The year 2025 marks a milestone in the history of Algeria. While the preceding decade was characterized by the expansion and stabilization of 4G LTE networks, more recently, the country embraced 5G to stimulate the digital ecosystem and also in reaction to the competitive landscape of North Africa, where neighboring nations (Egypt, Morocco, and Tunisia) also accelerated their 5G initiatives in 2025.
As 5G was only recently launched, consumers expect a higher-performing and more reliable network. To quantify how the network reliability race is unfolding in Algeria’s mobile market, we independently measured performance using RootMetrics’ controlled methodology on the latest Samsung flagship handsets. This report analyzes data from drive testing conducted in Algiers, the capital city, between January and February 2026, covering only outdoor locations. During drive testing in high-usage areas, we covered more than 650 km and collected nearly 6,000 samples. The methodology is designed to mirror real-world network performance.
Key Takeaways
Djezzy outperformed its competitors across most data reliability metrics. This includes access success for downlink and uplink, and uplink task success without interruption. However, the results were very close, with Mobilis leading in “lite” data task success and Ooredoo leading in downlink task success.
Djezzy recorded the fastest call setup time and the lowest dropped-call rate (0.29%). On the other hand, Mobilis had the lowest blocked call rate (0.58%) but suffered from a significantly slower voice call setup time (median of 7.6 seconds).
During the 5G early launch phase, Ooredoo had a high share of active 5G network usage during the drive test across Algiers. 76% of test samples were on 5G in the mid-band 3.5 GHz (n78), while Djezzy had over 30% of its samples on 5G. Mobilis is primarily operating an LTE network as it prepares for its 5G launch.
5G launch had a significant impact on network performance at the national and provincial levels
Algeria embarked on the 5G journey in Q2 2024 when the Regulatory Authority of Post and Electronic Communications (ARPCE), under the supervision and policy direction of the Ministry of Post and Telecommunications, drafted a regulatory framework, conducted a public consultation, and finalized licensing conditions by the end of 2024. In the summer of the following year, the Regulatory Authority of Post and Electronic Communications (ARPCE) granted operating licenses and spectrum bands to the three MNOs Mobilis, Djezzy, and Ooredoo. The operators were then permitted to launch the service commercially by the end of 2025.
The licenses awarded were for 15 to 20 years, and they stipulated coverage and QoS obligations, with coverage prioritized initially in major urban centers across eight provinces, such as Algiers, Oran, and Constantine. Operators had access to the mid-band 3.5 GHz band (3400-3800 MHz) for capacity, where each obtained a contiguous block. They also have plans to complement them with refarmed low‑band 900 MHz and mid‑band 1800 MHz holdings as a coverage layer.
5G is also set to drive sector growth and establish a new base for competition. The mobile market is a triopoly, with Mobilis, a subsidiary of state-owned Group Telecom Algerie, consistently leading in subscriber numbers and geographical coverage, as it is the universal service provider. According to ARPCE, Mobilis controlled 42.4% of the market, followed by Djezzy (31.6%) and Ooredoo (25.9%). The market is predominantly prepaid (95.6%), and the majority of users use 4G technology (88.8%).
The launch of 5G has a significant impact on network performance. According to Speedtest Intelligence® data, the median mobile download speed in Algeria saw a significant improvement, rising from 23.6 Mbps in January 2025 to 40.87 Mbps in December 2025. The performance is highest in December in the cities where 5G became available: Algiers (102.56 Mbps), Setif (76.94 Mbps), Constantine (64.47 Mbps), and Oran (55.69 Mbps).
National Mobile Median Download Speed, Algeria
Source: Speedtest Intelligence® | Jan-Dec 2025
National Median Download Speed, Algeria
Mobile Median Download Speed in Key Cities, Algeria
Source: Speedtest Intelligence® | Nov-Dec 2025
Mobile Median Download Speed in Key Cities, Algeria
However, beyond network performance and coverage improvements, network reliability is a key measure of the quality of experience for end-users, especially as operators continue to deploy new sites and optimize their 5G network.
All operators had a high Reliability Score based on the RootMetrics drive test in Algiers
To rigorously and scientifically assess the connection between network investments by operators and service reliability in Algiers, RootMetrics employs controlled testing focused on a straightforward metric: successful task completion—does a user’s initiated action finish without interruption?
The Reliability score is a composite metric, derived from tens of thousands of “connect and complete” tests performed across various routes and locations. These tests encompass calls, data uploads, and downloads. The final score is heavily weighted towards data (80%), with calls contributing 20%, reflecting current real-world usage. The results show that Djezzy and Mobilis have similar overall Reliability Scores, while Ooredoo is behind.
Network Reliability Scores, Per Operator, Algiers
Source: RootMetrics® | Jan-Feb 2026
Network Reliability Scores, Per Operator, Algiers
The methodology rewards successful starts and uninterrupted completion and penalizes blocks, drops, and timeouts. Since each test follows the full path from device to radio to core to service edge, the results reflect end-to-end robustness rather than any single parameter. Below, we examine the performance of each operator on the two components of Reliability Scores: data and call.
Data Reliability (80% overall weight). This measures whether devices can establish a secure, usable data path (access success) and complete common transfers (task success) without stalls or timeouts. It covers both download and upload under light tasks, such as webpage loads, and heavy tasks such as file transfers, rewarding successful setup and uninterrupted completion, and penalizing setup failures, timeouts, and mid-flow resets. Even when users see full signal bars on their devices, data reliability metrics like task success can decline due to factors such as packet loss and TCP resets (e.g., at a busy stadium) or poor mid-transfer handovers (e.g., while on a high-speed train).
Djezzy outperformed its competitors across most metrics, recording the highest success rates for downlink access, uplink access, uplink task, and “lite” data access. On the other hand, Ooredoo pulled ahead of the others for downlink task success, while Mobilis achieved the highest rate for “lite” data task success. The results for this category of tests were very close, indicating a high degree of reliability across all three mobile operators for mobile data tasks.
Mobile Data Reliability Results, Per Operator, Algiers
Source: RootMetrics® data | Jan-Feb 2026
Mobile Data Reliability Results, Per Operator, Algiers
Call Reliability (20% overall weight). This measures the success rate of setting up and maintaining voice calls. Blocked calls occur when the network fails to initiate a call, often during congestion. It assigns more weight to blocking (when a user presses call and the network refuses or never sets it up) than to dropping (when a call starts but ends unexpectedly), because initial failures tend to disrupt user intent more profoundly. Dropped calls occur when active calls end unexpectedly, usually due to poor radio conditions and handover issues, such as low Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SINR) and coverage gaps.
Results show that Mobilis was the clear leader with 0.58% blocked calls, but had significantly slower voice call setup (median value of 7.6 seconds). On the other hand, Djezzy came first in both the percentage of dropped calls (0.29%) and the voice call setup time.
Mobile Voice Call Reliability Results, Per Operator, Algiers
Source: RootMetrics® data | Jan-Feb 2026
Mobile Voice Call Reliability Results, Per Operator, Algiers
During the 5G early launch phase, Ooredoo had a high share of active 5G network
Based on drive testing conducted in the capital city of Algiers, Djezzy and Ooredoo are the only operators with an active 5G network, while Mobilis operates mostly an LTE network as it prepares its 5G launch.
Djezzy had over 30% of the samples on 5G, while over 45% were on LTE (the remainder were tests that either initiated or completed on 5G). Djezzy utilizes 170 MHz bandwidth using carrier aggregation with 4G spectrum (contributing 77% of 5G samples).
During the initial 5G launch phase, Ooredoo recorded a high share of active 5G network usage during the drive test across Algiers (76% of test samples), operating a contiguous 100 MHz channel over 3.5 GHz (n78) spectrum band. This means that its subscribers are more likely to be connected to 5G while driving or walking in Algiers than subscribers on other networks. This suggests that Ooredoo moved more quickly than its competitors in deploying an extensive 5G network.
Algeria’s entry into the 5G era in late 2025 has materially boosted the mobile experience in major cities, establishing a new ground for competition. The RootMetrics data in Algiers confirms the renewed dynamism of the market with tight competition on network reliability.
Djezzy and Mobilis had similar overall Reliability Scores for the capital, but their parity stems from different areas of strength: Djezzy holds an advantage in voice performance, while Mobilis demonstrates strong data reliability and the lowest rate of blocked calls. Despite lagging in the overall Reliability Score, Ooredoo has the most aggressive 5G deployment in Algiers, having the highest share of active 5G network usage in the city.
Continued investments in 5G expansion by the three operators, including the introduction of 5G by Mobilis, will undoubtedly further improve network reach and service reliability, and determine the leading operator in the coming years.
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.
Ookla® is a global leader in connectivity intelligence that provides consumers, businesses, and other organizations with data-driven insights to improve networks and connected experiences.
Comcast’s Xfinity Mobile and Charter’s Spectrum Mobile Wi-Fi-enhanced mobile networks stay above of the mobile-only curve
Over the past three years, Spectrum Mobile and Xfinity Mobile customers have experienced increasingly faster data speeds, outperforming the mobile network industry as a whole. This performance lift is provided by Wi-Fi offloading via Spectrum Mobile’s Speed Boost and Xfinity Mobile’s PowerBoost. First examined in Booster Rocket – Cable MVNO Speeds Take Off With Wi-Fi, we bring these trends up to date.
Speed Boost (Spectrum) and PowerBoost (Xfinity) in Own Footprints
Speedtest Intelligence® | Q1 2023 – Q1 2026
From Q1 2023 to Q1 2026 Xfinity Mobile, despite a slow start and from a lower speed in 2023, grew its speeds by over four times (4.4x) over the period, while Spectrum Mobile speeds nearly tripled (2.7x). They have kept a gap above the industry for mobile service providers, which in turn grew by 2.6 times over the same period.
Charter Communications and Comcast Corporation state that as much as 90% of their mobile traffic is carried over their fixed networks (which are also getting faster). However, this has not buffered the converged mobile experience from the effects of seasonality of their underlying mobile network in Q2 and Q3. Moreover, where the cable companies have deployed CBRS spectrum in locations where mobile traffic is denser, here too they are beholden to the physics of attenuation (aka, leaves on trees). And with T-Mobile becoming the network for Comcast and Charter business customers, seasonality will continue.
Perhaps even more significant than T-Mobile entering the cable-mobile picture, 2026 will also see the block-buster merger of Charter and Cox Communications (California Public Utilities Commission willing). How quickly will Spectrum Mobile Speed Boost be harmonized across the Cox Mobile footprint? These are two monumental events for the cable industry, and we’ll be measuring.
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.
Kerry Baker leads Ookla's research and content efforts in North America. He has over 20 years experience in the telecom industry, primarily at T-Mobile studying network performance benchmarking and customer experience. Kerry also has founder’s experience with four technology-related startups. Kerry holds masters degrees from the University of Washington in Business and International Political Economics.
Evening performance drop exposes the congestion problems telecom policy still misses.
The standard way of evaluating mobile network quality in Europe still leans heavily on aggregate metrics. National median speeds, coverage percentages, and 5G adoption rates are useful, but they flatten the hour-by-hour load profile that determines how networks feel when demand is highest.
Across the 30 markets in this analysis, the most consistent trough in download performance appears between 19:00 and 21:00 local time. We use that window as the evening peak and compare it with 02:00 to 05:00 local time, when demand is lowest. The difference between those windows captures a practical form of congestion: how much performance is lost when shared radio, backhaul, and core resources are under pressure.
This analysis draws on consumer-initiated Speedtest® samples across all 27 EU member states plus Norway, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom during Q1 2026, with trend and seasonality views extending from January 2024 through March 2026. For this article, we developed a peak-hour congestion framework that combines five dimensions of degradation: median download speed loss, loaded latency inflation, queue growth, jitter increase, and the decline in 10th percentile download speeds. The higher the value on the 0 to 100 scale, the more severe the measured peak-hour degradation.
Key Takeaways:
Spain is Europe’s most congested mobile market at evening peak, with a framework value of 62. Median download speed fell from 161.20 Mbps off-peak to 54.10 Mbps during peak hours in Q1 2026, a 66% drop, while loaded latency increased 60% to 724 ms.
Six markets maintained near-flat daily performance. Luxembourg (~0), Belgium (2), Norway (8), Slovakia (8), France (11), and the Netherlands (12) sit in the resilient tier, each with distinct structural characteristics across data-usage intensity, population mobility, and network density that help mitigate congestion.
Switzerland is the clearest example of why headline metrics alone are insufficient. Despite having Europe’s highest mobile ARPU at €50.90 (US$59.58) per subscriber and a 74% 5G connection share, Switzerland has the third-highest congestion value in the analysis at 47. Its median speed drop is moderate, but loaded latency rises 46% and the bottom 10% of users see download speeds fall 81%, from 25.50 Mbps to 4.80 Mbps.
Investment intensity and network management explain more than wealth, spectrum holdings, or market concentration. Capex as a share of revenue shows the strongest relationship with congestion resilience among the structural variables tested, although it is a moderate relationship rather than a deterministic rule. Operator gaps reinforce the point: in Poland, the evening-peak gap between T-Mobile and Plus is 4.1x, compared with 2.2x off-peak, meaning peak load can amplify rather than merely reflect baseline differences.
5G improves the experience under load, but it does not remove congestion. Across 10 high-5G European markets, the average speed drop at peak is 32% for 4G and 27% for 5G. The more consistent 5G advantage is latency: 5G loaded latency at peak is 12% to 44% lower than 4G in every market tested.
Seasonality materially changes the congestion picture. Spain and Croatia show repeated summer pressure linked to tourism, Nordic markets show a summer shift toward rural and holiday-home locations, while Switzerland and Austria see congestion ease in summer, pointing to winter demand concentration at ski resorts as the sharper stress pattern.
Network Congestion Is a Regulatory Blind Spot
Mobile networks operate over a shared radio medium where spectrum is finite and the capacity of each cell sector is bounded by spectral efficiency, antenna configuration, interference management, and backhaul dimensioning. Unlike fixed broadband, where each subscriber typically has a dedicated last-mile connection, every mobile user in a cell sector draws from the same pool of radio resources.
When simultaneous demand exceeds what the available spectrum, radio configuration, and transport layer can deliver, per-user throughput falls, latency increases as queues build in network buffers, and the experience of every user on that sector deteriorates in tandem. This is why congestion is not just a speed issue. It is also a latency, consistency, and worst-user issue.
The challenge is compounded by the geographic unpredictability of mobile demand. Operators must dimension networks for the busiest hour of the busiest day, even though average utilization is far lower. They must also do so across thousands of sites where traffic patterns shift with commuter flows, events, tourism, and seasons.
Despite this, most regulatory benchmarks and national performance reports still do not distinguish clearly between off-peak and peak-hour outcomes. The EU’s Digital Decade targets specify gigabit networks for all households and 5G coverage for all populated areas by 2030, but they do not set a comparable benchmark for performance under load.
BEREC’s 2024 implementation report on geographical surveys of network deployment also illustrates the difficulty. Expected peak-time speed is treated as one of the more challenging indicators for regulators to collect and standardize, and mobile quality-of-service reporting remains uneven across markets. The European Commission’s proposed Digital Networks Act may help simplify investment conditions, but it does not remove the need for better evidence on how networks perform during the hours of greatest demand.
The congestion framework used for this article combines five dimensions of peak-hour degradation, each capturing a different facet of user experience. Throughput loss, weighted at 30%, measures the drop in median download speed from off-peak to peak. Loaded latency inflation, also weighted at 30%, captures how much delay increases during active data transfer, a direct indicator of network queuing that affects video calls, gaming, interactive web browsing, and increasingly AI-enabled real-time applications.
Queue growth, weighted at 20%, isolates congestion from baseline network quality by measuring how the gap between idle and loaded latency widens. Jitter inflation, weighted at 10%, reflects the stability degradation that impairs real-time communication. The 10th percentile download drop, weighted at 10%, captures how much the worst-served users suffer, which is especially relevant to policy debates about universal service quality.
Loaded latency is particularly important. A network can maintain superficially reasonable throughput while loaded latency rises from 400 ms to 700 ms or more, degrading video calls, increasing application response lag, and creating a perceptibly worse user experience that median speed alone does not reveal.
A Wide Peak-Hour Gap Separates Europe’s Best and Worst Mobile Markets
The 30 markets analyzed segment into four tiers when applying the congestion framework used for this research. The top and bottom of the distribution are not separated by marginal differences. Spain’s framework value of 62 is more than five times the Netherlands’ 12 and roughly eight times Norway’s 8.
