has not
enjoyed widespread commercial adoption or deployment.1064 Meanwhile, demand for unlicensed services,
such as Wi-Fi has grown exponentially.1065 During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Commission granted
requests for Special Temporary Authority to more than 100 Wireless Internet Service Providers for
temporary access to the lower 45 megahertz of the 5.9 GHz band to expand and improve broadband
service provided largely in rural and suburban communities.1066 On November 18, 2020, the Commission
1056
Auction of Flexible-Use Service Licenses in the 3.7-3.98 GHz Band for Next-Generation Wireless Services;
Notice and Filing Requirements, Minimum Opening Bids, Upfront Payments, and Other Procedures for Auction
107; Bidding in Auction 107 Scheduled to Begin December 8, 2020, AU Docket No. 20-25, Public Notice, 35 FCC
Rcd 8404, 8406, paras. 1-2 (Aug. 7, 2020) (C-Band Auction Public Notice).
1057
Unlicensed White Space Device Operations in the Television Bands, ET Docket No. 20-36, Report and Order,
35 FCC Rcd 12603, 12604, para. 1 (2020).
1058
6 GHz Report and Order and FNPRM, 35 FCC Rcd at 3853, para. 1.
1059
Id. at 3860, para. 18.
1060
Id. at 3860, paras. 17-18.
1061
Id. at 3938-45, paras. 231-55.
1062
See generally Use of the 5.850-5.925 GHz Band, ET Docket No. 19-138, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 34
FCC Rcd 12603 (2019).
1063
Id. at 12604, para. 3.
1064
Id. at 12604-05, para. 4.
1065
Id. at 12606, para. 6.
1066
See Press Release, FCC, 5.9 GHz Band Boosts Consumer Internet Access During COVID-19 Pandemic (May 4,
198
adopted the 5.9 GHz Order, designating the lower 45 megahertz of the band for unlicensed use and the
upper 30 megahertz of spectrum for Intelligent Transportation System services, and in particular Cellular
Vehicle-to-Everything technology.1067 The Commission allowed for immediate indoor use of the lower
45 megahertz for unlicensed use while creating a regulatory process for outdoor operations contingent
upon protection for federal incumbents and pending adoption of technical rules proposed in the Further
Notice. When combined with existing Wi-Fi spectrum in the adjacent 5 GHz band, the Commission’s
action will allow for near-term deployment of a high-throughput, 160-megahertz channel that will enable
gigabit connectivity for schools, hospitals, small businesses, and other consumers.
364. On March 5, 2020, the Commission concluded Auction 103, its auction of Upper 37
GHz, 39 GHz, and 47 GHz licenses.1068 Auction 103 offered licenses made available, in part, because
existing 39 GHz band licensees committed to relinquishing their 39 GHz spectrum usage rights in
exchange for incentive payments determined by bidding in the auction; the incentive payments reduced
the amount of any winning bids for new licenses by the entity making the commitment (and the balance
payable in cash through auction proceeds).1069 As a result of the auction, 28 bidders won a total of 14,142
licenses.1070 Auction 103 resulted in 3,400 megahertz of mmW spectrum being made available for
flexible use services, including 5G—the largest amount of spectrum offered in an auction in U.S.
history.1071
365. Moreover, in June 2020 the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and
Order proposing rules to allow for new uses of the 71-76 GHz, 81-86 GHz, 92-94 GHz, and 94.1-95 GHz
bands (the 70/80/90 GHz bands).1072 The Commission sought comment on potential changes to its
antenna standards in the 70 and 80 GHz bands and its current link registration rules for the 70/80/90 GHz
bands that could allow for the provision of wireless backhaul for 5G.1073 The Commission also proposed
to authorize point-to-point links to endpoints in motion in the 70GHz and 80 GHz bands to support the
deployment of broadband services to aircraft and ships.1074
3. Wireless Infrastructure Siting
366. Wireless providers will need to deploy a vast amount of new equipment and will need to
modify older equipment to upgrade networks within a relatively short amount of time in order to match
the demand for advanced wireless technologies. The Commission has therefore sought to clarify its rules
relating to federal, state, and local zoning requirements with the goal of reducing regulatory barriers to
mobile broadband deployment, encouraging upgrades to physical infrastructure, and spurring investment
in new facilities.
1067
See Press Release, FCC, FCC Modernizes 5.9 GHz Band for Wi-Fi and Auto Safety (Nov. 18, 2020),
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-368228A1.pdf; see also Use of the 5.850-5.925 GHz Band, ET Docket
No. 19-138, First Report and Order, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and Order of Proposed Modification,
FCC 20-164 (Nov. 20, 2020).
1068
Incentive Auction of Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service Licenses in the Upper 37 GHz, 39 GHz, and 47
GHz Bands for Next-Generation Wireless Services Closes; Winning Bidders Announced for Auction 103, AU Docket
No. 19-59, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 2015 (2020).
1069
Id. at 2016-17, para. 5.
1070
Id. at 2015, para. 2.
1071
Press Release, FCC, FCC Concludes Largest Ever Spectrum Auction, Advancing American Leadership in 5G
(Mar. 12, 2020), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-363000A1.pdf.
1072
Modernizing and Expanding Access to the 70/80/90 GHz Bands, et al., WT Docket No. 20-133, et al., Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking and Order, 35 FCC Rcd 6039 (2020).
1073
Id. at 6045, para. 9.
1074
Id.
199
367. In August of this year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit substantially
upheld two Commission orders removing unnecessary barriers to deployment of telecommunications
infrastructure in furtherance of facilitating the provision of advanced 5G wireless broadband service.1075
Among the court’s holdings, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the Commission’s interpretation of its authority
under sections 253(a) and 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act to preempt state or local measures that
“have the effect of prohibiting” personal wireless or telecommunications services.1076 The Commission
had stated that an effective prohibition includes a measure that “materially inhibits or limits the ability of
any competitor or potential competitor to compete in a fair and balanced legal and regulatory
environment.”1077 The court upheld that standard and the Commission’s discussion of how it applies to
5G technology.1078
368. In June 2020, the Commission issued a Declaratory Ruling clarifying its rules
implementing section 6409(a) of the Spectrum Act and a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that sought
comment on certain aspects of those rules.1079 The Commission sought to balance the need for wireless
providers to have clear rules when they upgrade existing infrastructure with the need for state and local
governments to enforce legitimate zoning requirements.1080 Specifically, the declaratory ruling clarified:
(1) when the shot clock for an eligible facilities request commences, (2) what constitutes a “substantial
change” in the physical dimensions of wireless infrastructure, and (3) the extent to which certain elements
of a proposed modification to existing infrastructure affect the eligibility of that proposed modification for
streamlined state or local government review.1081 The declaratory ruling also clarified that an
environmental assessment is not required when the Commission and applicants proposing to build
communications facilities have entered into a memorandum of agreement to mitigate effects on historic
properties.1082 The Section 6409 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking sought comment on rule changes to
better define the boundaries within which an applicant can excavate or deploy when making a
modification under section 6409(a).1083 In October 2020, the Commission adopted a Report and Order
1075
City of Portland v. United States, 969 F3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2020); see also Accelerating Wireless Broadband
Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment; Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by
Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, WT Docket No. 17-79, WC Docket No. 17-84, Declaratory Ruling
and Third Report and Order, 33 FCC Rcd 9088 (2018) (Small Cell Order); Accelerating Wireline Broadband
Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment; Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by
Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, WC Docket No. 17-84, WT Docket No. 17-79, Third Report and
Order and Declaratory Ruling, 33 FCC Rcd 7705 (2018).
1076
City of Portland v. United States, 2020 WL 4669906, at 33-36. See infra section V.A for further discussion of
the court’s decision.
1077
Small Cell Order, 33 FCC Rcd at 9092-93, 9104-10, paras. 16, 37-42.
1078
City of Portland v. United States, 2020 WL 4669906, at 36-37.
1079
Implementation of State and Local Governments’ Obligation to Approve Certain Wireless Facility Modification
Requests Under Section 6409(a) of the Spectrum Act of 2012, WT Docket No. 19-250, Declaratory Ruling and
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 35 FCC Rcd 5977, 5979, para. 3 (2020) (Section 6409 Declaratory Ruling and
Notice), pets. for review pending, League of California Cities et al. v. FCC et al., No. 20-71765 (9th Cir. filed June
22, 2020); City of Seattle, Washington et al. v. FCC et al., No. 20-1300 (D.C. Cir. filed Aug. 7, 2020); City of
Boston, Massachusetts et al. v. FCC et al., No. 20-1301 (D.C. Cir. filed Aug. 10, 2020); 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a). In
addition, also in June 2020, the Commission released an Emergency Authorizations During COVID-19 Public
Notice, which announced an electronic process for Commission licensees to apply for expedited section 106 review
or for emergency authorization to resume standard review for qualifying critical infrastructure projects during this
crisis. Section 106 Emergency Authorizations During COVID-19, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 6517 (WTB 2020).
1080
See Section 6409 Declaratory Ruling and Notice, 35 FCC Rcd at 5977-79, paras. 1-2.
1081
Id. at 5979, 5982-6000, paras. 4, 11-44.
1082
Id. at 6000-03, paras. 45-50.
1083
Id. at 5979-80, 6003-04, paras. 5, 51-56.
200
that further streamlined the section 6409(a) approval process for state and local governments’ review of
wireless communication collocations and tower modifications that involve limited ground excavation or
deployment of transmission equipment.1084 The Report and Order revised the definition of “substantial
change” to provide that the modification of an existing tower outside the public rights-of-way that entails
ground excavation or deployment of transmission equipment up to 30 feet in any direction outside the
boundaries of a site will be eligible for streamlined processing under section 6409(a).1085 The Report and
Order also revised the definition of a “site” in a manner that will ensure that the site boundaries from
which limited expansion is measured appropriately reflect prior state or local government review and
approval.1086
369. On July 10 2020, the Commission, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
(ACHP), and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers executed the Second
Amendment to the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement for the Collocation of Wireless Antennas
(Collocation NPA).1087 The amendment facilitates the collocation of wireless facilities on existing towers
by eliminating review under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act1088 for certain
collocations that involve a limited expansion beyond the boundaries of a tower site.1089
370. In addition, in April 2019, the Commission sought comment on modernizing and
updating the over-the-air reception (OTARD) regulatory framework to better account for technological
developments.1090
1. Enhancing Competition, Removing Barriers to Investment, and
Encouraging Deployment
371. Updating Wireline Regulation to Enhance Competition and Reduce Inefficiencies. In a
series of three orders adopted in 2019 in response to a USTelecom petition, the Commission forbore from
a significant number of regulations that are no longer appropriate in the current marketplace.1091 Through
1084
Implementation of State and Local Governments’ Obligations to Approve Certain Wireless Facility Modification
Requests Under 6409(a) of the Spectrum Act of 2012, WT Docket No. 19-250, Report and Order, FCC 20-153 (Nov.
3, 2020) (Section 6409 Report and Order).
1085
Section 6409 Report and Order, at 5, 10, paras. 9, 17; 47 CFR § 1.6100(b)(7) (“A modification substantially
changes the physical dimensions of an eligible support structure if it meets any of the following criteria: . . . (iv) It
entails any excavation or deployment outside the current site . . . .”).
1086
Section 6409 Report and Order, at 13-14, paras. 25-28; 47 CFR § 1.6100(b)(6) (defining “site”).
1087
See Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Announces Execution of Second Amendment to the Nationwide
Programmatic Agreement for the Collocation of Wireless Antennas, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 7150 (WTB 2020);
47 CFR Part 1, Appx. B.
1088
54 U.S.C. § 300101 et seq.
1089
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Announces Execution of Second Amendment to the Nationwide
Programmatic Agreement for the Collocation of Wireless Antennas, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 7150 (WTB 2020).
Updating the Commission’s Rule for Over-the-Air Reception Devices, WT Docket No. 19-71, Notice of
1090
Proposed Rulemaking, 34 FCC Rcd 2695, 2695, para. 1 (2019) (OTARD Notice).
1091
Petition of USTelecom for Forbearance Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 160(c) to Accelerate Investment in Broadband
and Next-Generation Networks, WC Docket No. 18-141, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 34 FCC Rcd 2590
(2019) (Section 271/272 Forbearance Order); Petition of USTelecom for Forbearance Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 160
(c) to Accelerate Investment in Broadband and Next-Generation Networks, WC Docket No. 18-141 et al., Report
and Order on Remand and Memorandum Opinion and Order, 34 FCC Rcd 5767 (2019) (BDS Remand Order/UNE
Transport Forbearance Order); Petition of USTelecom for Forbearance Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 160 (c) to
Accelerate Investment in Broadband and Next-Generation Networks, WC Docket No. 18-141, Memorandum
Opinion and Order, 34 FCC Rcd 6503 (2019) (UNE Analog Loop and Avoided-Cost Resale Forbearance Order),
aff’d, Comptel et al. v. FCC, No. 19-1164 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 3, 2020).
201
these orders, the Commission relieved carriers of outdated obligations applying only to incumbent local
exchange carriers (LECs), such as provisioning service metric reporting, long distance affiliate, and
superfluous pole attachment requirements, as well as outdated or unnecessary obligations to provide
unbundled network elements to competitors and to offer service for resale at a wholesale discount.1092 On
October 28, 2020, the Commission extended this reform to additional UNEs and to a wider variety of
incumbent LECs.1093
372. Further, the Commission addressed market-distorting perverse incentives created by the
Commission’s intercarrier compensation regulatory regime. In September 2019, the Commission revised
its rules addressing arbitrage schemes involving fees that long distance companies pay local and
intermediate carriers for calls placed by customers of the long distance providers.1094 In furtherance of
these schemes, some of the companies that collect such charges generated large volumes of inbound
traffic that allowed them to collect fees that far exceeded the cost of completing the calls.1095 And on
October 7, 2020, the Commission adopted an order addressing similar types of arbitrage schemes relating
to calls routed to toll-free numbers.1096 By revising its rules to reduce these arbitrage opportunities, the
Commission has better aligned carriers’ incentives with cost, which will lead to more efficient network
design and prevent local and long-distance customers (including toll-free customers) from bearing the
cost of wasteful schemes.1097
373. The Commission also initiated a proceeding to consider whether ex ante regulation and
tariffing of end-user charges local carriers assess for access to long distance calling remains in the public
interest due to significant marketplace and regulatory changes over the past two-plus decades. On March
31, 2020, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing to deregulate and detariff
these charges, and to prohibit providers from separately listing these charges on their customers’ bills.1098
These proposals are designed to ensure that the total price that appears on customers’ bills is closer to the
voice service providers’ advertised prices.1099
374. Removing Barriers to and Encouraging Wireline Investment. In July 2019, the
Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Declaratory Ruling to improve broadband
deployment and competition in the nation’s MTEs.1100 Nearly 30% of the U.S. population lives in
Id. In the UNE Analog Loop and Avoided-Cost Resale Forbearance Order, the Commission’s forbearance relief
1092
applied only to incumbent LECs subject to price cap regulation. UNE Analog Loop and Avoided-Cost Resale
Forbearance Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 6504, para. 2.
1093
See generally Modernizing Unbundling Order. In addition to relief regarding UNE obligations, the Commission
extended previously-granted forbearance from the obligation to offer service for resale at a wholesale discount to
non-price cap LECs.
1094
Updating the Intercarrier Compensation Regime to Eliminate Access Arbitrage, WC Docket No. 18-155, Report
and Order and Modification of Section 214 Authorizations, 34 FCC Rcd 9035 (2019), pets. for review pending sub
nom. Great Lakes Commc’ns Corp. et al. v. FCC, No. 19-1233 (D.C. Cir.) (consolidated with No. 19-1244) (Access
Arbitrage Order).
1095
Id. at 9035-36, paras. 1-2.
1096
8YY Access Charge Reform, WC Docket No. 18-156, Report and Order, FCC 20-143 (rel. Oct. 9, 2020) (8YY
Access Charge Reform Order).
1097
Access Arbitrage Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 9035-37, paras. 1-4; 8YY Access Charge Reform Order, FCC 20-143,
para. 4.
1098
Eliminating Ex Ante Pricing Regulation and Tariffing of Telephone Access Charges, WC Docket No. 20-71,
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 35 FCC Rcd 3165 (2020).
1099
Id. at 3165-65, paras. 1-4.
1100
Improving Competitive Access to Multiple Tenant Environments, Petition for Preemption of Article 52 of the San
Francisco Police Code Filed by the Multiple Family Broadband Council, GN Docket No. 17-142, MB Docket No.
(continued….)
202
condominiums or apartments, and millions more work in office buildings.1101 The Commission clarified
that it welcomes state and local experimentation to increase access to MTEs, so long as those actions are
consistent with federal law and policy.1102 Further, the Commission preempted part of an outlier San
Francisco ordinance to the extent it required the sharing of in-use wiring in MTEs, finding that requiring
sharing of in-use wiring deters broadband deployment, undercuts the Commission’s rules regarding
control of cable wiring in residential MTEs, and threatens the Commission’s framework to protect the
technical integrity of cable systems for the benefit of viewers.1103 To address further unique challenges
associated with broadband deployment in MTEs, the Commission sought comment on the effect that
revenue sharing agreements between building owners and broadband providers, exclusivity agreements
regarding rooftop facilities, and exclusive wiring arrangements have on broadband competition and
deployment.1104
375. The Commission has also taken further actions to reduce barriers to deployment of
advanced communications capability relating to access to poles. On July 29, 2020, the Wireline
Competition Bureau clarified that the imposition of a “blanket ban” by a utility on attachments to any
portion of a utility pole is inconsistent with the federal requirement that a “denial of access . . . be
specific” to a particular request.1105 The Bureau also clarified that, while utilities and attachers have the
flexibility to negotiate terms in their pole attachment agreements that differ from the requirements in the
Commission’s rules, a utility cannot use its significant negotiating leverage to require an attacher to give
up rights to which the attacher is entitled under the rules without the attacher obtaining a corresponding
benefit.1106
376. In November 2020, the Wireline Competition Bureau preempted legal requirements
imposed by several cities in Missouri to the extent they permit “duplicative rights-of-way fees based
solely on passive ownership of facilities used to provide telecommunications services.”1107 Under section
253(d), the Commission is required by Congress to preempt any requirements that effectively prohibit an
entity from providing telecommunication services.1108 In the Bluebird Declaratory Ruling, the Bureau
found that the cities' legal requirements could increase Bluebird’s right-of-way costs by 100%, and that
the record showed that such a cost increase would “effectively prohibit Bluebird from providing its
services in violation of section 253(a).”1109
377. Restoring Internet Freedom. In the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, the Commission
ended heavy-handed, utility-style Title II regulation of the Internet and returned broadband Internet access
service to its long-standing classification as an information service under Title I, the light-touch
17-91, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Declaratory Ruling, 34 FCC Rcd 5702 (2019), appeal pending in City &
County of San Francisco v. FCC et al., Docket No. 19-71832 (9th Cir.).
1101
Id. at 5703, para. 1.
1102
Id. at 5724, paras. 40-41.
1103
Id. at 5724-45.
1104
Id. at 5710-20, paras. 14-31.
1105
Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, WC Docket
No. 17-84, Declaratory Ruling, 35 FCC Rcd 7936, 7936-37, 7938-43, paras. 3, 6-13 (WCB 2020) (CTIA Pole
Attachment Declaratory Ruling); 47 CFR § 1.1403(b).
1106
CTIA Pole Attachment Declaratory Ruling, 35 FCC Rcd at 7944-47, paras. 14-18.
1107
Missouri Network Alliance, LLC d/b/a Bluebird Network and Uniti Leasing MW LLC; Petition for Preemption
and Declaratory Ruling, WC Docket No. 20-46, Declaratory Ruling, DA 20-1331, at 1, para. 1 (WCB Nov. 9, 2020)
(Bluebird Declaratory Ruling).
1108
47 U.S.C. § 253(a), (d).
1109
Bluebird Declaratory Ruling at 2, para. 2.
203
framework under which the Internet developed and flourished.1110 On October 1, 2019, in Mozilla Corp.
v. FCC, the D.C. Circuit upheld the vast majority of the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, remanding
three discrete issues for further consideration—namely, the effect of that Order on: (1) public safety; (2)
the regulation of pole attachments; and (3) universal service support for low-income consumers through
the Lifeline program.1111 On October 27, 2020, the Commission adopted an order addressing the court’s
limited remand.
378. In the Restoring Internet Freedom Remand Order, the Commission considered the three
issues remanded by the court and found no reason to depart from its earlier conclusions.1112 First, the
Commission found that neither its decision to return broadband Internet access service to its long-
standing classification as an information service, nor its subsequent decision to eliminate the conduct-
based open Internet rules, is likely to adversely impact public safety.1113 To the contrary, the Commission
concluded that the regulatory certainty of the Restoring Internet Freedom Order has promoted an
environment that encourages robust investment in broadband networks and facilities that can be used for
many purposes, including public safety purposes.1114 Second, the Commission concluded that the overall
benefits of classifying broadband Internet access service as an information service outweigh the limited
potential negative effects resulting from the loss of section 224 rights, and, by extension, the
Commission’s pole attachment rules, for broadband-only ISPs.1115 The Commission considered the
drawbacks to be limited in part because the vast majority of ISPs also provide either cable or
telecommunications services over their networks, and therefore remain able to take advantage of the
rights guaranteed by section 224 notwithstanding the reclassification of broadband Internet access service
as an information service.1116 Finally, the Commission concluded it has legal authority under section
254(e) of the Act to provide Lifeline support to Eligible Telecommunications Carriers that provide
broadband service over broadband-capable networks that support voice service.1117 The Restoring
Internet Freedom Remand Order provided valuable certainty to policies that have fueled broadband
deployment and are closing the digital divide.1118
379. Unbundled Network Elements. Incumbent LECs filed a petition in May 2018 seeking
forbearance from obligations to share their networks and retail telecommunications services on an
avoided-cost wholesale basis with competitors.1119 These unbundling and resale obligations were
established in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to encourage competition within the local
telecommunications marketplace.1120 Where competition has flourished, Congress “encouraged the
1110
See generally Restoring Internet Freedom Order.
1111
Restoring Internet Freedom; Bridging the Digital Divide for Low-Income Consumers; Lifeline and Link Up
Reform and Modernization, WC Docket Nos. 17-108, 17-287 & 11-42, Order, 35 FCC Rcd 12328, 12329, para. 2
(2020) (Restoring Internet Freedom Remand Order); see Mozilla Corp. v. FCC, 940 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2019)
(Mozilla); see also Restoring Internet Freedom Order, 33 FCC Rcd 311.
1112
Restoring Internet Freedom Remand Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 12329, para. 2.
1113
Id. at 12348-68, paras. 37-66.
1114
Id. at 12336, para. 20.
1115
Id. at 12370-77, paras. 71-81; 47 U.S.C. § 224; 47 CFR Part 1, Subpart J.
1116
Restoring Internet Freedom Remand Order at 12371-72, para. 73.
1117
Id. at 12378, para. 82; 47 U.S.C. § 254(e).
1118
2018 Broadband Deployment Report, 33 FCC Rcd at 1661-62, 1707, paras. 4-5, 92.
1119
and Next-Generation Networks, WC Docket No. 18-141 (filed May 4, 2018).
1120
The Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (codified at 47 U.S.C. § 151 et seq.).
204
Commission to use forbearance and other means to encourage deployment of advanced

