Author: Dave Andersen

Dave Andersen is a Marketing Program Manager at Ookla, where he creates enterprise and consumer content across Ookla’s brands. Dave got his start in the telco space in 2012, producing content for RootMetrics. Dave has a bachelors in marketing from Washington State University and studied creative writing in Oklahoma State’s MFA program.
Ookla Research™ Articles
| April 15, 2026

World Cup 2026: The Connectivity Picture for Traveling Fans

Network Performance

For travelers heading out of the country to the World Cup this summer, many assume their roaming setup is already taken care of before they leave. The reality is more complicated. Roaming performance varies significantly depending on a traveler’s home operator, not just the country they’re visiting. 

The agreements operators negotiate with foreign networks influence which network a device connects to—such as 5G or LTE—and how that connection is handled once it’s on the network. In fact, travelers from the same country, sitting in the same stadium, can have completely different experiences based purely on their operator in their home country.

The stakes are higher for fans in 2026 than they have ever been. FIFA is delivering tickets exclusively through its official app this year, with no printed or offline backup, which means an unreliable connection at the gate could be a real problem. 

For a deeper look at roaming and network readiness across all three host countries, check out Ookla analyst Mike Dano’s recent article and our World Cup 2026 roaming webinar, available on demand.

Why Don’t All Fans Get the Same Signal at World Cup 2026?

Roaming performance varies significantly depending on a traveler’s home operator, not just the country they’re visiting. When a traveler lands in a foreign country and their phone connects to a local network, that connection is governed by a roaming agreement—a prenegotiated deal between a user’s home provider and the local operator. Those agreements shape which network the phone can access and whether it can use 5G or is limited to LTE. Most travelers have no visibility into these agreements and no reason to think about them until something goes wrong.

The 2022 World Cup in Qatar illustrated this issue clearly. Argentina’s Personal, Mexico’s Telcel, and Brazil’s Vivo all had roaming agreements that gave their customers access to Qatar’s 5G network. On the other hand, Claro and AT&T Mexico customers were largely limited to LTE and could not access that 5G network at all. Fans with 5G access had a noticeably better experience than those on LTE, a difference shaped in part by roaming agreements.

In 2026, the challenge is bigger. Forty-eight teams, 16 stadiums, and three host countries mean roaming traffic will hit multiple cities simultaneously, and fans may be moving between all three countries over the course of the event. How well a fan’s connection performs depends on roaming agreements, network conditions in each destination, and other factors such as device support and network load.

What to Expect in Each Host Country at World Cup 2026

For fans traveling to a single host city, the roaming question is fairly straightforward compared to those moving between countries. But a significant number of World Cup travelers will move across multiple countries over the course of the tournament, catching games in Dallas one week and Mexico City the next. Each trip places travelers on a different network, governed by different roaming agreements, with meaningfully different performance expectations.

Once fans are inside a stadium, connectivity can be another challenge. Tens of thousands of fans uploading, streaming, and messaging at the same time—especially during kickoff and halftime—can push even well-prepared networks to their limits. Recent Speedtest Intelligence data shows those differences clearly across the three host countries:

  • United States: U.S. stadiums generally offer the strongest performance of the three host countries. Median download speeds range from 242.19 Mbps at AT&T Stadium to 413.74 Mbps at Mercedes-Benz Stadium, with newer venues delivering noticeably faster results. Across cities and at airports, T-Mobile leads, while Verizon tends to lead at the venues themselves.
  • Mexico: Travelers will often connect to Telcel’s LTE network, though 5G access varies by roaming agreement. For example, Bell Canada subscribers had no 5G access when roaming on Telcel, while Telus subscribers showed 34% 5G access on the same network. Inside stadiums, median download speeds range from 35.66 Mbps at Estadio Banorte to 53.27 Mbps at Estadio Akron.
  • Canada: Rogers, Bell, and Telus are closely matched overall, with Telus generally leading at venues in Toronto and Vancouver. Stadium speeds are tightly grouped—140.61 Mbps at BMO Field to 143.37 Mbps at BC Place—though all three venues come in well below U.S. counterparts.

For a deeper look at network performance across host venues, check out our recent article, World Cup 2026 Network Readiness: A Latin American Perspective.

eSIMs and World Cup 2026: What Travelers Should Know

An eSIM is a digital SIM card built into most modern smartphones that allows a traveler to purchase and activate a local or regional data plan without swapping out a physical SIM card. For most fans, the default move is adding an international roaming package before the trip, but an eSIM offers an alternative that’s often cheaper and faster, without relying on whatever roaming agreement their home operator has negotiated.

The difference between an eSIM and an international roaming package can be meaningful. Brazilian travelers roaming into the U.S., for example, often experienced slower speeds than local users when using standard roaming—but those connecting through T-Mobile’s network, which Ookla ranked as the fastest in the country in 2025, saw considerably better results. 

For anyone heading to the World Cup this summer, researching eSIM options before departure is worth the time. Setting up an eSim generally takes about ten minutes on most modern smartphones.

How Should Fans Prepare for Roaming at World Cup 2026?

Fans traveling to World Cup 2026 should confirm 5G roaming access by destination, research eSIM options, and download the FIFA app before departure. An eSIM in particular can save a lot of last-minute headaches. Most roaming problems are discovered at the worst possible moment, usually at the airport, or worse, at the stadium gate.

The 2026 World Cup spans three countries with meaningfully different network environments, and an operator that performs well in one host country may have a completely different arrangement in another. A little homework before departure goes a long way:

  • Confirm 5G access by destination: Check whether the operator supports 5G roaming in each country on the itinerary. Roaming packages often bury that information in the fine print, and LTE-only access in Mexico or Canada can come as a surprise to travelers who assumed 5G was included.
  • Research eSIM providers: Buying a local eSIM plan before departure can mean faster speeds and more predictable costs than a standard roaming package.
  • Download and set up the FIFA app before leaving home: Tickets for World Cup 2026 are delivered exclusively through FIFA’s official app, with no printed or offline alternative. Logging in, downloading tickets, and confirming access ahead of time reduces the risk of dealing with account or connectivity issues at the gate.
  • If traveling across multiple host countries: A single international roaming package does not guarantee consistent performance across the US, Canada, and Mexico. Performance can vary by destination, so earlier steps—such as checking 5G access and considering eSIM options—become more important.

The Bottom Line on Roaming at World Cup 2026

The 2026 World Cup is the largest and most logistically complex version of the tournament ever staged, and the mobile network experience will reflect that complexity. A fan traveling from Brazil to games in Dallas, Mexico City, and Vancouver is effectively navigating three separate network environments, each with its own variables.

That is largely a solvable problem. Checking roaming agreements, researching eSIM options, and confirming the FIFA app is working before departure are not complicated steps. They just require knowing to take them in the first place.

For a deeper dive into network performance across all three host countries, read our full analysis and watch our World Cup 2026 roaming webinar on demand.

Ookla retains ownership of this article including all of the intellectual property rights, data, content graphs and analysis. This article may not be quoted, reproduced, distributed or published for any commercial purpose without prior consent. Members of the press and others using the findings in this article for non-commercial purposes are welcome to publicly share and link to report information with attribution to Ookla.

Network Performance

About the author

Dave Andersen

Dave Andersen is a Marketing Program Manager at Ookla, where he creates enterprise and consumer content across Ookla’s brands. Dave got his start in the telco space in 2012, producing content for RootMetrics. Dave has a bachelors in marketing from Washington State University and studied creative writing in Oklahoma State’s MFA program.

More Articles

Ookla Research™ Articles
| March 25, 2026

Ookla Partners with Arcep to Bring Speedtest Data to Mon Réseau Mobile Mapping Platform

Network Performance

Ookla® has formed a partnership with Arcep, France’s telecommunications regulator, to integrate Speedtest® crowdsourced data into Arcep’s “Mon Réseau Mobile” mapping platform, giving French consumers richer, more up-to-date insight into mobile network quality across the country.

Arcep’s Mon Réseau Mobile helps users identify the best mobile operator wherever they go in France, from home and work to vacation destinations and everywhere in between. With this partnership, Arcep’s platform now incorporates speed data (both download and upload) and latency drawn from Speedtest, supplementing Arcep’s existing coverage data with real-world, user-generated measurements. This quarter alone, Arcep published more than 420,000 Ookla measurements, with each French department represented by between 300 and 80,000 test points.

Ookla’s anonymized and aggregated data methodology upholds Arcep’s code of conduct, which promotes transparency in how mobile data is collected. Results will be published quarterly for the duration of the one-year partnership, and will also be available as open data on data.gouv.fr.

Speedtest data complements Arcep’s annual mobile service quality survey, which covers 1,700,000 test points, providing users with additional and more up-to-date information. The partnership supports Arcep’s broader data-driven regulation philosophy, reaffirmed under its Ambition 2030 strategy and based on two key principles:

  • Making regulator-collected data publicly available so consumers can make informed choices about their operator
  • Incentivizing operators to compete not just on price, but on the quality of service and coverage they offer

The approach also draws on data collected from users themselves—who are often the first to detect market malfunctions—to identify early warning signs and better tailor regulation to their needs. For Arcep and the nation’s consumers, data from the partnership is particularly valuable in rural areas, which have historically had fewer measurement points.

Arcep is not alone in turning to trusted third-party data to inform policy and empower consumers. Ookla works with telecommunications regulators around the world, including the FCC in the United States, the CRTC in Canada, ComReg in Ireland, and IMDA in Singapore, among others, providing the kind of independent, crowdsourced intelligence that helps shape better connectivity outcomes for users everywhere.To learn how Ookla’s data can support your organization, reach out to our team.

Ookla retains ownership of this article including all of the intellectual property rights, data, content graphs and analysis. This article may not be quoted, reproduced, distributed or published for any commercial purpose without prior consent. Members of the press and others using the findings in this article for non-commercial purposes are welcome to publicly share and link to report information with attribution to Ookla.