Spain Tops Europe's Peak-Hour Congestion Severity by a Wide Margin
Speedtest Intelligence® | Q1 2026
Six markets are congestion-resilient: Luxembourg, Belgium, Norway, Slovakia, France, and the Netherlands. These markets maintain near-flat performance profiles across the day. The Netherlands delivers 157.90 Mbps at evening peak, just 15% below its off-peak level. Norway’s loaded latency varies by fewer than 70 ms across the 24-hour cycle.
Belgium and Luxembourg show speed gains, meaning evening peak speeds actually exceed their nighttime baseline, likely reflecting business-hour demand relaxation (unsurprising in Luxembourg where many commute into and out of the country each day for work) and, in some cases, overnight energy-saving configurations that reduce available radio capacity (i.e., disabling higher bands and features like higher order carrier aggregation) during the off-peak reference window.
Eleven markets fall into the moderate tier. Speed drops here range from around 30% to more than 45%, but absolute peak performance varies significantly, from Bulgaria’s 142.80 Mbps to Romania’s 62.10 Mbps. Germany, Europe’s largest mobile market by revenue, sits in this tier with a 34% speed drop and a congestion trajectory that has been quietly worsening.
Ten markets show significant congestion. Italy, hosting the EU’s most fragmented mobile market structure (by HHI concentration), delivers just 45.20 Mbps at peak, the lowest absolute peak speed of any major EU economy in the analysis. The Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) is a measure of market concentration: lower values indicate a more fragmented (or competitive) market structure. This potentially reflects the real-world network quality costs imposed by the market’s historical focus on price competitiveness.
Three markets face severe congestion: Switzerland, Ireland, and Spain. All three are three-operator markets (although DIGI is building a fourth network in Spain) and all three feature below-average capex intensity. Ireland and Spain also combine low to medium ARPU, high mobile data usage, and widespread unlimited or near-unlimited tariffs, which likely contribute to higher load pressure per subscriber despite high FTTH penetration.
The three Benelux markets form a notable cluster at the resilient end of the scale. Their shared characteristics, including small and dense geography, high urbanization, strong fixed broadband penetration supporting Wi-Fi offload, mature three-operator market structures (changing as DIGI becomes a fourth operator in Belgium), and less exposure to national-scale seasonal coastal tourism, appear to create structural conditions that resist congestion.
Speed Rankings Alone Disguise Severe Latency Degradation in Europe’s Wealthiest Markets
Switzerland’s congestion outcomes challenge several assumptions about what makes a well-performing mobile market. It features the highest mobile ARPU in Europe at €50.90 (US$59.58) per subscriber (based on GSMA Intelligence data), the highest 5G connection share at 74%, and 99% reported outdoor 5G population coverage. In aggregate speed terms, Switzerland would not look like an obvious congestion outlier.
Under the congestion framework, however, Switzerland ranks third-worst in Europe with a value of 47. The headline speed drop of 36% appears moderate. But loaded latency inflates 46% at peak, and the bottom 10% of Swiss users experience an 81% collapse in download speed, from 25.50 Mbps off-peak to 4.80 Mbps at peak. This 10th percentile collapse is the worst of any market in the analysis, meaning the most vulnerable Swiss mobile users, likely those in congested urban cells or at the edge of coverage, effectively lose functional mobile broadband during evening hours.
Operator-level data identifies the specific source of the problem. Sunrise, which holds approximately 27% of the Swiss mobile market with 3.1 million mobile customers, shows a 73% speed drop at peak, falling from 164.00 Mbps off-peak to 44.50 Mbps. Its loaded latency inflates 57% and its 10th percentile download speed falls to 3.10 Mbps. Swisscom, operating in the same geography with approximately 54% market share, drops 31% and maintains 97.90 Mbps at peak with a 10th percentile download speed of 10.60 Mbps. Salt, the third operator, falls between the two with a 41% speed drop.
The difference is not simply that Swisscom is faster in general. Off-peak, the gap between the fastest and slowest Swiss operator is only 23.40 Mbps, or 1.17x. At peak, the gap expands to 53.40 Mbps, or 2.2x. Evening demand therefore exposes an operator-level resilience gap that is mostly hidden overnight.
Spectrum holdings provide part of the explanation. Swisscom holds 743 MHz of total assigned spectrum, including 613 MHz of mid-band capacity across the 1500, 1800, 2100, and 2600 MHz bands. That is roughly 2.7x the mid-band depth available to Sunrise (224 MHz) or Salt (220 MHz). Because Swisscom also serves a larger customer base, that advantage is less dramatic on a per-subscriber basis, but it remains directionally favorable. The fact that Salt has broadly comparable mid-band depth to Sunrise yet manages a materially better peak outcome suggests that deployment, traffic mix, site configuration, and network management matter alongside raw MHz.
Switzerland also presents a useful caution on investment interpretation. Its capex-to-revenue ratio is the lowest in the analysis at approximately 10% (based on GSMA Intelligence data), but absolute capex may look less weak because Swiss ARPU is high. The ratio still matters because it measures reinvestment intensity: how much of a high-revenue market is being put back into capacity.
Loaded Latency Reveals a Different Map of European Mobile Stress
Speedtest Intelligence® | Q1 2026
Regulation may also contribute. Switzerland’s non-ionizing radiation rules are more precautionary than the international exposure limits used in many other markets, and new or modified antenna installations must demonstrate compliance. These rules do not explain the Sunrise-Swisscom gap on their own, but they can raise the practical complexity of densification and capacity upgrades. The combination of high ARPU, low reinvestment intensity, strict site constraints (forcing high grid density), and large operator-level dispersion points to a market where headline metrics mask material quality-of-experience gaps that only become visible under demand pressure.
Intra-Market Differences Can Exceed Inter-Market Gaps
Our operator-level analysis shows that congestion outcomes within a single country can diverge more sharply than outcomes between countries. Four markets illustrate different patterns.
Spain, for example, shows a high-ceiling, high-collapse pattern. Orange, operating as part of MasOrange following the 2024 merger with MasMovil, delivers 329.40 Mbps off-peak, among the fastest off-peak speeds recorded for any operator in any market in this analysis. By evening peak, this falls 72% to 91.20 Mbps, with the 10th percentile dropping 91%. The raw network capacity demonstrably exists. The challenge appears to be distributing that capacity under concentrated evening demand, a pattern consistent with the complexity of post-merger network integration and traffic migration.
Movistar starts from a more moderate off-peak level of 120.00 Mbps but drops just 26% and maintains 89.20 Mbps at peak. Vodafone Spain shows the weakest absolute peak performance at 27.30 Mbps, with loaded latency reaching 1,189 ms.
Poland shows an investment-divergence pattern. T-Mobile delivers 99.50 Mbps at peak with a 10th percentile download speed of 11.80 Mbps. Plus manages 24.30 Mbps with a 10th percentile of 1.90 Mbps. The 75.20 Mbps gap between operators serving the same country is the largest intra-market spread in our analysis. Crucially, the off-peak gap is much smaller proportionally: T-Mobile is 2.2x faster than Plus off-peak, but 4.1x faster at peak. That means the result is not merely a static speed hierarchy (i.e., peak demand amplifies the gap).
Poland’s congestion outcomes are also improving overall, with evening peak speeds up 35% year-on-year, largely driven by the T-Mobile and Orange networks and by the recent launch of mid-band 5G.
Ireland, by contrast, shows a shared-ceiling pattern. Three, Vodafone, and Eir diverge widely off-peak, ranging from 99.20 Mbps to 167.00 Mbps. At peak, all three converge within a 13.80 Mbps band, between 34.60 Mbps and 48.40 Mbps. This convergence pattern is unusual among the operator markets analyzed and points to a structural capacity ceiling rather than one operator underperforming in isolation. Ireland’s three-operator market, high per-connection data usage, and low collective capex-to-revenue ratio (atop a rural-skewed geography) appear to create conditions where no operator can easily break away from the market-wide evening constraint.
Portugal, meanwhile, exhibits a deterioration pattern. The country’s evening-to-night performance gap widened from 11% to 34% between Q1 2025 and Q1 2026, the fastest deterioration in our analysis. The primary driver at the operator level is MEO, where peak 10th percentile download speed has fallen to 1.40 Mbps, the lowest figure recorded for any major operator in our European operator sample. This effectively represents a loss of functional service for MEO’s worst-served users during peak hours.
DIGI, which launched as Portugal’s fourth MNO in November 2024, shows a 25% speed drop with near-zero latency inflation of 7%. That result is consistent with the low utilization expected from a new entrant still building its customer base, rather than evidence of superior network engineering at full market scale.
5G Raises the Speed Ceiling but Does Not Prevent It From Being Hit
A persistent assumption in regulatory and industry discourse is that 5G deployment will resolve capacity constraints. Our data offers a more nuanced picture.
Across 10 European markets with significant 5G adoption, we segmented Speedtest® results by device-reported connection type. The average speed drop at peak is 32% for 4G and 27% for 5G. In absolute terms, 5G is substantially faster. A 5G user in Spain still receives 106.40 Mbps at peak versus 20.30 Mbps for a 4G user in the same market.
The proportional pattern, however, varies by market. In France and Norway, 5G peak speeds are actually higher than the 5G off-peak baseline. In Denmark and Switzerland, the proportional 5G speed drop is steeper than the 4G drop. The broad conclusion is therefore not that 5G removes congestion but that it raises the performance ceiling and often softens the evening decline, but it remains exposed to shared capacity constraints.
The more consistent 5G advantage lies in latency under load. In every market tested, 5G loaded latency at peak is lower than 4G, by margins ranging from 12% in Denmark to 44% in the United Kingdom. The U.K. contrast is the starkest. 4G users experience 904 ms loaded latency at peak, while 5G users experience 507 ms. This gap means congested 5G still materially outperforms congested 4G for applications sensitive to delay, including video conferencing, cloud gaming, interactive browsing, and emerging live voice and video AI applications.
This distinction matters for how policymakers and operators frame the 5G value proposition. 5G deployment expands the performance ceiling and delivers a real latency improvement that persists under congestion. But it should not be conflated with congestion resilience. A market can achieve high 5G adoption and still rank among Europe’s most congested. The variables that determine whether peak-hour performance holds, as mentioned earlier, are a combination of capacity investment, densification, spectrum deployment depth, backhaul dimensioning, and traffic management, not the generation label attached to the radio interface.
Seasonal Travel Shifts Europe’s Mobile Congestion Patterns
Analysis of monthly Speedtest® data from January 2024 through March 2026 shows that congestion is not static. It follows seasonal rhythms that differ sharply by geography. This long window allows two summers, two winters, and Q1 2026 to be compared.
Our seasonality analysis uses broad evening and nighttime windows rather than a single hour, reducing sensitivity to daylight-saving changes and one-off hourly effects. The metric here is the ratio of evening download speed to nighttime download speed. Lower values indicate a larger evening gap.
Three seasonal patterns emerge. In several markets, congestion worsens materially in summer. Spain shows the most extreme swing. The evening-to-night speed ratio fell from 60% in January 2024 to the low teens during summer 2024, then remained much weaker in July and August 2025 than in winter.
This aligns with Spain’s position as one of Europe’s most-visited countries. Spain welcomed 96.8 million international tourists in 2025, with a large share of arrivals concentrated in the summer months. These visitors are disproportionately mobile-dependent because they lack residential Wi-Fi offload, and they cluster in geographically constrained coastal zones.
Croatia shows an even more precise seasonal signature. Evening peak speed fell from 58.70 Mbps in January 2024 to 34.90 Mbps in August 2024. The pattern repeated in 2025, with evening speed falling from 71.60 Mbps in June to 35.30 Mbps in August. Croatia recorded 4.7 million tourist arrivals and 27.2 million tourist nights in commercial accommodation in August 2024, a major seasonal load for a country with a resident population of roughly 3.9 million. The concentration of tourism along the Adriatic coast creates acute demand pressure on a relatively narrow cellular footprint.
Nordic markets show a different summer pattern driven less by inbound tourism than by domestic movement toward second homes and rural leisure areas. Norway’s evening peak speed dipped to 77.10 Mbps in July 2024 and 102.40 Mbps in July 2025, compared with 121.40 Mbps and 130.70 Mbps in the respective January periods. Norway has a large stock of holiday homes, many in low-density areas where cellular capacity is designed around lower year-round demand. When urban populations move to these areas during summer, demand shifts toward cell sites that may not be dimensioned for short seasonal peaks. Denmark, Sweden, and Finland display related patterns tied to summer-house traditions.
A final group moves in the opposite direction. In Switzerland, the evening-to-night speed ratio improved from 44% in January 2024 to 76% in August 2024, and from 63% in January 2025 to 85% in August 2025. Austria shows a similar, though less pronounced, pattern.
This points to winter demand concentration as the sharper stress period, likely reflecting a combination of indoor usage, tourism in ski regions, and more difficult terrain for capacity planning.
Investment Intensity Is the Better Indicator of Congestion Resilience
To test which structural factors may shape congestion outcomes, we compared the framework values against market variables drawn from GSMA Intelligence, national statistical authorities, and public data sources.
Our results challenge several common assumptions. National wealth does not explain congestion well. GDP per capita has only a weak negative relationship with measured congestion. For example, Austria, with a GDP per capita of €49,777 (US$58,269; per World Bank data), carries a congestion value of 37, while Romania, at €17,154 (US$20,080), records a lower framework value of 28.
Mobile ARPU tells a similarly mixed story. Higher ARPU appears to support higher absolute peak speeds, but it does not determine whether those speeds hold under peak demand. Switzerland has Europe’s highest mobile ARPU and still ranks third-worst under our congestion framework. ARPU can fund capacity, but it only improves resilience when revenue is actually converted into spectrum deployment, site upgrades, densification, and transport capacity.
Spectrum holdings also require care. Total spectrum per operator shows only a weak relationship with congestion outcomes, and mid-band spectrum per operator shows almost no relationship in this dataset. Spectrum enables capacity, but it does not create capacity on its own. It must be deployed, sectorized, integrated with backhaul, and matched to traffic demand. This is where cell site density likely matters.
The strongest structural relationship we found is capex as a share of revenue. In plain terms, markets where operators reinvest a larger share of revenue tend to hold up better at peak, although the relationship is moderate rather than absolute. Norway, at 24% capex-to-revenue, records a framework value of 8. Switzerland, at 10%, records 47. Both are small, wealthy, three-operator markets with high ARPU. The difference is not simply that one has more money available. It is that one reinvests a larger share of revenue into the network (but also, importantly, has a less intense usage profile).
Market concentration, measured by the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index, shows a weak and counterintuitive negative relationship with congestion. More concentrated markets are not necessarily worse. Italy, the most fragmented mobile market in our sample by this measure, carries a framework value of 41 and the lowest absolute peak speed of any major EU economy at 45.20 Mbps. The Netherlands, among the more concentrated markets with three operators, records 12 and delivers 157.90 Mbps at peak.
Rural population share shows a moderate positive relationship with congestion and the strongest relationship in our dataset with 10th percentile performance. More rural countries systematically deliver weaker outcomes for the most poorly served users at peak (likely contributing to Ireland’s weak standing, for instance), consistent with the challenge of dimensioning capacity across dispersed populations and more extensive coverage footprints.
Peak-Hour Performance Should Become a Regulatory and Competitive Benchmark
The gap between what European mobile networks can deliver under light load and what they provide during the hours of highest demand is material, measurable, and largely invisible to most public benchmarks.
The trajectory of Speedtest® data offers cautious grounds for optimism in some markets. Ireland’s evening peak speed improved from 20.90 Mbps in Q1 2025 to 47.00 Mbps in Q1 2026, a 125% gain (reflecting diversified spectrum deployment post-auction). Poland improved 35% over the same period, reflecting the early impact of mid-band 5G rollout. The U.K. improved 18%, a trend consistent with early network-integration effects following the Vodafone-Three merger, which completed on 31 May 2025.
Year-on-Year Trajectory Splits Europe Into Improvers and Decliners
Speedtest Intelligence® | Q1 2025 vs Q1 2026
But these gains coexist with deterioration elsewhere. Portugal’s evening-to-night performance gap widened from 11% to 34% over 12 months, a 23 percentage point increase. Germany’s widened from 20% to 29%, a 9 percentage point increase, even though its evening speed improved slightly. In Germany’s case, nighttime performance improved faster than evening performance, widening the gap that consumers experience between low-load and high-load hours.