telecommunications capability and remove barriers to infrastructure deployment.”1121
380. In response to the May 2018 petition, the Commission granted price cap incumbent LECs
unbundling relief for DS1 and DS3 interoffice transport1122 and for analog loops used solely to provide
legacy telephone service, specifically Time Division Multiplexing service provided over narrowband
copper wires1123 as well as resale obligations typically used to provide the same legacy service. The
Commission later sought comment on broader reforms.1124 In October 2020, the Commission adopted an
Order eliminating unbundling requirements and resale obligations in areas where they stifle technology
transitions but preserving them in areas where they are still needed to promote competition.1125
381. The 2020 UNE Order eliminated unbundling requirements for: enterprise DS1 and DS3
loops in areas with sufficient competition; DS0 loops and sub-loops in densely populated areas; voice-
grade narrowband loops, multiunit premise subloops, and network interface devices nationwide; and dark
fiber transport within one-half mile of competitive fiber networks.1126 Each element has an appropriate
transition period to avoid harming consumers and stranding investment. In addition, the Order forbore
from the avoided-cost resale obligation where it continues to exist.1127
382. Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee. The Chairman re-chartered the Broadband
Deployment Advisory Committee (BDAC), a federal advisory committee, for a second two-year term
effective March 1, 2019.1128 The BDAC works to craft recommendations for the Commission on ways to
accelerate the deployment of broadband by reducing and removing regulatory barriers to infrastructure
investment and strengthening existing broadband networks in communities across the country. It serves
as a forum for interested stakeholders to exchange ideas and develop recommendations to the
Commission on broadband deployment, which in turn enhances the Commission’s ability to carry out its
statutory responsibility to encourage the deployment of broadband to all Americans.1129
383. The re-chartered BDAC is organized into three working groups, each with a distinct
purpose. The Disaster Response and Recovery Working Group was originally charged with
recommending measures to improve resiliency of broadband infrastructure before a disaster occurs, and
strategies that can be used during and after the response to a disaster to minimize broadband network
downtime.1130 On March 27, 2020, the Disaster Response and Recovery Working Group presented a
1121
Modernizing Unbundling Order at 12429-30, para. 12.
1122
and Next-Generation Networks et al., WC Docket No. 18-141 et al., Report and Order on Remand and
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 34 FCC Rcd 5767 (2019).
1123
and Next-Generation Networks, WC Docket No. 18-141, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 34 FCC Rcd 6503
(2019).
1124
Modernizing Unbundling and Resale Requirements in an Era of Next-Generation Networks and Services, WC
Docket No. 19-308, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 34 FCC Rcd 11290 (2019).
1125
Modernizing Unbundling Order, at 12426, para. 3.
1126
Id.
1127
Id. at 12497-98, para. 145.
1128
FCC Announces the Re-Charter of the Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee and Solicits Nominations
for Membership, GN Docket No. 17-83, Public Notice, 33 FCC Rcd 11747 (2018).
1129
FCC Announces Membership and First Meeting of the Re-Chartered Broadband Deployment Advisory
Committee, GN Docket No. 17-83, Public Notice, 34 FCC Rcd 3251, 3251, (2019) (2019 Re-Chartered BDAC PN).
1130
Id.
205
report and recommendations in response to its charges, which the BDAC approved.1131 It has since been
charged, on April 16, 2020, with assisting the BDAC in documenting the strategies and solutions that
stakeholders are developing and implementing in real time to address the deployment-related challenges
presented by the COVID-19 pandemic.1132 The Broadband Infrastructure Deployment Job Skills and
Training Opportunities Working Group is charged with making recommendations on ways to make job
skills training more widely available and to improve development opportunities for the broadband
infrastructure deployment workforce.1133 The Increasing Broadband Investment in Low-Income
Communities Working Group is tasked with identifying new ways to encourage the deployment of high-
speed broadband infrastructure and services to low-income communities.1134
384. The BDAC has worked diligently to fulfill the charges given to it by the Commission.
Since the Commission released the 2018 Report, the re-chartered BDAC has met six times, during which
the BDAC members have discussed their charges and the progress the working groups have made toward
developing final reports for consideration and approval by the full BDAC.1135 At its October 29, 2020
meeting, the BDAC considered and voted on reports and recommendations from its three working groups:
Increasing Broadband Investment in Low-Income Communities (Low-Income), Broadband Infrastructure
Deployment Job Skills and Training Opportunities (Job Skills), and Disaster Response and Recovery
(Disaster Response). The Job Skills working group and Disaster Response working group reports were
considered and approved by the full BDAC, while the Low-Income working group report was considered
but not voted on or approved, pending further revisions.1136
1131
Broadband Deployment Advisory Cmte., Disaster Response & Recovery Working Grp., Report and
Recommendations (Mar. 27, 2020), https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/bdac-disaster-response-recovery-
approved-rec-03272020.pdf.
1132
FCC Chairman Pai Announces New Charges and Solicits Additional Nominations for the Disaster Response
and Recovery Working Group of the Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee to Address Challenges Presented
By COVID-19, GN Docket No. 17-83, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 3553 (2020).
1133
2019 Re-Chartered BDAC PN at 3251.
1134
Id. Announcements concerning the membership of these working groups can be found on the Commission’s
BDAC page: https://www.fcc.gov/broadband-deployment-advisory-committee. See FCC Announces Membership
of the Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee’s Disaster Response and Recovery Working Group, GN Docket
No. 17-83, Public Notice, 33 FCC Rcd 11006 (2018); FCC Announces the Membership of Two Broadband
Deployment Advisory Committee Working Groups, GN Docket No. 17-83, Public Notice, 34 FCC Rcd 5226 (2019);
FCC Announces Additional Membership of Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee Disaster Response and
Recovery Working Group, GN Docket No. 17-83, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 5669 (2020).
1135
2019 Re-Chartered BDAC PN, 34 FCC Rcd 3251 (June 13, 2019 meeting); FCC Announces the Next Meeting of
the Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee, GN Docket No. 17-83, Public Notice, 34 FCC Rcd 7714 (2019)
(September 19, 2019 meeting); FCC Announces the Next Meeting of the Broadband Deployment Advisory
Committee, GN Docket No. 17-83, Public Notice, 34 FCC Rcd 9557 (2019) (December 3, 2019 meeting); FCC
Announces the Next Meeting of the Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee, GN Docket No. 17-83, Public
Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 1959 (2020) (March 27, 2020 meeting); FCC Announces the Next Meeting of the Broadband
Deployment Advisory Committee, GN Docket No. 17-83, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 6442 (2020) (July 29, 2020
meeting); FCC Announces the Next Meeting of the Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee, GN Docket No.
17-83, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 10657 (Sept. 29, 2020) (Oct. 29-30, 2020 meeting). Video from each of the
BDAC meetings and links to related materials can be found on the Commission’s BDAC page:
https://www.fcc.gov/broadband-deployment-advisory-committee.
1136
The October BDAC meeting was held by conference call and was available live to the public over the Internet.
Materials from the meeting can be found on the Commission’s website: https://www.fcc.gov/news-
events/events/2020/10/bdac-meeting-october-2020.
206
385. Precision Agriculture Connectivity Task Force. Consistent with the Agriculture
Improvement Act of 2018,1137 Chairman Pai chartered the Task Force for Reviewing the Connectivity and
Technology Needs of Precision Agriculture in the United States under the Federal Advisory Committee
Act for a two-year term to make policy recommendations on how to accelerate broadband deployment on
agricultural lands.1138 The Precision Agriculture Task Force is examining policy, regulatory, and
technical solutions to encourage the adoption of broadband on farms and ranches and to promote the
advancement of precision agriculture in the United States.1139
386. In November 2019, Chairman Pai, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture,
appointed fifteen members of the Task Force including agricultural producers representing diverse
geographic regions and farm sizes, equipment manufacturers, and industry representatives, as well as
Tribal, state, and local government representatives.1140 The Precision Agriculture Task Force has met four
times in 2020.1141 Four working groups continue to assist the Task Force in carrying out its work:
(1) Mapping and Analyzing Connectivity on Agricultural Lands; (2) Examining Current and Future
Connectivity Demand for Precision Agriculture; (3) Encouraging Adoption of Precision Agriculture and
Availability of High-Quality Jobs on Connected Farms; and (4) Accelerating Broadband Deployment on
Unserved Agricultural Lands.1142 At its October 28, 2020 meeting, the Task Force considered and voted
on reports from its Mapping and Analyzing Connectivity on Agricultural Lands and Examining Current
and Future Connectivity Demand for Precision Agriculture working groups, which were approved by the
full Task Force. The Task Force also considered and approved an initial report from the Encouraging
Adoption of Precision Agriculture and Availability of High-Quality Jobs on Connected Farms working
group.1143
1137
Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-334, 132 Stat. 4490, § 12511(b)(2) (2018 Farm Bill).
The Precision Agriculture Connectivity Task Force will perform duties and submit reports consistent with section
12511 of the 2018 Farm Bill and in consultation with the Department of Agriculture in successive terms until the
Task Force ends on January 1, 2025.
1138
FCC Announces the Establishment of the Task Force for Reviewing Connectivity and Technology Needs of
Precision Agriculture in the United States and Seeks Nominations for Membership, Public Notice, 34 FCC Rcd 5057
(2019) (Precision Agriculture Task Force Public Notice); Task Force for Reviewing Connectivity & Tech. Needs of
Precision Agric. in the U.S., Charter (Dec. 4, 2019), https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/precision-ag-task-force-
charter-12042019.pdf.
1139
Precision Agriculture Task Force Public Notice, 34 FCC Rcd at 5057.
1140
FCC Announces the Membership of and First Meeting of the Task Force for Reviewing the Connectivity and
Technology Needs of Precision Agriculture in the United States, GN Docket No. 19-329, Public Notice, 34 FCC Rcd
10493 (2019) (Precision Agriculture Task Force Membership Public Notice).
1141
Id. (setting Dec. 9, 2019 as the date of its first meeting); FCC Announces the Second Meeting of the Task Force
for Reviewing the Connectivity and Technology Needs of Precision Agriculture in the United States on March 25,
2020, GN Docket No. 19-329, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 2038 (2020); FCC Announces the Third Meeting of the
Task Force for Reviewing the Connectivity and Technology Needs of Precision Agriculture in the United States on
March 25, 2020, GN Docket No. 19-329, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 6327 (2020); FCC Announces the Fourth
Meeting of the Task Force for Reviewing the Connectivity and Technology Needs of Precision Agriculture in the
United States on October 28, 2020, GN Docket No. 19-329, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 10419 (2020).
1142
Precision Agriculture Task Force Membership Public Notice, 34 FCC Rcd at 10493; FCC Announces the
Membership of the Working Groups of the Task Force for Reviewing the Connectivity and Technology Needs of
Precision Agriculture in the United States, GN Docket No. 19-329, Public Notice, 5 FCC Rcd 2053 (2020).
1143
The October Task Force meeting was held electronically and was open to the public via livestream. Materials
from the meeting can be found on the Commission’s website: https://www.fcc.gov/news-
events/events/2020/10/precision-ag-connectivity-task-force-meeting-october-2020.
207
2. Universal Service Support