Network Performance
Regulatory

About the author

Dave Andersen

Dave Andersen is a Marketing Program Manager at Ookla, where he creates enterprise and consumer content across Ookla’s brands. Dave got his start in the telco space in 2012, producing content for RootMetrics. Dave has a bachelors in marketing from Washington State University and studied creative writing in Oklahoma State’s MFA program.

More Articles

Ookla Research™ Articles
| March 9, 2026

5G SA in 2026: Why Latency and Resilience are the New North Stars

Network Evolution

Mobile networks are entering a new phase in 2026. The focus has shifted from headline speed gains to how networks perform under  pressure. Operators and regulators are asking a more practical question: can networks deliver reliable, low-latency, resilient connectivity under real-world stress?

The stakes of that question become clear in high-pressure moments. A packed stadium where thousands of users try to upload video at the same time. A busy city center during peak commuting hours. An industrial facility running latency-sensitive robotics. A regional power outage where mobile networks become the last remaining communications layer. In each case, peak throughput matters less than consistency, responsiveness, and continuity.

5G Standalone (5G SA) sits at the center of the shift toward latency, resilience, and real-world performance. The standalone 5G architecture promises lower latency, stronger quality-of-service controls, and a foundation for 5G Advanced. Yet global rollout remains uneven, monetization remains challenging, and policy debates around resilience and sovereignty are reshaping how telecom infrastructure is governed. The state of 5G SA in 2026 reflects all of those tensions at once. 

For a deeper look at how these forces are playing out globally, watch our on-demand webinar, 5G Standalone in 2026: Global Performance, Monetization Momentum, and the New Era of Infrastructure Sovereignty.

5G SA Is Expanding, but the Global Gap Is Growing

5G Standalone removes the LTE anchor used in non-standalone (NSA) deployments and connects devices directly to a 5G core. That architectural shift reduces signaling overhead and gives operators greater control over latency, traffic management, and quality-of-service enforcement. In practical terms, it enables capabilities such as network slicing, uplink prioritization, and more predictable responsiveness.

Adoption levels, however, vary dramatically by region, and those differences have real performance and competitive consequences. According to Speedtest Intelligence data, China, for instance, has reached roughly 80% 5G SA sample share, reflecting nationwide commercial cores across major operators. India is approaching 50% penetration, though adoption is concentrated within one large operator. 

Meanwhile, the United States is nearing one-third SA share as carriers expand commercialization, while much of Europe remains in the low single digits, as operators continue prioritizing returns on earlier NSA investments.

Several structural factors shape SA adoption:

  • Core deployment complexity: Moving to a standalone core involves integration across cloud infrastructure, vendors, and operations—it is not as simple as switching on new software.
  • Device configuration: Even when handsets are SA-capable, firmware activation and carrier provisioning can delay actual SA usage.
  • Plan migration: Commercial rollout depends on operators actively migrating subscribers onto SA-enabled plans, which does not happen automatically.
  • Spectrum mix and aggregation: The balance between low-band spectrum for coverage and mid-band spectrum for capacity—combined with effective carrier aggregation—determines whether SA delivers meaningful performance gains.

Real-world penetration ultimately depends on how much subscriber traffic actually migrates onto standalone networks. While standalone 5G is clearly expanding, the gap between leading and lagging markets is widening—and that fragmentation will shape competitive dynamics heading into 2026.

Latency Is Where 5G SA Makes Its Most Meaningful Difference

Latency is where the benefits of 5G SA become most visible. Fast download speeds remain critical for everyday experiences like streaming high-resolution video, downloading large files, or loading rich web content. But many emerging and mission-critical applications depend on responsiveness as well—often referred to in technical standards as Ultra-Reliable Low-Latency Communications (URLLC)— including real-time cloud collaboration, remote control of industrial equipment, interactive gaming, and AR-assisted workflows. In those environments, lower and more consistent latency can matter as much as, or more than, peak throughput.

Globally, 5G SA delivered roughly a 23% reduction in median latency compared with NSA deployments. In some markets, the improvement was even more pronounced:

  • Hong Kong (~43% improvement vs. NSA): The standalone architecture reduced signaling overhead and delivered materially faster multi-server responsiveness.
  • France (~31% improvement vs. NSA): Routing traffic fully through the 5G core improved latency levels and consistency compared with NSA.

Download performance also remained strong on 5G SA, although speed gains often reflect spectrum strategy (i.e., carrier aggregation and mid-band usage) as much as architecture. In Q3 2025, several markets stood out:

  • UAE (~1.2 Gbps median SA download): Aggressive mid-band deployment and strong carrier aggregation pushed median speeds above 1 Gbps.
  • South Korea (>700 Mbps median SA download): Mature 3.5 GHz mid-band deployment continued to deliver strong, sustained throughput.
  • United States (>300 Mbps median SA download): Expanded multi-band standalone rollout translated into steady, measurable download improvements year-over-year.

However, architecture alone does not guarantee superior user experience. Performance outcomes still depend heavily on deployment decisions and optimization. Several factors explain why results can vary across operators and markets:

  • Spectrum mix and coverage balance: Heavy mid-band deployments boost capacity but can struggle indoors without complementary low-band support. Low-band improves reach but limits peak speed.
  • Carrier aggregation strategy: Without effective aggregation and uplink tuning, standalone gains can level off under heavier traffic loads.
  • Core placement and routing efficiency: CDN proximity, User Plane Function placement, and peering strategy directly affect end-to-end latency—sometimes more than radio conditions do.

In some markets, latency to major cloud-hosted services improved significantly under SA, while gaming latency showed little change in Europe. That gap highlights an important reality: improvements in the radio network do not automatically translate into consistent gains across every application unless optimized.

5G SA delivers measurable performance improvements—particularly in latency. The strongest results appear when core architecture, spectrum strategy, and routing decisions are aligned with real-world usage patterns.

Monetization Remains the Central Question

5G SA’s technical case continues to grow stronger: latency improves, uplink performance becomes more predictable, and download speeds increase. Core-level control becomes more granular. But technical progress does not automatically translate into commercial returns. The monetization challenge heading into 2026 varies sharply between consumer and enterprise segments

Consumer Monetization

For most consumers, network architecture is invisible. They notice when streaming buffers, downloads drag, or apps feel sluggish, but they also notice whether their everyday connectivity feels stable or unreliable. Speed matters, but stability and predictability shape trust over time.

5G SA slices or 5QI configurations can support experiences that users already value:

  • Stable uplink performance: Creators uploading high-resolution video or backing up large files expect transfers to complete without mid-stream drops.
  • Reliable hotspot use in congested venues: Travelers tethering laptops in airports or conferences need connections that remain usable under load.
  • Automatic continuity during broadband outages: 5G backup for home Wi-Fi provides tangible value when fiber or cable service fails, and standalone architecture can help operators manage those connections more predictably.

Improved uplink scheduling, congestion management, and quality-of-service controls can enable these outcomes. However, consumers rarely pay a premium specifically for “standalone” architecture. Monetization is typically attached to reliability features, backup services, or tier differentiation rather than to core network branding.

Enterprise Monetization

Enterprise buyers evaluate networks differently. The question is less about peak speed and more about operational impact. When latency spikes disrupt automated workflows or when connectivity drops affect distributed operations, the cost is measurable.

5G SA aligns more directly with enterprise requirements for URLLC, where industrial automation and robotics depend on consistent, predictable responsiveness:

  • Predictable low latency: Industrial automation and robotics depend on consistent responsiveness.
  • Network slicing and traffic isolation: Critical applications require guaranteed resources and separation from general network congestion.
  • Integration with private and hybrid deployments: Enterprises need interoperability with on-prem systems and edge infrastructure.
  • Defined accountability: Service-level guarantees and monitoring matter more than only speed metrics.

Enterprise buyers focus on performance guarantees and operational continuity—not on the underlying network architecture. They pay for performance commitments that protect their operations from outages and instability. In several markets, enterprise deployments are contributing a larger share of 5G revenue growth than consumer plans, particularly in private and hybrid network use cases.

For operators, the question heading into 2026 is how to translate standalone’s technical gains into repeatable revenue streams.

Infrastructure Sovereignty Is Reshaping Telecom Strategy

In 2025, telecom infrastructure was increasingly treated as strategic national infrastructure, alongside energy, transport, and cloud computing. A series of resilience events reinforced that shift. Regional power outages showed how quickly cellular uptime can degrade when grid supply fails. Subsea cable disruptions exposed transport vulnerabilities. Cloud outages demonstrated that software-layer failures can affect network availability even when radio sites remain operational.

Resilience now spans multiple layers:

  • Site-level power autonomy: Backup batteries and generators determine how long networks operate during outages.
  • Transport redundancy: Multi-path routing reduces single points of failure.
  • Core and orchestration reliability: Software resilience affects service continuity.
  • Cloud infrastructure dependencies: Hyperscale outages can cascade into network degradation.

Policy frameworks are evolving accordingly. In Europe, proposals such as the Digital Networks Act emphasize coordination, resilience, and infrastructure security. Cybersecurity reforms are tightening vendor scrutiny, and broader industrial strategies increasingly link telecom policy to AI competitiveness and supply chain stability. Other major markets are pursuing parallel strategies, though with different emphases:

  • China continues integrating domestic AI development with telecom infrastructure, reinforcing alignment between network deployment and national technology priorities.
  • India is accelerating efforts to build local network stack capabilities, reducing reliance on foreign vendors while expanding 5G coverage.
  • The United States remains focused on reshoring initiatives and supply chain security, particularly in core infrastructure and semiconductor ecosystems.
  • Gulf markets are linking AI readiness and national digitization goals to rapid 5G Advanced deployment timelines.

Telecom strategy increasingly intersects with national resilience planning, industrial policy, and long-term economic competitiveness.

5G Advanced Builds on SA—6G Remains Under Scrutiny

5G SA provides the architectural foundation for 5G Advanced, which expands capabilities through software-driven enhancements. Early commercial deployments are emerging across China and parts of the Gulf, with additional announcements expected in 2026.