Congestion is not an inevitable consequence of demand growth (which itself is slowing in mature markets). Countries with sustained mobile investment intensity, well-managed spectrum deployment, sufficient densification, and enough revenue to fund capacity demonstrate that peak-hour performance can be maintained even as traffic grows or spikes shift.
Methodology
This analysis draws on Speedtest® data from consumer-initiated mobile Speedtest measurements. The primary snapshot covers Q1 2026, January through March, across all 27 EU member states plus Norway, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. Trend and seasonality analysis extends from January 2024 through March 2026.
Peak hours are defined as 19:00 to 21:00 local time, confirmed as the consistent trough across markets by examining full 24-hour performance profiles. The off-peak baseline is defined as 02:00 to 05:00 local time. The off-peak period is not intended to represent normal consumer usage. It is a low-load reference window used to estimate what the network can deliver when demand pressure is minimal.However, the off-peak baseline should be interpreted as a low-load observed baseline, not necessarily a maximum engineering-capacity baseline, because some networks may apply overnight energy-saving configurations that reduce available radio capacity.
The peak-hour congestion framework combines five components: 30% median download speed drop, 30% loaded latency inflation, 20% queue growth, 10% jitter inflation, and 10% 10th percentile download speed drop. Higher values indicate more severe measured peak-hour degradation.
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.
Luke Kehoe leads Ookla’s research and thought leadership efforts in Europe.
An electronic engineering alumnus of University College Dublin, Luke has extensive experience collaborating with mobile operators, telecoms vendors, and government agencies in research and advisory roles across Europe. He has contributed to internationally recognised thought leadership publications in areas such as 5G, IoT, open RAN, and edge computing, working with prestigious organisations like the Telecom Infra Project and the World Economic Forum.
The Iberian blackout showed how quickly mobile networks can follow the power grid down.
On 28 April 2025, at 12:33 CEST, the largest stress test of telecom infrastructure in modern European memory unfolded in less than three hours. A cascading collapse of the Iberian power grid severed mains electricity to virtually all of mainland Spain and Portugal, forcing mobile sites onto battery and generator backups and triggering a near-synchronous collapse of mobile coverage across the peninsula. By the late evening, more than half of mobile users in large parts of Spain and over 60% in the worst-affected areas of Portugal had no service at all.
Twelve months on, the Iberian regulatory and operator response has not converged. Spain has drafted Europe’s most ambitious telecom autonomy rule but has not enacted it. Portugal’s parliament published cross-party recommendations on the anniversary week. And operators, in the meantime, have made the most concrete commitments of all.
Key Takeaways:
Spain has drafted, but not enacted, the EU’s most ambitious telecom autonomy rule. The 24/12/4-hour tiered draft Royal Decree, with an 85% population coverage target including 112 calls, remained at consultation stage on the anniversary, twelve months after the blackout.
Portugal’s response is broader. ANACOM has recommended minimum autonomy for network elements, Cell Broadcast, satellite redundancy, and real-time network visibility, while the government has paired telecom recommendations with electricity and critical-infrastructure measures.
Operator investment is now part of the policy equation, from Vodafone’s Enhanced Power program to MEO/Altice route-diversity projects. Our data showed that these are the right investment targets; operators with wider or deeper backup-power layers flattened and delayed the outage curve (e.g., MEO), while thinner autonomy produced fast, severe loss of service (e.g., DIGI).
Satellite has emerged as a working fallback layer in Iberia, not a theory. Starlink rerouted Spanish gateways through Madrid, London and Milan during the blackout itself, and Portuguese user activity ran roughly 196% above baseline during Storm Kristin in February 2026. This strengthens the case for LEO satellite in emergency kits, government continuity plans, and remote-site backup, but it is not a panacea on its own.
Spain has drafted, but not enacted, the EU’s most ambitious telecom autonomy rule
Spain has gone furthest toward converting the blackout into explicit telecom rules. In December 2025, the Ministry for Digital Transformation opened consultation on a draft Royal Decree on the security and resilience of electronic communications networks and digital infrastructure. The draft classifies telecom networks and selected digital infrastructure as essential in emergencies and applies to telecom operators as well as certain submarine cable, satellite, data center, and internet exchange assets.
The most important shift is that resilience is specified in hours. First-level infrastructure would need at least 24 hours of operation during a power interruption, intermediate sites at least 12 hours, and other sites four hours. For mobile networks, the four-hour requirement must maintain coverage for 85% of the population, with operators able to prioritize voice over data or critical services over higher-capacity layers. The decree also strengthens 112, public-alert, incident-reporting, and coordination obligations.
This is notably sharper than a generic critical-infrastructure designation. It forces operators to classify sites, power paths, and services before the crisis. It also surfaces implementation questions around rooftop weight limits, generator fuel logistics, RAN sharing, and rural refueling. The CNMC’s formal opinion on 12 March 2026 recommended progressive rollout, prioritizing “cost-efficient solutions like inter-network roaming and satellite backup,” and full alignment with NIS2.
Both observations cut to the heart of a regulatory landscape Spain itself has not finalized: the country has not transposed NIS2 (EU cyber-resilience law for essential sectors) and was one of 19 member states to receive a Commission reasoned opinion on 7 May 2025. The cost gap between the government’s €73 million (US$85 million) estimate and operator estimates closer to €300 million (US$351 million) for power hardening has not narrowed. Public consultation closed on 8 January 2026 but, as of the anniversary, the decree had not been promulgated. Energy Minister Sara Aagesen, appearing before the Senate on 23 March 2026, was still asking power companies to publish the underlying outage data.
Portugal’s parliament has set a more operational and structural agenda
Portugal’s response has been less prescriptive at the telecom-site level, but broader across emergency systems. A government summary of the ANACOM blackout report said the prolonged power failure cascaded across fixed and mobile networks, affected 112 access, and constrained emergency communications.
The regulator’s own published recommendations reframed resilience as an operational checklist: minimum autonomy times for batteries and generators, renewable extensions at cell sites, restricted SIM/eSIM access for authorities, 112 routing diversification, and an evolution of public warnings towards Cell Broadcast (the standardized 4G/5G capability to push warning messages to all phones in a defined cell area without an app or sign-up).
The Cell Broadcast recommendation is important. Unlike SMS, Cell Broadcast sends one-to-many alert messages to compatible phones in a targeted radio area, making it better suited to fast public warnings and less exposed to congestion. It still needs powered cell sites, but it is a better emergency-warning tool than individual SMS once networks degrade.
The most consequential update in Portugal, however, came in the anniversary week itself. The cross-party parliamentary working group led by PSD deputy Paulo Moniz published its final report on 23 April 2026, recommending 72 hours of energy autonomy at hospitals, primary health centers, nursing homes and emergency services; 24 hours at all other critical infrastructure; the formal classification of food retailers and pharmacies as critical; and, most pointedly for telecoms, a national emergency alert system independent of commercial mobile networks. The structural separation of public-safety communications from operator-controlled infrastructure is the most ambitious year-two recommendation in either country.
Portugal also had a real-world second test. Between late January and February 2026, Storms Kristin, Leonardo and Marta cut median mobile download speeds by 52% at peak in Speedtest data, with around 40% of telecom failures linked back to electricity loss at mobile sites. ANACOM activated national roaming and Starlink user activity surged ~196% above baseline based on our analysis (with authorities also deploying LEO terminals to remote areas). The episode did not so much reopen Portugal’s policy debate as confirm it.
Operators have outrun both governments
The most concrete Iberian telecom resilience commitments of the past year have come from operators rather than regulators. Vodafone Group’s Enhanced Power initiative, announced on 28 November 2025 with Portugal as its first deployment region, will reinforce more than 10,000 critical sites Europe-wide. Tier specifications include 72 hours of backup or guaranteed refueling within 48 hours at more than 400 mobile data centers, and four hours at aggregation and critical access sites. The initiative is supported by an AI-controlled adaptive power-backup function already live in Greece and in trial in Turkey, which the company says nearly doubles base-station battery duration in certain scenarios.
The day of the blackout itself drew the operator distinction more sharply than any policy document could. MEO’s network peaked at just over 16% of subscribers without service, the best performance observed across either country, because deeper, more widely deployed power reserves materially flattened and delayed its outage curve. NOS peaked at around 30%; Vodafone Portugal at nearly 70%. DIGI’s still-nascent network exhibited a near step-function collapse, with up to 90% of subscribers without coverage for more than a day, pointing to gaps in core network geo-redundancy as well as site-level backup.
Building on this, more recently, Portuguese reporting highlighted MEO’s expansion of its Linda-a-Velha network center and a new Porto landing station intended to improve transatlantic route redundancy. Cellnex, Spain’s tower incumbent and a named addressee of the country’s draft decree, meanwhile reported an integrated approach to UPS, generators and battery banks across more than 120,000 sites in 10 countries, although per-site backup-hour disclosures remain opaque.
Next steps: convert resilience scaffolding into rules
The Iberian blackout exposed three layers of telecom exposure simultaneously: power autonomy at the access network, cross-border interconnection at both energy and transport layers, and the dependence of upstream services on landing stations and gateways that are themselves geographically concentrated. Year one has produced movement on all three, but unevenly.
The European Commission’s proposed Digital Networks Act may help by simplifying rules, supporting satellite services, and improving security cooperation. It will not, by itself, set a uniform backup-power floor for mobile sites. Iberia’s lesson is that national implementation still matters.
Spain has the draft, but a draft is not a rule. Promulgating the December 2025 Royal Decree, or phasing it in along the progressive lines the CNMC has suggested, is the single highest-leverage regulatory move available to either Iberian government in the next twelve months. Portugal’s parliamentary recommendations need to translate from cross-party report to executive action; the proposed national emergency alert channel that does not depend on commercial mobile networks is the most structurally significant call in either country, and would change how public-safety messaging routes through Iberian telecom infrastructure in a future event.
Operators will keep moving voluntarily. But the next phase of resilience policy in Iberia will only be tractable if disclosure quality improves to make per-site backup-hour benchmarking comparable across networks. The same lesson is being drawn in markets that have faced very different stress tests: our analysis of Cyclone Alfred’s impact on Queensland networks reaches the same conclusion from the opposite hemisphere. What gets measured, gets hardened.
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.
Luke Kehoe leads Ookla’s research and thought leadership efforts in Europe.
An electronic engineering alumnus of University College Dublin, Luke has extensive experience collaborating with mobile operators, telecoms vendors, and government agencies in research and advisory roles across Europe. He has contributed to internationally recognised thought leadership publications in areas such as 5G, IoT, open RAN, and edge computing, working with prestigious organisations like the Telecom Infra Project and the World Economic Forum.
The 35th edition of the Africa Cup of Nations tournament (AFCON), which ended on 18 January 2026, was the most attended and most scored edition in history, with over one million in-stadium spectators. The tournament coincided with the launch of 5G in the country and will serve as a testing ground in preparation for the FIFA World Cup™ 2030. This article examines mobile performance in selected stadiums during the competition and discusses users’ experiences with popular online activities, such as web browsing and video streaming.
Takeaways:
Al-Medina Stadium offered the highest download speed, whereas Rabat Olympic Stadium offered the highest upload speed. All reviewed stadiums offered very high throughput, with median download speeds ranging from 96 Mbps at Moulay El Hassan Stadium to 236 Mbps at Al-Medina Stadium. inwi was the speed leader in most venues, recording the fastest median download speeds in three out of five stadiums, peaking at 461.7 Mbps at Al-Medina Stadium, while Maroc Telecom dominated at Moulay El Hassan Stadium.
Mohammed V Stadium had the densest radio coverage in 4G and 5G, likely due to its urban location. On the other hand, Rabat Olympic Stadium had poor 4G and 5G signals. inwi frequently exhibited the highest 4G and 5G signal strength, while Orange often displayed lower RSRP readings.
The web browsing experience was generally very good across venues, but notable differences existed between operators. inwi had the shortest web page loading time in four of the five stadiums, except at Moulay El Hassan, where Maroc Telecom had a slight advantage. Orange was consistently the least responsive operator for web traffic.
Maroc Telecom was better performing at Moulay El Hassan Stadium than the other two operators. The incumbent operator delivered nearly double the download speed of inwi (161.25 Mbps vs. 79 Mbps), albeit lower than other stadiums, with a more balanced real-time communication experience. By contrast, inwi recorded its worst WhatsApp latency (81.25 ms), and Orange saw a large spike in video conferencing latency (194 ms).
All operators offered an excellent video streaming experience with a sub-2-second start time. inwi consistently delivered the fastest video start times in all five stadiums (ranging from 1267 ms to 1422 ms), ensuring the smoothest playback experience for fans watching replays or highlights.
Morocco’s mobile infrastructure handled the influx of supporters well during the 2025 African Cup
Morocco has been preparing for years for the 2025 Africa Cup of Nations (AFCON). The government committed around USD 16.6 billion towards infrastructure projects up to 2030, when Morocco will host the World Cup, with the AFCON preparation framed as the first major phase of this effort. These funds have been allocated specifically for football, airport, road, and rail infrastructure upgrades.
In this context, the telecom regulator and operators accelerated their collaboration and investments, such as the upgrading of existing 4G and fiber backhaul and infrastructure sharing between the integrated operators Maroc Telecom and inwi, which culminated in the launch of 5G in November 2025. The government also integrated AFCON and the 2030 World Cup into the national high‑speed internet strategy (Digital Morocco 2030), with a 5G coverage population target of 25% by 2026 and 70% by 2030, with priority for AFCON and World Cup cities and venues.
In a previous article, we found that the cities of Rabat and Casablanca were leading the country in terms of median fixed broadband download speed, according to Speedtest Intelligence® data, thanks to growing fiber coverage. We also found that luxury hotels in Agadir and Marrakesh offer some of the fastest Wi-Fi networks in the country, meeting the needs of the most exigent of guests and football fans during their stay.
The tournament featured 24 teams that played 52 fiercely fought matches, and was the highest-scoring in history, with 121 goals. AFCON 2025 also set a record for the highest number of fans, with over one million in-stadium spectators. Mobile networks have been put to the test to concurrently serve so many fans and serve as a testing ground for the preparation of the World Cup. For these reasons, it is interesting to benchmark network coverage and QoS parameters between different stadiums and assess the impact they might have had on spectators’ online experience, be it in terms of web browsing or video streaming.
The rest of the article details an analysis of five stadiums across three cities, out of the nine stadiums in six cities, focusing on the venues that hosted the most critical matches (e.g., quarter-final to final). We used Speedtest Intelligence® to examine download and upload speeds as well as network signal strength within the stadiums for both operators combined. We also used Consumer QoE™ data with the same criteria to determine web page load time and video streaming start time to reflect the quality of supporters’ experiences, whether posting a picture or a message on Facebook or streaming video clips.
Stadiums Analyzed with Speedtest Intelligence® and Consumer QoE™ During the 2025 AFCON in Morocco
Network performance was generally very good throughout the 2025 AFCON, but a significant disparity exists between stadiums
Speedtest Intelligence data shows a high level of disparity between stadiums, as well as between operators across different locations. For example, Al-Medina (Al Barid) Stadium registered the highest performance among the sites analyzed, with a median download speed of 236 Mbps, while performance remains very high at Rabat Olympic Stadium (197 Mbps). On the other hand, the speeds were notably lower at Mohammed V, Prince Moulay Abdellah, and Moulay El Hassan Stadiums.
inwi consistently delivered the fastest median download speeds across all analyzed stadiums, often outperforming competitors by a wide margin. For example, its highest median speed reached 461.7 Mbps at Al-Medina Stadium, followed by 377.9 Mbps at Rabat Olympic Stadium. Maroc Telecom secured its only lead at Moulay El Hassan Stadium with a median download speed of 161.25 Mbps.
The leading stadiums in terms of median download speed also excelled in upload, though the differences between the stadiums are less pronounced. Al-Medina Stadium and Rabat Olympic Stadium maintain the lead with median upload speeds above 50 Mbps, with inwi delivering 68.06 Mbps and 60.0 Mbps, respectively. These two venues show the most competitive environment with high speeds across the board, with a narrow gap between the operators.