387. Universal service also plays an essential role in deploying broadband networks,
particularly in rural, insular, and hard-to-serve areas. The Commission’s Universal Service Fund provides
funding to increase the availability of telecommunication services and broadband Internet access services
for low-income households, rural health care providers, schools and libraries, and consumers in high-cost
areas.1144 As part of its oversight responsibilities, the Commission routinely considers ways to maximize
the effect of available Universal Service Fund funding to support broadband deployment.1145
388. High-Cost Support Reform. By both expanding the use of auctions and improving
current programs, the Commission has continued its efforts to reform the manner in which universal
service high-cost support is distributed to deploy broadband to rural areas. The Commission has
successfully conducted the Connect America Fund Phase II auction to award funding to service providers
that commit to offer voice and broadband services to fixed locations in unserved high-cost areas. In 2018,
the Phase II auction awarded more than $1.488 billion over 10 years to 103 winning bidders to serve more
than 713,000 rural homes and businesses.1146 The Commission began authorizing Phase II Auction
funding in May 2019,1147 authorizing a total of 16 waves of support through November 12, 2020, a
process that continues.1148 As of November 12, 2020, the Commission has authorized a total of nearly
$1.5 billion in Phase II auction funding, which is expanding connectivity to nearly 703,000 homes and
small businesses nationwide.1149 Funding rounds will continue until the authorization process is complete.
389. In January 2020, the Commission established the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund, which
will provide up to $20.4 billion in two phases to expand broadband in unserved rural areas, representing
the Commission’s biggest single step to date toward closing the rural digital divide.1150 Phase I of the
Rural Digital Opportunity Fund will allocate up to $16 billion in funding over the next decade, targeting
areas that current data show are wholly unserved by 25/3 Mbps broadband and voice, where Commission
1144
47 U.S.C. § 254.
1145
Connect America Fund; ETC Annual Reports and Certifications; Establishing Just and Reasonable Rates for
Local Exchange Carriers; Developing a Unified Intercarrier Compensation Regime; WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 14-58,
and 07-135, CC Docket No. 01-92; Report and Order, Third Order on Reconsideration, and Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, 33 FCC Rcd 2990, 2992, para. 4 (2018) (taking several steps to increase broadband deployment in
rural areas through the High Cost program, including maximizing available funding for broadband networks);
Promoting Telehealth in Rural America, WC Docket No. 17-310, Report and Order, 33 FCC Rcd 6574, 6575, para.
3 (2018) (Telehealth Report and Order) (increasing the funding cap for the Rural Healthcare program to $571
million to prevent pro-rata funding reductions that could have disproportionately affected rural health care providers,
especially those in Alaska).
1146
Connect America Fund Phase II Auction Scheduled for July 24, 2018 Notice and Filing Requirements and Other
Procedures for Auction 903, AU Docket No. 17-182, WC Docket No. 10-90, Public Notice, 33 FCC Rcd 1428
(2018); 220 Applicants Qualified to Bid in the Connect America Fund Phase II Auction (Auction 903); Bidding to
Begin on July 24, 2018, AU Docket No. 17-182, WC Docket No. 10-90, Public Notice, 33 FCC Rcd 6171 (2018)
(announcing the qualified bidders for the auction and confirming timing); Connect America Fund Phase II Auction
(Auction 903) Closes; Winning Bidders Announced, AU Docket No. 17-182, WC Docket No. 10-90, Public Notice,
33 FCC Rcd 8257 (2018).
1147
Press Release, FCC, FCC Authorizes First Wave of Funding for Rural Broadband from Connect America Fund
Auction (May 14, 2019), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-363069A1.pdf.
1148
Press Release, FCC, FCC Authorizes Over $5.2 Million for Broadband Deployment To Rural Areas in
Mississippi (Sept. 2, 2020), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-366631A1.pdf; Connect America Fund
Phase II Auction Support for 6 Winning Bids Ready to Be Authorized, AU Docket No. 17-182, WC Docket No. 10-
90, Public Notice (WCB Nov. 12, 2020) (16th wave).
1149
Id.
1150
Rural Digital Opportunity Fund; Connect America Fund, WC Docket Nos. 19-126 and 10-90, Report and Order,
35 FCC Rcd 686, 687, at para. 2 (2020) (Rural Digital Opportunity Fund Order).
208
staff estimate as many as 10.25 million unserved Americans live and work.1151 On October 13, 2020, the
Commission announced that 386 applicants were qualified to bid.1152 The Phase I auction began on
October 29, 2020, using a multi-round, reverse auction that favors bids offering faster services with lower
latency and encourages intermodal competition to ensure that the greatest possible number of Americans
will be connected to the best possible networks, all at a competitive cost.1153 Phase II of the Rural Digital
Opportunity Fund will incorporate the granular, precise broadband availability maps being developed in
the Commission’s Digital Opportunity Data Collection proceeding to allocate at least $4.4 billion to
target unserved locations within partially served areas, as well as any areas not won in Phase I.1154 The
Commission also took steps in the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund Order to directly target broadband
deployment in census blocks on rural Tribal lands. Specifically, the Commission adopted rules
effectively increasing the auction reserve price for census blocks on Tribal lands, which makes more
support available compared to most non-Tribal census blocks eligible for the auction, and makes
additional locations on Tribal lands eligible for the auction.1155
390. In September 2019, the Commission approved nearly $950 million in Stage 2 funding for
the Uniendo a Puerto Rico and Connect USVI Funds to improve, expand, and harden communications
networks in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands that were damaged and destroyed during the 2017
hurricane season.1156 To that end, the Commission allocated more than $500 million over 10 years for
fixed broadband support in Puerto Rico,1157 and more than $180 million over 10 years in support for fixed
networks in the U.S. Virgin Islands.1158 The Commission is awarding support for fixed broadband
through a competitive process, in which service providers bid to serve every location in each covered area
with storm-hardened networks at up to gigabit speeds.1159
391. On November 2 and November 16, 2020, the Commission announced the results of the
competitive bidding process for the Uniendo a Puerto Rico Stage 2 fixed support and the Connect USVI
Stage 2 fixed support.1160 As a result, all of the more than 1.2 million eligible locations in Puerto Rico
will get access to at least 100/10 Mbps broadband, and nearly a third will gain access to gigabit speeds.1161
1151
Id. at 689-90, para. 8.
1152
386 Applicants Qualified to Bid in the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund Phase I Auction (Auction 904); Bidding
to Begin on October 29, 2020, AU Docket No. 20-34, WC Docket Nos. 19-126 and 10-90, Public Notice, 35 FCC
Rcd 11356, 11356, para. 1 (OEA & WCB Oct. 13, 2020), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-20-
1187A1.pdf.
1153
Rural Digital Opportunity Fund Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 688, 694-95, paras. 5, 17-18; Press Release, FCC, FCC
Announces Kickoff of Groundbreaking $16 Billion Rural Digital Opportunity Fund Phase I Auction (Oct. 29, 2020),
1154
Rural Digital Opportunity Fund Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 688, 690, paras. 5, 9.
1155
Id. at 694, para. 16.
1156
The Uniendo a Puerto Rico Fund and the Connect USVI Fund; Connect America Fund; ETC Annual Reports
and Certifications, WC Docket Nos. 18-143 et al., Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, 34 FCC Rcd
9109, 9110, para. 3 (2019) (2019 Uniendo a Puerto Rico and Connect USVI Funds Order).
1157
Id. at 9146, para. 67.
1158
Id. at 9163, para. 102.
1159
Id. at 9114-43, paras. 11-66.
1160
Wireline Competition Bureau Announces Winning Applicants for Uniendo a Puerto Rico Fund Stage 2
Competitive Process, WC Docket Nos. 18-143 and 10-90, Public Notice, DA 20-1299 (WCB Nov. 2, 2020)
(Uniendo a Puerto Rico Fund Stage 2 Winning Applicant Public Notice); Wireline Competition Bureau Announces
Winning Applicants for the Connect USVI Fund Stage 2 Competitive Process, WC Docket Nos. 18-143 and 10-90,
Public Notice, DA 20-1351 (WCB Nov. 16, 2020) (Connect USVI Fund Stage 2 Winning Applicant Public Notice).
1161
Uniendo a Puerto Rico Fund Stage 2 Winning Applicant Public Notice at 1, para. 1.
209
In the U.S. Virgin Islands, broadband at gigabit speeds will be available to all of the more than 46,000
eligible locations.1162 Further, as part of its efforts to promote robust voice and broadband in the
territories, the Commission authorized $258.8 million to expand, improve, and harden mobile broadband
networks in Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands—including the first universal service funding targeted
specifically for 5G deployment. 1163
392. In October 2019, the Commission approved performance testing procedures for all
carriers receiving high-cost support to deploy fixed broadband networks to unserved Americans living in
rural areas.1164 These procedures relate to an existing requirement that carriers conduct quarterly speed
and latency tests between specified numbers of active subscribers’ homes and the Internet and the Order
made targeted modifications to the testing procedures.1165 These procedures will help to ensure that rural
Americans have access to the same high-quality networks as Americans in urban areas, while also
ensuring that carriers remain accountable to consumers, taxpayers, and the Commission, and are
delivering the network performance they have committed to provide.
393. The Commission also continued its efforts to reform its Universal Service Fund high-cost
programs for rate-of-return carriers. On December 12, 2018, the Commission adopted revised model
offers for rate-of-return carriers receiving model-based support; new model offers for rate-of-return
carriers currently receiving legacy support; a new budget for carriers remaining on legacy support based
on uncapped 2018 claims (that will be increased by inflation annually); and other measures to mitigate the
regulatory burden on providers and encourage the efficient use of universal service support.1166 In August
2019, the Commission authorized over $4.9 billion in support for rate-of-return carriers for maintaining,
improving, and expanding broadband in rural areas over the next decade.1167 This support will ensure
broadband access for approximately 455,000 homes and businesses served by 171 carriers in 40 states and
territories, including more than 44,000 locations on Tribal lands.1168
394. On April 12, 2019, the Commission eliminated the “rate floor” rule that, for several
years, served as a de facto federal government mandate that increased rates paid by rural Americans.1169
The 2011 rule was aimed at limiting the universal service support that rural providers whose rates were
below a set minimum rate received. This policy was intended to prevent artificial subsidization of rates
below the national urban average, and was scheduled to potentially increase nearly 50% for some
1162
Connect USVI Fund Stage 2 Winning Applicant Public Notice at 1, para. 1.
1163
Wireline Competition Bureau Authorizes Stage 2 Mobile Support for Certain Providers Participating in the
Uniendo a Puerto Rico Fund and the Connect USVI Fund, WC Docket Nos.. 18-143 and 10-90, Public Notice, 35
FCC Rcd 6321 (WCB 2020); Wireline Competition Bureau Authorizes Stage 2 Mobile Support for Viya in the U.S.
Virgin Islands, WC Docket Nos. 18-143 and 10-90, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 11555 (WCB 2020).
1164
See News Release, FCC, FCC Takes Steps to Enforce Quality Standards for Rural Broadband Networks (Oct.
25, 2019), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-360424A1.pdf; Connect America Fund, WC Docket No.
10-90, Order on Reconsideration, 34 FCC Rcd 10109 (2019) (CAF Performance Standards Order on
Reconsideration).
1165
CAF Performance Standards Order on Reconsideration, 34 FCC Rcd at 10112-16, paras. 12-19, 10124-26,
paras. 18-19, 10139-49, paras. 39-49, 10156-94, paras. 130-44.
1166
Connect America Fund, et al., WC Docket Nos. 10-90 et al., Report and Order, Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, and Order on Reconsideration, 33 FCC Rcd 11893 (2018).
1167
See Wireline Competition Bureau Authorizes 171 Rate-of-Return Companies to Receive $491 Million Annually
in Alternative Connect America Cost Model II Support to Expand Rural Broadband, WC Docket No. 10-90, Public
Notice, 34 FCC Rcd 7271 (WCB 2019).
1168
Press Release, FCC, FCC Authorizes Support for Broadband in Over 44,000 Tribal Homes and Businesses
Nationwide (Aug. 22, 2019), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-359226A1.pdf.
1169
Connect America Fund, WC Docket No. 10-90, Report and Order, 34 FCC Rcd 2621 (2019).
210
consumers on July 1, 2020.1170 Instead, the Commission concluded that, particularly in light of changes to
Universal Service Fund high-cost support programs, the rule no longer served a purpose and instead, had
the perverse effect of making rates less affordable, and thus, should be eliminated.1171
395. Tribal Lands. In May 2019, the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, and Wireline Competition Bureau submitted a report to Congress providing
an analysis of broadband deployment on Tribal lands.1172 The Tribal Lands Broadband Access
Deployment Report found that, while deployment to Tribal lands has increased in recent years, Tribal
lands experience lower rates of both fixed and mobile broadband deployment as compared to non-Tribal
areas of the United States, particularly in rural areas.1173 The Tribal Lands Broadband Access Deployment
Report also describes in detail the Commission’s efforts to leverage its available programs to increase the
availability of broadband on Tribal lands, including universal service program reforms, expanded direct
consultation with Tribes, and making available additional, valuable spectrum resources.1174 In Tribal
areas served by rate-of-return carriers, the Commission made model-based support available and
increased support for Tribal locations; companies that elected model support will provide at least 25/3
Mbps service to more than 37,000 locations on Tribal lands.1175 Previously, to address the higher costs
that legacy rate-of-return carriers typically face in serving Tribal lands, the Commission increased the
amount of operating costs that the high-cost program will offset for carriers that predominantly serve
tribal lands.1176 For unserved Tribal lands in price cap service areas, the Commission took steps in the
Rural Digital Opportunity Fund Order to directly target broadband deployment in census blocks on rural
Tribal lands. Specifically, the Commission adopted a policy that has the effect of increasing the auction
reserve price for serving such census blocks compared to the typical census blocks eligible for the
auction, which we expect will encourage deployment on Tribal lands.1177
396. Lifeline. In October 2019, in conjunction with reversing a legally insupportable
interpretation of the traditional state and federal roles in designating ETCs and eliminating the Lifeline
Broadband Provider Eligible Telecommunications Carrier category, the Commission sought comment on
a new Lifeline program goal of increasing broadband adoption among low-income customers and the data
that the Commission might collect and analyze to assess that potential goal.1178 In addition, the
Commission clarified the obligations of participating carriers and took targeted steps to improve
compliance by Lifeline ETCs to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse in the program, so as to maximize the
1170
Id. at 2621, paras. 1-2.
1171
Id. at 2624-26, paras. 10-14.
1172
FCC, CGB, WTB, and WCB, Report on Broadband Deployment in Indian Country, Pursuant to the Repack
Airwaves Yielding Better Access for Users of Modern Services Act of 2018 (2019),
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-357269A1.pdf (Tribal Lands Broadband Access Deployment Report).
1173
Id. at 1.
1174
Id. at 9-18.
1175
Wireline Competition Bureau Authorizes 171 Rate-of-Return Companies to Receive $491 Million Annually in
Alternative Connect America Cost Model II Support To Expand Rural, Public Notice, WC Docket No. 10-90, 34
FCC Rcd 7271 (WCB 2019).
1176
Connect America Fund, 33 FCC Rcd 3602, 3603-04, WC Docket No. 19-90, Report and Order, para. 5 (2018)
1177
Rural Digital Opportunity Fund Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 694, para. 16.
1178
Bridging the Digital Divide for Low-Income Consumers, Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization,
Telecommunications Carriers Eligible for Universal Service Support, WC Docket Nos. 17-287, 11-42, and 09-197,
Fourth Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, Memorandum Opinion and Order, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, and Notice of Inquiry, 34 FCC Rcd 10886, 10898-914, paras. 27-66, 10945-47, paras. 136-42 (2019
Lifeline Reform Order).
211
extent that funding can be best used to close the digital divide for low-income Americans.1179 And on
November 16, 2020, the Wireline Competition Bureau revised the formula used to annually update the
Lifeline program’s mobile broadband minimum service standard to ensure predictable, reasonable results
from the updating mechanism, enabling the program to better serve subscribers with robust mobile
broadband service offerings.1180
397. Rural Health Care Reforms. As the demand for telemedicine has increased, the
Commission’s Rural Health Care Program has witnessed a dramatic increase in health care provider
participation, which in turn put extreme demands on limited Program funding. In the August 2019 Rural
Health Care Reform Order,1181 the Commission simplified the method of determining support in the Rural
Health Care Telecommunications Program; targeted funding to rural areas in the most need of health care
services funding by prioritizing support based on rurality and whether the area is medically underserved
when demand exceeds available funding; increased the effectiveness of competitive bidding; and
streamlined program administration.1182 And on October 19, 2020, the Wireline Competition Bureau
released an Order waiving the budget cap for certain upfront and multi-year payments in the Rural Health
Care Program’s Healthcare Connect Fund in order to use already available money to fully fund all eligible
services requested in Funding Year 2020.1183 As a result, more than $800 million is available in the
current funding year to fund the connectivity needs of rural health care providers, more than double the
available funding when the Commission first increased the budget cap in 2018.
398. Connected Care Pilot Program. On March 31, 2020, the Commission adopted a Report
and Order establishing a three-year, up to $100 million Connected Care Pilot Program to help defray the
cost of bringing telehealth services directly to patients, with a primary emphasis on low-income patients
and veterans.1184 Eligible health care providers selected to participate in the Pilot Program will receive an
85% discount on qualifying broadband connectivity for broadband-enabled telehealth services that
connect patients directly to their health care providers, as well as other information services used to
1179
Id. at 10914-10945, paras. 67-133. The Commission sought comment on further reforms. Id. at 10947-953,
para. 143-64. In addition to these efforts, the Commission has also launched the Lifeline National Eligibility
Verifier (National Verifier) in all states and territories. USAC, National Verifier (last visited Oct. 27, 2020),
https://www.usac.org/lifeline/eligibility/national-verifier/. With the launch of the National Verifier, Lifeline
applicants and subscribers can apply for or recertify their eligibility for the Lifeline program through an objective
third-party, instead of relying on Lifeline providers to determine who is eligible for the benefit. USAC, Lifeline
National Verifier Plan, WC Docket Nos. 11-42, 17-287, 09-197, and 10-90, at 17-20 (Jul. 31, 2020). The National
Verifier leverages nationwide automated eligibility checks to confirm applicants’ qualification for Lifeline via their
participation in Medicaid or Federal Public Housing Assistance, in addition to 21-state database connections to
automatically verify applicants’ participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or Supplemental
Security Income, or applicants’ income-based eligibility. Id. at 6, 17-20. The launch of the National Verifier will
improve program integrity in the Lifeline application process and provide applicants with a uniform application
experience. See generally id.
1180
Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization, Telecommunications Carriers Eligible for Universal Service
Support, Connect America Fund; WC Docket Nos. 11-42, 09-197, 10-90, Order, DA 20-1358 (WCB Nov. 16,
2020). This will increase the Lifeline program’s mobile broadband minimum service standard to 4.5 GB per month
beginning December 2020, instead of the increase to 11.75 GB that would otherwise go into effect, to ensure that
Lifeline subscribers have sufficient broadband capacity while keeping Lifeline services affordable. Id. at para. 20.
1181
Promoting Telehealth in Rural America, WC Docket No. 17-310, Report and Order, 34 FCC Rcd 7335 (2019)
(Rural Health Care Reform Order).
1182
Id. at 7340-430, paras. 9-202.
1183
Rural Health Care Support Mechanism, WC Docket No. 02-60, Order, 35 FCC Rcd 11696 (WCB 2020).
1184
Promoting Telehealth for Low-Income Consumers; COVID-19 Telehealth Program, WC Docket Nos. 18-213
and 20-89, Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd 3366, 3368-69, para. 5 (WCB 2020) (Promoting Telehealth for Low-
Income Consumers Order).
212
provide connected care services and certain network equipment.1185 Data gathered through the Pilot
Program will be used to analyze how universal service funds can support health care providers and patient
use of connected care services and the possible benefits that support of broadband service for connected
care may bring.1186 On September 3, 2020, the Wireline Competition Bureau released a Public Notice
providing guidance to assist prospective applicants in preparing to apply for the Pilot Program, including
information about eligible funding, eligible health care providers, requesting an eligibility determination
before filing an FCC Form 460, and information required on applications.1187 The application filing
window for the Pilot Program is open from November 5 to December 7, 2020.1188
399. Rural Telehealth Initiative. In August 2020, the Commission, the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture signed a Memorandum of
Understanding to work together on the Rural Telehealth Initiative, a joint effort to collaborate and share
information to address health disparities, resolve service provider challenges, and promote broadband
services and technology to rural areas in America.1189 The agencies have started a cross-cutting, multi-
Department Rural Task Force to look across the relevant Administration programs and provide a path
forward for health care in rural America, recognizing particular needs in technology, infrastructure, and
regulatory flexibility to provide health care tailored to these communities’ needs.1190 This Task Force will
regularly meet to consider future recommendations or guidelines for this effort and exchange agency
expertise, scientific and technical information, data, and publications.
400. E-Rate. The Commission’s E-Rate program is a vital source of support for connectivity
to, and within, schools and libraries. In December 2019, the Commission released a Report and Order
making permanent the “category two budget” approach the Commission adopted in 2014 for funding
internal connections following a five-year test period.1191 The category two budget approach consists of
five-year budgets that provide a set amount of funding to support these internal connections, which are
primarily used for Wi-Fi, a technology that has enabled schools and libraries to transition from computer
labs to one-to-one digital learning.1192 Based on the Commission’s experience during the five-year test
period,1193 the Commission concluded that the category two budget approach has provided broader, more
equitable, and more predictable funding for schools and libraries than under the prior rules.1194 Informed
by this experience, the Commission also took important steps to simplify and streamline the category two
budget approach to allow applicants to make more effective use of category two funding, reduce
1185
Id. at 3384-85, 3397, paras. 38, 55.
1186
Id. at 3368-69, para. 5.
1187
Wireline Competition Bureau Provides Additional Information Concerning the Connected Care Pilot Program,
WC Docket No. 18-213, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 9408 (WCB 2020).
1188
Wireline Competition Bureau Announces Connected Care Pilot Program Application Filing Window Opening,
WC Docket No. 18-213, Public Notice, DA 20-1315 (WCB Nov. 5, 2020).
1189
Memorandum of Understanding for Planning a Rural Telehealth Initiative among the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Federal Communications Commission
(effective Aug. 31, 2020), https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/rural-telehealth-mou-hhs-usda-fcc.pdf (Rural
Telehealth Initiative MOU).
1190
Id. at 3.
1191
Modernizing the E-Rate Program for Schools and Libraries, WC Docket No. 13-184, Report and Order, 34 FCC
Rcd 11219 (2019) (Category Two Report and Order).
1192
Id. at 11219, para. 1.
1193
See Modernizing the E-Rate Program for Schools and Libraries, WC Docket No. 13-184, Report and Order and
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 29 FCC Rcd 8870, 8898-922, section IV.B. (2014); Modernizing the E-
Rate Program for Schools and Libraries; Connect America Fund, WC Docket Nos. 13-184, 10-90, Second Report
and Order and Order on Reconsideration, 29 FCC Rcd 15538, 15571-78, section III.A. (2014).
1194
Category Two Report and Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 11220, para. 2.
213
administrative burdens, and ensure more equitable, consistent distribution of support for small, rural
schools and libraries within the existing E-Rate program budget for category two services.1195
401. To further promote the deployment of high-speed networks to unserved and underserved
schools and libraries, in January 2020, the Commission adopted a Report and Order permanently
eliminating the requirement that E-Rate applicants amortize over three years upfront, non-recurring
category one charges of $500,000 or more, including charges for special construction projects–a
requirement the Commission had suspended in 2014.1196 In eliminating the requirement, the Commission
noted that suspension of the amortization requirement had created a more certain path for reimbursement,
which made applicants and service providers more willing to invest in new broadband infrastructure,
resulting in lower costs to both applicants and universal service funding.1197
402. Promoting Broadband Access for Veterans. In May 2019, the Wireline Competition
Bureau submitted a report to Congress examining the current state of broadband access and adoption by
veterans, and providing recommendations on how to promote veterans’ access to broadband, so that they
may fully participate in the digital economy.1198 In the Veterans Broadband Access Report, the Bureau
found that, while many veterans have access to both fixed and mobile broadband options, a significant
number still lack access to fixed broadband, mobile broadband, or both.1199 Additionally, the Bureau
found that households with veterans subscribe to mobile broadband services at lower rates than
households without veterans, and that barriers to broadband adoption for veterans may include lack of
deployment where they live, price, and digital illiteracy or perceived irrelevance.1200
403. Improving Broadband Deployment Data. The Commission continues its efforts to make
progress establishing the Digital Opportunity Data Collection, a new data collection for collecting fixed
broadband data to better pinpoint where broadband is available to consumers and where service is
lacking, as well as in implementing the Broadband DATA Act.1201 In the August 2020 Digital
Opportunity Data Collection Order and Second Further Notice, the Commission took the next step in
developing the new broadband coverage maps by adopting specific coverage reporting and disclosure
requirements for fixed and mobile broadband providers, filing and certification requirements, measures
for determining the accuracy of broadband availability data (including audits and collecting crowdsourced
data), standards for collecting and incorporating verified data for use in the coverage maps from
governmental entities and certain third parties, and establishing the Broadband Serviceable Location
1195
Id.
1196
E-Rate Program Amortization Requirement, Modernizing the E-Rate Program for Schools and Libraries, WC
Docket Nos. 19-2, 13-184, Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd 672, 672-73, para. 2 (2020) (E-Rate Amortization
Elimination Order); see also E-Rate Program Amortization Requirement, Modernizing the E-Rate Program for
Schools and Libraries, WC Docket Nos. 19-2, 13-184, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order, 34 FCC Rcd 785
(2019). The components of special construction costs eligible for E-Rate discounts include costs for design and
engineering, project management, digging trenches, and laying fiber. See Modernizing the E-Rate Program for
Schools and Libraries, WC Docket No. 13-184, Order, 31 FCC Rcd 9767, 9775 (2016); Schools and Libraries
Universal Service Support Mechanism, A National Broadband Plan for Our Future, CC Docket No. 02-6, GN
Docket No. 09-51, Order, 25 FCC Rcd 18762, 18773 n.54 (2010).
1197
E-Rate Amortization Elimination Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 674-75, paras. 8-9.
1198
FCC, WCB, Report on Promoting Broadband Internet Access Service for Veterans, Pursuant to the Repack
Airwaves Yielding Better Access for Users of Modern Services Act of 2018 (WCB 2019),
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-357270A1.pdf (Veterans Broadband Access Report).
1199
Id. at 5-11.
1200
Id. at 10, 12-13.
1201
See generally Digital Opportunity Data Collection Second Order and Third Further Notice; Digital Opportunity
Data Collection Order and Second Further Notice.
214
Fabric.1202 The Commission also sought comment on several narrow issues relating to implementing the
challenge and verification processes for coverage data, implementing the Broadband Serviceable Location
Fabric, and certain other specific requirements of the Broadband DATA Act outside the scope of the
Digital Opportunity Data Collection Order.
3. Satellite
404. On August 1, 2019, the Commission adopted rules to facilitate the deployment of small
satellites.1203 The Commission made available an optional, alternative streamlined licensing procedure for
qualifying small satellite applicants, with an easier application process, a lower application fee, and a
generally shorter timeline for review than previously available. With the “part 25 streamlined small
satellite process,” the Commission limited the regulatory burdens borne by small satellite applicants while
promoting orbital debris mitigation and efficient use of spectrum.
405. On September 26, 2019, the Commission’s DBS rules were updated for the first time in
over a decade. 1204
The Commission lifted the “freeze” on new DBS applications imposed in 2005,
adopted a first-come, first-served processing procedure for DBS applications and aligned DBS rules with
streamlined requirements recently adopted for GSO FSS satellite networks.1205
406. On April 24, 2020, the Commission comprehensively updated the Commission’s rules
regarding orbital debris mitigation.1206 The updated regulations were designed to ensure that the
Commission’s actions concerning radio communications, including licensing U.S. spacecraft and granting
access to the U.S. market for non-U.S. spacecraft, mitigate the growth of orbital debris, while at the same
time not creating undue regulatory obstacles to new satellite ventures.
407. On May 13, 2020, the Commission adopted rules expanding the scope of operations
available with Earth Stations in Motion (ESIMs).1207 The Commission extended licensing rules for
ESIMs that operate with GSO FSS space stations to additional frequency bands available for blanket
licensing of earth stations at fixed locations. The Commission also adopted rules enabling the licensing
of ESIMs with NGSO FSS space stations based on the regulatory framework adopted for ESIM
communications with GSO FSS networks.
408. On November 18, 2020, the Commission further streamlined its rules governing satellite
services by more closely aligning the licensing processes for space stations and earth stations.1208 The
Commission created an optional, unified license framework to authorize the blanket-licensed earth
stations and space stations in a satellite system under a single license.1209 The Commission also
1202
Digital Opportunity Data Collection Order and Second Further Notice, 35 FCC Rcd at 7664-96, paras. 9-86.
1203
10378, para. 2 (2019) (Small Satellites Report and Order).
1204
Amendment of the Commission’s Policies and Rules for Processing Applications in the Direct Broadcast
Satellite Service, Report and Order, 34 FCC Rcd 9014, 9014, para. 1 (2019).
1205
See id. at 9016-17, 9018, 9021, 9024, paras. 8, 14, 20, 30.
1206
Orbital Debris Report and Order and FNPRM, 35 FCC Rcd at 4157, para. 1.
Amendment of Parts 2 and 25 of the Commission’s Rules to Facilitate the Use of Earth Stations in Motion
1207
Communicating with Geostationary Orbit Space Stations in Frequency Bands Allocated to the Fixed Satellite
Service; Facilitating the Communications of Earth Stations in Motion with Non-Geostationary Orbit Space Stations,
IB Docket Nos. 17-95 and 18-315, Second Report and Order, Report and Order, and Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, 35 FCC Rcd 5137, 5139, para. 5 (2020) (ESIMs Report and Order and FNPRM).
1208
Further Streamlining Part 25 Rules Governing Satellite Services, IB Docket No. 18-314, Report and Order, FCC
20-159 (Nov. 19, 2020).
1209
Id. at 6-13, paras. 15-36.
215
harmonized the build-out requirements for earth stations and space stations and eliminated unnecessary
reporting rules to reduce regulatory burdens and provide additional operational flexibility.1210
409. Over the past two years, the Commission has taken significant steps to enhance
competition and encourage deployment of communications services in the video and audio markets.
First, the Commission has an ongoing review to modernize the regulations that apply to media outlets and
eliminate those that are outdated. To date, this Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative has resulted
in over 25 orders, several of which are summarized below. Second, the Commission also adopted rules to
allow broadcast television stations to voluntarily transition to the next-generation broadcast standard,
ATSC 3.0. Third, to address issues on remand from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the
Commission adopted rules to reduce local franchising barriers to cable television and broadband
deployment. Fourth, the Commission found that a LEC-affiliated video programmer meets the statutory
test for effective competition to a cable operator, and exempted that cable operator from rate regulation.
Fifth, the Commission has continued to adopt rules to revitalize AM broadcasting. And finally, the
Commission adopted rules to streamline and improve the FM translator interference complaint and
resolution process.
410. Modifying or Eliminating Unnecessary Regulations. In 2017, the Commission began an
effort to modernize its regulations affecting media outlets by eliminating or modifying a number of
obsolete, burdensome, or outmoded rules, thereby lowering barriers to entry and enhancing
competition.1211 The Commission’s work to “modernize [its] regulations and reduce unnecessary
requirements that no longer serve the public interest”1212 has continued since the 2018 Communications
Marketplace Report.
411. The Commission took a number of steps to modernize regulations applicable to broadcast
licensees. For example, the Commission eliminated rules requiring broadcasters to post and maintain
broadcast licenses and related information in specific locations, such as the station transmitter site or
control point.1213 The Commission also eliminated the requirement that broadcast television and radio
stations file FCC Form 397 - Broadcast EEO Mid-Term Report.1214 In addition, the Commission revised
its broadcast local public notice rules “to simplify broadcasters’ local public notice obligations in a
manner that reduces costs and burdens, while facilitating robust public participation in the broadcast
licensing process.”1215 Further, by a March 2019 Report and Order, the Commission adopted streamlined
procedures for reauthorizing television station satellite status when the license of a television satellite
station is assigned or transferred,1216 and in July 2019, the Commission modernized its children’s
1210
Id. at 13-22, paras. 37-65.
1211
Commission Launches Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative, MB Docket No. 17-105, Public Notice, 32
FCC Rcd 4406 (2017).
1212
Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative; Revisions to Cable Television Rate Regulations et al., MB Docket
Nos. 17-105, 02-144, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Report and Order, 33 FCC Rcd 10549, 10550,
para. 1 (2018) (Cable Rate Regulations Further Notice).
Amendment of Parts 1, 5, 73, and 74 of the Commission’s Rules Regarding Posting of Station Licenses and
1213
Related Information et al., MB Docket No. 18-21, Report and Order, 33 FCC Rcd 11876 (2018).
1214
Elimination of Obligation to File Broadcast Mid-Term Report (Form 397) Under Section 73.2080(f)(2) et al.,
MB Docket No. 18-23, Report and Order, 34 FCC Rcd 668 (2019). The Commission held that it could rely on
information already available in the online public file to carry out the statutorily required review of broadcast
stations’ employment practices at the mid-point of their license terms. Id. at 670-71, para. 6.
1215
Amendment of Section 73.3580 of the Commission’s Rules Regarding Public Notice of the Filing of Applications
et al., MB Docket No. 17-264, Second Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd 5094, 5094-95, para. 1 (2020).
1216
Streamlined Reauthorization Procedures for Assigned or Transferred Television Satellite Stations et al., MB
Docket No. 18-63, Report and Order, 34 FCC Rcd 1539 (2019).
216
television programming rules, granting broadcasters additional scheduling flexibility, allowing