5G Advanced aims to extend:

  • Stronger uplink performance: As AI tools, cloud collaboration, and content creation generate more upstream traffic, networks need to handle sustained uploads, not just fast downloads, with enhanced carrier aggregation in the uplink
  • Better energy efficiency: Operators face mounting cost and sustainability pressure as traffic grows and networks densify.
  • Deeper automation and analytics: More advanced network intelligence supports faster optimization, fault detection, and capacity planning.

At the same time, 6G discussions are accelerating. Standards work continues, with commercial deployments projected closer to 2030.

However, many operators are still navigating SA migration and monetization challenges. For several regions, 6G may represent an efficiency-driven evolution rather than a headline speed revolution.

The central 6G question may not be peak performance. It may be whether future networks align effectively with a broader ecosystem that now includes hyperscale cloud providers, neutral host operators, private wireless deployments, and non-terrestrial networks.

Tying It All Together

The mobile market heading into 2026 is shaped less by headline speed claims and more by how networks perform in real-world conditions. 5G SA has delivered measurable technical gains, particularly in latency, but commercial and operational outcomes now depend on how effectively operators deploy, optimize, and position those capabilities.

Performance consistency, resilience under disruption, and alignment with enterprise and national infrastructure priorities are increasingly central to how networks are evaluated. The next phase of competition will be determined not just by faster radios, but by how well operators translate architectural progress into durable value.

For a deeper discussion of standalone performance trends, monetization tradeoffs, and the policy shifts shaping 2026, watch the full webinar on-demand.

Ookla retains ownership of this article including all of the intellectual property rights, data, content graphs and analysis. This article may not be quoted, reproduced, distributed or published for any commercial purpose without prior consent. Members of the press and others using the findings in this article for non-commercial purposes are welcome to publicly share and link to report information with attribution to Ookla.

Network Evolution
Network Resilience
5G SA

About the author

Dave Andersen

Dave Andersen is a Marketing Program Manager at Ookla, where he creates enterprise and consumer content across Ookla’s brands. Dave got his start in the telco space in 2012, producing content for RootMetrics. Dave has a bachelors in marketing from Washington State University and studied creative writing in Oklahoma State’s MFA program.

More Articles

Ookla Research™ Articles
| February 11, 2026

5G SA, AI Demands, and Network Resilience Will Dominate the Mobile Market in 2026

Network Evolution

Mobile networks are entering a new phase in 2026. The story is no longer limited to coverage expansion or ultra fast download speeds. Operators, regulators, and enterprise buyers are increasingly focused on whether networks can deliver the reliability, responsiveness, and the capacity needed to support new services under real-world conditions—measured not just by download speeds, but by how networks behave under load, during disruptions, and in latency-sensitive use cases.

That shift is happening alongside meaningful changes in network architecture. Standalone 5G (5G SA) is gaining ground in multiple markets, and early 5G Advanced launches are building on SA foundations. Network resilience also is receiving far more scrutiny after a year of high-profile disruption events. At the same time, satellites are taking on a bigger role, from redundancy to direct-to-device (D2D) connectivity.

This article examines what those changes mean for 2026, including where 5G SA is expanding, why resilience has become a priority, how D2D is reshaping coverage assumptions, along with why AI-driven traffic is forcing networks to rethink uplink speed and latency. For a deeper discussion of these trends by Ookla Research’s analyst team, watch our webinar, From 5G SA to D2D and AI: What Ookla’s Analysts Say About the Year Ahead in Mobile.

Standalone 5G Expands, but Progress Varies Sharply by Region

Standalone 5G continues to grow, but the transition from non-standalone (NSA) deployments looks very different depending on the region. Ookla Speedtest data shows that the APAC region still leads global 5G SA deployment and adoption, reaching roughly 33% penetration by Q3 2025. Growth has begun to plateau slightly year-over-year, which suggests slower rollout or slower migration from NSA among existing 5G users, rather than a lack of initial SA capability.

Within APAC, China stands out for the scale and consistency of SA availability. China reached roughly 80% 5G SA sample share in our results, reflecting nationwide commercial SA cores across all major operators rather than limited or city-level deployments. India has also become a meaningful SA market since launching in 2023, though India’s SA growth has been driven largely by a single operator, resulting in rapid uptake but less uniform national availability.

Other regions show progress, but the gap remains large:

  • North America: Incremental SA expansion. North America’s SA penetration climbed to 27% sample penetration in Q3 2025, up from 18% in the previous year, as operators expanded SA on top of existing 5G coverage rather than building new networks from scratch.
  • Japan and South Korea: Cautious migration. Japan and South Korea reached approximately 10% SA penetration at the end of 2025, reflecting cautious migration from mature NSA deployments.
  • Europe: Core transition lag. Europe remains at just over 2% SA penetration, as many operators continue to prioritize returns on earlier NSA investments and delay full core transitions.
  • Gulf region: Early launches, limited scale. The Gulf region is close behind Europe at roughly 1.7%, despite early commercial launches and aggressive public timelines.

Europe and the Middle East still trail in SA penetration, but both regions have accounted for a large share of newer commercial SA deployments in recent months. While adoption remains low today, recent launches indicate that SA is moving from trials to broader commercial rollout in these markets.

5G SA Performance Gains Are Clear—Latency Tells the Story

5G SA performance improvements are visible across multiple metrics, but latency stands out as the most meaningful indicator of what SA enables. Download speeds on SA have reached new highs in several markets. For example, in Q3 2025 the UAE led with a median SA download speed of roughly 1.2 Gbps, followed by South Korea (740 Mbps), and Greece (~500 Mbps). The U.S., which was a leading country on SA speeds in 2024, reached over 318 Mbps median SA download speeds in 2025.

Download speed remains a useful benchmark, but multi-server latency shows the deeper value of SA architecture. Standalone architecture removes reliance on an LTE anchor and reduces signaling overhead, which consistently delivers better latency than NSA. Globally, 5G SA delivered a 23% reduction in median latency compared with 5G NSA. Certain markets recorded even sharper improvements, including:

  • Hong Kong: latency improvement of ~43% vs NSA
  • France: latency improvement of ~31% vs NSA

Latency improved in several markets in 2025. Hong Kong recorded multi-server latency below 17 ms, followed by Macau (19 ms), Singapore (~21 ms), and Switzerland (~23 ms). This latency improvement likely reflects a shorter path between the device and the core network under SA5G.

Standalone 5G provides the architectural foundation for 5G Advanced—the next phase of 5G evolution. 5G Advanced is a software-driven upgrade that expands SA-based capabilities and performance. China has driven early adoption, with a reported 50 million 5G Advanced users in 2025. Operators in Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE have launched commercial 5G Advanced services or announced availability plans. Trials have expanded across Europe, South America, and Asia, and additional commercial announcements are expected in 2026. In the United States, operators such as T-Mobile have begun positioning nationwide standalone networks as the foundation for future 5G Advanced capabilities, with broader feature enablement expected as standards and device ecosystems mature.

For operators, the central question remains monetization. Consumer monetization of 5G SA features like network slicing remains limited in many markets, while enterprise use cases map more directly to 5G SA and 5G Advanced capabilities. Lower latency, stronger quality-of-service controls, and more predictable performance align more naturally with enterprise and industrial requirements than with everyday consumer usage.

Network Resilience Becomes Both a Policy Priority and a Service Differentiator

Network resilience moved into sharper focus in 2025 after several high-profile disruption events demonstrated how quickly connectivity degrades when power, transport, or cloud dependencies fail. Power outages, subsea cable disruptions, and cloud service failures each exposed different failure modes, but the outcome was the same: mobile availability dropped when users needed it most.

At its core, resilience comes down to two factors: maintaining essential connectivity during unplanned shocks and restoring service quickly once disruption occurs. Analysis of the Iberian Peninsula blackout showed a direct relationship between grid failure and cellular uptime. When power failed, mobile service degraded rapidly, and recovery timelines varied significantly by operator, depending on backup power duration at sites, transport redundancy, and restoration processes.

Resilience challenges extend beyond physical infrastructure. Backup generators and battery autonomy remain critical, but recent cloud outages illustrate how service degradation can originate in software and cloud systems, not just the underlying network. Site-level hardening alone does not prevent outages when orchestration platforms or cloud services fail, turning software reliability into a network availability issue even when radio sites remain powered and functional.

Operators and regulators are responding:

  • Network design and redundancy: Operators are investing in circuit diversity, multi-path design, and improved site-level power autonomy to reduce single points of failure.
  • Resilience as a service feature: Some operators are beginning to treat resilience as a differentiator, bundling it into consumer offerings such as automatic cellular (4G/5G) backup for home Wi-Fi, helping households stay online when the primary broadband connection goes down.
  • Regulatory power requirements: Regulators in several markets are pushing harder on minimum hours of battery autonomy or generator requirements, in some cases scaling requirements by population density or site criticality.

Resilience is no longer a low-profile engineering topic. Indeed, resilience has become part of customer experience, national infrastructure planning, and regulatory oversight.


Direct-to-Device Connectivity Is Moving from Novelty to Commercial Reality

Direct-to-device (D2D) satellite connectivity is moving from early trials toward limited commercial availability. Standard smartphones can now connect directly to satellites without specialized hardware, extending basic connectivity beyond the reach of terrestrial networks.

Early deployments show growing usage. Operators in the United States, along with markets such as Canada and New Zealand, have moved past pilot phases, reporting sustained messaging activity rather than purely emergency use. Several technical and commercial models are developing at the same time, ranging from smartphone-native satellite messaging to operator-partnered satellite services that reuse existing cellular spectrum. Several technical and commercial models are developing at the same time, ranging from smartphone-native satellite messaging to operator-partnered satellite services that reuse existing cellular spectrum.

D2D is unlikely to replace terrestrial mobile networks, but it is reshaping expectations around coverage and resilience. Satellite connectivity increasingly serves as a fallback layer during outages and a coverage extender in hard-to-reach areas, reducing reliance on additional tower builds alone.