Prince Moulay Abdellah Stadium had the lowest aggregate upload speed at 20 Mbps, while Moulay Al Hassan Stadium offers slightly better performance, with Maroc Telecom taking the top spot with 42.30 Mbps, followed by Orange (32.51 Mbps), and inwi falling to last place with 26.00 Mbps. At Mohammed V Stadium, Inwi maintained the lead with 44.60 Mbps, Maroc Telecom followed at 32.00 Mbps, and Orange trailed slightly at 28.00 Mbps.
Download and Upload Speeds Achieved at Select Stadiums During the 2025 AFCON, Morocco
Speedtest Intelligence® | 21 December 2025 – 18 January 2026
Download and Upload Speeds Achieved at Select Stadiums During the 2025 AFCON, Morocco
Mohammed V Stadium had the best 4G and 5G coverage during the tournament
In terms of network coverage measured using Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP), Mohammed V Stadium had the strongest aggregate 4G signal (-78.24 dBm), followed closely by Prince Moulay Abdellah (-78.68 dBm). For the latter venue, the three operators show good availability, particularly inside the stadium grounds. However, the 5G coverage is more limited in the surrounding areas.
Mohammed V Stadium also led in 5G signal strength (-71.06 dBm), where inwi had the highest 5G signal strength at -65.23 dBm, significantly stronger than the other two operators. Orange also provided a very strong 5G signal at Al-Medina Stadium (-71.96 dBm), outperforming both competitors.
Despite a strong signal at Mohammed V Stadium, the quality was relatively poor—the Reference Signal Received Quality (RSRQ) was lower than -11 dB. This suggests that users likely experienced network degradation linked to interference in the stands rather than a lack of coverage. On the other hand, Rabat Olympic Stadium showed the weakest aggregate signal for both 4G (-81.14 dBm) and 5G (-80.19 dBm). Specifically, inwi had the weakest 4G signal with -83.68 dBm.
4G RSRP and 5G SS-RSRP at Select Stadiums During the 2025 AFCON, Morocco
Speedtest Intelligence® | 21 December 2025 – 18 January 2026
4G RSRP and 5G SS-RSRP at Select Stadiums During the 2025 AFCON, Morocco
Web browsing was generally good across venues, albeit Orange consistently showed the slowest page load times
We used Consumer QoE data to explore web page load time. These measurements reflect consumers’ real-world experiences of using the internet, like accessing social media sites and searching for information online. Accessing these services with little or no delay means less customer frustration and increased satisfaction.
The data shows that users experienced very quick webpage load times in all surveyed stadiums, with median load times ranging from 1477 ms to as low as 1374 ms. Fans in Al-Medina Stadium (1374 ms) and Rabat Olympic Stadium (1377 ms) enjoyed faster webpage load times than those in other venues. Moulay Abdellah Stadium has the slowest aggregate load time, though the difference across all stadiums is relatively small (<100ms).
However, there are significantly larger differences between operators. Inwi provided the fastest page load times in 4 out of 5 stadiums, with its best performance at Mohammed V (1284 ms) and Al-Medina (1286 ms), while Maroc Telecom took the lead at Moulay El Hassan (1378 ms). On the other hand, Orange consistently underperformed with the highest page load time across all five stadiums, peaking at 1846 ms at Al-Medina.
Web Page Load Time at Select Stadiums During the 2025 AFCON, Morocco
Speedtest Intelligence® | 21 December 2025 – 18 January 2026
Web Page Load Time at Select Stadiums During the 2025 AFCON, Morocco
Al-Medina Stadium led in fast messaging performance; Mohammed V Stadium excelled in video calling
Messaging and video conferencing apps have become a staple of modern life and an essential part of a football fan’s experience at the stadium, as they allow the sharing of messages, images, and videos. The lower the latency on the services, the faster the delivery of content and the smoother the video interaction.
Al-Medina Stadium offered the snappiest text messaging experience with an aggregate latency of just 36.9 ms. At the end of the spectrum, Mohammed V Stadium showed the highest aggregate latency at 54 ms. The other three stadiums (Moulay El Hassan, Prince Moulay Abdellah, and Rabat Olympic) hover between 46 ms and 48 ms, indicating a generally consistent experience across the capital’s venues.
inwi recorded the lowest WhatsApp latency at Rabat Olympic (33.05 ms) and leads at Al-Medina (34.2 ms) and Mohammed V (41.4 ms) Stadiums. However, it suffered a massive performance drop at Moulay El Hassan Stadium, recording the worst score of any operator (81.25 ms). In contrast, Orange took the top spot at Moulay El Hassan (36 ms) and Prince Moulay Abdellah (41 ms). Generally, Maroc Telecom trails the competition in this metric, recording the highest latency in three out of five stadiums, with a notable lag at Rabat Olympic (72.2 ms).
Mohammed V Stadium, which suffered from a relatively slow response for text messaging, had the best aggregate latency for video calls, with a low value of 74 ms. On the other hand, Moulay El Hassan (110.7 ms) and Al-Medina (101.6 ms) Stadiums have latencies exceeding 100 ms, which may introduce noticeable lag during video calls.
inwi was the consistent overperformer for video conferencing, offering the lowest latency in 4 out of 5 stadiums. Its performance was the best at Al-Medina (61.8 ms), where it was more than twice as responsive as Maroc Telecom (147.2 ms). However, the latter managed to take the top spot at Moulay El Hassan (80.2 ms). Orange generally performed well, except at Moulay El Hassan Stadium, where it recorded a severe latency spike (194 ms).
WhatsApp and Video Conferencing Latencies at Select Stadiums During the 2025 AFCON, Morocco
Speedtest Intelligence® | 21 December 2025 – 18 January 2026
WhatsApp and Video Conferencing Latencies at Select Stadiums During the 2025 AFCON, Morocco
Maroc Telecom and Orange consistently trailed inwi in video streaming across all stadiums
We also used QoE data to explore video streaming start time and initial buffering time. The interval between a user clicking “Play” and the first frame appearing is critical, as research indicates that users begin to lose patience after just 2 seconds and risk abandonment, and more so for a live stream of a sporting event. Mid-stream buffering can also be frustrating to the users.
The data shows that YouTube start times remained low at around 1,400–1,500 ms, which indicated robust video streaming performance, but these aggregate values hide stark differences between the operators. Al-Medina Stadium took the lead in terms of video streaming start time (1,397 ms), followed by Mohammed V Stadium with 1,468 ms. As with the other metrics, inwi was the undisputed leader in video streaming, recording the fastest video start times in all five stadiums, with the best performance at Moulay El Hassan (1267 ms) and Al-Medina (1281 ms). Maroc Telecom and Orange had start times between 1440 ms and 1660 ms, consistently trailing Inwi by approximately 200 ms to 400 ms across venues.
Video Streaming Start Time at Select Stadiums During the 2025 AFCON, Morocco
Speedtest Intelligence® | 21 December 2025 – 18 January 2026
Video Streaming Start Time at Select Stadiums During the 2025 AFCON, Morocco
Building on the success of AFCON to prepare for the World Cup in 2030
The 35th Africa Cup of Nations in Morocco served as a successful stress test for the country’s mobile infrastructure. The five analyzed stadiums offered exceptionally high speeds, with Al-Medina Stadium leading in median download speed (236 Mbps) and Rabat Olympic Stadium excelling in upload speed. inwi emerged as the overall speed leader in most venues, consistently recording the fastest median download speeds and delivering the lowest video streaming start times. Maroc Telecom held a strong position in certain venues and experienced better performance in real-time communication at Moulay El Hassan Stadium. Web browsing and video streaming experiences were also consistently excellent across all venues and operators, with video start times under 2 seconds. That said, the great disparity between stadiums and the lower speeds and coverage in some venues present clear targets for optimization. Overall, the great performance at AFCON highlights Morocco’s readiness to deliver high-quality connectivity, setting a strong foundation for the upcoming FIFA World Cup™ 2030.
To find out how Ookla’s crowdsourced data and analytical tools can help you track network performance during major sporting events, contact us.
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.
Karim Yaici is the Lead Industry Analyst at Ookla covering the Middle East and Africa (MEA) region. Previously, he directed Analysys Mason's MEA research program, where he was responsible for telecoms forecasts, market reports, consumer surveys, and custom research.
New data shines a light on the growth of mmWave 5G networks in the U.S., and their performance.
In the very, very early days of 5G in the U.S., millimeter wave (mmWave) spectrum was trumpeted as ground zero for the technology. Some even referred to the combination of 5G and mmWave as “wireless fiber.”
Indeed, in 2017, a bidding war broke out between Verizon and AT&T over mmWave spectrum owner Straight Path. Verizon eventually won the company’s mmWave holdings with a $3.1 billion acquisition deal.
But the noise surrounding mmWave 5G quickly died down after the FCC auctioned mid-band C-band spectrum in 2021. Unlike short-range mmWave spectrum, transmissions in midband spectrum like C-band (3.7 GHz) travel much further, thereby allowing operators including Verizon and AT&T to supercharge both the speed and the reach of their 5G connections.
Further, few other countries in the world followed in the mmWave footsteps of the U.S., with international spectrum regulators instead putting a focus on releasing mid-band spectrum for 5G.
However, mmWave networks haven’t disappeared. New drive test data from Ookla’s RootMetrics®, coupled with crowdsourced information from Ookla’s Speedtest Insights™, shows the ongoing growth of mmWave 5G networks in the U.S., as well as the remarkable performance characteristics of those systems.
Key takeaways:
Across all of RootMetrics’ testing in the second half of 2025, in both urban (metro) and rural (state) areas, mmWave showed up in 2.2% of Verizon’s samples. For AT&T, that figure was 0.2%. For T-Mobile, that figure was almost 0% (and as a result, this report will mainly focus on Verizon and AT&T).
Verizon’s mmWave connections showed up in 75 markets in the first half of 2024 (out of a total of 125 markets), a figure that rose to 91 in the second half of 2025. That’s almost triple the number of markets where RootMetrics recorded AT&T mmWave systems in the second half of 2025. 5G mmWave from T-Mobile, meanwhile, only showed up in 1 market covered by RootMetrics technicians during the second half of 2025.
Most mmWave samples were obtained within 150 meters (about 500 feet) of a mmWave transmission site, reflecting the spectrum’s relatively diminutive coverage area. However, download speeds over mmWave connections reached beyond 1 Gbps in some markets.
Denver, Atlanta, Philadelphia, and Boston are top mmWave cities for Verizon. Roughly 60% of RootMetrics’ outdoor testing samples landed on Verizon’s mmWave in these cities in the second half of 2025.
Verizon leads the way
The story of mmWave in the U.S. primarily centers on Verizon. The company’s acquisition of Straight Path (and later XO Communications) coupled with its subsequent spending in FCC mmWave spectrum auctions, gave the operator a solid footprint in the high-band spectrum. More importantly, Verizon then began a network buildout campaign that put mmWave-capable small cells (mini cell transmission sites) into stadiums and other big venues, as well as in outdoor, downtown areas with lots of foot traffic.
By 2020, Verizon’s CEO sought to leverage the company’s mmWave investments via an appearance during the unveiling of Apple’s first mmWave-capable iPhone.
“5G just got real,” Hans Vestberg, Verizon’s CEO at the time, proclaimed during the event.
Since then, Verizon has expanded its mmWave footprint via services for both mobile and fixed wireless access (FWA) users.
Now, RootMetrics’ testing highlights the scope and breadth of Verizon’s mmWave deployment. RootMetrics conducts controlled driving and walking tests using flagship Android smartphones across 125 of the nation’s largest metropolitan markets twice a year.
According to this testing data, Verizon continued to add to its mmWave network footprint in big U.S. cities throughout 2025. The number of distinct U.S. metropolitan markets where RootMetrics’ testing engineers registered Verizon mmWave samples increased from 75 in the first half of 2024 to 91 in the second half of 2025. That’s almost triple the number of markets where AT&T has deployed mmWave systems.
5G mmWave from T-Mobile, meanwhile, only showed up in one market covered by RootMetrics technicians during the second half of 2025 (a decline from two markets recorded in the first half of 2024). That lines up with the operator’s general approach toward mmWave.
Number of Markets with mmWave Samples
RootMetrics® | 1H 2024 – 2H 2025
Verizon’s mmWave signals also popped up in more rural RootMetrics state-area testing, which covers locations in large and small towns, as well as the highways between them. In state-area testing, RootMetrics’ technicians recorded Verizon mmWave connections in 33 markets in the second half of 2025, up from 14 in the first half of 2024. AT&T’s mmWave signals showed up in just 7 markets in the second half of 2025. T-Mobile mmWave didn’t show in any of these areas.
Further, Verizon’s mmWave connections also show up in a greater portion of RootMetrics’ samples in each of those U.S. metro areas, when compared with AT&T:
Before continuing, it’s worth explaining RootMetrics’ network-testing methodology. The company conducted over 3 million tests in the second half of 2025 across the entire U.S. Unlike crowd-sourced data from Speedtest®, RootMetrics’ data is derived from technicians who drive – and walk – around each city they test. Such tests are also randomized – meaning, RootMetrics technicians don’t test the same route each time they travel through a particular market. Instead, they test different routes.
RootMetrics’ technicians also visit a variety of different locations during their nationwide testing. In urban, metro areas, they drive through downtown areas and they walk along both indoor and outdoor routes. These outdoor routes typically traverse downtown streets and city parks.
In more suburban and rural settings (“state routes,” in RootMetrics parlance), technicians typically drive through neighborhoods, along business corridors, and down interstates and highways.
These testing methods highlight the different types of spectrum that operators deploy in these various locations. For example, Verizon generally leverages its 700 MHz low-band spectrum to cover the more rural “state routes” tested by RootMetrics – which makes sense considering signals in such spectrum can typically travel several miles at least. mmWave signals, meanwhile, can only travel a few hundred yards, making them more appropriate for dense, urban downtown locations (“metro areas,” in RootMetrics’ parlance).
Across all of RootMetrics’ testing samples in the second half of 2025, in both urban (metro) and rural (state) areas, mmWave showed up in 2.2% of Verizon’s samples. For AT&T, that figure was 0.2%. For T-Mobile, that figure was almost 0% (and as a result, this report will mainly focus on Verizon and AT&T).
For comparison’s sake, it’s clear that Verizon pivoted to mid-band C-band spectrum when the FCC made that spectrum available in 2021. According to RootMetrics data, Verizon increased its use of C-band spectrum to 81.3% of all samples in metro areas by the fourth quarter of 2025, up from 74.4% in the first quarter of 2025.
The reach of mmWave
mmWave 5G is distinct because it sits way up in the millimeter wave spectrum bands (generally between 20 GHz and 40 GHz). Earlier cellular networks – from 1G in the 1980s to 4G in the 2010s – mostly sat in much lower spectrum bands, generally from 700 MHz to 1900 MHz.
mmWave spectrum was long considered unusable for mobile, cellular communications until early work on the 5G standard convinced some in the global wireless industry that advanced technologies could unlock mmWave spectrum bands for commercial, on-the-move applications. Operators like Verizon coveted such mmWave bands because they promised to create massive pipes of network capacity, spanning multiple 100 MHz blocks of mmWave spectrum. Those ample chunks of spectrum were unheard of even in the world of 4G, when spectrum blocks didn’t get much wider than 20 MHz.
However, due to the physics of signal propagation, transmissions in mmWave spectrum sport a few important characteristics: They cannot travel nearly as far as transmissions in lower spectrum bands, such as 700 MHz. As a result, 5G signals in low-band spectrum like 700 MHz can travel many miles; signals in high-band, mmWave spectrum like 26 GHz can only travel several hundred meters. Moreover, mmWave signals typically cannot penetrate into buildings or other structures.
T-Mobile’s former CTO Neville Ray used a “layer cake” metaphor to explain this situation, with mmWave networks playing only in small, dense urban areas at the top of the cake:
However, such illustrations are mostly based on general networking principles rather than real-world data. Here, RootMetrics offers a clear look at the exact reach of mature, commercial mmWave networks. In general, 5G mmWave signals aren’t usable beyond 900 meters (or about half a mile). Further, most RootMetrics mmWave samples in the second half of 2025 were collected within just 150 meters (about 500 feet) of a mmWave transmission site.
Distance from Transmission Site, in Meters
RootMetrics® | 2H 2025 | % of total samples
In comparison, most RootMetrics’ C-band spectrum samples were collected within 1,000 meters (just over half a mile) from the transmission site – and in some cases they reached more than two miles from the transmission site.