broadcasters to offer more diverse and innovative educational programming, and relieving unnecessary
burdens.1217 The Commission also eliminated its radio duplication rule, which restricted the duplication
of programming on commonly owned broadcast radio stations operating in the same service (AM or FM)
and geographic area.1218
412. The Commission’s modernization efforts also focused on outdated or unnecessary rules
related to cable operators and other MVPDs. For example, the Commission eliminated rules requiring
cable operators make available at various locations a listing of the cable television channels that each
cable system delivers to its subscribers.1219 The Commission also adopted several updates and
improvements to its leased access rules,1220 including modifying the leased access rate formula to reflect
changes that have occurred in the last 20 years, while alleviating burdens on cable operators.1221 In
addition, the Commission modernized its rules to allow required notices between MVPDs and
broadcasters to be delivered electronically,1222 as well as eliminated the requirement that cable operators
maintain certain records regarding ownership and carriage of video programming services.1223 The
Commission also amended its rules requiring cable operators to provide notice to subscribers regarding
service or rate changes in order to make consumer notices more meaningful and accurate, reduce
consumer confusion, and better ensure that subscribers receive the information they need to make
informed choices about their service options.1224
413. Next Generation Television Standard. In November 2017, the Commission adopted an
Order authorizing television stations to use the new Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC)
3.0 broadcast transmission standard and set forth operational requirements, MVPD carriage rights, public
interest obligations, and technical standards.1225 In June 2020, the Commission released (1) a Second
Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration providing guidance for ATSC 3.0 television broadcasters
seeking a waiver of the Commission’s local simulcasting rules and clarifying that a Next Gen TV
station’s “significantly viewed” status does not change when it moves its ATSC 1.0 simulcast channel to
a temporary host facility,1226 and (2) a Declaratory Ruling clarifying that the Commission’s broadcast
ownership rules do not apply to the lease of broadcast spectrum to provide ancillary and supplementary
1217
Children’s Television Programming Rules et al., MB Docket No. 18-202, Report and Order and Further Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking, 34 FCC Rcd 5822 (2019).
Amendment of Section 73.3556 of the Commission’s Rules Regarding Duplication of Programming on
1218
Commonly Owned Radio Stations et al., MB Docket No. 19-310, Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd 8383 (2020).
Channel Lineup Requirements – Sections 76.1705 and 76.1700(a)(4) et al., MB Docket No. 18-92, Report and
1219
Order, 34 FCC Rcd 2636, 2636 para. 1 (2019). The Commission concluded that the requirements were unnecessary
because channel lineups are readily available to consumers through a variety of other means. See generally id.
1220
Leased Commercial Access et al., MB Docket No. 07-42, Report and Order and Second Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, 34 FCC Rcd 4934 (2019).
1221
Leased Commercial Access et al., MB Docket No. 07-42, Second Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd 7589 (2020).
1222
Electronic Delivery of Notices to Broadcast Television Stations et al., MB Docket No. 19-165, Report and
Order, 35 FCC Rcd 857 (2020).
1223
Amendment of Commission Rule Requiring Records of Cable Operator Interests in Video Programming et al.,
MB Docket No. 20-35, Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd 11172 (2020).
1224
Cable Service Change Notifications et al., MB Docket No. 19-347, Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd 11052
(2020).
Authorizing Permissive Use of the “Next Generation” Broadcast Television Standard, GN Docket No. 16-142,
1225
Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 32 FCC Rcd 9930 (2017) (Next Gen TV Order).
1226
Authorizing Permissive Use of the “Next Generation” Broadcast Television Standard, GN Docket No. 16-142,
Second Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, 35 FCC Rcd 6793, 6794, 6797-6807, 6810-11, paras. 1, 9-
28, 34-37 (2020).
217
services.1227 In addition, as discussed further in section VI.C. below, the Commission is continuing to
consider changes to its rules related to digital broadcast television to facilitate the provision of next
generation television services.
414. Local Franchising Issues. On August 2, 2019, the Commission released a Third Report
and Order addressing how local franchising authorities (LFAs) may regulate incumbent cable operators
and cable television services, with specific focus on issues remanded from the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.1228 The Order held that: (1) cable-related, “in-kind” contributions required
by a cable franchise agreement are franchise fees subject to the statutory five-percent cap in section 622
of the Act; (2) LFAs may not regulate the provision of most non-cable services, including broadband
Internet access service, offered over a cable system by an incumbent cable operator; (3) the Act preempts
any state or local regulation of a cable operator’s non-cable services that would impose obligations on
franchised cable operators beyond what Title VI of the Act allows; and (4) Commission requirements that
concern LFA regulation of cable operators should apply to both state-level franchising actions and state
regulations that impose requirements on local franchising.1229
415. LEC-Affiliated OVD Effective Competition. An October 2019 Commission decision
found for the first time that a cable system could be subject to effective competition from an LEC-
affiliated OVD.1230 The Communications Act allows LFAs to regulate MVPD rates for the basic cable
service tier and equipment only if the cable systems at issue are not subject to “effective competition.”1231
Under the statute’s “LEC Test,” a cable system is subject to effective competition in any franchise area
where:
a local exchange carrier or its affiliate (or any [MVPD] using the facilities of such carrier or its
affiliate) offers video programming services directly to subscribers by any means (other than
direct-to-home satellite services) in the franchise area of an unaffiliated cable operator which is
providing cable service in that franchise area, but only if the video programming services so
offered in that area are comparable to the video programming services provided by the
unaffiliated cable operator in that area.1232
416. In an October 2019 Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Commission found that under
the LEC Test, Charter cable systems in Kauai, Hawaii, and certain franchise areas in Massachusetts were
subject to effective competition from the AT&T TV Now OVD service, and therefore not subject to LFA
rate regulation.1233
417. AM Revitalization. The Commission’s ongoing AM Revitalization initiative aims to
“help AM broadcasters better serve the public, thereby advancing the Commission’s fundamental goals of
1227
Promoting Broadcast Internet Innovation Through ATSC 3.0, MB Docket No. 20-145, Declaratory Ruling and
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 35 FCC Rcd 5916, 5917, 5922-25, paras. 2, 13-17 (2020) (Broadcast Internet
Declaratory Ruling and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking).
1228
Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as Amended by the Cable
Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, MB Docket No. 05-311, Third Report and Order, 34
FCC Rcd 6844 (2019) (Section 621(a)(1) Third R&O), appeal pending in City of Eugene, Oregon v. FCC, No. 19-
4161 (6th Cir.). See also Montgomery County, Md. v. FCC, 863 F.3d 485 (6th Cir. 2017).
1229
Section 621(a)(1) Third R&O, 34 FCC Rcd at 6844-45, para. 1.
1230
Petition for Determination of Effective Competition in 32 Massachusetts Communities and Kauai, HI (HI0011),
MB Docket No. 18-283, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 34 FCC Rcd 10229 (2019), appeal pending in
Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Cable v. FCC, No. 19-2282 (1st Cir.) (Charter Effective
Competition Order).
1231
Id. at 10229-30, para. 1
1232
Id.; 47 U.S.C. § 543(l)(1)(D); see also 47 CFR § 76.905(b)(4) (implementing the statutory LEC Test).
1233
See generally Charter Effective Competition Order.
218
localism, competition, and diversity in broadcast media.”1234 In furtherance of this effort, the Commission
adopted a Report and Order on October 28, 2020 authorizing AM stations to adopt all-digital broadcasting
voluntarily.1235 That Order provides AM broadcasters with flexibility to adopt the best mode of all-digital
operation to meet the needs of a station’s listeners and to enhance the station’s ability to remain
competitive. 1236 The Order finds that broadcasting entirely in digital would allow AM broadcasters to
improve signal quality, signal coverage, power usage, and spectrum efficiency; offer additional services
that FM broadcasters currently offer (e.g., song and artist identification); and expand their programming
options to include music formats. 1237 These improvements in AM quality and services should allow AM
broadcasters to better compete with FM broadcasting and non-broadcast sources of audio
programming. In addition, the Commission opened two FM translator filing windows—Auctions 99 and
100—resulting in the issuance of approximately 1,700 FM translator construction permits to AM
licensees.1238 These translator facilities provide important operational flexibility for AM broadcasters to
simulcast their signal on the FM band, thereby allowing them to compete more effectively with higher
audio quality services.1239
418. FM Translator Interference. In May 2019, the Commission adopted a Report and Order
that streamlines and improves the FM translator interference complaint and resolution process.1240 The
streamlined rules are designed to enhance the ability of FM broadcasters to compete in the audio
marketplace by limiting or avoiding protracted and contentious interference disputes, providing translator
licensees additional investment certainty and flexibility to remediate interference, and allowing for earlier
and expedited resolution of interference complaints.1241
D. Efforts To Ensure and Improve Connectivity During the COVID-19 Pandemic
419. During the COVID-19 pandemic, fixed and mobile connectivity is more important than
ever. Americans rely on broadband services to work remotely, access telehealth, and stay connected with
loved ones. As a result, demand for broadband services has increased.1242 CTIA, for example, reports
that among the top wireless providers, for non-holiday Mondays from March 23, 2020 through July 27,
2020, the upper bound of the increase in weekly voice network use relative to the average pre-pandemic
Monday was between 6.7% and 24.3%.1243 Similarly, the upper bound of the increase in data use on
1234
Revitalization of the AM Radio Service, MB Docket No. 13-249, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 28 FCC Rcd
15221, 15222, para. 1 (2013).
1235
All-Digital AM Broadcasting, MB Docket No. 19-311, Report and Order, FCC 20-154 (Oct. 28, 2020).
1236
See generally id.
1237
Id. at 2-3, 6-9, paras. 3, 8-13.
1238
This figure is based on analysis of CDBS data by Commission staff. See also Paul McLane, AM Translator CPs
Get Some Deadline Relief, Radio World (Sept. 10, 2020), https://www.radioworld.com/news-and-
business/headlines/am-translator-cps-get-some-deadline-relief.
1239
See, e.g., Amendment of Service and Eligibility Rules for FM Broadcast Translator Stations, MB Docket No. 07-
172, Report and Order, 24 FCC Rcd 9642 (2009).
1240
Amendment of Part 74 of the Commission’s Rules Regarding FM Translator Interference, MB Docket No. 18-
119, Report and Order, 34 FCC Rcd 3457 (2019) (FM Translator Interference R&O); Press Release, FCC, FCC
Improves Translator Interference Complaint and Resolution Process (May 9, 2019),
1241
FM Translator Interference R&O, 34 FCC Rcd at 3457-58, para. 1.
1242
CTIA, The Wireless Industry Responds to COVID-19, https://www.ctia.org/covid-19 (last visited Oct. 27, 2020)
(CTIA COVID-19 Website).
1243
Specifically, the figures are based on the highest reported percentage increase in voice minutes among the top
four providers for each Monday from March 23, 2020 through July 27, 2020, as compared to the average of
Mondays from February 24, 2020 to March 16, 2020. CTIA COVID-19 Website.
219
wireless networks was between 6.7% and 28.4% relative to pre-pandemic levels over the same time
period.1244
420. Similarly, due to the pandemic, an estimated 124,000 U.S. K-12 schools closed at the end
of March 2020, which impacted over 55 million students.1245 The number of school closures continued to
evolve during the 2020-2021 school-year. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) estimates that in May
2020 approximately 35% of workers (or 55.4 million of the 158.2 million labor force) teleworked
specifically because of the pandemic.1246 Multiple sources have reported how the pandemic has impacted
traffic on America’s networks, with the estimates of an increase ranging between 20% and 40%.1247
421. As students began distance learning and adults began teleworking more consistently,
internet connection, bandwidth capability, and network capacity have become essential. The Commission
has taken many actions to ensure that Americans remain connected throughout the pandemic, many of
which are outlined in Chairman Pai’s Keep Americans Connected Initiative.1248
422. Keep Americans Connected Initiative. Chairman Pai announced the Keep Americans
Connected Initiative on March 13, 2020.1249 To ensure that Americans did not lose their broadband or
telephone connectivity as a result of the exceptional circumstances brought about by the pandemic,
Chairman Pai specifically asked broadband and telephone service providers and trade associations to take
the Keep Americans Connected Pledge.1250 More than 800 companies and associations signed the pledge,
committing to: (1) not terminate service to any residential or small business customers because of their
inability to pay their bills due to the disruptions caused by the coronavirus pandemic; (2) waive any late
fees that any residential or small business customers incur because of their economic circumstances
related to the coronavirus pandemic; and (3) open its Wi-Fi hotspots to any American who needs them.1251
Chairman Pai also urged companies with low-income broadband programs to expand and improve them,
and those without them to adopt such programs. In addition, Chairman Pai called on broadband providers
to relax their data usage limits in appropriate circumstances and take steps to promote remote learning and
telehealth.1252
423. This pledge, intended to provide Americans relief in the early days of the COVID-19
pandemic, expired on June 30, 2020, to allow companies, especially smaller communications companies,
1244
Similar to the voice figures, the numbers represent the highest reported percentage increase in data usage
reported among the top four providers relative to the average data use on Mondays from February 24, 2020 to March
16, 2020. CTIA COVID-19 Website.
1245
Education Week, Map: Coronavirus and School Closures in 2019-2020(May 15, 2020),
https://www.edweek.org/ew/section/multimedia/map-coronavirus-and-school-closures.html.
1246
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Supplemental Data Measuring the Effects of Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic on
the Labor Market, https://www.bls.gov/cps/effects-of-the-coronavirus-covid-19-pandemic.htm (last visited Oct. 27,
2020).
1247
Doug Brake, Lessons from the Pandemic: Broadband Policy After Covid-19, Information Technology &
Innovation Foundation (July 13, 2020), https://itif.org/publications/2020/07/13/lessons-pandemic-broadband-policy-
after-covid-19.
1248
FCC, Keep Americans Connected, https://www.fcc.gov/keep-americans-connected (last visited Oct. 27, 2020)
(Keep Americans Connected Website).
1249
Press Release, FCC, Chairman Pai Launches the Keep Americans Connected Pledge (Mar. 13, 2020);
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-363033A1.pdf (Keep Americans Connected Pledge Launch
Announcement).
1250
Id.
1251
Id.; Keep Americans Connected Website.
1252
Keep Americans Connected Pledge Launch Announcement at 2.
220
to continue to fund their operations.1253 In preparation for this expiration, Chairman Pai called on broadband
and telecommunications service providers to take steps to help ensure that American consumers and small
businesses remain connected after June 30, 2020, specifically urging companies to develop payment plans
and deferred payment arrangements.1254
424. To help wireless service providers meet increased consumer demand for broadband
during the coronavirus pandemic, the Commission issued more than 200 grants of special temporary
authority to use additional spectrum to wireless service providers.1255 Further, many providers have
implemented policies that go beyond the Keep Americans Connected Pledge and address the challenges
that Americans face during the COVID-19 pandemic.1256 In a few noteworthy cases, mobile wireless
service providers have increased hotspot data allotments, added new low cost plans, and provided free
wireless data to students for educational purposes.1257
425. Many fixed broadband service providers have created specific COVID-19 policies aimed
at keeping consumers connected.1258 Comcast, for example, committed to not disconnect services to
individuals, waived late fees, maintained free Wi-Fi hotspots, paused data caps, and offered two months
free service for new customers in their internet essentials program.1259 AT&T removed data overage
charges to home internet services, upgraded some 10 Mbps packages to 25 Mbps, and added households
that participate in the National School Lunch Program and Head Start to the AT&T Access program.1260
Verizon announced it would waive activation fees for new lines and would forego data caps due to the
pandemic, and launched a new internet package aimed specifically at lower-income consumers and
offered two months free to Lifeline subscribers.1261 Frontier committed to providing service without data
1253
See Press Release, FCC, Chairman Pai Extends Keep Americans Connected Pledge Through End of June Due to
Ongoing COVID-19 Pandemic (Apr. 30, 2020), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-364090A1.pdf; Press
Release, FCC, FCC Chairman Pai Urges Congress to Help Consumers Stay Connected Following End of Keep
Americans Connected Pledge on June 30 (June 19, 2020), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-
365040A1.pdf (June 19 Keep America Connected Press Release).
1254
June 19 Keep America Connected Press Release at 1.
1255
See, e.g., Application of Alyrica Networks, Inc., ULS File No. 0009032423 (granted Apr. 24, 2020); Application
of Zirkel Wireless, LLC, ULS File No. 0009031132 (granted May 6, 2020); Application of WireFree
Communications, Inc., ULS File No. 0009264146 (granted Nov. 4, 2020).
1256
FCC, Companies Have Gone Above and Beyond the Call to Keep Americans Connected During Pandemic,
https://www.fcc.gov/companies-have-gone-above-and-beyond-call-keep-americans-connected-during-pandemic
(last visited Oct. 27, 2020) (FCC Carrier Response Website).
1257
FCC Carrier Response Website.
1258
Many of these firms have created COVID-19 policies aimed at improving their networks, helping first
responders and communities, aiding educational needs, supporting employees, and helping their business clients.
However, this paragraph only discusses the companies’ efforts to help consumers of residential fixed services.
1259
Press Release, Comcast, Comcast Extends Comprehensive COVID-19 Response Polices to June 30 (Apr. 27,
2020), https://corporate.comcast.com/press/releases/comcast-extends-comprehensive-covid-19-response-policies-to-
june-30; see also Letter from Gregory Coutros, Associate Corporate Counsel, Regulatory Affairs, Hughes Network
Systems, LLC, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 20-269 at 2 (filed Nov. 3, 2020) (stating that
“Hughes has supported students in Tatums, OK, a small rural town where previously only two homes had broadband
internet access, by providing [satellite] broadband services through a community hub to ensure that students in the
town would be able to continue their education remotely without disruptions during the pandemic”).
1260
Press Release, AT&T, COVID-19: Our Response, (Aug. 26, 2020), https://about.att.com/pages/COVID-
19.html#consumers.
1261
Press Release, Verizon, Covid Response Customers, https://www.verizon.com/about/news/covid-response-
customers (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).
221
caps throughout the pandemic.1262 Charter offered free internet packages for students for up to 60 days.1263
CenturyLink committed to not charge late fees and not disconnect residential customers through June 30,
2020, removed data caps until August 1, 2020, and offered new payment plans for a subset of its customer
base.1264 In addition, many other fixed broadband service providers have also taken measures to protect
consumers during the pandemic.1265
426. COVID-19 Telehealth Program. One of the most critical efforts of the Commission’s
pandemic response has been the COVID-19 Telehealth Program. The Commission established the
COVID-19 Telehealth Program, pursuant to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security
(CARES) Act, which was signed into law on March 27, 2020.1266 Under this standalone initiative, the
Commission provided $200 million “to support efforts of health care providers to address coronavirus by
providing telecommunications services, information services, and devices necessary to enable the
provision of telehealth services” during the pendency of the COVID-19 pandemic.1267 On April 13, 2020,
the Commission began accepting applications and made awards on a rolling basis until the $200 million
of funding authorized by Congress was exhausted. On July 8, 2020, the Commission announced the final
set of approved applications.1268 In all, the Commission approved 539 applications, including more than
three thousand health care locations across 49 states plus the District of Columbia and Guam.1269 The
applicants that were awarded funding are able to seek reimbursement from the Commission for eligible
services and devices.
427. Regulatory Flexibility for Competitive Eligible Telecommunications Carriers. On March
31, 2020, the Wireline Competition Bureau waived geographic limitations on where certain carriers,
known as competitive ETCs, can spend legacy high-cost universal service support.1270 Specifically,
competitive ETCs, who mostly provide mobile wireless service, receive approximately $382 million each
year in legacy but are required to spend that support only in specific geographic service areas.1271 The
Order waived that strict geographic requirement to allow affiliated competitive ETCs to spend the
universal service support in any affiliated ETC’s designated service area in order to allow them to respond
to the pandemic by spending funds where they are needed most to ensure that Americans using these
networks can stay connected.1272
1262
Press Release, Karen Quach, Frontier, COVID-19: What Frontier Is Doing to Support Customers (Apr. 28,
2020) https://go.frontier.com/media-center/official-covid-19-response/.
1263
Press Release, Charter Communications, COVID-19 Update: Charter Continues to Keep Customers Connected
(June 3, 2020), https://corporate.charter.com/newsroom/covid-19-update-charter-continues-to-keep-customers-
connected.
1264
Press Release, CenturyLink, COVID-19 Support, https://news.centurylink.com/covid-19-faqs (last visited Oct.
27, 2020).
See, e.g., Letter from Jonathan Spalter, President and CEO, USTelecom – The Broadband Association to the
1265
Hon. Roger Wicker, et al., U.S. Senate (Mar. 13, 2020), https://www.ustelecom.org/wp-
content/uploads/2020/03/USTelecom-COVID-19-Network-Letter-to-Congress.pdf.
1266
Pub. L. No 116-136, 134 Stat. 281.
1267
Promoting Telehealth for Low-Income Consumers Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3366, para 2.
1268
Press Release, FCC, FCC Approves Final Set of COVID-19 Telehealth Program Applications (July 8, 2020),
1269
Press Release, FCC, Final List of COVID-19 Telehealth Program Awardees,
https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/covid-19-telehealth-program-recipients.pdf.
1270
Connect America Fund, WC Docket No. 10-90, Order, 35 FCC Rcd 2964.
1271
Id. at para. 2.
1272
Id.
222
428. Regulatory Flexibility for Rural Health Care and E-Rate Programs. Further, the
Commission has acted during the COVID-19 pandemic to provide increased regulatory flexibility in the
Commission’s Rural Health Care and E-Rate Programs. In an effort to help ensure that healthcare
providers have the resources they need to promote telehealth solutions, the Commission adopted an Order
on March 13, 2020, to fully fund all eligible Rural Health Care Program services for Funding Year 2019
with an additional $42.19 million in funding.1273 On March 18, 2020 the Wireline Competition Bureau
waived the gift rules for both the Rural Health Care and E-Rate Programs, which allowed service
providers to offer, and Rural Health Care and E-Rate Program participants to solicit and accept, improved
broadband connections or equipment for telehealth or remote learning during the COVID-19
pandemic.1274 The Bureau later extended this waiver to run through December 31, 2020.1275 On March
26, 2020, the Bureau provided additional relief to Rural Health Care Program participants by (1)
extending the RHC Program application filing window until June 30, 2020; (2) easing competitive
bidding requirements for health care providers with expiring evergreen contracts; and (3) providing an
extension of procedural deadlines, such as the response time for USAC information requests, the service
delivery deadline, the invoice filing deadline, and the deadline for appeals and requests for waiver.1276 On
September 16, 2020, the Wireline Competition Bureau’s Telecommunications Access Policy Division
waived, under certain conditions, the Rural Health Care Program invoice filing deadline for recipients of
funding year 2019 funding commitment letters, extending it to the later of March 15, 2021 or 180 days
after the issuance of the funding commitment letter by USAC.1277 On October 19, 2020, to promote the
continued widespread delivery of vital communications-based health care during the pandemic, the
Wireline Competition Bureau waived the cap on upfront payments and multi-year commitments for FY
2020 to ensure that all RHC Program requests for support could be funded in full.1278
429. On March 13, and April 1, 2020, the Wireline Competition Bureau issued various
waivers and extensions of certain E-Rate program rules and deadlines, including an extension of the FCC
Form 471 application filing deadline for funding year 2020, and extensions of other program deadlines
such as the service implementation deadline for special construction and the deadline to submit appeals
and waiver requests, respectively.1279 In addition, on March 23, 2020, the Bureau issued a reminder to
schools and libraries that are closed as a result of the pandemic that they may allow the general public to
use their E-Rate-supported Wi-Fi networks while on the school’s campus or the library’s property.1280
1273
Rural Health Care Support Mechanism, WC Docket No. 02-60, Order, 35 FCC Rcd 2659, 2659, para. 3, 2662-
63, paras. 8-9 (2020). The Order permits USAC to carry forward additional unused funds from prior years to cover
a funding gap between demand and available funding, and waives the cap on multi-year commitments and upfront
payments that would have resulted in unnecessary reductions in support for rural health care providers and their
patients. Id.
1274
See Rural Health Care Universal Service Support Mechanism; Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support
Mechanism, WC Docket No. 02-60, CC Docket No. 02-6, Order, 35 FCC Rcd 2741 (WCB 2020).
1275
See Rural Health Care Universal Service Support Mechanism; Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support
Mechanism, WC Docket No. 02-60, CC Docket No. 02-6, Order, 35 FCC Rcd 9416 (WCB 2020).
1276
See Rural Health Care Support Mechanism, WC Docket No. 02-60, Order, 35 FCC Rcd 2922, 2922, para. 1
(WCB 2020).
1277
Rural Health Care Support Mechanism, WC Docket No. 02-60, Order, 35 FCC Rcd 10356 (WCB/TAPD 2020).
1278
Rural Health Care Support Mechanism, WC Docket No. 02-60, Order, 35 FCC Rcd 11696 (WCB 2020 ).
1279
Wireline Competition Bureau Directs USAC to Extend E-Rate Application Filing Window for Funding Year
2020 Due to Potential Coronavirus Disruptions, CC Docket No. 02-6, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 2089 (2020)
(extending the deadline from March 25, 2020 to April 29, 2020); Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support
Mechanism, CC Docket No. 02-6, Order, 35 FCC Rcd 2978 (WCB 2020).
1280
Wireline Competition Bureau Confirms that Community Use of E-Rate-Supported Wi-Fi Networks Is Permitted
During School and Library Closures Due to COVID-19 Pandemic, WC Docket Nos. 02-6, 13-184, Public Notice,
35 FCC Rcd 2879 (WCB 2020).
223
And on September 16, 2020, the Bureau announced the opening of a second funding year 2020 FCC
Form 471 application filing window to allow schools to request additional E-Rate funding to address
increased on-campus bandwidth needs resulting from the pandemic.1281
430. Regulatory Flexibility for Lifeline Program. Beginning on March 17, 2020, the Wireline
Competition Bureau temporarily waived the Lifeline program’s annual recertification and reverification
requirements to protect Lifeline program participants potentially affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.1282
In addition, on March 30, 2020, the Bureau also waived the non-usage rules and general de-enrollment
rules to prevent Lifeline subscribers from being involuntary de-enrolled during the pandemic1283 and, on
April 29, 2020, eased documentation requirements for subscribers demonstrating eligibility based on
income to facilitate the application process for individuals who lost their employment during the
pandemic.1284 Finally, on June 1, 2020, the Bureau streamlined the enrollment process for subscribers
residing on rural Tribal lands by enabling carriers to begin providing service to those subscribers prior to
the submission of all required documentation.1285 In August 2020, these waivers were initially extended
through November 30, 20201286 and, in November 2020, they were subsequently extended through
February 28, 2021.1287
431. On November 16, 2020, the Bureau also waived the program rules updating the minimum
service standard for mobile broadband, resulting in a standard of 4.5 GB/month for the next year.1288
Without this waiver, the standard would have increased to 11.75 GB/month on December 1, 2020.1289
The Bureau found that preventing an almost fourfold increase in the standard while allowing a moderate
increase appropriately balances the program’s goals of accessibility and affordability, particularly given
consumers’ increased reliance on broadband during the COVID-19 pandemic.1290
432. In addition to these waivers, since the beginning of the pandemic the Commission has
partnered with the Department of Health and Human Services (including the Administration for Children
and Families, the Administration for Community Living, the Agency for Healthcare Research and
Quality, the Health Resources and Services Administration, the Indian Health Service, the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration), the Department of Veterans Affairs (including the Veterans Health Administration’s
Homeless Programs Office and Office of Connected Care), the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (including the Office of Field Policy and Management, the Office of Housing, and the
Office of Public and Indian Housing), the Department of Agriculture, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the
Social Security Administration, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration, the National Institute for Children’s Health
Quality, and the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners to promote Lifeline
1281
Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism, CC Docket No. 02-6, Order, 35 FCC Rcd 10347
(WCB 2020). The window opened on September 21, 2020 and closed on October 16, 2020. See USAC, Special
Edition News Brief, FY2020 Second Application Filing Window Opens September 21, 2020 (Sept. 21, 2020),
https://apps.usac.org/sl/tools/news-briefs/preview.aspx?id=972.
1282
Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization, Order, 35 FCC Rcd 2729 (WCB 2020).
1283
1284
1285
1286
1287
Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization, Order, DA 20-1357 (WCB Nov. 16, 2020).
1288
Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization, Order, DA 20-1358 (WCB Nov. 16, 2020).
1289
Id. at para. 7.
1290
Id. at paras. 2, 12.
224
awareness during the pandemic to ensure that consumers who are newly eligible for the program have the
information and resources they need to apply.
VI. COMMISSION AGENDA TO FURTHER ENCOURAGE INVESTMENT,
INNOVATION, DEPLOYMENT, AND COMPETITION
433. RAY BAUM’S Act of 2018 also requires the Commission to describe the agenda of the
Commission for the next 2-year period for addressing challenges and opportunities in the communications
marketplace.1291
434. Spectrum. Incumbent service providers need additional spectrum to increase their
coverage or capacity, while new entrants need access to spectrum to enter a geographic area. In addition,
average data usage per connection has been substantially increasing in recent years, and this growth is
expected to continue, in turn increasing service providers’ need for additional spectrum. Forward
thinking spectrum policy is critical for next generation wireless networks. To spur greater investment in
the mobile wireless industry, the Commission will continue to make available a significant amount of
additional spectrum across a range of low-, mid-, and high-band frequencies to ensure a competitive
mobile wireless services marketplace.
435. Mid-band spectrum is essential for 5G buildout due to its desirable coverage, capacity,
and propagation characteristics.1292 The Commission’s auction of flexible-use service licenses in the 3.7-
3.98 GHz band for next-generation wireless services (Auction 107 or “C-band auction”) is expected to
begin on December 8, 2020.1293 The auction will offer 5,684 new flexible-use overlay licenses for
spectrum in the C-band.1294 Repurposing of the spectrum is moving forward on an accelerated timeline.
Incumbent space station operators have committed to make available the lower 120 megahertz of the band
in 46 Partial Economic Areas (PEAs) by December 5, 2021, and the lower 120 megahertz in the
remaining PEAs, plus an additional 180 megahertz nationwide, by December 5, 2023.1295 This is another
important step towards releasing critical mid-band spectrum into the market and furthering the
deployment of 5G and other advanced spectrum-based services across the country.1296
436. In September 2020, the Commission adopted an order and notice to establish service
rules for the 3.45-3.55 GHz band to enable the Commission to make the spectrum available as quickly as
possible.1297 With this band, as well as the spectrum made available in the C-band and the 3.5 GHz band,
the Commission will continue to progress towards making a 530-megahertz swath of mid-band spectrum
available for 5G from 3.45 to 3.98 GHz. The White House stated that this auction of 100 megahertz of
mid-band spectrum could be held in December 2021 with the spectrum in use by 2022.1298 Further,
1291
See RAY BAUM’S Act of 2018.
1292
1293
C-band Auction Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd at 8406, 8409, paras. 1, 2, 9.
1294
C-band Auction Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd at 8407-08, para. 7.
1295
3.7 GHz Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 2413-14, paras. 168-170; Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
Announces Accelerated Clearing in the 3.7-4.2 GHz Band, GN Docket No. 18-122, Public Notice, DA 20-578, at 1-
2 (June 1, 2020).
1296
Auction of Flexible-Use Service Licenses in the 3.7-3.98 GHz Band for Next-Generation Wireless Services,
Comment Sought on Competitive Bidding Procedures for Auction 107, AU Docket No. 20-25, Pubic Notice, 35 FCC
Rcd 2601, 2602, para. 1 (2020).
1297
3.45-3.55 GHz Order and FNPRM at 2, paras. 2-4.
1298
RCR Wireless News, Kelly Hill, Mid-band Spectrum Infusion: 3.45-3.55 GHz Will Be Opened Up for 5G (Aug.
11, 2020), https://www.rcrwireless.com/20200811/spectrum/midband-spectrum-infusion-3-45-3-55-ghz-will-be-
opened-up-for-5g.
225
regarding mid-band spectrum, the 2.5 GHz Report and Order adopted rules to facilitate advanced wireless
services in the 2.5 GHz band─including a pre-auction priority window for Tribal Nations to apply to
obtain unassigned spectrum on rural Tribal lands that closed in September.1299
437. Regarding low-band spectrum, as part of the 900 MHz Report and Order, the
Commission established a transition mechanism based primarily on negotiations between prospective
broadband licensees and existing narrowband incumbent licensees.1300 The Report and Order states that in
2021, the Commission will evaluate the success of the 900 MHz band realignment and explore whether to
adopt an additional mechanism to transition the 900 MHz band to broadband.1301
438. In June 2020, concerning higher band spectrum, the Commission adopted a notice to seek
comment on potential rule changes to facilitate the provision of wireless backhaul for 5G, as well as the
deployment of broadband services to aircraft and ships, by taking advantage of the highly directional
characteristics of signals in the 71-76 GHz, 81-86 GHz, 92-94 GHz, and 94.1-95 GHz bands.1302 In
addition, the Commission’s notices of proposed rulemaking in the Spectrum Frontiers proceeding have
explored repurposing additional mmW bands for flexible use, including the 26 GHz (25.25-27.5 GHz), 32
GHz (31.8-33.4 GHz), 42 GHz (42-42.5 GHz), and 50 GHz (50.4-52.6 GHz) bands.1303
439. Expanding Wireless Access in Rural Areas. In October of this year, the Commission
adopted a report and order that establishes the 5G Fund for Rural America, replaces Mobility Fund Phase
II and retargets high-cost universal service support for mobile services toward deployment of 5G services,
using a multi-round reverse auction.1304 The 5G Fund would help ensure that rural Americans enjoy the
same benefits from our increasingly digital economy as their urban counterparts—more than 200 million
of whom already have access to 5G mobile broadband—and would include a special focus on
deployments that support precision agriculture.1305
440. In addition, the Commission established a new task force to advise the Commission on
policies aimed at delivering connectivity so that American agriculture producers can use and benefit from
precision agriculture.1306 Formed in June 2019, the Precision Ag Connectivity Task Force has submitted
1299
2.5 GHz Report and Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 5447, 5463-69, paras. 3, 47-65; Press Release, FCC, FCC
Announces Close of First-Ever Rural Tribal Priority Window for Spectrum (Sept. 3, 2020),
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-366657A1.pdf; see also U.S. Senate, Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation, “Oversight of the Federal Communications Commission,” Statement of Chairman Ajit
Pai, Federal Communications Commission, at 4 (June 24, 2020), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-
365131A1.pdf.
1300
900 MHz Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 5201-06, paras. 38-52.
1301
900 MHz Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 5205, para. 48.
1302
Modernizing and Expanding Access to the 70/80/90 GHz Bands, WT Docket No. 20-133, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking and Order, 35 FCC Rcd 6039 (2020).
1303
Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz For Mobile Radio Services et al., GN Docket No. 14-177, Report and
Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 31 FCC Rcd 8014 (2016); Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24
GHz For Mobile Radio Services, GN Docket No. 14-177, Third Report and Order, Memorandum Opinion and
Order, and Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 33 FCC Rcd 5576 (2018).
1304
5G Fund Report and Order at 2-3, paras. 1, 4.
1305
5G Fund NPRM and Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3996, para. 5, Statement of Chairman Ajit Pai, at 1.
1306
Press Release, FCC, Chairman Pai Announces New Task Force Focused On Connecting American Farms and
Ranches (June 17, 2019), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-358005A1.pdf (Chairman Pai Task Force
Press Release); see also FCC Announces the Establishment of the Task Force for Reviewing Connectivity and
Technology Needs of Precision Agriculture in the United States and Seeks Nominations for Membership, GN Docket
19-329, Public Notice, 34 FCC Rcd 5057 (2019) (Precision Ag Task Force Notice) (The Commission established
the Precision Ag Connectivity Task Force for an initial period of two years, and the Commission will renew the task
force every two years until the task force terminates on January 1, 2025.).
226
reports and will continue to perform all duties consistent with the Agriculture Improvement Act of
2018.1307 The task force will continue to work with the U.S. Department of Agriculture to develop policy
recommendations to promote the rapid, expanded deployment of fixed and mobile broadband Internet
access service on agricultural land.1308
441. Infrastructure. Over the past two years, as described above, the Commission has
undertaken a comprehensive review of our wireless infrastructure rules. To meet rapidly increasing
demand for wireless services and prepare our national infrastructure for 5G, the Commission will
continue to pursue an agenda to reduce regulatory impediments to help facilitate wireless infrastructure
investment and deployment. Supporting the deployment of 5G and other next-generation wireless
services through smart infrastructure policy is critical. The wireless infrastructure landscape has shifted
toward the development of 5G networks and technologies that require dense deployment of smaller
antennas across provider networks in locations closer to customers.1309
442. Data demonstrates the success of Commission policies encouraging fixed broadband
deployment and competition, with more Americans having coverage available from multiple fixed
broadband providers than ever before.1310 At the same time, the Commission has laid the groundwork for
future success through its more recent undertakings, such as the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund auction,
that started on October 29, 2020.
443. The Commission’s policymaking efforts over the next two years will continue to focus on
creating a regulatory environment that reduces barriers to investment and encourages building,
maintaining, and upgrading next-generation networks to bring the benefits of broadband to all Americans.
These efforts will aim to do so, whenever possible, through unleashing the power of competition through
light-touch regulation, such as continued examination of ex ante price regulation and tariffing.
444. The BDAC, Precision Agriculture Task Force, and Digital Opportunity Data Collection
will play important roles in the Commission’s policymaking process. The two advisory committees, as
well as their working groups, will continue to meet regularly and form recommendations for accelerating
deployment. And the substantially improved data made available through the Digital Opportunity Data
Collection will allow the Commission to better monitor the effectiveness of current policies in advancing
the goals of universal service and closing the digital divide, informing current and future proceedings.
The Commission will also use this data, as well as currently-available data, to continue to monitor the
effects of its deregulatory policies on competition, and will continue to look for further opportunities to
spur competition.
445. With respect to satellite, the Commission plans further revisions to its orbital debris
mitigation requirements.1311 In a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission made
proposals and sought comment on additional rule updates related to mitigating orbital debris, including
addressing liability issues and economic incentives.1312.
1307
Precision Ag Task Force Notice, 34 FCC Rcd at 5057-58; Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, Pub. L. No.
115-334, 132 Stat. 4490, §§ 12511(b)(3)(A), (b)(5).
1308
Chairman Pai Task Force Press Release at 1.
1309
OTARD Notice, 34 FCC Rcd at 2697, para. 7.
1310
See supra section III.A.
1311
Orbital Debris Report and Order and FNPRM, 35 FCC Rcd at 4226-49, paras. 154-205.
1312
See id. at 4157, para. 1 (describing the FNPRM as addressing probability of accidental explosions, collision risk
for multi-satellite systems, maneuverability requirements, casualty risk, indemnification, and performance bonds
tied to successful spacecraft disposal).
227