AI Is Forcing Networks to Rethink Upload and Latency Requirements

AI-driven applications are starting to change how networks are used. Unlike video streaming, which is overwhelmingly download-heavy, AI interactions generate sustained upstream data and place greater emphasis on responsiveness, shifting network planning priorities toward upload capacity and latency.

Forecast data suggests enterprise AI traffic will continue to grow. Ericsson reports AI-driven traffic trending toward a more symmetrical pattern—approximately 74% download and 26% upload—compared with the historical 90/10 ratio. Current 5G networks in many markets still deliver upload ratios between 6% and 15%, highlighting a growing mismatch between emerging AI demand and existing network configurations.

Latency requirements also become more complex under AI workloads. Basic LLM queries and voice assistants are less sensitive to latency fluctuations, but agentic AI (multi-step AI systems that take actions) and other time-sensitive systems are not.

Current cloud infrastructure latency often averages around 35 ms, which is generally sufficient for many consumer AI interactions. Industrial robotics, AR systems, and autonomous applications introduce tighter responsiveness expectations, where delays can compound across multi-step workflows. These lower-latency requirements are pushing networks toward architectural changes:

  • Standalone 5G adoption: Supporting more consistent, low-latency performance
  • Elastic capacity planning: Accommodating bursty, interaction-driven traffic patterns
  • Edge compute and hybrid inference: Reducing latency by moving processing closer to the user

AI changes both user behavior and network traffic patterns, increasing pressure on uplink capacity, latency targets, and overall capacity planning.

Looking Ahead to 6G

6G discussions are accelerating, but the industry remains cautious. Standards development is underway, with many expecting completion around 2028 and commercial deployments closer to 2030. Spectrum debates are intensifying, and policy moves are starting to shape the direction of future networks, including U.S. focus on the 7 GHz band.

Even with that momentum, the business case for 6G remains under scrutiny, largely because many operators are still working through standalone 5G migration, monetization, and return-on-investment challenges. Operators in several regions are likely to treat 6G less as a hardware refresh cycle and more as a software-driven evolution focused on efficiency, sustainability, and operational improvement.

In that context, the most important 6G question may not be peak performance. The bigger question is whether 6G can align with a broader connectivity ecosystem that increasingly includes:

  • Cloud providers such as AWS, Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud
  • Shared in-building wireless operators (“neutral hosts”) that support multiple carriers in venues like airports and stadiums
  • Private wireless networks deployed and managed by enterprises
  • Non-terrestrial networks such as satellite connectivity
  • New competition for the customer relationship beyond traditional mobile operators

Tying it All Together

The 2026 mobile market is being shaped by real infrastructure shifts. Standalone 5G is expanding, latency performance is becoming a higher priority, and early 5G Advanced deployments are building on SA foundations. Network resilience has become a public priority, and satellite connectivity is taking on a larger role that includes direct-to-device services. AI is also changing the profile of demand, pushing networks to rethink uplink planning, latency targets, and edge architecture.

Operators, regulators, and enterprise buyers are no longer judging networks only on download speeds. The conversation has expanded to include uptime, responsiveness, redundancy, and the ability to support new workloads under real-world conditions.

To explore the full discussion, including deeper analyst perspectives and more from the Ookla Analyst team, check out our recent webinar, From 5G SA to D2D and AI: What Ookla’s Analysts Say About the Year Ahead in Mobile.

Ookla retains ownership of this article including all of the intellectual property rights, data, content graphs and analysis. This article may not be quoted, reproduced, distributed or published for any commercial purpose without prior consent. Members of the press and others using the findings in this article for non-commercial purposes are welcome to publicly share and link to report information with attribution to Ookla.

Network Evolution
5G SA
AI

About the author

Dave Andersen

Dave Andersen is a Marketing Program Manager at Ookla, where he creates enterprise and consumer content across Ookla’s brands. Dave got his start in the telco space in 2012, producing content for RootMetrics. Dave has a bachelors in marketing from Washington State University and studied creative writing in Oklahoma State’s MFA program.

More Articles

Ookla Research™ Articles
| February 3, 2026

Understanding Where LEO Satellite Broadband Fits in State Broadband Strategies

Satellite

Satellite broadband is playing a growing role in state connectivity plans as broadband offices confront the hardest and most expensive parts of the digital divide. Modern low Earth orbit (LEO) satellite networks have moved far beyond the limitations of legacy systems, delivering lower latency and higher speeds in places where fiber and fixed wireless remain impractical. As public funding increasingly supports satellite deployments in remote and high-cost areas, state policymakers face a new challenge: understanding how real-world satellite performance evolves over time, how much variability exists across locations and conditions, and what that means for long-term accountability.

State broadband programs are increasingly treating satellite connectivity as a complementary tool within layered broadband plans, particularly for BEAD-eligible locations where terrain, construction costs, or timelines make terrestrial deployment unrealistic. The expanded role of satellite connectivity shifts the focus from deployment milestones to ongoing performance. Performance expectations, compliance oversight, and accountability requirements depend on evidence that extends well beyond initial deployment.

In this article, we examine how LEO satellite performance changes as networks scale, why performance variability is an inherent part of satellite systems, and why continuous, independent measurement matters for publicly funded broadband programs. For a deeper look at LEO satellite performance metrics, policy considerations, and oversight best practices, download our white paper, Orbiting the Divide: How LEO Satellites Are Transforming State Broadband.

How LEO Satellite Performance Evolves Over Time

LEO satellite broadband does not behave like a static utility. Performance changes as constellations expand, ground infrastructure grows, and network software is refined. Early performance results provide valuable insight, but those same early results generally do not represent final outcomes. For state broadband offices, that distinction matters when evaluating funded deployments and setting long-term expectations.

Ookla® Speedtest Intelligence data illustrates how quickly real-world performance can improve as LEO networks scale. For example, between Q3 2022 and Q1 2025, U.S. Starlink median download speeds nearly doubled from 53.95 Mbps to 104.71 Mbps. More recent data indicates that these gains have continued as LEO networks expand. Speedtest Intelligence data shows that Starlink’s median U.S. fixed download speeds increased from approximately 78 Mbps in early 2024 to 128 Mbps by December 2025.

Starlink’s performance gains reflect continued network expansion rather than one-time upgrades. As satellites are added and traffic is distributed across a larger system, users can experience measurable improvements in speed and latency. Network operators also continue to refine routing, beam management, and capacity allocation, which further influences real-world results. Several factors drive these changes over time:

  • Constellation expansion: Additional satellites increase total capacity and reduce localized congestion, improving median speeds and consistency in high-demand areas.
  • Software and traffic optimization: Updates to routing logic and beam management improve efficiency without requiring changes to user equipment.
  • Ground infrastructure growth: New gateways and backhaul investments shorten data paths and reduce latency, particularly in remote regions.
  • Regional maturation: Areas that initially underperform can improve as satellite density and supporting infrastructure catch up with demand.

For state broadband programs, satellite performance should be treated as a moving target rather than a fixed benchmark. Early performance metrics provide useful context, but effective oversight requires tracking how performance changes as networks mature over time and as usage increases.

Performance Variability Is Built Into Satellite Networks

Performance variability is not a flaw in satellite broadband; it is a defining characteristic of how shared, space-based networks operate. Unlike terrestrial infrastructure, satellite performance depends on orbital dynamics, network load, geographic conditions, and environmental factors that change continuously. For policymakers, this reality complicates one-time testing and static performance assumptions.

Real-world satellite performance can differ meaningfully by location, time of day, and local demand. A household in a low-density rural area may experience higher speeds than a household closer to a dense population center during peak usage. Weather, foliage, terrain, and line-of-sight conditions can also affect outcomes, particularly in forested or mountainous regions. Several common factors contribute to this variability:

  • Network load: Concentrated demand in specific areas can temporarily reduce speeds during peak usage periods.
  • Geographic conditions: Terrain, vegetation, and elevation affect signal quality and consistency.
  • Environmental effects: Weather and seasonal changes can influence performance, especially in rural and heavily forested locations.
  • Local adoption patterns: Rapid increases in user density can introduce short-term congestion until capacity scales to match demand.

Performance variability makes satellite broadband difficult to evaluate through isolated tests or installation checks. Indeed, a single measurement captures a moment in time, not the range of conditions users experience. For publicly funded deployments, that limitation underscores the importance of ongoing, independent performance testing rather than one-time snapshots.

Why Satellite Performance Monitoring Matters for Public Funding Oversight

As broadband programs move from awarding grants to enforcing performance commitments, oversight requirements continue to expand. State broadband offices are increasingly responsible for long-term performance accountability—not just deployment progress. Traditional oversight tools such as construction verification and acceptance testing confirm that service exists, but they do not show whether service continues to meet required performance standards over time.

Satellite networks evolve continuously, and individual satellites have finite operational lifespans that require ongoing replacement and optimization. Environmental conditions and local demand also change throughout the life of a funded project. These realities raise important oversight questions for state broadband offices, including:

  • Compliance: Whether funded networks continue to meet required speed and latency thresholds over time.
  • Scaling: How performance changes as adoption increases and demand grows.
  • Risk signals: Where persistent underperformance may indicate capacity constraints or coverage gaps.
  • Performance comparisons: How satellite performance compares with terrestrial options across the same geographies and time periods.

Independent, third-party performance data provides a way to address these questions at scale. Large, crowdsourced datasets—like those provided by Ookla—capture real-world user experience across locations and over time, revealing trends that provider-reported metrics and one-time tests cannot. When analyzed consistently, this data supports establishing baselines, monitoring trends, and identifying performance risks early.

For publicly funded satellite deployments, continuous measurement is not a compliance burden. Rather, it’s the mechanism that protects public investment and ensures funded networks deliver durable, equitable service throughout their operational life.

Tying it all together

LEO satellite broadband now plays a meaningful role in state broadband strategies, particularly in areas where terrestrial deployment remains cost-prohibitive or impractical. Performance has improved significantly as constellations scale, but satellite networks remain dynamic systems with inherent variability that complicates one-time testing and fixed assumptions.