AT&T exclusively uses the 39 GHz mmWave band. Most of Verizon’s mmWave transmissions travel over the 28 GHz mmWave band, but a very small amount use 39 GHz (just under 6% of samples in the second half of 2025). Verizon’s mmWave signals don’t show the same drop-off at 50 meters that AT&T’s signals do – likely a consequence of the inherently broader propagation characteristics of signals in 28 GHz compared with the higher 39 GHz band.
RootMetrics data also highlights the performance of mmWave 5G signals as users move away from mmWave transmission sites. All wireless networks show a degradation in performance as the distance between a user and a transmission site increases – but the situation can be measured in meters in 5G mmWave.
Median mmWave Download Speeds Slow as Distance Increases (in Meters)
RootMetrics® | 2H 2025
Finally, RootMetrics data can also show the exact signal characteristics that create connections between mmWave-capable devices and mmWave transmission sites. These “access thresholds” essentially show how strong a mmWave signal must be before the network will allow a user’s phone to connect to a mmWave site. If the signal isn’t strong enough, the network won’t allow the phone to connect to mmWave, and the phone will instead remain on a mid-band or low-band connection.
Access Thresholds for mmWave Connections, in dBm
RootMetrics® | 2H 2025
In a 5G network, dBm (decibels-milliwatts) is a measure of the power level of the radio signal received by a device. Values closer to zero indicate a stronger, more reliable connection.
Looking for signals: mmWave in big U.S. cities
Denver, Atlanta, Philadelphia, and Boston are top mmWave cities for Verizon. Roughly 60% of RootMetrics’ outdoor testing samples landed on Verizon’s mmWave in these cities in the second half of 2025. For AT&T, Philadelphia, Chicago, and Los Angeles are top mmWave cities – although AT&T’s mmWave touched roughly 20% of RootMetrics’ outdoor testing samples in these cities in the second half of 2025.
mmWave Samples in U.S. Metro Areas, by Activity
RootMetrics® | 2H 2025 | % of total samples
That both AT&T and Verizon view mmWave networks as an outdoor coverage solution is noteworthy. In the early days of mmWave 5G – before mid-band spectrum like C-band became available – mmWave networks were touted as a reasonable solution for urban outdoor areas, like downtown corridors. More recently, mmWave has been viewed as an ideal option for covering massive indoor locations, like stadiums, convention centers, and other high-traffic buildings.
Nonetheless, 5G signal scans from Ookla’s Speedtest Insights show Verizon’s extensive indoor and outdoor mmWave coverage throughout downtown Denver and Boston:
However, a closer look at Verizon’s coverage throughout the southern part of downtown Denver tells the story of mmWave’s relatively diminutive propagation characteristics, particular when compared with transmissions across all of Verizon’s spectrum bands, including both low-band and mid-band:
Finally, it’s worth noting that Speedtest Insights also shows some of T-Mobile’s mmWave deployments. For example, mmWave shows up in one of T-Mobile’s retail stores in its hometown of Bellevue, Washington. It also shows up in SoFi Stadium in Inglewood, California.
mmWave: Very, very fast
For operators, the economic calculation for mmWave can be tricky. Since coverage is measured in hundreds of meters, and mmWave transmitters are decidedly expensive to purchase, install and maintain, is the juice worth the squeeze?
The performance of mmWave connections helps to illustrate the reasons driving such deployments.
mmWave Median Download Speeds in Metro Areas
RootMetrics® | 2H 2025
Uplink speeds see a similar boost from mmWave.
The reason for these speeds is clear: Both AT&T and Verizon devote an eye-watering amount of mmWave spectrum to their deployments. Most of Verizon’s mmWave deployments using the initial 5G non standalone (NSA) version of the technology span eight 100 MHz channels. When combining all those channels together, Verizon is using an astounding 800 MHz worth of spectrum, mostly in the 28 GHz band, for its mmWave transmissions. That spectrum “depth” is the primary reason the operator is able to supply connections in some cases exceeding 1 Gbps.
AT&T also devotes a substantial amount of spectrum to its mmWave deployments. In some cities, like Seattle, the operator is using 800 MHz worth of spectrum. In others, like Atlanta, it’s using 400 MHz.
To be clear though, a variety of factors go into raw download speeds beyond spectrum depth, including users’ distance from transmission sites, their phone’s capabilities, their operator’s networking settings, and other factors.
mmWave: Across the globe, and into the future
Roughly six years on from the introduction of mmWave 5G, the U.S. remains the technology’s most visible proponent.
According to a Global mobile Suppliers Association (GSA) report from July of last year, 203 operators in 56 countries and territories were investing in 5G mmWave network deployments. Of those, 24 operators in 17 countries had launched 5G networks using mmWave spectrum.
Similarly, in a report released in December of last year, GSMA Intelligence found that 35 operators from 17 countries had launched 5G services in the mmWave bands. The firm reported that, at the end of the third quarter of 2025, mmWave spectrum for 5G had been assigned in 25 markets globally.
On the device side of things, the GSA recorded 150 devices that supported mmWave transmissions by June 2025, up from just 21 at the end of 2019.
However, the GSA reported a “considerable decrease” in spending on mmWave spectrum since the end of 2020. Indeed, operators in India didn’t bid in a 2024 mmWave spectrum auction, and operators in South Korea didn’t meet mmWave buildout requirements and ultimately returned their spectrum licenses to the country’s regulator. Among device vendors, companies like Apple have shown some recent ambivalence toward mmWave, going so far as to remove the technology from newer phones bound for the U.S. market. Such moves can help reduce the overall cost of devices.
Thus, it’s not clear whether Verizon’s new CEO, Dan Schulman, will continue the mmWave expansion spearheaded by the company’s former CEO.
Regardless, mmWave momentum continues. Ofcom in the U.K. recently conducted an auction of mmWave spectrum in that country, drawing some operator interest. Regulators in India, Japan and Canada may release additional mmWave spectrum as well. And KDDI in Japan has touted an expanding mmWave footprint in some downtown areas. Such moves could push more phone makers to add mmWave support into their devices – a key requirement for broad deployments.
Broad, international support for mmWave 5G is important because it can drive economies of scale for both equipment manufacturers and device vendors, potentially lowering costs and accelerating global adoption.
Finally, all of this mmWave gyration may affect the future of 6G. For example, U.S. officials are pushing for the 7 GHz band to be incorporated into future 6G networks. The 7 GHz band is much lower than mmWave bands like 28 GHz, but it’s higher than the 3.5 GHz band used for most mid-band spectrum deployments globally. Thus, networks in the 7 GHz band may suffer from some of the same propagation challenges that affect 5G mmWave networks. Support – and equipment – for the 7 GHz band will be a critical test for its success.
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.
Mike Dano is a Lead Industry Analyst in Ookla’s research and content team. He covers the North and South American markets, and global technology trends. Previously, Mike was a journalist covering the global telecom industry for 25 years at publications including RCR Wireless News, Fierce Network and Light Reading.
Austria leads on the slopes, where Alpine-specific auction incentives, public co-funding, and deep low-band spectrum holdings drive superior outcomes in some of Europe’s most challenging yet lucrative radio environments.
Europe’s largest ski resorts are among the most demanding environments for mobile networks. Extreme terrain, steep changes in elevation between sites and users, seasonal demand spikes that can exceed baseline capacity by an order of magnitude, and remote power constraints all combine to make Alpine connectivity an infrastructure challenge that separates well-invested operators from the rest.
For the tens of millions of visitors who pass through the Alps’ major ski resorts each winter, mobile connectivity is no longer a luxury. It underpins safety communications, real-time slope monitoring, social media sharing from the chairlift, and the growing dependence on digital lift passes and resort apps.
To understand how operators are meeting this challenge, we examined Speedtest Intelligence® data across 17 of Europe’s top ski resorts in five Alpine nations (France, Switzerland, Austria, Italy, and Germany) over a 12-month period from March 2025 to March 2026. The analysis draws on consumer-initiated Speedtest results, background signal scans measuring 4G and 5G signal strength and quality, and quality of experience (QoE) metrics including web page load times.
Key Takeaways
Austria leads its Alpine peers in median mobile download speeds at top ski resorts. A1 delivered median download speeds of 144.21 Mbps and the strongest 10th percentile outcomes (20.97 Mbps) of all 17 studied operators. The combination of Breitbandstrategie 2030 co-funding, alpine-specific spectrum auction incentives, and deep low-band holdings (Magenta Telekom alone holds 120 MHz across 700 MHz, 800 MHz, and 900 MHz spectrum) has resulted in infrastructure density that sustains performance even in the worst 10% of network conditions.
Italy’s mobile network outcomes at top ski resorts are the most competitively balanced of the five countries studied. The country’s four operators sit within just 16.66 Mbps of each other on median download speed (99.06 to 115.72 Mbps), and it is the only market where every operator exceeds 95 Mbps at the median. This reflects the broader national picture in a fiercely competitive and price-sensitive four-player market. The collective 700 MHz spectrum coverage obligation, which requires all operators to jointly reach 99.4% population coverage by June 2027, and the Milano Cortina 2026 Olympic 5G buildout, have driven competition across the Dolomites.
France has the widest within-country performance gap at resorts. SFR leads with a median download speed of 165.32 Mbps while Free trails at 48.79 Mbps, a 116.53 Mbps spread that reflects divergent spectrum and technology strategies across French Alpine terrain. While ARCEP’s New Deal Mobile has resulted in 3,200+ shared 4G sites and converging signal strength, shared infrastructure alone has not closed the throughput gap.
Germany’s top resorts record the lowest median download speeds (66.43 Mbps) but the best latency and fastest web page loads, while Swisscom leads the pack in Switzerland. Household-centric auction conditions tied to population coverage and transport corridors rather than tourism zones have left Bavarian resorts as a secondary priority in Germany. Without the geographic deployment mandates seen in France or the public co-funding of Austria, operator commercial strategy is the decisive variable, and Salt’s −110 dBm 4G RSRP, the weakest of any operator across all five countries, shows what happens when that incentive is absent.
The Alps poses a unique radio engineering challenge for mobile operators in tough mountain terrain
Providing cellular connectivity at ski resorts in the Alps is an order of magnitude more difficult than serving a comparable number of users in a lowland town. The physics, the logistics, and the economics all work against European operators.
Operators building remote mountain sites increasingly deploy hybrid solar-wind power systems that can supply as much as 80% of daily load from renewables, reducing diesel generator dependence by 70% to 80%, but the upfront engineering cost for a hardened Alpine installation can run 2.5 to 3.5 times that of an equivalent lowland site.
At 3,000 meters, base station equipment needs to operate in temperature ranges of −30 to +40 degrees Celsius across a single year. At −20 degrees Celsius, conventional lithium-ion batteries used for power backup retain roughly 50% of rated capacity, and charging rates must be throttled to prevent damage, meaning that a site designed for eight hours of backup power in summer may deliver fewer than four in winter.
Wet snow, which behaves like rain for signal propagation purposes, produces measurable attenuation on mid-band frequencies, while ice accumulation of even a quarter-inch on antenna radomes “changes the entire deployment scenario” according to engineering guidance. Avalanche protection adds further cost. Steel and concrete snow sheds, flexible net barriers, and reinforced catching dams are standard protective infrastructure around mountain base stations, and in extreme cases operators rely on remote avalanche control systems to manage hazards without placing personnel at risk.
Backhaul is a major constraint. Fiber installation in Alpine terrain requires specialized ASU (Aerial Self-Supporting) cable rated for heavy snowfall and high wind, or trenching through rocky substrate that in many areas can only be excavated during summer months. Where fiber is uneconomical, satellite backhaul can be installed in one to two days at roughly a third of the cost of a microwave link, and A1 in Austria has adopted this approach to connect alpine huts and remote mountain refuges through a partnership with the Austrian and German Alpine associations.
Similarly, Swisscom’s experience in the Ueschinen Valley in the Bernese Oberland illustrates the tradeoffs. When fiber was assessed for this mountain valley serving primarily summer-inhabited alpine huts, the cost-benefit case failed. Instead, Swisscom deployed a 5G site in autumn 2021, providing the entire valley with broadband at a fraction of the fiber cost (and making use of pre-existing fiber for the site backhaul only rather than needing to deploy it to every home).
Equipment logistics present their own challenge. Helicopter delivery to high-altitude sites is standard practice across the Alps, but thin air at elevation reduces rotor lift capacity, and flight windows are constrained by weather. Deutsche Telekom demonstrated one alternative at the Jizerska 50 cross-country ski race in the Czech Jizera Mountains, deploying a drone-mounted base station at 2.3 kilometers altitude that provided connectivity to over 4,400 race participants. This solution provided measured speeds of 95 Mbps download and 34 Mbps upload, a proof-of-concept for temporary surge capacity at mountain events (noting though that drone usage is still at an early stage in the Alpine context and features severe constraints like short battery runtime).
Austria’s sets the Alpine benchmark
Austria emerges as the strongest overall performer in ski resort connectivity in our analysis, combining the highest median download speeds with solid upload performance and latency. The country-level median download of 110.48 Mbps and upload of 17.69 Mbps both rank first among the five countries studied.
The four resorts studied (Ski Arlberg, Saalbach-Hinterglemm-Leogang-Fieberbrunn, Ischgl, and KitzSki) include Austria’s highest-profile ski domains, and our data suggests these destinations benefit from deliberate investment in Alpine connectivity.
Austria Leads European Ski Resort Download Speeds
Speedtest Intelligence® | Mar 2025 – Mar 2026
A1 drives much of this result. At 144.21 Mbps median download and 24.64 Mbps upload, A1 ranks second among all 17 operators on download and first on upload. Critically, A1 also delivers the strongest 10th percentile download performance of any operator at 20.97 Mbps, meaning that even users experiencing the worst 10% of conditions still receive a usable broadband-grade connection.
The gap between A1’s median and 10th percentile download across top Austrian resorts (a ratio of roughly 7:1) is notably tighter than operators like Orange in France (24:1) or Sunrise in Switzerland (21:1), pointing to more consistent infrastructure density across Austrian resort terrain.
Drei (3) follows at 100.89 Mbps median download, and Magenta Telekom sits at 86.85 Mbps. The 57.36 Mbps spread between A1 and Magenta is material but moderate by Alpine standards, and all three operators deliver acceptable performance for typical resort usage.
A1 and SFR Top the Operator Rankings at European Ski Resorts
Speedtest Intelligence® | Mar 2025 – Mar 2026
Analysis of signal strength data further supports A1’s lead. Its median 4G signal strength (known as Reference Signal Received Power or RSRP) of −100 dBm is the strongest of any operator in our data, and its 4G signal quality (RSRQ) of −9 dB is among the best. Magenta Telekom’s 5G signal stands out with a median RSRP of −95 dBm, the strongest 5G reading across all operators, likely reflecting the usage of its leading 120MHz-wide low-band allocation (prime spectrum for wide coverage that travels further in Alpine terrain) across the 700, 800, and 900 MHz bands.
Median web page load times at the top resorts in Austria cluster around 1.4 seconds across all three operators. The fact that A1’s outcomes here are essentially equivalent to Drei despite its significantly higher download speeds illustrate the diminishing returns of raw speed on QoE metrics that are dominated by deeper factors like core interconnect, peering, and content delivery network (CDN) routing. These are the behind-the-scenes infrastructure elements that determine how efficiently data travels between servers and end users, rather than simply how fast the last mile connection can go.
Italy’s tight operator spread points to competitive balance
Italy’s ski resorts deliver the second-highest median download speeds (101.85 Mbps) and present the most balanced competitive picture of any country in the analysis. The three Italian resorts studied (Sella Ronda, Cortina d’Ampezzo, and Kronplatz) sit directly in the zone that received Olympic infrastructure investment, and the post-Games persistence of this network will be a critical test for long-term connectivity improvement in the Dolomites.
All four operators measured (Vodafone, WINDTRE, Iliad, and TIM) sit between 99.06 Mbps and 115.72 Mbps on median download, a total spread of just 16.66 Mbps or roughly 14% variance. The strong showing is somewhat surprising, as it runs counter to Italy’s broader country-level mobile standing. In the latest edition of the Speedtest Global Index™, Italy ranked 52nd globally and ahead of only Germany among the peer group.