446. Pursuant to its ongoing Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative, the Commission,
as noted above, has issued over 25 orders designed to reduce burdens on licensees, while simultaneously
enhancing competition and service to the public. The Commission will continue its efforts to modernize
its regulations by eliminating or modifying obsolete, burdensome, or outmoded rules, including by
completing previously initiated rulemakings.1313
447. In December 2018, the Commission commenced its quadrennial review of its broadcast
ownership rules, asking whether these rules remain necessary in the public interest as the result of
competition and whether to retain, modify, or eliminate any of the rules in light of dramatic changes in the
media marketplace in recent years.1314 In addition, judicial review of the Commission’s prior quadrennial
review of its media ownership rules remains ongoing as the Supreme Court recently granted petitions for
writ of certiorari and designated time for oral argument on a date to be determined.1315 A related
rulemaking proceeding examines the national television audience reach cap, which prohibits a single
entity from owning television stations that collectively reach more than 39% of the total nationwide
audience.1316
448. Further, the Commission expects to continue its efforts to promote diversity of ownership
in the broadcast industry. To that end, the Advisory Committee on Diversity and Digital Empowerment
(Committee), which was re-charted by Chairman Pai in July 2019 for a second two-year term,1317 seeks to
provide advice and recommendations to the Commission regarding how to empower disadvantaged
communities and accelerate the entry of small businesses, including those owned by women and
minorities, into the media, digital news and information, and audio and video programming industries.
Through its working groups,1318 the Committee intends to host several events, including workshops and
symposiums aimed at addressing ways to access the capital necessary to enter and compete in the media
and communications industries. The Committee also intends to make recommendations to the
Commission regarding issues such as best practices for attracting and retaining diverse applicants in the
tech, media, and communications fields; efforts to increase the participation of minorities and women in
broadcasting and related industry sectors; and ways to close the digital divide by providing access and
services to unserved and underserved communities.
1313
For example, in October 2018, the Commission issued a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing
further modifications to update the Commission’s cable rate regulation rules, which are more than 25 years old, to
better reflect the current video market. See Cable Rate Regulations Further Notice.
See generally 2018 Quadrennial Regulatory Review – Review of the Commission’s Broadcast Ownership Rules
1314
and Other Rules Adopted Pursuant to Section 202 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, MB Docket No. 18-349,
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 33 FCC Rcd 12111 (2018) (2018 Quadrennial Review NPRM). Three of the
Commission’s broadcast ownership rules are under review in this proceeding.
1315
On September 23, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated and remanded several
Commission decisions related to the Commission’s 2014 Quadrennial Review of its broadcast ownership rules.
Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC, 939 F.3d 567 (3rd Cir. 2019), petition for rehearing en banc denied. The court
issued its mandate on November 29, 2019. Letter from Patricia S. Dodszuweit, Clerk, Prometheus Radio Project v.
FCC, Nos. 17-1107 et al. (3rd Cir. Nov. 29, 2019). On October 2, 2020, the United States Supreme Court granted
the United States’ and FCC’s writ of certiorari seeking review of the Third Circuit’s decision. Association of
Broadcasters v. Prometheus Radio Project, No. 19-1241, 2020 WL 5847133 (U.S. Oct. 2, 2020).
Amendment of Section 73.3555(e) of the Commission’s Rules, National Television Multiple Ownership Rule, MB
1316
Docket No. 17-138, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 32 FCC Rcd 10785 (2017).
1317
See FCC Seeks Nominations for Membership on Advisory Committee on Diversity and Digital Empowerment,
Public Notice, 34 FCC Rcd 4791 (2019).
1318
See, e.g., FCC Announces Membership and Working Group Chairs for the Advisory Committee on Diversity and
Digital Empowerment, GN Docket No. 17-208, Public Notice, 34 FCC Rcd 9566 (2019).
228
449. With respect to television broadcast stations, the Commission continues to facilitate the
voluntary adoption of a new transmission standard, ATSC 3.0, that is intended to allow broadcasters to
provide additional programming and innovative services to consumers, thereby enhancing competition in
the video marketplace.1319 Related issues include potential modifications to the Commission’s technical
rules to allow ATSC 3.0 licensees to make effective use of distributed transmission system
technologies,1320 eliminating potential regulatory barriers to deployment of ancillary and supplementary
services, and considering whether any changes or clarifications are needed to the Commission’s rules to
support the new ATSC 3.0 technological capability.1321
450. Efforts to enhance competition and improve public service in the audio marketplace
continue as well. As noted above, to help AM radio stations better compete in the marketplace, the
Commission recently authorized AM stations to adopt all-digital broadcasting voluntarily. With regard to
the FM radio service, the Commission recently updated the Commission’s technical rules for the low
power FM service and rules for processing applications for new noncommercial educational FM stations
and low power FM stations. These rule changes will afford LPFM stations greater flexibility to serve
listeners. In addition, the Commission expects to open filing windows for new full service NCE FM and
for LPFM station applications in the near future, which will provide the first new licensing opportunities
for noncommercial stations in more than ten years. The Commission also expects to conduct an auction
of new, vacant FM allotments,1322 providing opportunities for new entities to enter the commercial radio
marketplace and for existing licensees to augment their broadcast portfolios.
VII. PROCEDURAL MATTERS
451. This Communications Marketplace Report is issued pursuant to section 401 of the
Repack Airwaves Yielding Better Access for Users of Modern Services Act of 2018 (codified at 47
U.S.C. § 163), section 103(b) of the Broadband Data Improvement Act (codified at 47 U.S.C. § 1303(b),
and section 623(k) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (codified at 47 U.S.C. § 543(k).
452. IT IS ORDERED that this Communications Marketplace Report shall be published on
the website of the Federal Communications Commission and that the Office of Legislative Affairs shall
submit copies of this Communications Marketplace Report to the Committee on Energy and Commerce
of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate.
453. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the proceeding in GN Docket No. 20-60 is
TERMINATED.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
1319
Next Gen TV Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 9931-33, para. 2.
1320
Rules Governing The Use of Distributed Transmission System Technologies, MB Docket No. 20-74, Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, 35 FCC Rcd 3330 (2020).
1321
Broadcast Internet Declaratory Ruling and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 35 FCC Rcd at 5917-18, 5926-34,
paras. 5, 18-37; Press Release, FCC, FCC Issues Declaratory Ruling to Promote Broadcast Internet Services (June 9,
1322
An FM auction planned for Spring 2020 was postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Auction 106
Postponed, AU Docket No. 19-290, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 2886 (2020).
229
APPENDIX A
LIST OF COMMENTERS
Comments
ACA Connects—America's Communications Association (ACA Connects) Comments (filed Apr. 27,
2020) (ACA Connects Comments)
American Independent Media, Inc. (AIM) Comments (filed May 28, 2020) (AIM Comments)
American Economic Liberties Project (AELP); Open Markets Institute (OMI) Comments (filed May 27,
2020) (AELP/OMI Comments)
American Television Alliance (ATVA) Comments (filed Apr. 27, 2020) (ATVA Comments)
Competitive Carriers Association (CCA) Comments (filed Apr. 27, 2020) (CCA Comments)
Consumer Technology Association (CTA) Comments (filed Apr. 27, 2020) (CTA Comments)
CTIA Comments (filed Apr. 27, 2020) (CTIA Comments)
Google Fiber, Inc. (Google Fiber) Comments (filed Apr. 27, 2020) (Google Fiber Comments)
Hughes Network Systems, LLC (Hughes) Comments (filed Apr. 27, 2020) (Hughes Comments)
INCOMPAS Comments (filed Apr. 27, 2020) (INCOMPAS Comments)
Iridium Communications Inc. (Iridium) Comments (filed Apr. 27, 2020) (Iridium Comments)
Media Captioning Services, Inc. (MCS) Comments (filed Mar. 18, 2020) (MCS Comments)
musicFIRST Coalition; Future of Music Coalition (FMC) Comments (filed Apr. 27, 2020)
(musicFIRST/FMC Comments)
National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) Comments (filed Apr. 27, 2020) (NAB Comments)
NCTA—The Internet & Television Association Comments (filed Apr. 27, 2020) (NCTA Comments)
NTCA—The Rural Broadband Association Comments (filed Apr. 27, 2020) (NTCA Comments)
Satellite Industry Association (SIA) Comments (filed Apr. 27, 2020) (SIA Comments)
Space Exploration Holdings, LLC (SpaceX) Comments (filed Apr. 27, 2020) (SpaceX Comments)
The Free State Foundation (FSF) Comments (filed Apr. 27, 2020) (FSF Comments)
USTelecom Comments (filed Apr. 27, 2020) (USTelecom Comments)
Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (WISPA) Comments (filed Apr. 27, 2020) (WISPA
Comments)
Reply Comments
Advanced Analytical Consulting Group (AACG) Reply Comments (filed May 28, 2020) (AACG Reply
Comments)
Common Cause; National Hispanic Media Coalition (NHMC) Reply Comments (filed May 28, 2020)
(Common Cause/NHMC Reply Comments)
Hughes Network Systems, LLC (Hughes) Reply Comments (filed May 29, 2020) (Hughes Reply
Comments)
musicFIRST Coalition; Future of Music Coalition (FMC) Reply Comments (filed May 28, 2020)
(musicFIRST /FMC Reply Comments)
National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) Reply Comments (filed May 28, 2020) (NAB Reply
Comments)
NCTA—The Internet & Television Association Reply Comments (filed May 28, 2020) (NCTA Reply
Comments)
New America's Open Technology Institute (OTI) Reply Comments (filed May 27, 2020) (OTI Reply
Comments)
Next Century Cities (NCC) Reply Comments (filed May 28, 2020) (NCC Reply Comments)
SES Americom, Inc.; O3b Limited (SES) Reply Comments (filed May 28, 2020) (SES and O3b Reply
Comments)
230
Space Exploration Holdings, LLC (SpaceX) Reply Comments (filed May 28, 2020) (SpaceX Reply
Comments)
Ex Partes
ABC Television Affiliates Association, CBS Television Network Affiliates Association, FBC Television
Affiliates Association, NBC Television Affiliates (Four Network Affiliates Associations) Ex
Parte (filed June 18, 2020) (Four Network Affiliates Associations Ex Parte)
ACA Connects—America's Communications Association Ex Parte (filed June 30, 2020) (ACA Connects
Ex Parte)
Anthem Sports & Entertainment Ex Parte (filed Sept. 10, 2020) (Anthem Sports & Entertainment Ex
Parte)
Consumer Technology Association (CTA) Ex Parte (filed Aug. 13, 2020) (CTA Aug. 13, 2020 Ex Parte)
Consumer Technology Association (CTA) Ex Parte (filed Sept. 4, 2020) (CTA Sept. 4, 2020 Ex Parte)
CTIA Ex Parte (filed Aug. 6, 2020) (CTIA Aug. 6, 2020 Ex Parte)
CTIA Ex Parte (filed Aug. 25, 2020) (CTIA Aug. 25, 2020 Ex Parte)
Graham Media Group Ex Parte (filed July 21, 2020) (Graham Media Group July 21, 2020 Ex Parte)
Graham Media Group Ex Parte (filed July 30, 2020) (Graham Media Group July 30, 2020 Ex Parte)
Graham Media Group Ex Parte (filed Aug. 6, 2020) (Graham Media Group Aug. 6, 2020 Ex Parte)
Graham Media Group Ex Parte (filed Aug. 10, 2020) (Graham Media Group Aug. 10, 2020 Ex Parte)
Graham Media Group Ex Parte (filed Sept. 10, 2020) (Graham Media Group Sept. 10, 2020 Ex Parte)
Hughes Network Systems, LLC (Hughes) Ex Parte (filed June 12, 2020) (Hughes Ex Parte)
Hearst Television Ex Parte (filed July 1, 2020) (Hearst Television July 1, 2020 Ex Parte)
Hearst Television Ex Parte (filed July 22, 2020) (Hearst Television July 22, 2020 Ex Parte)
SIA Ex Parte (filed Sept. 9, 2020) (SIA Ex Parte)
NCTA Ex Parte (filed Nov. 6, 2020) (NCTA Nov. 6 Ex Parte)
231
APPENDIX B
MOBILE WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS MARKET
APPX. B-1: Estimated Total Mobile Wireless Connections: 2003-2019
APPX. B-2: Change in CPI, 1997-2019
APPX. B-3: Annualized Average Revenue Per Reported Subscriber Unit (ARPU): 1993-2019
APPX. B-4: Ookla Speedtest--Estimated 5G (Beta) Speeds by Service Provider, Nationwide
APPX. B-5: Mobile Wireless Coverage Maps
APPX. B-6: Mobile Wireless Coverage
232
APPX. B-1
Estimated Total Mobile Wireless Connections: 2003–2019
NRUF CTIA
Year Connections Increase from Connections Per Estimated
(millions) previous year 100 People Connections
(millions) (millions)
2003 160.6 18.8 54 158.7
2004 184.7 24.1 62 182.1
2005 213.0 28.3 71 207.9
2006 241.8 28.8 80 233.0
2007 263.0 21.2 86 255.4
2008 279.6 16.6 91 270.3
2009 290.7 11.1 94 285.6
2010 301.8 11.1 97 296.3
2011 317.3 15.5 101 316.0
2012 329.2 11.9 105 326.5
2013 339.2 10.0 108 335.7
2014 357.1 17.2 114 355.4
2015 378.2 21.1 121 377.9
2016 398.4 20.2 127 395.9
2017 410.7 12.3 126 400.2
2018 421.7 11.0 128 421.8
2019 430.3 8.6 130 442.5
Source: NRUF 2003–2019; CTIA Year-End 2019 Wireless Industry Indices Report; Census data.
233
APPX. B-2
Change in CPI, 1997-2019
Year CPI Wireless Telephone Telephone Services CPI Land-line Telephone