For state broadband offices, long-term success depends on understanding how satellite performance evolves, accounting for variability across locations and conditions, and maintaining independent visibility into real-world outcomes over time. Continuous performance monitoring provides the evidence needed to confirm compliance, identify emerging risks, and ensure public funding delivers lasting connectivity.

For a deeper look at real-world satellite performance data, policy frameworks, and oversight best practices, download our full white paper, Orbiting the Divide: How LEO Satellites Are Transforming State Broadband. The white paper includes additional performance charts, a look at speed and latency over time, performance differences across geographies, and real-world examples showing how congestion and demand can affect outcomes.

Ookla retains ownership of this article including all of the intellectual property rights, data, content graphs and analysis. This article may not be quoted, reproduced, distributed or published for any commercial purpose without prior consent. Members of the press and others using the findings in this article for non-commercial purposes are welcome to publicly share and link to report information with attribution to Ookla.

Satellite

About the author

Dave Andersen

Dave Andersen is a Marketing Program Manager at Ookla, where he creates enterprise and consumer content across Ookla’s brands. Dave got his start in the telco space in 2012, producing content for RootMetrics. Dave has a bachelors in marketing from Washington State University and studied creative writing in Oklahoma State’s MFA program.

More Articles

Ookla Research™ Articles
| February 2, 2026

Ookla and BigPanda Partner to Bring External Observability to Enterprise IT Teams

Downdetector

Ookla® has formed a strategic partnership with BigPanda, a leading provider of agentic IT operations solutions, integrating Downdetector®’s real-time outage intelligence into BigPanda AI Incident Assistant. This partnership extends visibility beyond traditional internal monitoring, allowing IT teams to detect disruptions in external cloud platforms, SaaS providers, and ISPs that standard tools often miss.

The combination of Downdetector’s crowdsourced signals and BigPanda’s AI-powered investigation helps organizations understand whether an issue originates within internal systems or stems from a provider-side outage. Faster clarity leads to quicker root-cause identification, fewer unnecessary bridge calls, and more confident incident resolution.

“Our internal dashboards looked green, but the external signals told a different story,” said an engineering leader at a major global gaming studio. “Downdetector’s data triggered the investigation that helped us catch the issue before it escalated. Without that outside-in visibility, we would have been blind.”

Enterprise IT teams gain several advantages from the combined capabilities of BigPanda and Downdetector:

  • Avoid unnecessary bridge calls by ruling out internal code or infrastructure issues early
  • Reduce Mean Time to Innocence when an outage originates with a third-party provider
  • Accelerate root-cause analysis by surfacing provider-side factors at the start of an investigation
  • Communicate proactively with end users when the source of instability is a third-party outage

The integrated solution is available immediately for enterprises using BigPanda AI Incident Assistant with a Downdetector license.

Ookla retains ownership of this article including all of the intellectual property rights, data, content graphs and analysis. This article may not be quoted, reproduced, distributed or published for any commercial purpose without prior consent. Members of the press and others using the findings in this article for non-commercial purposes are welcome to publicly share and link to report information with attribution to Ookla.

Downdetector

About the author

Dave Andersen

Dave Andersen is a Marketing Program Manager at Ookla, where he creates enterprise and consumer content across Ookla’s brands. Dave got his start in the telco space in 2012, producing content for RootMetrics. Dave has a bachelors in marketing from Washington State University and studied creative writing in Oklahoma State’s MFA program.

More Articles

Ookla Research™ Articles
| January 26, 2026

Building a Global Benchmark: Introducing the WBA Wi-Fi Design Standard

Wi-Fi 7

Wi-Fi is now the default utility for connectivity in our homes, offices, factories, public spaces, and industrial environments. Yet, despite the ubiquity of connectivity, the end-user experience remains surprisingly inconsistent. We’ve all experienced the frustration of coverage gaps, “sticky” clients, or sudden drops in performance, even when using modern networks and devices.

As Wi-Fi deployments increasingly incorporate the 6 GHz spectrum and evolve toward Wi-Fi 7, network design and operation have grown more complex. Inconsistent deployments across operators and vendors are leading to fragmented design and performance outcomes that affect everyone—from the network engineer to the end-user.

As an industry leader with a commitment to measure, understand, and help improve connected experiences, Ookla proposed the formation of a Wireless Broadband Alliance (WBA)-led working group to develop a Wi-Fi Design Standard, helping bridge a critical gap between theoretical Wi-Fi standards and the realities of real-world deployment and user experience.

While standards bodies like the IEEE define the protocols (e.g., 802.11ax/be) and the Wi-Fi Alliance certifies interoperability, until now there has been no globally recognized standard for both the design and deployment of these networks. This void has led to the fragmentation described above, where inconsistent design practices result in unpredictable performance, even on the latest hardware.

That gap is what the WBA Wi-Fi Design Standard is intended to address. The initiative provides the industry with a vendor-neutral framework that defines what “good” connectivity looks like—quantifiable through rigorous KPIs and metrics. This work represents a natural evolution of Ookla’s mission to measure and improve global connectivity, building on the foundations established through Speedtest Certified™ and the WBA’s previous deployment guidelines.

The Challenge: Moving Beyond Fragmentation

While Wi-Fi technology itself is standardized, the way it is deployed is not. In practice, “fragmentation” shows up as different design assumptions, planning methods, and performance targets across operators, vendors, and industry verticals. As a result, similar environments can be built and evaluated in very different ways, with inconsistent outcomes.

This lack of uniformity creates significant challenges:

  • Operators struggle to deliver predictable quality assurance.
  • Enterprises face increasing complexity in dense environments.
  • End-users experience inconsistent performance, even with high-end devices.

At the same time, several industry trends are accelerating the need for standardization. The adoption of Wi-Fi 6E and Wi-Fi 7, the convergence of fixed and mobile architectures, the shift toward QoE-driven operations, and the growth of managed Wi-Fi services all demand more consistent, repeatable design and validation practices. These trends expose a clear opportunity for a global Wi-Fi Design Standard that unifies best practices, defines measurable KPIs, and supports reliable, multi-vendor deployments at scale.

Our Objective: A Unified Global Standard

The WBA Wi-Fi Design Standard project, led by Ookla, is focused on defining a clear, vendor-neutral framework for how Wi-Fi networks should be planned, deployed, and evaluated in real-world environments.

The goal is not to replace existing protocol standards, but to complement them by establishing consistent design and validation expectations that help translate theoretical capability into predictable, real-world performance.

Building on the WBA’s earlier deployment guidelines, this initiative evolves those principles into a formal, measurable standard aligned with modern Wi-Fi 6, 6E, and Wi-Fi 7 networks. By grounding design guidance in practical, testable outcomes, the standard aims to give the industry a shared reference for how networks should be designed and assessed across different environments and use cases, not just how they perform in theory or under ideal conditions.

Key areas of focus will include:

  •  End-to-End Coverage: Addressing every phase from site survey, to design, installation, and operation.
  • Performance Metrics: Defining minimum and relevant KPIs for RF performance, backhaul capacity, and Quality of Experience (QoE) including latency, jitter, throughput, roaming, and ISP backhaul capacity.
  • Vertical Specific Models: Tailoring guidance for diverse environments such as residential, enterprise, public venues, industrial IoT, and smart campuses.
  • RF & Capacity Planning: Guidelines for Access Point (AP) and antenna placement, density, and interference management to ensure consistent coverage.
  • Next-Gen Configuration: Offers critical guidance on 6 GHz spectrum adoption, multi-band steering strategies, and roaming configurations to prevent device disconnects.
  • Security Enforcement: Best practices for deploying WPA3 and handling Transition Modes to ensure security doesn’t come at the cost of connectivity.

Why a Common Wi-Fi Design Standard Matters

This project is not about producing another static document; it’s about creating a shared design framework the industry can rely on when planning, deploying, and validating Wi-Fi networks. While it is easy to define RF design targets or collect large volumes of performance metrics, it is far more difficult to align on which design decisions and KPIs truly influence real-world user experience.

“Wi-Fi design has long been treated as an art rather than a discipline, driven by individual experience and trial-and-error. That approach no longer scales. As part of the WBA’s mission to improve global broadband experiences through collaboration and shared standards, a globally aligned Wi-Fi design standard is essential to move beyond fragmentation and enable multiple stakeholders to engage. This will help deliver consistent, measurable performance, predictable Quality of Experience, and deployments that meet real-world operational and business requirements.” – Bruno Tomás, CTO of the Wireless Broadband Alliance (WBA)

A common framework helps reduce guesswork, improve consistency, and set clearer expectations across roles and environments. Those benefits show up in different ways across the Wi-Fi ecosystem.

For Network Designers and Surveyors:

  • Eliminate Guesswork: By establishing industry-aligned principles for planning and site surveys, designers can rely on a proven framework rather than subjective “rules of thumb.”
  • Standardized Validation: Surveyors will have a clear set of global metrics to test against, making it easier to validate designs and prove that a network meets performance expectations.

For Operators and Managed Service Providers (MSPs):

  • Enforceable SLAs: Operators can embed this guideline into Request for Proposals (RFPs) and Service Level Agreements (SLAs), ensuring that vendors and integrators deliver a network that meets specific, measurable quality benchmarks.
  • Predictable Quality: An industry-aligned approach reduces variability in deployments, helping MSPs deliver consistent reliability across different customer sites.

For Infrastructure Vendors:

  • Product Alignment: Vendors can align their tools and AP features with a globally recognized design framework, ensuring their products are “design-ready” for compliant networks.
  • Streamlined Requirements: A unified standard reduces the need to customize solutions for every different operator’s unique (and often conflicting) design requirements.

For End-Users and Enterprises:

  • Consistent Experience: Whether in a stadium, an office, or at home, users will benefit from a network designed to handle roaming and capacity correctly, delivering more consistent performance, faster response times, and fewer dropouts or periods of lag.
  • Future-Proofing: Enterprises investing in networks built around the principles outlined in this new Wi-Fi design standard will be better prepared for the demands of Wi-Fi 6E and Wi-Fi 7.