A1 and TIM Lead on 4G Signal Strength Across Alpine Resorts
Speedtest Intelligence® | Mar 2025 – Mar 2026 | Median 4G RSRP in dBm (closer to 0 = stronger signal)
Vodafone leads with a median download speed of 115.72 Mbps and with the lowest latency in the country (43 milliseconds). TIM, despite ranking last among Italian operators on median download speed at 99.06 Mbps, delivers the strongest 10th percentile download (12.51 Mbps) and the best 4G RSRP (-100 dBm), consistent with its position as the operator with the largest physical footprint in Italy. TIM’s extensive 4G population coverage and 60 MHz of low-band spectrum give it deep reach that translates into more consistent mountain coverage, even if peak throughput is modestly lower.
WINDTRE deserves attention for upload performance. With a median of 17.98 Mbps, it delivers the highest upload speed of any Italian operator and one of the highest in the full five-country dataset, a finding that may reflect its 170 MHz of mid-band spectrum and capacity optimization choices.
Iliad, the newest entrant, delivers a competitive 101.40 Mbps median download speed, demonstrating that its national roaming and infrastructure-sharing arrangements provide reasonable resort coverage.
Italy features the poorest QoE outcomes among the five studied countries, with median web page load times ranging from 1.4 seconds (Vodafone) to 1.5 seconds (Iliad), roughly 0.1 to 0.2 seconds slower than the fastest country, Germany. This disconnect between relatively strong download speeds and slower page loads strongly suggests that network routing, CDN proximity, and peering arrangements, rather than raw throughput, may be the constraint on user experience in Italian resort areas.
France features the widest operator divide in the Alps
The four French resorts studied (Les 3 Vallees, Paradiski, Tignes-Val d’Isere, and Chamonix-Mont-Blanc) include the largest ski domains in the Alps and represent peak-demand environments where infrastructure sharing alone may not fully address congestion.
France’s overall median download speed of 83.44 Mbps across its top resorts place it fourth among the five studied countries, but this average masks a striking divergence between operators. SFR leads at 165.32 Mbps, the single highest median download of any operator across all five markets. Bouygues Telecom follows at 120.08 Mbps, while Orange sits at 61.62 Mbps and Free trails at 48.79 Mbps. The 116.53 Mbps spread between SFR and Free represents a 70% variance, the widest of any country in the study. It is also notable that this runs counter to the broader national pattern over recent quarters, where Orange leads on speed and consistency ahead of Bouygues, with both well ahead of SFR and Free.
France's Upload Deficit at Ski Resorts Is Pronounced
Speedtest Intelligence® | Mar 2025 – Mar 2026
The French upload story at ski resorts is even more notable. With an overall median upload speed of 6.20 Mbps, France’s upload speed is less than half the next-lowest country (Italy at 13.85 Mbps) and barely a third of Austria’s 17.69 Mbps. Even SFR, France’s fastest downlink operator, manages only 8.38 Mbps upload. Orange’s 10th percentile upload speed drops to 0.35 Mbps, and Free’s to 0.41 Mbps, levels that would render video calls and cloud uploads essentially nonfunctional. This upload deficit may reflect TDD configuration choices on mid-band spectrum, uplink resource allocation policies, or (most likely) backhaul constraints and seasonal congestion specific to French mountain infrastructure.
French Operators Show Extreme Download/Upload Imbalance at Ski Resorts
Speedtest Intelligence® | Mar 2025 – Mar 2026 | Ratio of median download to upload speed (lower = more balanced)
Deeper analysis of the 10th percentile outcomes expose an Alpine consistency problem across all French operators. Orange’s 10th percentile download is just 2.59 Mbps, meaning the worst 10% of user experiences deliver less than 3 Mbps despite a median of 61.62 Mbps. This 24:1 ratio between median and 10th percentile is the highest in our data and points to potential severe congestion or coverage holes within the resort footprint. Free (16:1 ratio) and Bouygues (20:1) show similar patterns. SFR, despite leading on median download, drops to 9.48 Mbps at 10th percentile (17:1) ratio.
Median multi-sever latency performance in France (56 to 58 ms across all four operators) is tightly clustered, suggesting that latency is not the differentiating factor between French operators at ski resorts. The more impactful divergence is on signal. Three of four operators (Orange, SFR, and Bouygues Telecom) feature an identical 4G RSRP of −103 dBm, while Free registers −106 dBm, consistent with Free’s smaller national site footprint and narrower low-band allocation (37 MHz total vs. 47 MHz to 57 MHz for its competitors).
Swisscom dominates, but Switzerland’s overall position is middle of the Alpine pack
Switzerland’s overall median download of 84.76 Mbps at resorts places it third, just above France, despite Swisscom delivering 130.40 Mbps, a figure that would rank among the top operators in any country. The gap reflects the sharp dropoff below Swisscom. Salt records 69.39 Mbps and Sunrise 57.13 Mbps, a 73.27 Mbps spread between top and bottom that represents a wide 56% variance.
On upload and latency, Switzerland is more competitive. Median upload speeds reach 15.91 Mbps overall (second only to Austria), and the median multi-server latency of 48 ms is the second-best, with Swisscom delivering the lowest single-operator latency in our entire dataset at 33 ms.
Analysis of the 10th percentile outcomes highlights a consistency challenge. Sunrise’s 10th percentile download speed is just 2.71 Mbps (a 21:1 ratio to its median) and Salt’s is 4.93 Mbps (14:1). Even Swisscom’s 10th percentile of 8.08 Mbps represents a 16:1 ratio. These floor-performance readings suggest that at peak times or in terrain-challenged areas of Zermatt, Verbier, and the Jungfrau Region, users on any operator can experience severe performance degradation (over and above what is observed in countries like Austria).
Floor Performance Varies Dramatically Across Alpine Operators
Speedtest Intelligence® | Mar 2025 – Mar 2026
Signal data provides a partial explanation for these challenges. Swisscom’s median 4G RSRP of −102 dBm is acceptable but not exceptional. Salt’s median −110 dBm is the weakest 4G reading of any operator across all five countries, consistent with coverage limitations in peripheral Alpine valleys. Salt’s 5G signal at −106 dBm tracks similarly weak.
Swisscom holds the largest low-band allocation in Switzerland (80 MHz across the 700, 800, and 900 MHz bands) and the deepest total spectrum portfolio at 454 MHz across all bands, vs. Sunrise at 294 MHz and Salt at 270 MHz. This spectrum depth, and the operator’s status as the universal service licence holder, likely underpins Swisscom’s clear Alpine advantage.
Switzerland’s market-driven regulatory model, which lacks the kind of direct government co-funding seen in France (ARCEP New Deal Mobile) or Austria (Alpine Infrastructure Fund), places the burden of mountain investment on operator economics.
Germany trades raw speed for latency and QoE
Germany’s ski resort performance is unique. With a 66.43 Mbps median download speed, it ranks last among the five countries. But with a median latency of 42 ms, it delivers the best multi-server responsiveness, 6 ms faster than second-placed Switzerland and 26 ms better than France. Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Oberstdorf, and Sudelfeld are located in Bavaria but do not sit on priority transport corridors, creating a gap where commercial incentive alone drives investment.
Telekom dominates the German market on speed at resorts, recording a 120.58 Mbps median download, more than double its nearest domestic competitor (Vodafone at 58.95 Mbps, O2 at 54.39 Mbps). Telekom also leads on upload (20.22 Mbps) and latency (35 ms), the latter being the second-lowest single-operator figure in our entire dataset after Swisscom.
But Telekom’s 10th percentile download drops to 6.14 Mbps (a 20:1 ratio), notably weaker than the consistency levels seen in Austria. Vodafone’s 10th percentile download speed of 9.38 Mbps actually represents a tighter ratio (6:1), suggesting more even if lower-ceiling coverage. O2’s 5.69 Mbps 10th percentile and modest signal readings (4G RSRP −105 dBm, 5G −103 dBm) likely reflect some rural coverage gaps.
Germany Leads on Latency and Web Page Load Times at Ski Resorts
Speedtest Intelligence® | Mar 2025 – Mar 2026
The profile of results align closely with the relative spectrum position of each German operator. Telekom, with 70 MHz of low-band spectrum (the largest low-band allocation among German operators, spanning 700, 800, and 900 MHz), has the propagation advantage needed for mountain terrain. Vodafone and O2, with weaker low-band positions, therefore compete less effectively at altitude.
Overall, Germany delivers the best median web page load times of any country. Telekom records 1.2 seconds, the lowest figure across all 17 operators, while Vodafone and O2 also perform well at 1.3 seconds each. This QoE advantage aligns with Germany’s latency leadership (and the inherent advantage that it features the highest density of hyperscale infrastructure in the DACH region) and suggests favorable CDN positioning, routing decisions and peering arrangements for German networks.
Policy approaches to Alpine coverage vary widely from subsidized infrastructure sharing to targeted rollout obligations
The regulatory frameworks shaping Alpine connectivity differ materially across the five countries studied, and these differences can help to explain the performance patterns in our data.
France’s policy approach is the most prescriptive. ARCEP’s New Deal Mobile program, announced in January 2018, replaced the traditional auction logic with a commitment-based framework in which operators accepted binding coverage obligations in exchange for administrative renewal of their spectrum rights. The targeted coverage mechanism requires each operator to cover up to 5,000 areas, with government orders issued at a rate of roughly 600 to 800 areas per year per operator and each designated location to be activated within at most 24 months.
Infrastructure sharing is central, but more selectively than the original text implied. Of those 5,000 areas, 2,000 are explicitly intended for four-operator RAN sharing in places where no operator provides “good coverage”; in the remaining areas operators must at least share passive infrastructure, and in some cases active sharing also applies. Separately, operators must reach 99.8% population “good coverage” for voice and SMS, with deadlines staggered between 2028 and 2031 depending on operator. Compliance is enforced with fines. Historically, SFR was penalized €380,000 for failing to cover 47 town centers by the January 2016 deadline, and Orange received a €27,000 penalty for missing five. Critically for ski areas, the 3.4 to 3.8 GHz obligations require 25% of sites in the final two rollout phases to be located in sparsely populated areas.
Austria, meanwhile, has combined spectrum policy with direct public funding. The Breitbandstrategie 2030 targets nationwide symmetric gigabit-capable connectivity by 2030, and the federal government has made €1.4 billion (US $1.6 billion) available through 2026 under Broadband Austria 2030. Coverage obligations from the 2020 multi-band auction (700, 1500, and 2100 MHz) require A1, Hutchison, and T-Mobile Austria to cover 1,702 of 2,100 underserved cadastral communities, roughly 81%, with first deadlines in summer 2022 and most remaining obligations falling in late 2023 and late 2025. Embedding rural buildout directly into the award process helps explain why operators with stronger rural network positions perform relatively well in Alpine terrain.
Five distinct regulatory approaches shape Alpine connectivity investment decisions across Europe.
By contrast, Switzerland takes the most market-driven approach. Swisscom is the universal service licence holder for 2024 to 2031, but the obligation remains modest: basic telephony plus internet access at 10/1 Mbit/s, or 80/8 Mbit/s on request, with reduced rates permitted in exceptional cases. The February 2019 spectrum auction raised around €414 million (US$477 million) and imposed mainly population-based obligations: licensees with 700 MHz spectrum had to reach at least 50% of the population with their own infrastructure by December 2024, while those without 700 MHz spectrum faced a 25% threshold. Those benchmarks can be met without specifically targeting remote Alpine terrain.
Italy’s 700 MHz auction, concluded in October 2018, included a distinctive collective coverage obligation. The 700 MHz licensees must jointly reach 99.4% of the population within 54 months of the band’s July 2022 availability. This joint structure creates a cooperative incentive, since any single operator’s shortfall affects the group, and it is consistent with infrastructure-sharing approaches. Earlier this year, TIM and Fastweb+Vodafone first announced a preliminary RAN-sharing agreement focused on municipalities with fewer than 35,000 inhabitants, and later announced a non-binding initiative to develop up to 6,000 new towers.
Italy’s Piano Italia 5G program provides major public support for fiber backhaul to more than 10,000 existing mobile sites and for new 5G sites in underserved areas, with public funding covering up to 90% of project cost. The Milano Cortina 2026 Winter Olympics added a further layer, with TIM as Official Telecommunications Partner and FiberCop as Fiber Infrastructure Partner connecting venues to high-capacity fiber infrastructure.
Germany’s regulatory model is the most explicitly focused on household and transport coverage. BNetzA’s 2019 auction required at least 100 Mbps for 98% of households in each federal state by the end of 2022, alongside obligations covering motorways, major federal roads, and rail routes. According to operators’ submissions, all three incumbents met the household threshold, but BNetzA said gaps remained in some transport locations and tunnels. That structure is aimed at population density and corridors rather than tourism zones, leaving mountain coverage more dependent on commercial incentive.
Federal support exists, but execution has been slower than the headline ambition suggests. The Mobilfunkstrategie earmarked about €1.1 billion (US$1.3 billion) from the Special Fund for Digital Infrastructure to support up to 5,000 additional masts, and by the end of 2024 the Mobilfunkinfrastrukturgesellschaft had funded 267 sites, with the first masts in operation and the remainder still in the realization phase. Updated obligations adopted in 2025 require at least 50 Mbps over 99.5% of Germany’s land area from 2030, so German ski resorts are still likely to rely primarily on operator-led investment for the foreseeable future.
Bars on the piste matter for competitive differentiation
For operators, the Alpine corridor is both a technical challenge and a strategic opportunity, a place where network quality is highly visible, directly experienced by affluent and digitally engaged visitors, and increasingly essential to resort operations.
The performance landscape across Europe’s top ski resorts reveals a set of structural themes that extend beyond the mountains. Markets where regulation explicitly targets geographic coverage (e.g., France’s ARCEP New Deal Mobile, Austria’s Alpine investment incentives, Italy’s joint coverage obligations) show stronger outcomes than markets where obligations are tied primarily to population thresholds and transport corridors. Germany’s household-centric auction conditions, despite generating significant auction revenue, leave tourism-dependent mountain zones as a secondary priority.
Operator strategy matters as much as regulation. A1 in Austria and Swisscom in Switzerland have built measurable Alpine advantages that function as competitive differentiation. In markets where operator performance is more tightly clustered (Italy) or where infrastructure sharing dominates (France), the quality of the user experience can become more uniform or constrained by shared bottlenecks.
Emerging direct-to-device (D2D) satellite services from providers like SpaceX’s Starlink and AST SpaceMobile represent a potential complementary layer for the highest-altitude and most remote Alpine terrain where terrestrial economics remain prohibitive. Switzerland’s Salt, for example, was the the first operator in Europe to report a successful (albeit non-commercial) Starlink direct-to-cell test, sending satellite-based text messages to a standard 4G smartphone over its mobile spectrum, touting it as a future coverage extension and resilience layer in the most remote areas.
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.
Luke Kehoe leads Ookla’s research and thought leadership efforts in Europe.
An electronic engineering alumnus of University College Dublin, Luke has extensive experience collaborating with mobile operators, telecoms vendors, and government agencies in research and advisory roles across Europe. He has contributed to internationally recognised thought leadership publications in areas such as 5G, IoT, open RAN, and edge computing, working with prestigious organisations like the Telecom Infra Project and the World Economic Forum.
Analysis of Speedtest data across 20 major French rail corridors reveals sharp operator disparities in throughput, latency, and quality of experience.
France operates one of Europe’s most heavily used passenger rail networks, carrying hundreds of millions of riders each year across a system that spans high-speed LGV corridors, intercity Intercités routes, and dense regional TER services. As mobile connectivity has shifted from a convenience to a baseline expectation for rail passengers, the quality of cellular service along these corridors has become an infrastructure question in its own right.
The French government and France’s telecom regulator, ARCEP, recognized this early: the 2018 New Deal Mobile established explicit obligations for 4G coverage along approximately 23,000 km of regional rail track, with a target of 90% coverage of daily train services by the end of 2025. By ARCEP’s own reporting, trackside 4G coverage now reaches 97.7% to 99.3% of daily train services, depending on the operator.
Yet coverage presence and coverage quality are not the same thing, and the gap between them is where the passenger experience is actually shaped. Analysis of Speedtest Intelligence® data across a sample of 20 high-traffic French rail routes, encompassing LGV, intercity, and regional corridors, reveals that the passenger’s designated operator matters enormously for throughput, latency, and real-time application performance. The underlying driver is not a mystery: it maps closely to each operator’s spectrum position, particularly in the sub-1 GHz and mid-band ranges most relevant to rail propagation, and network footprint.