Services CPI Services CPI
Annual Annual Annual Annual

Annual Annual Annual Annual
Index Index Index Index
Change Change Change Change
Average Average Average Average
1997 100.0 100.0 100.0
1998 101.6 1.6% 95.1 100.7
1999 103.8 2.2% 84.9 -10.7% 100.1 -0.6%
2000 107.3 3.4% 76.0 -10.5% 98.5 -1.6%
2001 110.3 2.8% 68.1 -10.4% 99.3 0.8%
2002 112.1 1.6% 67.4 -1.0% 99.7 0.4%
2003 114.6 2.3% 66.8 -0.9% 98.3 -1.4%
2004 117.7 2.7% 66.2 -0.9% 95.8 -2.5%
2005 121.7 3.4% 65.0 -1.8% 94.9 -0.9%
2006 125.6 3.2% 64.6 -0.6% 95.8 0.9%
2007 129.2 2.9% 64.4 -0.3% 98.2 2.6%
2008 134.1 3.8% 64.2 -0.2% 100.5 2.2%
2009 133.7 -0.4% 64.3 0.0% 102.4 1.9% 100.0
2010 135.8 1.6% 62.4 -2.9% 102.4 0.0% 101.6
2011 140.1 3.2% 60.1 -3.6% 101.2 -1.1% 103.3 1.7%
2012 143.0 2.1% 59.7 -0.8% 101.7 0.5% 105.6 2.2%
2013 145.1 1.5% 58.6 -1.8% 101.6 -0.1% 108.1 2.4%
2014 147.5 1.6% 57.4 -2.1% 101.1 -0.4% 111.1 2.7%
2015 147.7 0.1% 55.2 -3.8% 99.3 -1.8% 113.4 2.1%
2016 149.5 1.3% 54.7 -1.0% 98.8 -0.5% 114.5 1.0%
2017 152.7 2.1% 48.8 -10.7% 91.8 -7.2% 116.1 1.4%
2018 156.5 2.4% 47.6 -2.5% 90.4 -1.5% 117.2 1.0%
2019 159.3 1.8% 46.4 -2.53% 89.4 -1.1% 120.8 3.0%
1997 to 59.3% -53.6% -10.6% 20.8%

2019
Source: Data from Bureau of Labor Statistics. All CPI figures were taken from BLS databases. Bureau of Labor
Statistics, http://www.bls.gov. Beginning in January 2010, the CPIs for local telephone service and long-distance
telephone service were discontinued and replaced by a new CPI for land-line telephone services.1
1
The index used in this analysis, the CPI for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U), represents about 87% of the total U.S.
population. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index: Frequently Asked Questions,
https://www.bls.gov/cpi/questions-and-answers.htm. The CPI category “Telephone Services” has two components:
wireless telephone services and landline telephone services. Additional information can be found at Bureau of
Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index: How the Consumer Price Index Measures Price Change for Telephone
Services, https://www.bls.gov/cpi/factsheets/telephone-services.htm.
234
APPX. B-3
Annualized Average Revenue Per Reported Subscriber Unit (ARPU): 1993–2019
Year Total Annual Percentage Average Reported Average Monthly
Service Revenue Change Subscribers Revenue per Active
(thousands) Subscriber Unit
1993 $10,895,175 11,861,362 $76.55

1994 $14,229,922 30.6% 18,299,487 $64.80
1995 $19,081,239 34.1% 26,757,320 $59.43
1996 $23,634,971 23.9% 35,554,818 $55.40
1997 $27,485,633 16.3% 46,375,849 $49.39
1998 $33,133,175 20.6% 58,455,471 $47.23
1999 $40,018,489 20.8% 71,885,076 $46.39
2000 $52,466,020 31.1% 90,048,320 $48.55
2001 $65,316,235 24.5% 109,318,848 $49.79
2002 $76,508,187 17.1% 125,002,023 $51.00
2003 $87,624,093 14.5% 141,658,059 $51.55
2004 $102,121,210 16.5% 161,980,026 $52.54
2005 $113,538,221 11.2% 186,801,940 $50.65
2006 $125,456,825 10.5% 213,077,033 $49.07
2007 $138,869,304 10.7% 234,921,960 $49.26
2008 $148,084,170 6.6% 252,539,475 $48.87
2009 $152,551,854 3.0% 265,038,212 $47.97
2010 $159,929,648 4.9% 280,392,201 $47.53
2011 $169,767,314 6.2% 306,840,648 $46.11
2012 $185,013,936 9.0% 314,685,754 $48.99
2013 $189,192,812 2.3% 323,133,932 $48.79
2014 $187,848,477 (0.7%) 335,606,098 $46.64
2015 $191,949,025 2.2% 358,228,494 $44.65
2016 $188,524,256 (1.8%) 378,554,642 $41.50
2017 $179,091,135 (5.0%) 386,013,771 $38.66
2018 $182,779,484 2.1% 402,376,536 $37.85
2019 $187,361,982 2.5% 423,609,827 $36.86
Source: CTIA Year-End 2019 Wireless Industry Indices Report.
235
APPX. B-4
Ookla Speedtest--Estimated 5G (Beta) Speeds by Service Provider, Nationwide
In this Appendix, we present the nationwide mean and median 5G download and upload speeds based on
Ookla data by service provider for calendar year 2019.2
2019 Download 2019 Upload
Service Mean Median Mean Median

Provider Download Download Upload Upload Number of Tests
Speed Speed Speed Speed (DL/UL)
(Mbps) (Mbps) (Mbps) (Mbps)
AT&T 630.66 605.03 22.71 21.92 18,893
Sprint 195.65 174.27 13.25 11.12 129,157
T-Mobile 79.29 52.62 20.53 18.25 35,947
Verizon
763.74 754.40 31.33 28.94 174,756
Wireless
of Ookla.
2
According to Ookla, the 5G (Beta) technology type includes speed tests taken on devices that are capable of
classifying results as 5G and that are differentiable from 4G, 3G, and 2G results. This is a subset of all Ookla speed
tests taken on devices capable of connecting to a 5G network, which could include tests taken on 2G, 3G, 4G, and
5G technologies. https://www.ookla.com/speedtest-intelligence (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).
236
APPX. B-5
Mobile Wireless Coverage Maps
The maps presented below are based on Commission estimates derived from census block analysis of
December 2019 FCC Form 477 coverage maps, using the centroid methodology.3
4G LTE Coverage Nationwide by Number of Service Providers

FCC Form 477, Centroid Method, December 2019
3
The centroid methodology provides estimates of the percentage of the population located in census blocks with a
certain number of service providers and represents network coverage. That a particular service provider has
indicated that it has network coverage in a particular census block does not necessarily mean that it offers service to
residents in that census block. In addition, the fact that a service provider reports coverage in a particular census
block does not mean that it necessarily provides coverage everywhere in the census block. This is likely to be
particularly relevant in larger rural census blocks. For both these reasons, the number of service providers in a
census block does not necessarily reflect the number of choices available to a particular individual or household.
237
Nationwide Mobile Wireless Coverage, Year-End 2019 (FCC Form 477)
Nationwide 4G LTE Coverage, Year-End 2019 (FCC Form 477)
238
APPX. B-6
Mobile Wireless Coverage
The figures presented below are based on Commission estimates derived from census block analysis of
December 2019 FCC Form 477 coverage maps, using both the centroid and the actual area coverage
methodologies. We report those figures based on the centroid analysis first,4 before moving on to those
associated with the actual-area methodology.5
Appx. B-6.i
Estimated Wireless Coverage by Census Block
Form 477, Centroid Method, December 2019
Number of Service Providers
100.0%
1 or more 97.9%
82.2%
with Coverage
99.9%
2 or more 94.9%
76.0%
99.3%
3 or more 88.5%
66.7%
95.4%
4 or more 67.5%
43.2%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Wireless Coverage
Source: Based on centroid analysis of December 2019 FCC Form 477 and 2010 Census data.6
4
The centroid methodology is applied to U.S. census blocks overlaid on service provider coverage maps. Under this
methodology, if the geometric center point, or centroid, of a census block is within the coverage boundary of a
coverage map, then we consider that block to be “covered” by that service provider and/or technology. We then
aggregate the population, land area, and road miles of the covered census blocks to generate our total coverage
estimates. We note that these coverage estimates represent deployment of mobile networks and do not indicate the
extent to which service providers affirmatively offer service to residents in the covered areas. While we recognize
that this analysis likely overstates the coverage experienced by some consumers, especially in large or irregularly
shaped census blocks, we find that it is nonetheless useful because estimated coverage can be compared across
network technologies and service providers. For a more detailed discussion of the centroid methodology, see
Twentieth Wireless Competition Report, 32 FCC Rcd at 9016, para. 71.
5
For the actual-area methodology, since we do not know the distribution of either the population or road miles at the
sub-census block level, as noted above, we must approximate the percentage that is covered by each technology. To
do this, we assume that both population and road miles are distributed uniformly across each census block. The
fraction of the population or road miles covered in a census block is assumed to be proportional to the fraction of the
actual area covered. We then sum the estimated covered population (road miles) across blocks to estimate the total
covered population (road miles) within the United States.
6
Note that the number of service providers in a census block represents network coverage only. Network coverage
does not necessarily reflect the number of service providers that actively offer service to individuals located in a
given area. This applies to all figures presented in this Appendix.
239
Appx. B-6.ii
Estimated Overall Wireless Coverage by Census Block7
Number
Square Road
of POPs
Miles % of Total Miles % of Total
Providers Number of Contained % of Total
Contained US Square Contained US Road
with Blocks in Those US POPs
in Those Miles in Those Miles
Coverage Blocks
Blocks Blocks
in a Block
US Total 10,609,302 312,471,327 100.0% 3,550,852 100.0% 6,817,734 100.0%
1 or more 10,529,121 312,369,004 100.0% 2,918,043 82.2% 6,675,170 97.9%
2 or more 10,406,552 312,030,932 99.9% 2,698,676 76.0% 6,467,505 94.9%
3 or more 10,099,092 310,304,912 99.3% 2,367,334 66.7% 6,036,201 88.5%
4 or more 8,749,015 298,036,807 95.4% 1,533,506 43.2% 4,598,912 67.5%
Source: Based on centroid analysis of December 2019 FCC Form 477 and 2010 Census data.
Appx. B-6.iii
Estimated Wireless Coverage by Provider
99.5%
AT&T 92.6%
73.7%
93.4%
Sprint 56.7%
Service Provider
32.0%
98.1%
T-Mobile 84.8%
63.5%
98.0%
73.3%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Wireless Coverage
7
As explained in section II.A.6, we include the continental United States, Hawaii, Alaska and Puerto Rico, and
exclude all water-only blocks in our analysis.
240
Appx. B-6.iv
Estimated Overall Wireless Coverage in the U.S. by Provider
Square % of % of
POPS % of Road Miles
Miles Total Total
Number of Contained Total Contained
Provider Contained US US
Blocks in Those US in Those
in Those Square Road
Blocks POPs Blocks
Blocks Miles Miles
US Total 10,609,302 312,471,327 100.0% 3,550,852 100.0% 6,817,734 100.0%
AT&T 10,261,956 311,059,564 99.5% 2,615,372 73.7% 6,312,875 92.6%
Sprint 8,007,634 291,864,441 93.4% 1,137,319 32.0% 3,862,827 56.7%
T-Mobile 9,776,392 306,663,166 98.1% 2,253,935 63.5% 5,782,106 84.8%
Verizon 10,122,552 306,154,384 98.0% 2,604,023 73.3% 6,265,830 91.9%
Appx. B-6.v
Number of Service Providers

99.9%
1 or more 97.0%
with Coverage
80.2%
99.8%
2 or more 93.0%
72.9%
99.1%
3 or more 86.0%
63.2%
94.7%
4 or more 64.0%
39.5%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

4G LTE Coverage
241
Appx. B-6.vi
Number of Square % of % of
POPs % of Road Miles
Providers Miles Total Total
Number Contained Total Contained
with Contained US US
of Blocks in Those US in Those
Coverage in Those Square Road
Blocks POPs Blocks
in a Block Blocks Miles Miles
US Total 10,609,302 312,471,327 100.0% 3,550,852 100.0% 6,817,734 100.0%
1 or more 10,489,423 312,247,963 99.9% 2,846,035 80.2% 6,615,903 97.0%
2 or more 10,319,281 311,723,273 99.8% 2,587,539 72.9% 6,338,345 93.0%
3 or more 9,967,520 309,623,288 99.1% 2,245,475 63.2% 5,863,500 86.0%
4 or more 8,526,346 295,978,637 94.7% 1,403,912 39.5% 4,365,263 64.0%
Appx. B-6.vii
Estimated 4G LTE Coverage by Provider
99.3%
AT&T 89.2%
68.6%
93.2%
Service Provider
Sprint 55.9%
31.3%
98.0%
T-Mobile 84.2%
62.9%
97.9%
72.6%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

4G LTE Coverage
242
Appx. B-6.viii
Estimated 4G LTE Coverage in the U.S. by Provider
Square % of % of
POPS % of
Road Miles
Miles Total Total
Number of Contained Total
Contained
Provider Contained US US
Blocks in Thosein ThoseUS
in Those Square Road
Blocks BlocksPOPs
Blocks Miles Miles
US Total 10,609,302 312,471,327 100.0% 3,550,852 100.0% 6,817,734 100.0%
AT&T 10,092,189 310,263,022 99.3% 2,434,274 68.6% 6,083,783 89.2%
Sprint 7,946,870 291,107,844 93.2% 1,111,158 31.3% 3,809,932 55.9%
T-Mobile 9,730,951 306,208,201 98.0% 2,233,005 62.9% 5,741,068 84.2%
Verizon 10,101,126 306,042,769 97.9% 2,576,315 72.6% 6,231,215 91.4%
Appx. B-6.ix
Estimated Wireless Coverage by Census Block in
Rural vs. Non-Rural Areas
100.0%
1 or more
99.8%
100.0%
2 or more
99.3%
99.9%
3 or more
96.7%
98.8%
4 or more
79.6%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Wireless Coverage
243
Appx. B-6.x
Estimated Wireless Coverage in Rural Areas by Census Block
% of
% of
Number of % of Square Total
POPs Total Road Miles
Providers Total Miles Rural
Number Contained Rural Contained
with Rural Contained US
of Blocks in Those US in Those
Coverage US in Those Rural
Blocks Square Blocks
in a Block POPs Blocks Road
Miles
Miles
US Total 4,937,330 56,094,554 100.0% 2,987,281 100.0% 4,518,876 100.0%
1 or more 4,861,580 56,002,253 99.8% 2,359,842 79.0% 4,381,939 97.0%
2 or more 4,748,292 55,717,253 99.3% 2,153,231 72.1% 4,186,254 92.6%
3 or more 4,468,473 54,221,123 96.7% 1,843,644 61.7% 3,785,159 83.8%
4 or more 3,277,109 44,639,872 79.6% 1,073,430 35.9% 2,474,106 54.8%
Appx. B-6.xi
Estimated Wireless Coverage in Non-Rural Areas by Census Block
% of % of
% of
Number of Square Total Total
Providers Miles Non- Non-
Number Contained Non- Contained
with Contained Rural Rural
of Blocks in Those Rural in Those
Coverage in Those US US
Blocks US Blocks
in a Block Blocks Square Road
POPs
Miles Miles
US Total 5,671,972 256,376,773 100.0% 563,570 100.0% 2,298,858 100.0%
1 or more 5,667,541 256,366,751 100.0% 558,201 99.0% 2,293,230 99.8%
2 or more 5,658,260 256,313,679 100.0% 545,445 96.8% 2,281,251 99.2%
3 or more 5,630,619 256,083,789 99.9% 523,690 92.9% 2,251,042 97.9%
4 or more 5,471,906 253,396,935 98.8% 460,076 81.6% 2,124,805 92.4%
244
Appx. B-6.xii
Estimated Wireless Coverage by Provider in Rural vs. Non-Rural Areas FCC
Form 477, Centroid Method, December 2019
100.0%
AT&T
97.7%
98.6%
Service Provider
Sprint
69.5%
99.5%
T-Mobile
91.9%
98.4%
Verizon
96.0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Wireless Coverage
Appx. B-6.xiii
Estimated Rural Wireless Coverage in the U.S. by Provider
% of Total Road Miles % of Total