Tools and Capabilities Driving the Solution

To solve the challenges of fragmented design and validation, Ookla brings a unique combination of global network intelligence and precision measurement tools to the working group:

  • Precision RF Measurement & Diagnostics (Ekahau Sidekick 2): Ekahau by Ookla, provides the industry-standard hardware for spectrum analysis and Wi-Fi site surveys. The Sidekick 2 allows network engineers to capture precise RF data across 2.4, 5, and 6 GHz bands, identifying interference, coverage gaps, and capacity issues that software-only tools miss.
  • AI-Assisted Predictive Design (Ekahau AI Pro): Our planning software enables architects to model complex environments—from stadiums to warehouses—and simulate network performance before a single access point is installed. This ensures designs meet capacity requirements for high-density environments and modern applications like VoIP and video streaming while adhering to the WBA Wi-Fi design standard.
  • Real-World Quality of Experience (QoE) Testing: Beyond RF metrics, Ookla contributes the methodology for measuring the actual end-user experience. By integrating Speedtest® directly into the survey workflow, we can correlate RF signal strength with real-world throughput, latency, and jitter data. This allows operators to design beyond traditional networks that just had “good coverage,” to a modern Wi-Fi design based on WBA standards that actually delivers the connectivity required for demanding user applications.
  • Global Performance Benchmarks: Leveraging Ookla’s vast dataset of global network performance, we help the working group establish realistic, data-backed performance thresholds for different verticals, ensuring the new standard is grounded in how networks perform in the wild, not just in a lab.

Join the Initiative

Developing a truly global standard is an ambitious project and requires global collaboration. We are inviting wireless network designers, operators, infrastructure vendors, managed service providers, and certification bodies to join this working group and help shape the future of Wi-Fi deployment.

The development phase is set to kick off in Q1 2026, with a target to deliver the WBA Wi-Fi Design Standard v1.0 by the end of the year. As the effort moves forward, Ookla will continue providing real-world measurement, design, and performance insights to help ensure the standard remains grounded in how networks are deployed and experienced in the real world.Participation offers a direct opportunity to help define the benchmarks, KPIs, and design principles that will shape future Wi-Fi deployments worldwide. To contribute your expertise and be part of this WBA-led initiative, visit the project page or contact the WBA team directly.

Ookla retains ownership of this article including all of the intellectual property rights, data, content graphs and analysis. This article may not be quoted, reproduced, distributed or published for any commercial purpose without prior consent. Members of the press and others using the findings in this article for non-commercial purposes are welcome to publicly share and link to report information with attribution to Ookla.

Wi-Fi 7

About the author

Dave Andersen

Dave Andersen is a Marketing Program Manager at Ookla, where he creates enterprise and consumer content across Ookla’s brands. Dave got his start in the telco space in 2012, producing content for RootMetrics. Dave has a bachelors in marketing from Washington State University and studied creative writing in Oklahoma State’s MFA program.

More Articles

Ookla Research™ Articles
| December 16, 2025

Loaded Latency and L4S: The Next Frontier for Network Performance

Network Performance

As real-time responsiveness in apps like video conferencing and cloud gaming becomes increasingly important, loaded latency (how a network performs under heavy use) is becoming a key measure of network performance. Low Latency, Low Loss, Scalable Throughput (L4S) is a network technology designed to keep that latency stable under load by signaling congestion early, before queues build and delays become noticeable.

Key Takeaways

  • Loaded latency measures your network’s latency during everyday use: A growing share of user activity now depends on latency staying low and stable, not just on fast speeds. Even small delays can interrupt timing-sensitive tasks, and those delays typically appear only when the network becomes busy.
  • L4S acts as an early congestion warning system: Traditional congestion control waits for packet loss before signaling a slowdown, but by the time packets are dropping, users may have already noticed a frozen frame, lag spike, or audio glitch. L4S uses Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) marks to warn applications early, before queues build and delays become noticeable.
  • Low latency is becoming a competitive differentiator for operators: Networks built primarily around throughput don’t always maintain low delays once competing traffic appears. Latency spikes during busy moments affect how subscribers perceive their service, which directly impacts retention and support costs

Access networks have gotten faster and more capable in recent years, thanks to improvements in fiber, DOCSIS, and 5G. These upgrades have pushed peak speeds higher, but throughput is only part of the experience. As more applications depend on real-time responsiveness, latency—especially under load—will play an increasingly important role in shaping overall user experience.

Many applications—cloud gaming, video conferencing, XR, and interactive voice and video AI models—depend on latency that stays low and stable. A network can perform well when traffic is light, with latency close to idle, but those conditions rarely reflect real-world network usage. Once background activity begins, packets start waiting in buffers and latency increases, even on fast connections. Loaded latency measures that effect directly by testing delays while the connection is under heavy use, and Ookla captures this behavior through its standard testing methodology.

The difference between idle latency and latency under load is becoming a defining factor for modern networks. With more network activity shifting toward real-time and interactive use cases, operators are focusing on how their networks perform during busy moments—not just how fast they appear under light conditions.

Low Latency, Low Loss, Scalable Throughput (L4S) is one of the most promising ways to keep latency stable under load as networks carry more real-time traffic. Operators enable L4S in the network, and applications benefit when their congestion-control algorithms understand those signals and adjust before users notice a delay. This article looks at why loaded latency matters, how L4S works, and what it enables across today’s networks. For a deeper discussion on loaded latency, check out our full webinar on demand.

Why Loaded Latency Defines Real-World Experience

A growing share of user activity now depends on latency staying low and stable, not just on fast speeds. Even small delays can interrupt timing-sensitive tasks, and those delays typically appear only when the network becomes busy. Loaded latency metrics capture this behavior by showing how performance changes under everyday multitasking—not just in controlled, low-traffic scenarios.

Measuring loaded latency also reveals behaviors that don’t appear in tests where the connection isn’t carrying much traffic. When large uploads or downloads begin, packets start accumulating in buffers and competing for scheduling, and delays can rise even though the connection may look fast under simple tests. Latency tests that measure only idle conditions rarely capture this difference, which is why a connection can appear fine in a quick check but struggle once everyday background activity kicks in.

The rise of real-time and interactive applications has made latency far more noticeable to users. Networks built primarily around throughput do not always maintain low delays once competing traffic appears, which is pushing operators to focus more on performance during busy moments—not just during minimal-traffic conditions.

To measure your own network’s loaded latency, simply run a Speedtest. 

How L4S Keeps Latency Low Under Load

Interactive and real-time applications place tighter demands on networks than activities like streaming or web browsing. These applications need latency to stay low and consistent, even when background traffic ramps up. Typical congestion control isn’t designed for that level of responsiveness because it waits for packet loss before signaling a slowdown—by the time loss occurs, users have already seen a frozen frame, lag spike, or audio glitch.

Low Latency, Low Loss, Scalable Throughput (L4S) is a network technology that solves that problem by signaling congestion early, before queues build and delays become noticeable. It uses explicit congestion notification (ECN) marks instead of relying on packet loss, giving applications a near-instant signal that they should adjust their sending rate.

This early warning system keeps queues short and delays close to the network’s idle baseline, even when the connection is fully utilized. In practice, this means:

  • Latency stays low under load
  • Minimal packet loss or retransmissions
  • Smoother performance for mixed real-time and background traffic
  • Applicability across cable, fiber, mobile, and fixed wireless access (FWA) networks

Another key advantage is that L4S doesn’t require new towers, radios, or major hardware overhauls. Operators enable it through software updates to network elements, and applications add support through ECN-aware congestion control. Once L4S is enabled in the network and supported by applications, improvements appear without requiring new infrastructure.

Why Operators Are Prioritizing Low-Latency Architectures

Operators are focusing more on latency than they used to, because it’s now affecting the parts of their business that matter most: support costs, customer satisfaction, and competitive differentiation. When delays spike during busy moments, subscribers interpret it as “the network isn’t working,” even when the underlying issue is momentary latency, not overall capacity. That perception directly affects retention and brand strength.

Many network designs were built to maximize throughput, not to keep latency steady during real-time interactions. That limitation becomes clear when everyday tasks overlap—like a cloud backup running while someone joins a video call. Background uploads sync while users interact with apps that expect instant responses, and those overlapping demands show how older network designs can allow delays to increase under load.

Technologies like L4S give operators new tools to address these architectural gaps. They reduce latency spikes during congestion, keep performance steadier across different types of traffic, and create measurable improvements operators can use for differentiation. A few key forces are driving L4S adoption:

  • More activity now happens at the same time on a single connection, making delay spikes far more noticeable to users.
  • Vendor support for L4S has matured, making it practical to deploy at scale.
  • Operators can roll it out incrementally, improving latency without replacing existing infrastructure

Keeping latency stable during busy periods is becoming a meaningful competitive advantage. The operators investing now are doing it to strengthen service quality, reduce support friction, and prepare for workloads that rely on tight timing rather than speed alone.

The Application Ecosystem Is Moving Toward Stable Low Latency

Many emerging applications require latency to stay low and consistent; even small increases in latency can disrupt the user experience, so many apps depend on mechanisms that prevent delays from rising when networks become busy. As L4S support expands across operating systems, browsers, and real-time audio/video systems, developers will gain a more reliable foundation for experiences that require low latency and immediate responsiveness.

Application support is essential because L4S only delivers its full value when software knows how to react to early congestion signals. When apps can interpret L4S feedback, they adjust their sending rates before delays become visible, keeping interactions smooth even when networks are busy. This coordination between networks and applications is what makes low-latency performance noticeable in real use—not just in controlled testing.

L4S adoption is accelerating in several areas:

  • Browsers are integrating L4S-aware feedback, especially through WebRTC.
  • Operating systems and devices are beginning to enable L4S, increasing the number of devices that can benefit.
  • Cloud gaming and interactive media platforms are testing L4S, improving responsiveness during busy periods.
  • Developers are gaining clearer signals to react to congestion, allowing their apps to adjust sending rates sooner.