This analysis draws on Speedtest Intelligence data collected between March 2025 and March 2026, alongside quality of experience (QoE) and signal metrics, for all four French mobile network operators: Orange, SFR, Bouygues Telecom, and Free. Tests were captured within a 100-meter buffer of the 20 sampled rail corridors.
Key Takeaways:
Orange leads with a median download speed of 283.4 Mbps across the sampled rail corridors, 52% faster than second-place SFR (186.5 Mbps) and more than double Free’s 120.4 Mbps. Orange holds the largest sub-1 GHz spectrum portfolio in France at 57.4 MHz, including both 700 and 800 MHz bands, giving it materially deeper low-band reach in the radio environment along rail corridors where propagation and carriage penetration advantages are most pronounced.
Multiserver latency splits the market into two distinct tiers: Orange (33 ms) and Bouygues Telecom (34 ms) cluster within a millisecond of each other, while SFR (43 ms) and Free (64 ms) trail significantly. This two-tier pattern persists almost identically across content delivery networks (CDN), gaming, and video conferencing latency, suggesting potential structural network architecture differences in core routing rather than route-specific variation.
Orange recorded a leading median 4G signal quality (RSRQ) of -9 dB, a 3 dB advantage over all three rivals (each at -12 dB), despite near-identical signal strength (RSRP) readings of -100 to -104 dBm across operators. The RSRQ gap points to better spectral isolation or more effective load management across Orange’s rail-adjacent cell sites, potentially supported by its 10 MHz mid-band spectrum advantage at 2600 MHz and greater carrier aggregation depth.
Application-layer quality of experience (QoE) metrics partially compress the operator gap: median web page load times span only ~0.1 seconds from Orange (1.1 seconds) to Bouygues Telecom (1.2 seconds), and video conferencing jitter varies by just 2 ms across all four operators (4 to 6 ms). However, video start time inverts the throughput ranking, with SFR leading at 1.3 seconds and Bouygues trailing at 1.6 seconds, pointing to differences in CDN peering, edge caching, or video optimization strategy.
France’s New Deal Mobile already provides a relatively robust coverage obligation framework. However, ARCEP’s February 2025 enforcement notices to all four operators cites over 300 blocked or delayed deployment sites. This highlights that meeting even geographic coverage targets remains a challenge before quality of service (QoS) metrics can enter the regulatory conversation. Among major European markets, only Germany has moved toward mandating performance floors on rail, while the UK, Spain, and Italy lag further behind.
Orange’s speed lead maps to spectrum depth, not just signal reach
During the period of analysis between March 2025 and March 2026, the download speed disparity observed across French operators on rail is striking. Orange’s median of 283.4 Mbps is approximately 52% above SFR’s 186.5 Mbps, ~110% above Bouygues Telecom’s 135.0 Mbps, and ~135% above Free’s 120.4 Mbps. This is not a marginal gap: it represents a fundamentally different user experience in bandwidth-intensive applications such as video streaming, large file transfers, and cloud-based workflows.
Orange leads on download speed, while Bouygues is ahead on upload
Speedtest Intelligence® | March 2025 – March 2026
Analysis of spectrum data published by GSMA Intelligence provides an explanation for this disparity. Orange holds 257 MHz of total assigned spectrum nationally, the largest portfolio among the four operators, compared with 227 MHz for SFR, 217 MHz for Bouygues Telecom, and 207 MHz for Free. More critically for rail environments, where low-frequency propagation and in-vehicle penetration matter most, Orange leads in sub-1 GHz holdings at 57.4 MHz spanning both the 700 and 800 MHz bands.
SFR and Bouygues Telecom each hold 47.4 MHz of sub-1 GHz spectrum, while Free holds only 37.4 MHz and notably lacks any 800 MHz assignment entirely, relying on 700 MHz and 900 MHz for its low-band coverage layer. Free’s absence from the 800 MHz band, the workhorse of 4G coverage in rural and semi-rural terrain, is a constraint for rail corridor performance.
Orange also holds a 10 MHz mid-band advantage at 2600 MHz (40 MHz vs. 30 MHz for SFR and Bouygues Telecom), which, when combined with its low-band depth, affords greater carrier aggregation flexibility across the frequency layers most relevant to rail. At 3.5 GHz, where Orange holds 90 MHz, the performance impact on rail is limited: the propagation characteristics of C-band are less well suited to the extended inter-site distances and in-carriage penetration losses typical of rail environments.
Orange's unique low-band depth lends it a coverage advantage
Analysis of GSMA Intelligence Data | 2026
Upload speeds tell a different story. Bouygues Telecom leads at 24.7 Mbps, narrowly ahead of Orange at 23.6 Mbps, with SFR at 16.6 Mbps and Free at 9.2 Mbps. The Bouygues-Orange convergence on upload, despite Orange’s clear download lead, may reflect uplink scheduling optimization or time division duplexing (TDD) configuration choices that weight differently across operators.
Analysis of the signal environment confirms this spectrum narrative. Median 4G reference signal received power (RSRP) readings, which measure the strength of the signal from the cell tower, are tightly clustered across operators, ranging from -100 dBm (Bouygues Telecom) to -104 dBm (Free), indicating that all four operators reach rail corridors at broadly comparable signal strength. Yet Orange’s reference signal received quality (RSRQ), which measures the quality of the signal, of -9 dB is 3 dB better than every rival (all at -12 dB).
Since RSRQ captures signal quality relative to total received power including interference, this gap suggests that Orange achieves better spectral isolation on rail, whether through denser site grids, more effective inter-cell interference management, or the greater carrier aggregation depth that its wider spectrum portfolio likely enables.
Orange's 3 dB signal quality advantage persists despite comparable signal strength
Speedtest Intelligence® | March 2025 – March 2026
When coverage does not equal quality: the QoE picture on French rail
While throughput and latency capture raw network capability, QoE metrics reflect what passengers actually feel when using applications. Here, the operator gap narrows considerably at the application layer, even as it remains wide at the access layer.
Median web page load times span just ~0.1 seconds across operators: from Orange at 1.1 seconds to Bouygues Telecom at 1.2 seconds, with SFR (1.2 seconds) and Free (1.2 seconds) in between. That ~10% spread stands in contrast to the 135% gap in raw download throughput, illustrating how application-layer optimization, CDN placement, and protocol efficiency can partially compensate for underlying network differences. A web page load is shaped by DNS resolution, TLS negotiation, and content rendering, all of which are less sensitive to peak throughput than to latency and connection reliability.
Video start time introduces an inversion: SFR leads at 1.3 seconds, followed by Free at 1.4 seconds, Orange at 1.4 seconds, and Bouygues Telecom at 1.6 seconds. The fact that SFR and Free outperform Orange on video start, despite trailing on throughput, points to potential differences in CDN peering arrangements, edge caching topology, or video player optimization that are distinct from raw radio performance. Video start time is heavily influenced by the initial buffering phase, where server proximity and connection setup overhead can outweigh sustained bandwidth.
Application-layer QoE compresses the operator gap despite wide throughput differences
Speedtest Intelligence® | March 2025 – March 2026
Video conferencing metrics reveal a broadly similar picture across all four networks on rail, with median jitter ranging from just 4 ms (Bouygues Telecom) to 6 ms (Free) and mean packet loss from 2.79% (Orange) to 3.47% (Bouygues Telecom). These are not dramatic spreads. Median video conferencing latency falls into the same two-tier structure as multiserver latency: Orange and SFR at 59 ms, Free at 68 ms, and Bouygues Telecom at 77 ms.
CDN and gaming latency mirror this pattern exactly: Orange and SFR share a 59 ms median, Free sits at 68 ms, and Bouygues Telecom at 77 ms. The consistency of this tiering across multiple latency endpoints suggests a core network or peering architecture difference rather than a radio access variation.
Two-tier latency: Orange & Bouygues lead on multi-server, Orange & SFR on apps
Speedtest Intelligence® | March 2025 – March 2026
France’s rail coverage framework: obligations, enforcement, and the quality blind spot
France’s approach to mobile coverage on rail rests primarily on the New Deal Mobile, the landmark 2018 agreement between the government, ARCEP, and all four operators that embedded legally binding coverage commitments into operator frequency licenses. For rail specifically, the framework mandated 4G coverage along 90% of daily train services across approximately 23,000 km of regional rail track by December 31, 2025, with phased obligations for in-vehicle coverage on the 700 MHz band extending to 2030.
ARCEP enforces these obligations through a combination of operator-reported coverage maps, field measurement campaigns exceeding one million data points annually, and its public Mon Reseau Mobile platform. The framework has delivered measurable progress: white zones with zero mobile coverage have fallen from 11% of the territory in 2017 to under 2% (by Q3 2023), and trackside 4G coverage rates now exceed 97% for all operators.
However, ARCEP’s 2024 quality of service campaign found that web page loads succeeded in only around 70% of attempts on average across TGV, Intercites, and TER services, with per-operator success rates varying from around 64% to 79%. Coverage presence, in other words, does not guarantee usable service.
The enforcement reality is challenging. France has demonstrated willingness to levy penalties, but the clearest recent example is from the fixed side rather than mobile: ARCEP fined Orange €26 million (US$30 million) in November 2023 for failing to meet its legally binding FTTH rollout commitments in AMII areas. On the mobile side, ARCEP has also issued multiple formal notices under the New Deal Mobile framework.
Looking ahead, the transition from GSM-R to FRMCS (Future Railway Mobile Communication System), the 5G-based European standard for railway operational communications, will add a new dimension to rail connectivity.
SNCF Réseau appears to be pursuing a hybrid FRMCS model in which dedicated railway infrastructure remains central on the core network, while commercial mobile networks may be used selectively to extend coverage or reduce deployment cost on certain regional or cross-border sections. This will tie commercial network quality on rail directly to operational railway communications for the first time, potentially raising the stakes for on-rail mobile performance beyond passenger experience.
How France’s approach compares: regulatory lessons from Germany, the UK, Spain, and Italy
France sits in the middle of a wide European spectrum on rail mobile regulation, a position that becomes clearer when compared against its four largest peer markets.
Germany has moved furthest toward regulating quality rather than just coverage on rail. Under conditions attached to its 2019 5G spectrum auction, BNetzA set explicit bandwidth floors: 100 Mbps along major railway lines (Hauptschienenwege) and 50 Mbps along other railway lines. Operators have equipped approximately 400 rail tunnels with mobile coverage as part of broader transport corridor obligations. The GINT program has allocated €6.4 million to test 5G feasibility on rail, and FRMCS pilots are expected from 2026. Germany’s approach represents a regulatory philosophy fundamentally different from France’s: it targets what the network delivers, not merely where it reaches.
The United Kingdom sits at the other end of the spectrum. Ofcom’s last dedicated rail connectivity study dates to 2019, and Parliament has repeatedly called for annual reporting that has not materialized. The UK lacks rail-specific spectrum obligations, and responsibility for rail connectivity is fragmented across multiple government departments. The Shared Rural Network targets rural coverage broadly but does not address rail corridors specifically. A Network Rail and Neos Networks infrastructure agreement signals momentum, but a coordinated rail connectivity program is not expected to deliver results before 2027 at the earliest.
Spain has adopted a public-private partnership model. ADIF, the national rail infrastructure manager, signed a €25.5 million (US$29.4 million) contract with Vodafone and SEMI for 5G deployment on high-speed AVE routes, funded in part through the EU Recovery and Resilience Facility. The Spanish approach is project-driven rather than obligation-based, delivering targeted improvements on flagship routes without establishing a universal framework.
Italy has focused on nodes rather than links. FS Group and TIM have partnered on tunnel coverage across high-speed corridors, while INWIT has deployed 5G infrastructure at major stations including Roma Termini. Italy’s PNRR-funded feasibility studies have explored corridor-level connectivity, but AGCOM has not imposed rail-specific coverage or quality obligations. The emphasis remains on ensuring connectivity at stations rather than along the routes between them.
At the EU level, the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) Digital program allocates approximately €300 million (US$345 million) for 5G corridors along Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) routes through 2027. Several France-relevant inception studies have been approved, including projects for the Paris-Brussels and Frejus cross-border rail corridors. The revised TEN-T Regulation (2024/1679) emphasizes digital connectivity as a component of transport infrastructure, but defers specific mandates to member states.
Coverage is a floor, not a ceiling, on rail
France has built one of Europe’s most progressive mobile coverage obligation frameworks for rail, and it has largely eliminated coverage dead zones across the national network thanks to proactive collaboration with industry. Our data reveals that the challenge has now shifted to deeper network optimization, which requires going beyond baseline coverage metrics to understand what passengers actually experience on trains when they have a signal.
The constraints of coverage obligations alone in stimulating better outcomes should be taken into account in the absence of other supporting measures. Orange’s dominant speed performance likely maps to its spectrum advantages, a 57.4 MHz sub-1 GHz portfolio and a 10 MHz lead in mid-band holdings, that no coverage obligation can easily replicate for its rivals. Competitive dynamics beyond the mandate may also play a role here.
As FRMCS approaches and CEF Digital projects advance from inception studies toward deployment, the strategic question shifts from whether trains have signals to what that signal can deliver. Germany’s model of regulating bandwidth floors on rail, rather than just coverage existence, offers a forward-looking template. It could be reinforced with additional metrics for video, latency, QoE, etc. For France and the rest of Europe, the next phase of rail connectivity policy will need to grapple not just with where networks reach, but with how well they perform when they get there.
L’écart de connectivité ferroviaire en France : pourquoi les seuls objectifs de couverture ne peuvent pas combler le fossé d’expérience mobile sur les voies ferrées
L’analyse des données Speedtest sur 20 corridors ferroviaires majeurs français révèle des disparités nettes entre opérateurs en termes de débit et de latence, exposant les limites d’un cadre réglementaire qui impose la portée géographique mais pas encore la qualité de service.
La France opère l’un des réseaux ferroviaires de passagers les plus intensément utilisés d’Europe, transportant des centaines de millions de voyageurs chaque année sur un système qui s’étend des corridors LGV à grande vitesse, aux services Intercités et aux services régionaux TER denses. À mesure que la connectivité mobile est passée d’une commodité à une attente de base pour les passagers des trains, la qualité du service cellulaire le long de ces corridors est devenue une question d’infrastructure à part entière.
Le gouvernement français et le régulateur français des télécommunications, l’ARCEP, ont reconnu ce fait précocement : le New Deal Mobile de 2018 a établi des obligations explicites pour la couverture 4G le long d’environ 23 000 km de voies ferrées régionales, avec un objectif de 90 % de couverture des services de trains quotidiens d’ici fin 2025. Selon le propre rapport de l’ARCEP, la couverture 4G en bordure de voies ferrées atteint désormais 97,7 % à 99,3 % des services de trains quotidiens, selon l’opérateur.
Cependant, la présence de couverture et la qualité de la couverture ne sont pas la même chose, et c’est le fossé entre elles qui façonne réellement l’expérience des passagers. L’analyse des données Speedtest Intelligence® sur un échantillon de 20 routes ferroviaires françaises à fort trafic, englobant des corridors LGV, Intercités et régionaux, révèle que l’opérateur auquel s’abonne un passager importe énormément pour le débit, la latence et les performances des applications en temps réel. Le facteur sous-jacent n’est pas un mystère : il correspond étroitement au portefeuille de spectre de chaque opérateur, particulièrement dans les bandes sub-1 GHz et moyennes les plus efficaces pour la propagation ferroviaire, ainsi qu’à son empreinte réseau.
Cette analyse s’appuie sur les données Speedtest Intelligence collectées entre mars 2025 et mars 2026, ainsi que sur les métriques de qualité d’expérience (QoE) et de signal, couvrant les quatre opérateurs mobiles français : Orange, SFR, Bouygues Telecom et Free. Les tests ont été capturés dans un rayon de 100 mètres autour des 20 corridors ferroviaires échantillonnés.
Enseignements clés :
Orange domine avec un débit descendant médian de 283,40 Mbps sur les corridors ferroviaires échantillonnés, 52 % plus rapide que SFR en deuxième position (186,53 Mbps) et plus du double des 120,41 Mbps de Free. Orange détient le plus grand portefeuille de spectre sub-1 GHz en France avec 57,4 MHz, incluant les bandes 700 et 800 MHz, lui donnant une portée clairement plus importante en bande basse dans l’environnement radio le long des corridors ferroviaires où les avantages de propagation et de pénétration dans les wagons sont les plus importants.