Number of POPS Contained
Provider Rural US Contained in US Rural
Blocks in Those Blocks
POPs Those Blocks Road Miles
US Total 4,937,330 56,094,554 100.0% 4,518,876 100.0%

AT&T 4,606,610 54,797,178 97.7% 4,032,772 89.2%
Sprint 2,556,660 38,960,453 69.5% 1,756,584 38.9%
T-Mobile 4,186,297 51,548,586 91.9% 3,557,823 78.7%
Verizon 4,554,849 53,826,825 96.0% 4,020,660 89.0%
245
Appx. B-6.xiv
Estimated Non-Rural Wireless Coverage in the U.S. by Provider
% of Total
POPS % of Total Road Miles
Number of Non-Rural
Provider Contained in Non-Rural Contained in
Blocks US Road
Those Blocks US POPs Those Blocks
Miles
US Total 5,671,972 256,376,773 100.0% 2,298,858 100.0%

AT&T 5,655,346 256,262,386 100.0% 2,280,102 99.2%
Sprint 5,450,974 252,903,988 98.6% 2,106,243 91.6%
T-Mobile 5,590,095 255,114,580 99.5% 2,224,283 96.8%
Verizon 5,567,703 252,327,559 98.4% 2,245,171 97.7%
Appx. B-6.xv
Estimated 4G LTE Coverage by Census Block in Rural vs. Non-Rural Areas
100.0%
1 or more
99.6%
100.0%
2 or more
98.8%
99.8%
3 or more
95.7%
98.6%
4 or more
77.1%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

4G LTE Coverage
246
Appx. B-6.xvi
Estimated 4G LTE Coverage in Rural Areas by Census Block
% of % of
Number of % of Square
POPs Total Road Miles Total
Providers Total Miles
Number Contained Rural Contained Rural
with Rural Contained
of Blocks in Those US in Those US
Coverage US in Those
Blocks Square Blocks Road
in a Block POPs Blocks
Miles Miles
US Total 4,937,330 56,094,554 100.0% 2,987,281 100.0% 4,518,876 100.0%
1 or more 4,824,317 55,891,480 99.6% 2,291,809 76.7% 4,326,538 95.7%
2 or more 4,667,313 55,446,581 98.8% 2,047,964 68.6% 4,064,516 89.9%
3 or more 4,349,679 53,659,415 95.7% 1,730,916 57.9% 3,625,851 80.2%
4 or more 3,084,791 43,245,020 77.1% 953,359 31.9% 2,263,330 50.1%
Appx. B-6.xvii
Estimated 4G LTE Coverage in Non-Rural Areas by Census Block
% of % of
% of
Number of Square Total Total
Providers Miles Non- Non-
Number Contained Non- Contained
with Contained Rural Rural
of Blocks in Those Rural in Those
Coverage in Those US US
Blocks US Blocks
in a Block Blocks Square Road
POPs
Miles Miles
US Total 5,671,972 256,376,773 100.0% 563,570 100.0% 2,298,858 100.0%
1 or more 5,665,106 256,356,483 100.0% 554,226 98.3% 2,289,364 99.6%
2 or more 5,651,968 256,276,692 100.0% 539,576 95.7% 2,273,829 98.9%
3 or more 5,617,841 255,963,873 99.8% 514,558 91.3% 2,237,649 97.3%
4 or more 5,441,555 252,733,617 98.6% 450,554 79.9% 2,101,933 91.4%
247
Appx. B-6.xviii
Estimated 4G LTE Coverage by Provider in Rural vs. Non-Rural Areas
99.9%
AT&T
96.5%
Service Provider
98.5%
Sprint
68.7%
99.5%
T-Mobile
91.3%
98.4%
Verizon Wireless
95.8%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

4G LTE Coverage
Appx. B-6.xix
Estimated Rural 4G LTE Coverage in the U.S. by Provider
% of Total Road Miles % of Total

Number of POPS Contained
Provider Rural US Contained in US Rural
Blocks in Those Blocks
POPs Those Blocks Road Miles
US Total 4,937,330 56,094,554 100.0% 4,518,876 100.0%

AT&T 4,455,922 54,144,634 96.5% 3,825,019 84.6%
Sprint 2,512,957 38,544,276 68.7% 1,715,503 38.0%
T-Mobile 4,146,157 51,190,034 91.3% 3,521,517 77.9%
Verizon 4,536,520 53,744,742 95.8% 3,989,676 88.3%
248
Appx. B-6.xx
Estimated Non-Rural 4G LTE Coverage in the U.S. by Provider
% of Total
% of Total Road Miles
Number of POPS Contained Non-Rural
Provider Non-Rural Contained in
Blocks in Those Blocks US Road
US POPs Those Blocks
Miles
US Total 5,671,972 256,376,773 100.0% 2,298,858 100.0%
AT&T 5,636,267 256,118,388 99.9% 2,258,764 98.3%
Sprint 5,433,913 252,563,568 98.5% 2,094,428 91.1%
T-Mobile 5,584,794 255,018,167 99.5% 2,219,551 96.6%
Verizon 5,564,606 252,298,027 98.4% 2,241,539 97.5%
Appx. B-6.xxi
Estimated Wireless Coverage in the U.S. by Provider
FCC Form 477, Actual Area Method, December 2019
% of % of Total % of Total
Covered Covered Covered
Provider Total US US Square US Road
POPs Square Miles Road Miles
POPs Miles Miles
US Total 312,471,327 100.0% 3,550,852 100.0% 6,817,734 100.0%
AT&T 310,968,586 99.5% 2,602,777 73.3% 6,294,494 92.3%
Sprint 291,642,976 93.3% 1,134,078 31.9% 3,848,705 56.5%
T-Mobile 306,569,022 98.1% 2,253,061 63.5% 5,774,522 84.7%
Verizon 306,016,690 97.9% 2,574,431 72.5% 6,236,618 91.5%
8
Source: Based on actual area analysis of December 2019 FCC Form 477 and 2010 Census data.
Appx. B-6.xxii
FCC Form 477, Actual Area Coverage Method, December 2019
Number of % of % of
% of Covered
Providers with Covered Covered Total US Total US
Total US Road
Coverage in a POPs Square Miles Square Road
POPs Miles
Block Miles Miles
US Total 312,471,327 100.0% 3,550,852 100.0% 6,817,734 100.0%
1 or more 312,226,003 99.9% 2,838,030 79.9% 6,601,782 96.8%
2 or more 311,620,475 99.7% 2,576,767 72.6% 6,318,525 92.7%
3 or more 309,442,466 99.0% 2,233,488 62.9% 5,840,654 85.7%
4 or more 295,713,142 94.6% 1,397,873 39.4% 4,347,972 63.8%
8
Unlike the centroid methodology where each block is either covered or not, the actual area coverage methodology
acknowledges that many blocks are only partially covered. Because it is unclear which census blocks should be
considered covered or not, we do not report the number of blocks covered in these results. This applies to all figures
using the actual-area methodology.
249
Appx. B-6.xxiii
Estimated 4G LTE Coverage in the U.S. by Provider
FCC Form 477, Actual Area Method, December 2019
% of % of Total % of Total
Covered Covered Covered
Provider Total US US Square US Road
POPs Square Miles Road Miles
POPs Miles Miles
US Total 312,471,327 100.0% 3,550,852 100.0% 6,817,734 100.0%
AT&T 310,114,264 99.2% 2,424,155 68.3% 6,061,401 88.9%
Sprint 290,874,954 93.1% 1,108,271 31.2% 3,796,429 55.7%
T-Mobile 306,127,791 98.0% 2,233,057 62.9% 5,734,884 84.1%
Verizon 305,899,986 97.9% 2,549,618 71.8% 6,203,717 91.0%
Appx. B-6.xxiv
Estimated Rural Wireless Coverage in the U.S. by Provider
Covered % of Total Rural US Covered Road % of Total US Rural

Provider
POPs POPs Miles Road Miles
US Total 56,094,554 100.0% 4,518,876 100.0%

AT&T 54,752,286 97.6% 4,016,251 88.9%
Sprint 38,848,130 69.3% 1,747,397 38.7%
T-Mobile 51,502,289 91.8% 3,550,095 78.6%
Verizon 53,755,113 95.8% 3,993,709 88.4%
Appx. B-6.xxv
Estimated Non-Rural Wireless Coverage in the U.S. by Provider
Covered % of Total Non-Rural Covered Road % of Total Non-Rural

Provider
POPs US POPs Miles US Road Miles
US Total 256,376,773 100.0% 2,298,858 100.0%

AT&T 256,216,299 99.9% 2,278,243 99.1%
Sprint 252,794,847 98.6% 2,101,308 91.4%
T-Mobile 252,261,577 99.5% 2,224,428 96.8%
Verizon 251,981,080 98.4% 2,242,909 97.6%
Appx. B-6.xxvi
250
Estimated 4G LTE Coverage in Rural Areas by Census Block

Number of Providers with Covered % of Total Covered Road % of Total Rural

Coverage in a Block POPs Rural US POPs Miles US Road Miles
US Total 56,094,552 100.0% 4,518,876 100.0%

1 or more 55,871,661 99.6% 4,312,777 95.4%
2 or more 55,388,238 98.7% 4,045,489 89.5%
3 or more 53,549,953 95.5% 3,604,736 79.8%
4 or more 43,125,141 76.9% 2,250,927 49.8%
Appx. B-6.xxvii
Estimated 4G LTE Coverage in Non-Rural Areas by Census Block
Number of Providers % of Total Non-

Covered % of Total Non- Covered
with Coverage in a Rural US Road
POPs Rural US POPs Road Miles
Block Miles
US Total 256,376,773 100.0% 2,298,858 100.0%

1 or more 256,354,342 100.0% 2,289,005 99.6%
2 or more 256,232,238 99.9% 2,273,036 98.9%
3 or more 255,892,513 99.8% 2,235,917 97.3%
4 or more 252,588,001 98.5% 2,097,045 91.2%
Appx. B-6.xxviii
Estimated Rural 4G LTE Coverage in the U.S. by Provider
Covered % of Total Rural US Covered Road % of Total US Rural

Provider
POPs POPs Miles Road Miles
US Total 56,094,554 100.0% 4,518,876 100.0%

AT&T 54,752,286 96.4% 3,804,727 84.2%
Sprint 38,848,130 68.5% 1,706,975 37.8%
T-Mobile 51,502,289 91.2% 3,514,885 77.8%
Verizon 53,755,113 95.7% 3,964,023 87.7%
251
Appx. B-6.xxix
Estimated Non-Rural 4G LTE Coverage in the U.S. by Provider
Covered % of Total Non-Rural Covered Road % of Total Non-Rural

Provider
POPs US POPs Miles US Road Miles
US Total 256,376,773 100.0% 2,298,858 100.0%

AT&T 256,054,609 99.9% 2,256,674 98.2%
Sprint 252,435,857 98.5% 2,089,454 90.9%
T-Mobile 254,973,804 99.5% 2,219,999 96.6%
Verizon 252,228,271 98.4% 2,239,694 97.4%
252
APPENDIX C
FIXED COMMUNICATIONS MARKET
APPX. C-1: Adoption Rate for Fixed Terrestrial Services in the United States and U.S. Territories
(Dec. 31, 2019)
APPX. C-2: Percentage of Population (millions) With Zero, One, Two, or At Least Three Provider
Options for 10/1 Mbps Fixed Terrestrial Services (Dec. 31, 2019)
APPX. C-7: Population (millions) by Provider Options for Fixed Terrestrial Services, Segmented
by Type of Urban Area (Dec. 31, 2019)
253
APPX. C-1
Adoption Rate for Fixed Terrestrial Services in the United States and U.S. Territories
(Dec. 31, 2019)1
United States 76.6% 68.9% 64.2% 50.4% 9.0%
Alabama 62.8% 56.4% 50.9% 45.7% 5.4%
Alaska 70.4% 54.9% 55.8% * *
American Samoa * * * * NA
Arizona 77.6% 72.2% 57.5% 50.5% 15.2%
Arkansas 55.3% 48.9% 40.3% 32.6% 12.9%
California 83.2% 74.1% 70.1% 51.3% 6.5%
Colorado 79.1% 73.2% 68.0% 36.1% 7.7%
Connecticut 83.6% 71.0% 67.1% 48.4% 8.2%
Delaware 92.7% 90.0% 89.2% 53.1% 14.8%
District of Columbia 87.9% 83.0% 81.8% 54.0% *
Florida 91.1% 80.7% 75.9% 63.2% 6.0%
Georgia 76.6% 65.6% 60.1% 50.5% 10.0%
Guam * * * * *
Hawaii * * * * *
Idaho 59.6% 48.8% 37.0% 29.6% 5.5%
Illinois 74.0% 60.4% 57.8% 46.1% 3.4%
Indiana 68.3% 56.5% 52.5% 43.6% 4.9%
Iowa 61.3% 54.1% 47.6% 31.0% 4.9%
Kansas 69.6% 58.6% 51.6% 46.1% 14.7%
Kentucky 65.6% 58.3% 51.4% 44.6% 5.9%
Louisiana 64.0% 57.6% 49.5% 43.9% 12.7%
Maine 76.8% 62.6% 56.7% 53.0% 0.5%
Maryland 89.0% 84.0% 83.4% 51.5% *
Massachusetts 89.2% 86.7% 85.2% 53.0% 10.7%
Michigan 72.4% 62.7% 58.1% 49.2% 2.3%
Minnesota 71.0% 64.5% 59.1% 37.1% 5.3%
Mississippi 50.4% 39.7% 32.7% 26.4% 5.1%
Missouri 65.1% 57.1% 55.5% 50.0% 9.7%
1
NA: Service is not available in this area; * Data not included to maintain confidentiality.
254
Montana 65.6% 60.1% 57.3% * 5.3%
N. Mariana Isl. * * * * NA
Nebraska 71.7% 62.2% 53.6% 52.1% 14.9%
Nevada 84.3% 75.3% 62.8% 60.2% 15.7%
New Hampshire 89.4% 83.4% 81.4% 45.8% 7.1%
New Jersey 89.6% 87.2% 85.6% 64.3% 20.2%
New Mexico 55.7% 50.1% 45.5% 22.4% 3.0%
New York 81.9% 77.3% 74.3% 68.2% 13.5%
North Carolina 76.2% 71.4% 66.1% 60.2% 7.3%
North Dakota 79.0% 73.6% 67.0% 60.4% 6.9%
Ohio 73.9% 63.0% 53.0% 48.7% 5.6%
Oklahoma 62.0% 53.3% 47.9% 42.3% 16.2%
Oregon 75.4% 70.2% 65.3% 37.8% 5.2%
Pennsylvania 77.3% 72.7% 68.8% 43.5% 9.7%
Puerto Rico 29.5% 16.6% 12.9% * 0.4%
Rhode Island 89.0% 86.4% 78.4% 72.1% *
South Carolina 77.8% 69.3% 62.8% 58.0% 6.8%
South Dakota 74.4% 70.4% 61.6% 56.9% 4.6%
Tennessee 70.5% 61.5% 58.3% 50.4% 11.4%
Texas 75.7% 67.0% 62.1% 50.5% 12.5%
U.S. Virgin Isl. * * * * *
Utah 78.5% 70.0% 66.1% 34.3% 10.1%
Vermont 75.3% 64.2% 62.3% 34.0% 7.5%
Virginia 78.4% 75.0% 72.5% 53.4% 18.8%
Washington 79.2% 74.1% 71.0% 37.8% 5.6%
West Virginia 51.7% 49.4% 48.5% 33.5% 12.7%
Wisconsin 73.3% 64.4% 59.0% 55.4% 2.7%
Wyoming 67.4% 63.1% 53.5% 49.6% 0.5%
255
APPX. C-2
Percentage of Population (millions) With Zero, One, Two, or At Least Three Provider Options for
10/1 Mbps Fixed Terrestrial Services (Dec. 31, 2019)
Pop. Eval. Zero One Two At Least Three
United States 331.777 2.2% 14.0% 46.2% 37.6%
Alabama 4.902 5.4% 28.3% 42.6% 23.6%
Alaska 0.731 7.2% 19.6% 43.4% 29.9%
American Samoa 0.048 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Arizona 7.279 2.4% 5.5% 9.0% 83.0%
Arkansas 3.018 7.3% 28.9% 44.0% 19.8%
California 39.512 1.0% 8.4% 41.3% 49.3%
Colorado 5.758 1.6% 5.8% 13.5% 79.0%
Connecticut 3.565 0.4% 3.1% 88.5% 8.1%
Delaware 0.974 1.9% 18.3% 68.9% 10.8%
District of Columbia 0.706 1.5% 1.8% 9.6% 87.1%
Florida 21.477 2.6% 13.9% 56.4% 27.1%
Georgia 10.614 3.1% 19.2% 60.2% 17.5%
Guam 0.168 0.0% 97.2% 2.8% 0.0%
Hawaii 1.416 1.9% 18.8% 76.8% 2.5%
Idaho 1.787 2.2% 8.0% 16.6% 73.3%
Illinois 12.672 1.0% 7.9% 46.8% 44.3%
Indiana 6.732 1.2% 7.1% 20.2% 71.5%
Iowa 3.155 1.9% 15.4% 35.3% 47.4%
Kansas 2.913 1.0% 8.3% 24.2% 66.5%
Kentucky 4.468 0.9% 16.4% 55.1% 27.7%
Louisiana 4.649 3.8% 27.8% 39.6% 28.8%
Maine 1.344 1.3% 16.6% 58.6% 23.4%
Maryland 6.046 2.1% 13.0% 63.0% 21.9%
Massachusetts 6.892 1.7% 21.0% 54.2% 23.2%
Michigan 9.986 1.4% 13.8% 37.7% 47.2%
Minnesota 5.639 0.8% 8.6% 22.3% 68.3%
Mississippi 2.975 8.8% 33.5% 35.1% 22.6%
Missouri 6.136 2.8% 12.0% 20.8% 64.4%
Montana 1.069 6.4% 33.9% 37.4% 22.3%
Nebraska 1.934 0.7% 4.2% 16.9% 78.2%
Nevada 3.080 2.0% 7.3% 17.9% 72.9%
New Hampshire 1.360 1.3% 11.8% 81.3% 5.7%
New Jersey 8.882 1.3% 18.7% 76.4% 3.6%
256

New Mexico 2.096 4.3% 12.1% 15.5% 68.1%
New York 19.454 1.0% 10.8% 58.4% 29.9%
North Carolina 10.488 2.1% 20.9% 63.3% 13.7%
North Dakota 0.762 2.7% 45.0% 33.0% 19.3%
Northern Mariana Isl. 0.051 3.0% 95.5% 1.5% 0.0%
Ohio 11.689 0.7% 14.6% 47.8% 36.9%
Oklahoma 3.954 8.1% 30.2% 40.8% 20.8%
Oregon 4.218 2.6% 9.9% 36.9% 50.7%
Pennsylvania 12.802 2.2% 17.4% 67.8% 12.6%
Puerto Rico 3.194 0.0% 1.5% 4.8% 93.7%
Rhode Island 1.059 1.4% 7.1% 89.9% 1.6%
South Carolina 5.149 4.2% 31.2% 51.1% 13.4%
South Dakota 0.885 1.7% 24.6% 25.4% 48.3%
Tennessee 6.829 2.8% 19.0% 58.2% 20.0%
Texas 28.977 2.2% 11.3% 41.9% 44.6%
U.S. Virgin Isl. 0.106 0.0% 0.0% 98.5% 1.5%
Utah 3.206 3.3% 6.5% 15.7% 74.5%
Vermont 0.624 1.7% 16.5% 62.6% 19.2%
Virginia 8.541 4.4% 18.2% 60.5% 16.8%
Washington 7.614 1.7% 9.9% 41.7% 46.7%
West Virginia 1.792 5.5% 20.7% 51.3% 22.5%
Wisconsin 5.822 2.3% 18.3% 58.6% 20.7%
Wyoming 0.579 4.2% 11.7% 19.4% 64.7%
257
APPX. C-3
United States 331.777 4.4% 21.9% 44.8% 29.0%
Alabama 4.902 12.4% 30.0% 44.0% 13.6%
Alaska 0.731 14.8% 22.1% 44.9% 18.2%
American Samoa 0.048 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Arizona 7.279 5.2% 12.4% 18.2% 64.2%
Arkansas 3.018 19.0% 34.2% 34.0% 12.8%
California 39.512 1.5% 13.8% 41.4% 43.3%
Colorado 5.758 2.8% 9.8% 17.0% 70.5%
Connecticut 3.565 0.8% 21.4% 71.3% 6.5%
Delaware 0.974 2.2% 33.1% 62.8% 1.9%
Florida 21.477 3.7% 18.1% 54.6% 23.6%
Georgia 10.614 6.2% 20.4% 57.5% 15.9%
Guam 0.168 33.0% 65.4% 1.6% 0.0%
Hawaii 1.416 2.1% 42.8% 53.4% 1.7%
Idaho 1.787 4.7% 14.0% 20.6% 60.7%
Illinois 12.672 2.0% 11.4% 50.1% 36.4%
Indiana 6.732 3.9% 15.4% 33.0% 47.7%
Iowa 3.155 4.0% 25.7% 38.8% 31.4%
Kansas 2.913 4.3% 24.3% 30.0% 41.4%
Kentucky 4.468 5.7% 31.1% 49.9% 13.2%
Louisiana 4.649 11.6% 34.4% 39.8% 14.3%
Maine 1.344 3.5% 49.8% 39.1% 7.6%
Maryland 6.046 2.5% 23.7% 59.7% 14.0%
Massachusetts 6.892 2.0% 42.0% 35.2% 20.7%
Michigan 9.986 4.2% 21.8% 35.8% 38.2%
Minnesota 5.639 2.5% 13.8% 27.3% 56.5%
Mississippi 2.975 19.7% 30.9% 30.9% 18.4%
Missouri 6.136 6.9% 20.8% 31.6% 40.7%
Montana 1.069 13.3% 46.4% 31.6% 8.7%
Nebraska 1.934 3.7% 12.2% 25.8% 58.3%
Nevada 3.080 2.9% 10.9% 31.9% 54.3%
New Hampshire 1.360 3.2% 42.5% 52.4% 1.9%
New Jersey 8.882 1.5% 30.0% 65.4% 3.2%
258