These shifts point toward a broader move to more tightly timed digital experiences, including:

  • XR and spatial computing, which require the display to update immediately when the user moves.
  • Live collaboration tools that rely on immediate responsiveness.
  • AI-driven assistants and interactive agents that need smooth, fast exchanges to feel natural in voice and video models requiring cloud inferencing
  • New real-time applications that will emerge as latency becomes more predictable.

As more apps and platforms adopt L4S, users will benefit from smoother, more responsive performance in everyday interactions. In addition, operators may have opportunities to offer L4S-enabled service tiers for specific audiences—such as gamers—creating new ways to capture value from these improvements. 

The Future of Low-Latency Networking

The next generation of connected experiences will place even greater pressure on latency. Immersive XR environments, remote-operation scenarios, industrial automation, and interactive AI all depend on responses that stay smooth even when networks are busy. When delays increase, these experiences break down, making stable latency a core requirement for what comes next.

Technologies like L4S give operators a practical way to deliver the stable latency that emerging applications demand. As networks adopt modern congestion-control mechanisms like L4S and more applications learn how to react to those early congestion signals, users will see more consistent performance during busy periods.

Low-latency performance is becoming a core competitive requirement. Operators that invest early will be better positioned for the increasingly interactive workloads ahead—workloads that will place even greater emphasis on consistently low latency. To explore loaded latency and L4S in more detail, watch the full webinar on demand.

Ookla retains ownership of this article including all of the intellectual property rights, data, content graphs and analysis. This article may not be quoted, reproduced, distributed or published for any commercial purpose without prior consent. Members of the press and others using the findings in this article for non-commercial purposes are welcome to publicly share and link to report information with attribution to Ookla.

Network Performance

About the author

Dave Andersen

Dave Andersen is a Marketing Program Manager at Ookla, where he creates enterprise and consumer content across Ookla’s brands. Dave got his start in the telco space in 2012, producing content for RootMetrics. Dave has a bachelors in marketing from Washington State University and studied creative writing in Oklahoma State’s MFA program.

More Articles

Ookla Research™ Articles
| November 18, 2025

Public Safety Connectivity: How Agencies Can Strengthen Critical Communications

Regulatory

Connectivity failures are inconvenient for most people, but for public safety agencies they can be catastrophic. Whether coordinating evacuations, dispatching first responders, or keeping hospitals online, resilient networks are essential to saving lives and protecting communities.

Real-world disasters highlight the stakes. From wildfires in Maui and California to hurricanes across the Southeast, connectivity has been disrupted when agencies needed it most. In those moments, responders face delays, residents lose access to critical information, and hospitals struggle to coordinate care. The risks are clear: without resilient communications, every aspect of emergency response becomes harder and more dangerous.

Agencies need visibility into how networks perform in the real world. Ookla’s ecosystem—Speedtest, Downdetector, and Ekahau—provides the tools to strengthen preparedness, improve response, and accelerate recovery. 

Read on to learn why resilient connectivity is so vital, the key challenges agencies face, and what recent disasters like the Lahaina wildfires reveal about the stakes. To dig deeper, download our full guide: Building Resilient Connectivity for Public Safety and Emergency Management.

When Communication Fails, Safety Fails

Disasters often strike in chaotic conditions where infrastructure is already damaged or failing. Responders may be rushing into wildfires, floods, or tornadoes with limited visibility and unreliable networks. Hospitals and shelters may suddenly find themselves overwhelmed, with communications buckling under the weight of demand. In these situations, reliable communication can often determine whether help arrives on time.

Communication breakdowns ripple outward. A single dead zone can cut a fire crew off from dispatch. If hospitals can’t access patient records or coordinate ambulance arrivals, patients may not get the care they need in time. When dispatchers can’t relay caller details in real time, teams enter dangerous situations without critical information—and communication breakdowns can affect every group involved in an emergency response:

  • First responders: Without reliable coverage, teams may lose contact with dispatch or lack access to real-time data
  • Dispatchers: Disrupted networks hinder the ability to gather details from callers, delaying information for crews in the field
  • Fire teams: Loss of radio or mobile service can force reliance on hand signals or runners, slowing response when every second matters
  • Healthcare and EMS: Connectivity failures prevent hospitals and ambulances from accessing patient records or coordinating care, directly affecting outcomes

Loss of service and communication blackouts are not hypothetical risks. From Chief Barry Hutchings of the Western Fire Chiefs Association describing a fire scene with no portable radio coverage, to hurricanes and wildfires cutting off entire regions, the consequences are well documented. Reliable communications across response routes, hospitals, and community centers can mean the difference between a timely response and catastrophic outcomes.

Key Connectivity Challenges for Agencies

Agencies are often asked to deliver flawless communication in the most challenging environments. Rural areas stretch networks thin, mountains block signals, and older government facilities can block wireless coverage. During a disaster, even modern infrastructure can be compromised by fire, flood, or wind damage.

The problem goes beyond poor coverage or inadequate capacity; agencies also often lack detailed insight into how networks perform in specific areas. An agency may know a dead zone exists, but they often lack the data needed to demonstrate the problem and secure funding for improvements. In other cases, they may be flying blind during an outage, without real-time visibility into what has failed or how widespread the issue is. Without the right tools, even well-prepared teams can struggle to manage the connectivity challenges emergencies present:

  • Coverage and reliability gaps: Rural areas, mountainous terrain, and dense building materials can create persistent dead zones
  • In-building connectivity gaps: Older or secure government facilities often block signals and limit network upgrades
  • Outdated infrastructure and regulatory hurdles: Aging infrastructure and regulatory hurdles slow tower deployments and upgrades
  • Situational blind spots: Without real-time network data, agencies can often lack the visibility needed to pinpoint outages, understand their scope, and coordinate an effective response
  • Infrastructure vulnerabilities: Natural disasters can often damage physical infrastructure, creating extended blackouts
  • Funding constraints: Without concrete evidence of where and how networks are falling short, agencies can struggle to secure federal or state support for upgrades

These challenges leave agencies vulnerable. Without reliable coverage and visibility, response times slow, public trust erodes, and communities face greater risk during emergencies.

A Framework for Preparedness, Response, and Recovery

Public safety cannot be purely reactive. Agencies must plan in advance, monitor conditions as crises unfold, and evaluate how well systems recover once the danger passes. The emergency management lifecycle—preparedness, response, recovery—ensures that agencies are not just reacting, but instead building long-term resilience.

In practice, responsibilities for each stage of that lifecycle are typically split across different teams. One group may focus on planning coverage improvements, another may monitor outages as they occur, and another might validate in-building Wi-Fi performance. Without a unified view, important gaps can go unnoticed. 

To close those gaps, agencies need integrated solutions that connect every stage, from pre-disaster planning through post-disaster recovery. A complementary mix of network performance data from Speedtest Intelligence®, website and service outage insights from Downdetector®, and wireless survey capabilities from Ekahau help ensure that each phase of the emergency management lifecycle is supported with the right visibility and intelligence:

  • Preparedness: Agencies use Speedtest Intelligence® data to identify coverage gaps, assess high-risk zones, and validate network upgrades. Public safety IT teams also use Ekahau tools to conduct wireless surveys and verify network performance in critical locations such as hospitals, command centers, and shelters
  • Response: Downdetector® detects website and service outages in real time, giving agencies early awareness of issues. Meanwhile, Speedtest provides immediate visibility into performance changes, while Ekahau validates temporary networks in shelters or mobile command posts.
  • Recovery: Agencies measure restoration speed, validate coverage improvements, and document outcomes to inform future investments. Downdetector and Speedtest data help secure funding by showing where networks fail during emergencies and measuring how quickly they recover.

The emergency management lifecycle—preparedness, response, recovery—ensures agencies are not only reacting in the moment but building more resilient systems for the future.

Lessons from Lahaina

When wildfires tore through Lahaina, Hawaii in August 2023, connectivity collapsed when residents and emergency managers needed it most. Evacuees had little information about safe routes, and responders struggled to understand whether networks were down locally or across entire islands. Without visibility into network conditions, emergency responders could not determine where they could reach people and where communications had already failed.

Tools like Downdetector and Speedtest provided critical real-time visibility into network conditions. By combining outage reports with performance data, agencies gained the situational awareness they needed to prioritize limited resources and focus on areas most in need.

The insights revealed a clear picture of how the crisis was unfolding and how that visibility informed response decisions. Downdetector tracked sudden spikes in outage reports, while Speedtest Intelligence revealed steep declines in network performance. Together, those insights allowed responders to distinguish between isolated disruptions and broader failures, helping prioritize key resources. The Lahaina fires show how connectivity insights can be as essential as water or fuel when disaster strikes.

The lesson from Lahaina is clear: visibility into connectivity provides essential intelligence during disasters. Identifying where networks fail and how they recover enables agencies to coordinate more effectively with providers, support first responders, and keep communities informed as conditions evolve.

Conclusion

Public safety and emergency management agencies cannot afford uncertainty in communication. Reliable networks are the foundation of preparedness, response, and recovery—and the consequences of failure are too great to ignore.

Ookla’s ecosystem of Speedtest, Downdetector, and Ekahau gives agencies the visibility, reliability, and security they need to protect communities. With better data, decision-makers can plan smarter, respond faster, and restore service more effectively when disaster strikes.

To learn how your agency can strengthen its response capabilities and ensure networks are resilient when it matters, check out our full guide, Building Resilient Connectivity for Public Safety and Emergency Management.

Ookla retains ownership of this article including all of the intellectual property rights, data, content graphs and analysis. This article may not be quoted, reproduced, distributed or published for any commercial purpose without prior consent. Members of the press and others using the findings in this article for non-commercial purposes are welcome to publicly share and link to report information with attribution to Ookla.

Regulatory
Government

About the author

Dave Andersen

Dave Andersen is a Marketing Program Manager at Ookla, where he creates enterprise and consumer content across Ookla’s brands. Dave got his start in the telco space in 2012, producing content for RootMetrics. Dave has a bachelors in marketing from Washington State University and studied creative writing in Oklahoma State’s MFA program.