New Mexico 2.096 12.9% 20.0% 23.2% 44.0%
New York 19.454 1.3% 20.4% 54.7% 23.6%
North Carolina 10.488 4.5% 32.5% 53.4% 9.6%
North Dakota 0.762 3.2% 52.9% 32.9% 11.0%
Ohio 11.689 2.8% 26.7% 47.1% 23.4%
Oklahoma 3.954 12.2% 32.1% 37.9% 17.8%
Oregon 4.218 5.1% 17.7% 53.8% 23.4%
Pennsylvania 12.802 4.1% 35.1% 56.1% 4.7%
Puerto Rico 3.194 0.1% 1.6% 10.1% 88.2%
Rhode Island 1.059 1.4% 10.5% 87.6% 0.5%
South Carolina 5.149 8.7% 34.0% 47.5% 9.8%
South Dakota 0.885 5.0% 31.6% 28.6% 34.7%
Tennessee 6.829 6.3% 24.0% 53.8% 15.9%
Texas 28.977 4.2% 15.8% 42.1% 37.9%
U.S. Virgin Isl. 0.106 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0%
Utah 3.206 4.3% 8.7% 19.4% 67.6%
Vermont 0.624 6.9% 38.8% 45.3% 9.1%
Virginia 8.541 5.8% 29.1% 55.2% 9.9%
Washington 7.614 3.7% 22.0% 49.4% 24.9%
West Virginia 1.792 17.8% 45.2% 28.7% 8.4%
Wisconsin 5.822 6.8% 26.2% 54.8% 12.2%
Wyoming 0.579 7.3% 12.7% 27.9% 52.2%
259
APPX C-4
United States 331.777 6.2% 27.0% 45.3% 21.4%
Alabama 4.902 13.9% 32.7% 41.4% 12.0%
Alaska 0.731 19.7% 62.8% 16.6% 0.9%
American Samoa 0.048 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Arizona 7.279 6.2% 14.8% 18.5% 60.5%
Arkansas 3.018 22.6% 38.7% 32.9% 5.7%
California 39.512 3.6% 18.8% 47.1% 30.4%
Colorado 5.758 4.0% 14.4% 19.6% 62.0%
Connecticut 3.565 0.9% 29.8% 63.6% 5.8%
Delaware 0.974 2.4% 33.8% 62.5% 1.3%
Florida 21.477 4.0% 19.1% 54.5% 22.5%
Georgia 10.614 7.2% 21.7% 56.0% 15.1%
Guam 0.168 98.1% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0%
Hawaii 1.416 2.4% 43.8% 52.8% 1.1%
Idaho 1.787 16.4% 33.0% 37.7% 12.9%
Illinois 12.672 4.5% 20.9% 50.8% 23.8%
Indiana 6.732 7.3% 20.8% 35.9% 35.9%
Iowa 3.155 7.7% 38.5% 41.8% 12.0%
Kansas 2.913 11.8% 34.4% 34.7% 19.1%
Kentucky 4.468 8.0% 36.0% 48.2% 7.8%
Louisiana 4.649 12.9% 37.9% 36.5% 12.8%
Maine 1.344 4.2% 63.0% 31.1% 1.6%
Maryland 6.046 3.5% 33.0% 55.5% 8.0%
Massachusetts 6.892 2.1% 42.2% 35.0% 20.7%
Michigan 9.986 6.3% 27.1% 37.9% 28.7%
Minnesota 5.639 2.9% 16.1% 28.9% 52.1%
Mississippi 2.975 21.4% 32.1% 30.2% 16.3%
Missouri 6.136 14.0% 29.5% 43.8% 12.7%
Montana 1.069 23.9% 57.9% 15.9% 2.3%
Nebraska 1.934 8.5% 30.4% 35.7% 25.4%
Nevada 3.080 3.3% 11.6% 33.8% 51.3%
New Hampshire 1.360 3.7% 49.7% 45.3% 1.4%
New Jersey 8.882 1.5% 30.0% 65.3% 3.2%
260

New Mexico 2.096 15.3% 20.8% 21.2% 42.7%
New York 19.454 1.4% 25.5% 52.1% 21.0%
North Carolina 10.488 5.2% 36.7% 51.9% 6.3%
North Dakota 0.762 3.4% 54.2% 31.5% 10.9%
Ohio 11.689 4.0% 35.8% 45.2% 15.0%
Oklahoma 3.954 22.0% 36.6% 38.9% 2.4%
Oregon 4.218 7.2% 25.8% 52.2% 14.8%
Pennsylvania 12.802 4.5% 39.3% 52.0% 4.2%
Puerto Rico 3.194 0.2% 4.9% 14.9% 80.1%
Rhode Island 1.059 1.4% 10.5% 87.6% 0.5%
South Carolina 5.149 9.8% 35.4% 45.5% 9.3%
South Dakota 0.885 9.3% 42.4% 36.8% 11.5%
Tennessee 6.829 8.4% 27.2% 53.4% 11.0%
Texas 28.977 6.6% 21.5% 43.8% 28.1%
U.S. Virgin Isl. 0.106 0.0% 0.2% 99.8% 0.0%
Utah 3.206 5.6% 18.2% 32.5% 43.7%
Vermont 0.624 8.5% 47.7% 38.4% 5.4%
Virginia 8.541 8.3% 38.0% 50.5% 3.1%
Washington 7.614 5.0% 27.2% 51.9% 15.8%
West Virginia 1.792 21.6% 57.5% 18.9% 2.0%
Wisconsin 5.822 9.8% 35.0% 53.0% 2.2%
Wyoming 0.579 8.6% 18.9% 28.4% 44.1%
261
APPX. C-5
United States 331.777 8.3% 35.8% 42.6% 13.4%
Alabama 4.902 17.8% 39.4% 32.8% 10.0%
Alaska 0.731 20.6% 67.3% 11.3% 0.8%
American Samoa 0.048 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Arizona 7.279 8.4% 19.2% 31.3% 41.2%
Arkansas 3.018 27.4% 43.5% 25.0% 4.1%
California 39.512 4.4% 27.6% 44.9% 23.1%
Colorado 5.758 7.5% 21.1% 26.4% 45.0%
Connecticut 3.565 1.2% 82.0% 15.6% 1.1%
Delaware 0.974 3.8% 40.9% 54.4% 0.8%
Florida 21.477 5.4% 33.8% 53.8% 7.0%
Georgia 10.614 8.5% 28.3% 50.2% 13.0%
Guam 0.168 99.8% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0%
Hawaii 1.416 2.4% 44.0% 52.8% 0.8%
Idaho 1.787 22.5% 44.8% 30.4% 2.2%
Illinois 12.672 6.4% 37.2% 44.5% 11.8%
Indiana 6.732 12.3% 37.9% 40.5% 9.3%
Iowa 3.155 11.2% 45.6% 35.6% 7.7%
Kansas 2.913 15.7% 39.7% 29.6% 15.0%
Kentucky 4.468 9.5% 42.2% 41.9% 6.4%
Louisiana 4.649 15.6% 45.0% 33.9% 5.5%
Maine 1.344 9.8% 80.6% 9.3% 0.3%
Maryland 6.046 3.8% 34.5% 58.2% 3.4%
Massachusetts 6.892 2.8% 41.9% 37.6% 17.7%
Michigan 9.986 7.8% 36.3% 34.8% 21.1%
Minnesota 5.639 6.1% 34.4% 45.7% 13.7%
Mississippi 2.975 29.9% 40.7% 23.0% 6.4%
Missouri 6.136 17.7% 36.4% 38.2% 7.7%
Montana 1.069 29.4% 61.9% 7.3% 1.4%
Nebraska 1.934 11.3% 35.4% 35.4% 17.8%
Nevada 3.080 4.3% 16.2% 51.9% 27.6%
New Hampshire 1.360 5.0% 61.1% 33.5% 0.3%
New Jersey 8.882 1.5% 30.7% 64.7% 3.1%
262

New Mexico 2.096 22.1% 41.4% 33.1% 3.4%
New York 19.454 1.6% 27.3% 50.5% 20.6%
North Carolina 10.488 6.4% 46.1% 42.6% 4.8%
North Dakota 0.762 7.2% 56.4% 30.6% 5.9%
Ohio 11.689 5.7% 47.1% 37.1% 10.0%
Oklahoma 3.954 24.6% 44.2% 30.0% 1.2%
Oregon 4.218 9.9% 33.5% 54.6% 2.0%
Pennsylvania 12.802 5.1% 42.6% 48.9% 3.4%
Puerto Rico 3.194 0.7% 9.6% 28.7% 61.0%
Rhode Island 1.059 1.4% 10.5% 87.6% 0.5%
South Carolina 5.149 14.5% 41.0% 37.1% 7.4%
South Dakota 0.885 15.2% 43.3% 36.8% 4.6%
Tennessee 6.829 9.7% 35.5% 46.4% 8.5%
Texas 28.977 10.6% 32.0% 42.3% 15.1%
U.S. Virgin Isl. 0.106 0.2% 99.8% 0.0% 0.0%
Utah 3.206 7.6% 28.4% 31.2% 32.8%
Vermont 0.624 13.9% 62.3% 22.3% 1.6%
Virginia 8.541 9.6% 38.8% 48.9% 2.7%
Washington 7.614 7.1% 36.4% 48.3% 8.1%
West Virginia 1.792 25.7% 65.2% 8.9% 0.2%
Wisconsin 5.822 13.6% 50.9% 35.2% 0.3%
Wyoming 0.579 19.4% 36.1% 27.2% 17.4%
263
APPX. C-6
United States 331.777 12.9% 52.0% 31.2% 4.0%
Alabama 4.902 24.7% 46.1% 21.4% 7.8%
Alaska 0.731 22.2% 70.4% 7.4% 0.0%
American Samoa 0.048 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Arizona 7.279 10.4% 22.0% 59.3% 8.3%
Arkansas 3.018 47.1% 38.2% 13.0% 1.7%
California 39.512 7.3% 71.5% 19.3% 1.9%
Colorado 5.758 16.3% 60.9% 22.2% 0.6%
Connecticut 3.565 6.1% 86.5% 7.4% 0.0%
Delaware 0.974 3.9% 41.1% 54.3% 0.8%
Florida 21.477 8.2% 63.2% 26.2% 2.5%
Georgia 10.614 15.5% 39.2% 37.9% 7.5%
Guam 0.168 99.9% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%
Hawaii 1.416 2.5% 44.2% 53.3% 0.0%
Idaho 1.787 26.5% 61.6% 11.5% 0.4%
Illinois 12.672 7.9% 64.7% 25.4% 1.9%
Indiana 6.732 15.0% 53.2% 25.8% 6.0%
Iowa 3.155 17.3% 58.7% 20.5% 3.5%
Kansas 2.913 24.9% 43.6% 22.3% 9.2%
Kentucky 4.468 17.3% 46.8% 32.2% 3.6%
Louisiana 4.649 20.4% 56.3% 20.9% 2.5%
Maine 1.344 11.2% 84.7% 4.1% 0.1%
Maryland 6.046 6.5% 32.3% 61.0% 0.2%
Massachusetts 6.892 3.0% 49.8% 46.3% 0.8%
Michigan 9.986 12.2% 50.6% 29.1% 8.1%
Minnesota 5.639 12.6% 51.9% 26.1% 9.5%
Mississippi 2.975 41.4% 41.1% 14.3% 3.2%
Missouri 6.136 24.3% 45.9% 27.2% 2.6%
Montana 1.069 34.1% 63.7% 2.1% 0.0%
Nebraska 1.934 19.4% 47.7% 27.7% 5.3%
Nevada 3.080 5.7% 22.5% 57.4% 14.4%
New Hampshire 1.360 5.8% 66.0% 28.0% 0.3%
New Jersey 8.882 2.8% 31.8% 64.2% 1.3%
264

New Mexico 2.096 35.8% 58.8% 5.4% 0.0%
New York 19.454 2.1% 30.4% 54.7% 12.7%
North Carolina 10.488 9.1% 56.2% 31.5% 3.1%
North Dakota 0.762 37.8% 58.7% 3.0% 0.4%
Ohio 11.689 11.8% 55.3% 29.5% 3.4%
Oklahoma 3.954 36.5% 45.8% 17.2% 0.5%
Oregon 4.218 17.9% 58.3% 23.5% 0.3%
Pennsylvania 12.802 7.0% 47.0% 45.7% 0.4%
Puerto Rico 3.194 13.4% 68.8% 15.8% 1.9%
Rhode Island 1.059 1.4% 10.5% 87.6% 0.5%
South Carolina 5.149 23.6% 49.3% 23.6% 3.6%
South Dakota 0.885 48.0% 45.9% 4.8% 1.3%
Tennessee 6.829 13.8% 45.0% 36.3% 4.8%
Texas 28.977 16.1% 47.9% 29.9% 6.1%
U.S. Virgin Isl. 0.106 0.2% 99.8% 0.0% 0.0%
Utah 3.206 16.6% 48.4% 19.0% 16.0%
Vermont 0.624 16.5% 65.4% 17.7% 0.4%
Virginia 8.541 15.1% 35.9% 48.0% 1.0%
Washington 7.614 12.0% 69.3% 18.2% 0.5%
West Virginia 1.792 40.5% 53.6% 5.8% 0.1%
Wisconsin 5.822 16.2% 67.8% 16.0% 0.1%
Wyoming 0.579 30.4% 52.1% 17.0% 0.5%
265
APPX. C-7
Population (millions) by Provider Options for Fixed Terrestrial Services,
Segmented by Type of Urban Area (Dec. 31, 2019)
All Urban Areas
Zero 2.292 0.9% 3.260 1.2% 4.333 1.6% 5.884 2.2% 13.697 5.1%
One 26.663 10.0% 46.533 17.5% 60.564 22.7% 87.663 32.9% 142.993 53.7%
Two 129.069 48.4% 129.346 48.5% 134.840 50.6% 130.260 48.9% 97.330 36.5%
At Least Three 108.431 40.7% 87.317 32.8% 66.718 25.0% 42.647 16.0% 12.436 4.7%
Urban Clusters
Zero 0.342 1.2% 0.881 3.0% 1.539 5.2% 2.247 7.6% 6.022 20.3%
One 5.544 18.6% 11.211 37.7% 15.239 51.3% 18.704 62.9% 19.116 64.3%
Two 11.572 38.9% 10.942 36.8% 9.770 32.9% 7.386 24.8% 4.177 14.0%
At Least Three 12.273 41.3% 6.698 22.5% 3.184 10.7% 1.395 4.7% 0.418 1.4%
Urbanized Areas
Zero 1.950 0.8% 2.379 1.0% 2.793 1.2% 3.637 1.5% 7.675 3.2%
One 21.118 8.9% 35.322 14.9% 45.325 19.1% 68.959 29.1% 123.877 52.3%
Two 117.497 49.6% 118.403 50.0% 125.070 52.8% 122.875 51.9% 93.153 39.4%
At Least Three 96.158 40.6% 80.619 34.1% 63.534 26.8% 41.253 17.4% 12.018 5.1%
266
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER BRENDAN CARR
APPROVING IN PART AND CONCURRING IN PART
Re: Communications Marketplace Report, GN Docket No. 20-60.
The 2020 Communications Marketplace Report contains more good news for American
consumers. Prices for high-speed Internet services are down, competition for Internet services is up, and
with providers building new broadband infrastructure at an accelerated pace the digital divide continues to
close. In short, the policies we’ve put in place over the past few years are working.
The Report also confirms that providers from previously distinct industries are continuing to
converge and compete like never before. A new generation of low-earth orbit satellites are competing to
offer high-speed home Internet services. Wireless providers are increasingly offering fixed high-speed
services in competition with cable. Cable is competing to build fixed and mobile platforms that offer
next-gen Internet and video services. And broadcasters are starting to leverage the potential of ATSC 3.0
and Broadcast Internet technologies to deliver 25 Mbps services directly to consumers.
This is not like any competition we’ve seen before. And it’s also why I concur in part in today’s
Report. I would go even further than the Report does in recognizing the converged market for
connectivity that now exists. The Commission’s decades-old approach of viewing different
technologies—including mobile, fixed, satellite, and broadcast offerings—as competing in distinct and
separate markets no longer matches the way that Americans consume these services. As I’ve emphasized
before, the FCC’s market definitions often look backwards to where the sector has been, rather than
where it is going.1
This approach makes the FCC’s job of assessing the state of competition more difficult and fails to
reflect the way that consumers are using high-speed connections today and, certainly, tomorrow.
Therefore, as we prepare these Reports and analyze competition in our rulemaking and
adjudicatory proceedings, I believe we should do so even more mindful of the converged market for
connectivity in which providers now compete.
1
Keynote Remarks of FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr at the Phoenix Center’s 19th Annual U.S. Telecoms
Symposium: Keeping Pace with Dynamic Industries (Dec. 3, 2019), https://go.usa.gov/xAkTD.
267
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER JESSICA ROSENWORCEL,
CONCURRING
Re: Communications Marketplace Report, GN Docket No. 20-60
Today the Federal Communications Commission issues its second-ever communications

marketplace report. In this report, we offer data about the state of competition in the mobile
wireless market, the satellite market, and the video market. There is a lot of change underway,
as the ways we watch and the networks we depend on to connect are evolving. So we look at the
characteristics of each of these different industry segments, the state of deployment of
communications capabilities, and the barriers to entry. We also provide data about broadband,
including an examination of how the United States fares vis-à-vis other countries.
This report is important because it can inform the work of this agency as well as other
federal and state authorities, and Congress. For consumers, today’s report offers what may be
one of the most comprehensive sources of public data about the state of the services they receive,
including the latest iterations of the Measuring Broadband America reports.
But while this overall report is full of facts and figures, it also falls short. Following our
inaugural production of this report two years ago, I suggested we should use this proceeding to
identify the transformational changes that are taking place across these services from both the
provider and user perspective. This discussion could also include how these changes may create
opportunities for market entry or conversely, further increase barriers to entry. I think now,
during a global pandemic when so much of modern life has migrated online and depends on
communications, this kind of analysis would be especially useful. I regret that today’s report
does not correct course and offer this analysis.
Moreover, I believe that the roadmap set forth in this report does not adequately reflect
the magnitude of the work ahead for this agency. Earlier this week, a new appropriations law
directed the FCC to establish an Emergency Broadband Benefit program. This effort is designed
to expand access to high-speed service and address the persistent challenges with affordability
that prevent us from making broader progress addressing the digital divide. These issues of
adoption merit serious discussion but regrettably are barely present in this report. In addition,
this law tasks the agency with expanded support for telehealth and provides the funding needed
to replace network equipment that presents a security risk. These new legislative tasks along
with those in existing statutes are a reminder that we have serious work to do to ensure that safe
and reliable services reach 100% of our population—in rural areas, urban areas, and everything
in-between.
268
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER GEOFFREY STARKS
APPROVING IN PART AND DISSENTING IN PART
Re: Communications Marketplace Report et al., GN Docket No. 20-60
Much of this Report is uncontroversial and useful. I thank the Commission staff who
assembled this wide-ranging look at the communications marketplace. The wealth of factual
information presented here is a testament to both their hard work and the enormous scope of
issues facing the Commission today.
I cannot, however, fully approve this Report. Many of the decisions the Report touts as
promoting competition and closing the digital divide have done no such thing. Here’s one
important example: The Report’s discussion of the 2019 Lifeline Reform Order leaves that
decision’s harmful impacts—increasing red tape, reducing provider participation, and making it
less likely that low-income Americans will receive robust broadband internet access through the
program—out of the discussion entirely. Another missed opportunity is in the Report’s general
description of regulatory barriers to entry into broadcasting without any specific discussion of
the historically persistent barriers to entry, including access to capital, for people of color and
women.
Moreover, the Report’s agenda for the next two years fails to set the right vision,
particularly with respect to the fixed communications marketplace. There is not one word in that
section about promoting affordability or making sure that low-income communities share in the
benefits of broadband. At the end of this difficult year, we should not need more evidence that
internet inequality stands between tens of millions of Americans and equitable access to
opportunity. I therefore dissent in part.
269

FCC 20 188a1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FCC 20 188a1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

FCC 20 188a1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188

2020 COMMUNICATIONS MARKETPLACE REPORT

Adopted: December 31, 2020 Released: December 31, 2020

b. Pricing ............................................................................................................................. 109

C. The Video and Audio Communications Marketplace.................................................................. 336

2. In December 2018, the Commission adopted the first Communications Marketplace

A. The Mobile Wireless Marketplace

b. Connections/Subscribers and Connections Market Share

releases/thales-and-ses-select-hughes-next-generation-aviation-connectivity-network; Hughes, Aeronautical

Source: NRUF, CTIA Year-End 2019 Wireless Industry Indices Report.

Data Capable Unit Smartphone

Source: CTIA Year-End Wireless Industry Indices Report at 15, Chart 4.

Source: CTIA Year-End Wireless Industry Indices Report at 13, Chart 2.

24 GHz 28 GHz Upper 37 GHz 39 GHz 47 GHz

Spectrum 70 70 50 14 130 10 90 65 40 20 67.5 116.5

Spectrum 70 70 50 14 130 10 90 65 40 20 67.5 116.5

Staff estimates as of July 2020.

Mobile Wireless Provider Spectrum Holdings by Band

Cellular 700 MHz 600 MHz

Staff estimates as of July 2020.

customers of Shenandoah Telecommunications Company and Swiftel Communications, Inc.).134 On July

Reported Subscribers (millions) ARPU ($)

Source: CTIA Year-End 2019 Wireless Industry Indices Report.

AT&T $36.58 $34.13 $29.57 $27.71

$/GB (Total Rev)

$/GB (All Users)

$/GB (Est Data Rev)

$12,000 11,240 11,300

b. Innovation and Technological Change

57. In contrast to prior generations of technologies, the costly process of transitioning

when-you-switch (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).

mobile-a-new-moment-in-wireless-has-begun (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).

mobile-families-save-big-50-percent (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).

2H2018 1H2019 2H2019

Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median

Service Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median

Mean 4G LTE Download Speed Median 4G LTE Download Speed

Average Average Average

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Total Providers Rural Providers Urban Providers

Percent of U.S. Population

AT&T Comcast Charter Verizon Century Link

DSL Cable FTTP All Other

Source: Staff calculations based on FCC Form 477 data.

2. Competition in Fixed Broadband

80% DOCSIS 3.1

Source: FCC Form 477 data.

Urban FTTP Urban DOCSIS 3.1 Rural FTTP

Source: FCC Form 477 data and Census data.

Source: Published with permission of BroadbandNow.com.

Speed Tier (in Mbps)

Promotional Price Non-Promotional Price

Source: Published with permission of Broadbandnow.com.

$80 $70 $72

Technologies by Download Speeds