More Articles

Ookla Research™ Articles
| November 6, 2025

Why Satellite Broadband Is Becoming a Bigger Part of U.S. Rural Connectivity Plans

Satellite

Expanding broadband isn’t just about laying more fiber. It’s about finding practical ways to reach the rugged, rural, and hard-to-serve places where traditional infrastructure projects are slow or cost-prohibitive. That challenge is at the heart of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s BEAD program, which is fueling one of the largest broadband infrastructure efforts in U.S. history. Fiber networks remain at the center of those plans, but the high cost and complexity of reaching remote regions means fiber alone won’t connect everyone quickly or affordably.

Because fiber and fixed wireless can’t cover every corner of the country, states are increasingly turning to satellite broadband to reach the most challenging locations. Low-Earth orbit (LEO) providers like Starlink and Amazon Kuiper are being factored into BEAD strategies as practical solutions for areas where traditional infrastructure isn’t financially or logistically viable. States like Maine and Hawaii have already used satellite service to reach homes in remote and geographically complex areas where fiber or fixed wireless deployments would be slow or cost-prohibitive.

For states looking to connect their most difficult-to-serve communities, understanding how satellite fits into the rural broadband mix is becoming essential. Watch our recent webinar where we’re joined by broadband leaders from Maine and Hawaii for a discussion on performance trends, policy implications, and the evolving role of satellite broadband.

Satellites Are Playing a Bigger Role in BEAD Allocations

Extending broadband into rural, sparsely populated, and geographically challenging areas has always required tradeoffs between cost, timelines, and technology. Fiber may deliver the strongest long-term performance, but extending it to extremely rural or geographically isolated areas can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars per location and take years to complete. In Alaska, for example, Quintillion Subsea is receiving more than $113,000 per address to extend fiber—underscoring just how expensive these builds can be. Those realities have forced states to look at a wider mix of technologies, and satellite connectivity has quickly become part of that conversation.

BEAD allocations are already reflecting this shift. While fiber remains the dominant technology, satellite internet’s growing share shows that states aren’t treating it as a niche option; many are planning for it as a complementary piece of their buildout strategies—particularly in places where fiber or fixed wireless is too expensive or complex to deploy.

  • Fiber is receiving bulk of BEAD funds: Fiber accounts for the majority of BEAD allocations, but satellite internet has carved out a meaningful share of initial awards across several states.
  • Starlink and Kuiper entering the picture: Starlink currently represents about 3% of BEAD funding awarded so far, with Amazon Kuiper just under 1%.
  • Rising confidence in satellite internet: The share of BEAD dollars directed to satellite internet signals increasing trust in the technology as a practical option for reaching rural and hard-to-serve communities.

Even a small share of BEAD funding can cover areas where fiber builds would have stalled or taken years. Satellite connectivity is moving from a fallback option to a planned part of many states’ broadband strategies.

Real-World Deployments Show How States Are Using Satellites

The shift toward satellite connectivity is happening now. States are already using LEO satellite service to close stubborn coverage gaps that traditional infrastructure can’t reach quickly or affordably. Maine and Hawaii offer two clear examples of how the technology is being put to work today.

These states face some of the toughest connectivity challenges in the country—from remote islands and mountainous terrain to areas where no infrastructure exists at all. Instead of waiting for long fiber construction timelines, both turned to satellite as a fast bridge to reliable service. In the webinar, we got a closer look at how Maine and Hawaii are using satellite:

  • “Working Internet ASAP” connecting unserved homes: Maine’s Working Internet ASAP program provided more than 8,800 unserved locations with free Starlink kits and installation, focusing on households with no service options of any kind.
  • Hawaii blending fiber and satellite: Hawaii’s approach combines fiber and satellite internet to reach rural areas, where cutting through lava rock or laying undersea cables would be prohibitively expensive.
  • Early deployments tied to BEAD: Both states are aligning their satellite connectivity efforts with BEAD planning so those initial builds can transition smoothly into long-term programs.

The early adoption of satellite internet reflects both a shift in policy and a leap in performance, moving the technology from a last-resort option to an intentional part of state broadband strategies.

Strengths and Limits of LEO Satellite Technology

LEO satellite connectivity has advanced quickly in the past decade. The technology is now capable of delivering broadband speeds to places that were once all but unreachable. Locations that would have required massive fiber investments or been written off entirely can now be connected far more quickly. That shift is reshaping how states and providers think about rural deployment strategies.

Massive increases in spectral efficiency, falling launch costs, and cheaper user equipment have made satellite internet both faster and more widely available. Several technical and economic factors are driving this expansion, while also shaping where the technology is most effective.

  • Localized congestion remains a factor: Network slowdowns can occur in high-traffic areas, as seen in Pershing County, Nevada during the Burning Man festival.
  • Spectrum reuse driving capacity gains: Satellites now use more focused “spot beams” that cover smaller geographic areas. Dividing coverage into smaller zones allows providers to reuse the same frequencies in different places, which increases total network capacity without needing additional spectrum.
  • Lower costs enabling large constellations: Falling launch and build costs have made it financially feasible to deploy thousands of satellites, dramatically expanding the scale and reach of satellite internet networks.
  • Wider coverage, but limited density: Satellites can now cover nearly every corner of the country, but overall capacity remains best suited for low-density regions. Heavy usage in concentrated areas can still strain the network, and in some locations providers have introduced usage tiers or surcharges to manage excess demand.

Satellite connectivity plays a critical role in reaching rural and remote communities where fiber or fixed wireless is impractical or too expensive. It works best as one piece of a broader broadband strategy that blends multiple technologies to reach every corner of a state.

Reliability, Compliance, and Performance Monitoring

When states invest millions to bring broadband to rural communities, delivering a signal isn’t enough. Those connections need to support everyday needs like work, school, telehealth, and emergency services with consistent speeds, low latency, and reliable uptime (the amount of time a connection is available and working as expected), giving users a dependable experience day in and day out. To make sure that happens, states are moving beyond one-time performance checks at installation—where service is validated only on day one—and putting systems in place to measure how well connections perform over time.

Starlink’s latency in the U.S. averages around 40 milliseconds, well below BEAD’s 100 ms requirement—a strong indicator that the technology can meet performance targets. But environmental factors can still affect individual sites. Snow, ice, or tree cover can interfere with line-of-sight and impact connection quality, though professional setups help minimize those disruptions. States are starting to define how they’ll verify performance, ensure service meets funding benchmarks, and build accountability into satellite deployments.

  • Independent verification tools: Speedtest and other third-party platforms can help verify that real-world performance matches program requirements.
  • Strong reliability signals in Maine: The state has reported minimal complaints from satellite internet users, a good indicator of reliable service in hard-to-serve areas.
  • Hawaii adapting regulatory frameworks: Hawaii is modifying existing regulatory frameworks to ensure providers meet performance expectations under BEAD-funded deployments.
  • Enforcement mechanisms still developing: Oversight and accountability frameworks are expected to mature as satellite deployments scale.

Satellites can bring broadband to rural communities quickly, but speed alone isn’t the goal. States are putting new systems in place to make sure that connectivity remains consistent, reliable, and measurable over time.

Competition and Capacity Will Shape What Comes Next

Satellite connectivity is moving into a new phase—one defined less by proving it works and more by deciding how to use it at scale. As states plan their long-term broadband strategies, they’ll be weighing technical tradeoffs, provider options, and capacity constraints in ways they haven’t had to before.

Amazon Kuiper’s upcoming commercial launch will introduce real competition for Starlink, giving states more than one major provider to consider for BEAD-funded deployments. Starlink relies on Ku band spectrum, which is generally less sensitive to weather interference, while Kuiper will use Ka band spectrum, which can support stronger uplink capacity but may be more vulnerable to signal loss in heavy rain.

The combination of band choice and network architecture will shape how each service performs and where it fits best. As competition heats up, several factors will shape how states evaluate satellite providers under BEAD.

  • Kuiper entering the market: Amazon Kuiper’s commercial launch will bring new competitive pressure to Starlink’s early lead, giving states more leverage and flexibility in future deployments.
  • Band differences shaping performance: Ku-band (used by Starlink) is less sensitive to weather, while Ka-band (planned for Kuiper) can support stronger uplink performance but may be more vulnerable to interference. These tradeoffs will influence where each provider’s technology is best suited.
  • Scaling capacity as a key challenge: Expanding network capacity as more users come online will be critical to maintaining performance, particularly in rural areas with seasonal demand spikes or high-density events.

As satellite competition ramps up, states will need to balance cost, coverage, and long-term performance when deciding how these technologies fit into their broadband strategies. The choices they make in the coming years—about providers, technologies, and capacity planning—will shape how quickly and reliably rural communities get connected.

Conclusion

Satellite broadband is no longer a fringe technology. It’s being deployed today in some of the toughest connectivity environments in the U.S., and BEAD allocations show it’s becoming part of state-level planning in a meaningful way. Maine and Hawaii are proving what’s possible when satellites are used strategically, while performance improvements make the technology more viable every year.

As competition increases and deployment strategies mature, satellites are poised to play an integral role in helping close the digital divide, complementing fiber and fixed wireless to deliver broader, faster, and more resilient connectivity. 

To learn more about the emergence of satellite internet, watch our full webinar on demand, “Satellite Internet Uncovered: Performance Trends and Policy Implications.” 

Ookla retains ownership of this article including all of the intellectual property rights, data, content graphs and analysis. This article may not be quoted, reproduced, distributed or published for any commercial purpose without prior consent. Members of the press and others using the findings in this article for non-commercial purposes are welcome to publicly share and link to report information with attribution to Ookla.

Satellite

About the author

Dave Andersen

Dave Andersen is a Marketing Program Manager at Ookla, where he creates enterprise and consumer content across Ookla’s brands. Dave got his start in the telco space in 2012, producing content for RootMetrics. Dave has a bachelors in marketing from Washington State University and studied creative writing in Oklahoma State’s MFA program.

More Articles