La latence multi-serveurs divise le marché en deux niveaux distincts : Orange (33 ms) et Bouygues Telecom (34 ms) se situent à moins d’une milliseconde l’une de l’autre, tandis que SFR (43 ms) et Free (64 ms) accusent un retard important. Ce schéma à deux niveaux persiste presque identiquement sur les réseaux de distribution de contenu (CDN), les jeux et la conférence vidéo en latence, suggérant des différences potentielles d’architecture réseau structurelle dans l’acheminement central plutôt qu’une variation spécifique aux itinéraires.
Orange a enregistré une qualité de signal 4G médiane dominante (RSRQ) de -9 dB, un avantage de 3 dB sur les trois rivaux (chacun à -12 dB), malgré des lectures de puissance de signal (RSRP) pratiquement identiques de -100 à -104 dBm sur tous les opérateurs. L’écart RSRQ pointe vers une meilleure isolation spectrale ou une gestion de charge plus efficace sur les sites cellulaires adjacents aux voies ferrées d’Orange, potentiellement soutenue par son avantage de spectre en mi-bande de 10 MHz sur 2600 MHz et une profondeur d’agrégation de porteuses plus importante.
Les métriques de qualité d’expérience (QoE) au niveau des applications compriment partiellement l’écart opérateur : les temps de chargement des pages Web médians s’étendent sur seulement environ 0,1 secondes d’Orange (1,1 secondes) à Bouygues Telecom (1,2 secondes), et la gigue (jitter) de conférence vidéo varie de seulement 2 ms sur les quatre opérateurs (4 à 6 ms). Cependant, le temps de démarrage vidéo inverse le classement du débit, SFR se classant en tête à 1,3 secondes et Bouygues en retard à 1,6 secondes, pointant vers des différences dans l’appairage CDN, l’utilisation de serveur cache en périphérie ou la stratégie d’optimisation vidéo.
Le New Deal Mobile français fournit déjà un cadre d’obligation de couverture relativement robuste. Cependant, les avis d’application de février 2025 de l’ARCEP à tous les quatre opérateurs citent plus de 300 sites de déploiement bloqués ou retardés. Cela souligne que respecter même les objectifs de couverture géographique reste un défi avant que les métriques de qualité de service (QoS) puissent entrer dans le débat réglementaire. Parmi les grands marchés européens, seule l’Allemagne a avancé pour mandater des minimums de performance sur les voies ferrées, tandis que le Royaume-Uni, l’Espagne et l’Italie accusent davantage de retard.
L’avance en vitesse d’Orange correspond à la profondeur spectrale, pas seulement à la portée du signal
Au cours de la période d’analyse entre mars 2025 et mars 2026, la disparité de vitesse de téléchargement observée entre les opérateurs français sur les voies ferrées est frappante. La médiane d’Orange de 283,40 Mbps est environ 52 % supérieure aux 186,53 Mbps de SFR, ~110 % supérieure aux 135,02 Mbps de Bouygues Telecom, et ~135 % supérieure aux 120,41 Mbps de Free. Ce n’est pas un écart marginal : il représente une expérience utilisateur fondamentalement différente dans les applications intensives en bande passante telles que la transmission vidéo, les transferts de fichiers volumineux et les applications cloud.
Débits descendants et montants des opérateurs sur les corridors ferroviaires français
Speedtest Intelligence® | mars 2025 – mars 2026
L’analyse des données de spectre publiées par GSMA Intelligence fournit une explication de cette disparité. Orange détient 257 MHz de spectre assigné au total au niveau national, le plus grand portefeuille parmi les quatre opérateurs, comparé avec 227 MHz pour SFR, 217 MHz pour Bouygues Telecom et 207 MHz pour Free. Plus crucialement pour les environnements ferroviaires, où la propagation en basse fréquence et la pénétration dans les wagons comptent le plus, Orange domine les allocations sub-1 GHz avec 57,4 MHz couvrant à la fois les bandes 700 et 800 MHz.
SFR et Bouygues Telecom détiennent chacun 47,4 MHz de spectre sub-1 GHz, tandis que Free n’en détient que 37,4 MHz et ne dispose notamment d’aucune attribution dans la bande 800 MHz, s’appuyant sur 700 et 900 MHz pour sa couche de couverture en bande basse. L’absence de Free de la bande 800 MHz, l’outil de base de la couverture 4G dans le terrain rural et semi-rural, est une contrainte pour la performance des corridors ferroviaires.
Orange détient également un avantage en mi-bande de 10 MHz sur 2600 MHz (40 MHz comparés à 30 MHz pour SFR et Bouygues Telecom), qui, combiné avec sa profondeur en bande basse, lui confère une flexibilité d’agrégation de porteuses plus importante sur les couches de fréquence les plus efficaces pour les voies ferrées. Sur 3,5 GHz, où Orange détient 90 MHz, l’impact sur la performance ferroviaire est limité : les caractéristiques de propagation de la bande C conviennent moins bien aux distances inter-sites étendues et aux pertes de pénétration dans les wagons typiques des environnements ferroviaires.
Portefeuille de spectre des opérateurs mobiles français
Analyse des données GSMA Intelligence | 2026
Les débits montants dénotent une toute autre réalité. Bouygues Telecom mène à 24,75 Mbps, de justesse devant Orange à 23,59 Mbps, avec SFR à 16,59 Mbps et Free à 9,18 Mbps. La convergence Bouygues-Orange sur la vitesse ascendante, malgré la nette avance en descente d’Orange, peut refléter des choix d’optimisation de planification ou de configuration TDD qui pèsent différemment selon les opérateurs.
L’analyse de l’environnement de signal confirme cette observation. Les lectures médianes de puissance du signal de référence reçu 4G (RSRP), qui mesurent la force du signal de la tour cellulaire, sont étroitement regroupées entre opérateurs, allant de -100 dBm (Bouygues Telecom) à -104 dBm (Free), indiquant que les quatre opérateurs atteignent les corridors ferroviaires à une intensité de signal comparable. Cependant, la qualité du signal de référence reçu (RSRQ) d’Orange, qui mesure la qualité du signal, de -9 dB, est 3 dB meilleure que celle de chaque rival (tous à -12 dB).
Étant donné que RSRQ capture la qualité du signal par rapport à la puissance totale reçue incluant les interférences, cet écart suggère qu’Orange réalise une meilleure isolation spectrale sur les voies ferrées, que ce soit par des grilles de sites plus denses, une gestion plus efficace des interférences inter-cellules, ou la profondeur d’agrégation de porteuses plus importante que son portefeuille de spectre plus large favorise probablement.
Qualité du signal 4G sur les corridors ferroviaires français
Speedtest Intelligence® | mars 2025 – mars 2026
Quand la couverture ne rime pas avec qualité : l’état de la QoE sur les lignes ferroviaires françaises
Bien que le débit et la latence capturent la capacité réseau brute, les métriques de qualité d’expérience reflètent ce que les passagers perçoivent réellement lorsqu’ils utilisent les applications. Ici, l’écart opérateur se rétrécit considérablement au niveau application, même s’il reste large au niveau de l’accès.
Les temps de chargement des pages Web médians s’étendent sur seulement environ 0,1 secondes entre opérateurs : d’Orange à 1,1 secondes à Bouygues Telecom à 1,2 secondes, avec SFR (1,2 secondes) et Free (1,2 secondes) entre les deux. Cet écart d’environ 10 % contraste fortement avec l’écart de 135 % en débit de téléchargement brut, illustrant comment l’optimisation au niveau application, le placement CDN et l’efficacité des protocoles peuvent partiellement compenser les différences réseau sous-jacentes. Un chargement de page Web est façonné par la résolution DNS, la négociation TLS et le rendu de contenu, tout cela étant moins sensible au débit maximal qu’à la latence et à la fiabilité de la connexion.
Le temps de démarrage vidéo introduit une inversion du classement : SFR se classe en tête à 1,3 secondes, suivi de Free à 1,4 secondes, Orange à 1,4 secondes et Bouygues Telecom à 1,6 secondes. Le fait que SFR et Free surpassent Orange au démarrage vidéo, malgré un retard de débit, pointe vers des différences potentielles dans les arrangements d’appairage CDN, la topologie du serveur cache en périphérie ou l’optimisation du lecteur vidéo qui sont distinctes de la performance radio brute. Le temps de démarrage vidéo est fortement influencé par la phase de buffering initiale, où la proximité du serveur et la surcharge pour l’établissement de connexion peuvent surpasser la bande passante soutenue.
Métriques de qualité d'expérience sur les voies ferrées françaises
Speedtest Intelligence® | mars 2025 – mars 2026
Les métriques de conférence vidéo révèlent un état largement similaire sur les quatre réseaux sur les voies ferrées, avec une gigue (jitter) médiane variant de seulement 4 ms (Bouygues Telecom) à 6 ms (Free) et une perte de paquets moyenne de 2,79 % (Orange) à 3,47 % (Bouygues Telecom). Ce ne sont pas des écarts dramatiques. La latence de conférence vidéo médiane tombe dans la même structure à deux niveaux que la latence multi-serveurs : Orange et SFR à 59 ms, Free à 68 ms et Bouygues Telecom à 77 ms.
Les latences CDN et jeux reflètent exactement ce modèle : Orange et SFR partagent une médiane de 59 ms, Free se situe à 68 ms et Bouygues Telecom à 77 ms. La cohérence de cette hiérarchisation sur plusieurs points de terminaison de latence suggère une différence d’architecture réseau central ou d’appairage plutôt qu’une variation d’accès radio.
Niveaux de latence des opérateurs français sur les voies ferrées
Speedtest Intelligence® | mars 2025 – mars 2026
Le cadre de couverture ferroviaire français : obligations, application et l’angle mort de la qualité
L’approche française de la couverture mobile sur les voies ferrées repose principalement sur le New Deal Mobile, l’accord majeur de 2018 entre le gouvernement, l’ARCEP et les quatre opérateurs, intégrant des engagements de couverture juridiquement contraignants dans les licences de fréquences des opérateurs. Pour les voies ferrées spécifiquement, le cadre mandate la couverture 4G le long de 90 % des services de trains quotidiens sur environ 23 000 km de voies ferrées régionales d’ici le 31 décembre 2025, avec des obligations échelonnées pour la couverture dans les wagons sur la bande 700 MHz s’étendant à 2030.
L’ARCEP applique ces obligations par une combinaison de cartes de couverture rapportées par les opérateurs, de campagnes de mesure sur le terrain dépassant un million de points de données annuels et de sa plateforme publique Mon Réseau Mobile. Ce dispositif a permis des avancées tangibles : les zones blanches, dépourvues de toute couverture mobile, sont passées de 11 % du territoire en 2017 à moins de 2 % (au T3 2023), et les taux de couverture 4G le long des voies ferrées dépassent désormais les 97 % pour l’ensemble des opérateurs.
Cependant, la campagne de qualité de service de l’ARCEP en 2024 a constaté que les chargements de pages Web n’ont réussi que dans environ 70 % des tentatives en moyenne sur les services TGV, Intercités et TER, avec des taux de réussite par opérateur variant d’environ 64 % à 79 %. La présence de couverture, en d’autres termes, ne garantit pas un service utilisable.
Dans les faits, faire respecter ces obligations s’avère complexe. Si la France a déjà prouvé sa volonté de sévir, l’exemple récent le plus marquant concerne le réseau fixe et non le mobile : en novembre 2023, l’ARCEP a infligé une amende de 26 millions d’euros (30 millions de dollars) à Orange pour le non-respect de ses engagements juridiquement contraignants de déploiement FTTH en zone AMII. Sur le front du mobile, l’ARCEP a également adressé de multiples mises en demeure dans le cadre du New Deal Mobile.
À l’avenir, la transition du GSM-R vers le FRMCS (Future Railway Mobile Communication System), la norme européenne basée sur 5G pour les communications opérationnelles ferroviaires, ajoutera une nouvelle dimension à la connectivité ferroviaire.
SNCF Réseau semble s’orienter vers un modèle FRMCS hybride : l’infrastructure ferroviaire dédiée resterait au cœur du réseau principal, tandis que les réseaux mobiles commerciaux pourraient être mis à contribution de façon ciblée pour étendre la couverture ou réduire les coûts de déploiement sur certains tronçons régionaux ou transfrontaliers. Pour la première fois, la qualité des réseaux commerciaux sur le domaine ferroviaire sera directement corrélée aux communications opérationnelles. Les enjeux liés à la connectivité mobile sur les rails s’en trouveront ainsi décuplés, dépassant largement le simple cadre de l’expérience voyageur.
Comment l’approche française se compare : leçons réglementaires d’Allemagne, du Royaume-Uni, d’Espagne et d’Italie
La France se situe au milieu d’un large spectre européen en matière de régulation mobile ferroviaire, une position qui devient plus claire lorsqu’elle est comparée à ses quatre plus grands marchés pairs.
L’Allemagne a avancé le plus loin vers la régulation de la qualité plutôt que seulement la couverture sur les voies ferrées. Selon les conditions attachées à son enchère de spectre 5G de 2019, BNetzA a fixé explicitement le minimum pour la bande passante : 100 Mbps le long des lignes ferroviaires majeures (Hauptschienenwege) et 50 Mbps le long des autres lignes ferroviaires. Les opérateurs ont équipé environ 400 tunnels ferroviaires avec une couverture mobile dans le cadre d’obligations plus larges de corridors de transport. Le programme GINT a alloué 6,4 millions d’euros pour tester la faisabilité de la 5G sur les voies ferrées, et les pilotes FRMCS sont attendus à partir de 2026. L’approche allemande représente une philosophie réglementaire fondamentalement différente de celle de la France : elle cible ce que le réseau fournit, pas simplement où il atteint.
Le Royaume-Uni se situe à l’autre extrémité du spectre. La dernière étude dédiée d’Ofcom sur la connectivité ferroviaire date de 2019, et le Parlement a appelé à plusieurs reprises à des rapports annuels qui ne se sont pas matérialisés. Le Royaume-Uni n’a pas d’obligations de spectre ferroviaire spécifiques, et la responsabilité de la connectivité ferroviaire est fragmentée entre plusieurs départements gouvernementaux. Le Shared Rural Network cible largement la couverture rurale mais ne s’adresse pas spécifiquement aux corridors ferroviaires. Un accord d’infrastructure entre Network Rail et Neos Networks signale un élan, mais un programme de connectivité ferroviaire coordonné n’est pas attendu pour fournir des résultats avant 2027 au plus tôt.
L’Espagne a adopté un modèle de partenariat public-privé. ADIF, le gestionnaire national des infrastructures ferroviaires, a signé un contrat de 25,5 millions d’euros avec Vodafone et SEMI pour le déploiement de 5G sur les routes AVE à grande vitesse, financé en partie par la Facilité pour la reprise et la résilience de l’UE. L’approche espagnole est basée sur des projets plutôt que sur des obligations, fournissant des améliorations ciblées sur les itinéraires phares sans établir un cadre universel.
L’Italie s’est concentrée sur les nœuds plutôt que sur les liens. Le groupe FS et TIM se sont associés sur la couverture des tunnels sur les corridors à grande vitesse, tandis qu’INWIT a déployé l’infrastructure 5G dans les principales gares incluant Roma Termini. Les études de faisabilité financées par le PNRR de l’Italie ont exploré la connectivité au niveau des corridors, mais l’AGCOM n’a pas imposé d’obligations de couverture ou de qualité ferroviaires. L’accent demeure sur l’assurance de la connectivité aux gares plutôt que le long des itinéraires qui les séparent.
Au niveau de l’UE, le programme Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) Digital alloue environ 300 millions d’euros pour les corridors 5G le long des routes du Réseau transeuropéen de transport (RTE-T) jusqu’à 2027. Plusieurs études d’amorçage pertinentes pour la France ont été approuvées, incluant des projets pour les corridors ferroviaires transfrontaliers Paris-Bruxelles et Fréjus. Le règlement révisé RTE-T (2024/1679) souligne la connectivité numérique comme composante de l’infrastructure de transport, mais renvoie les obligations spécifiques aux États membres.
La couverture est un plancher, pas un plafond, sur les voies ferrées
La France a construit l’un des cadres d’obligations de couverture mobile les plus progressifs d’Europe pour les voies ferrées, et elle a largement éliminé les zones mortes de couverture sur le réseau national grâce à une collaboration proactive avec l’industrie. Nos données révèlent que le défi a maintenant basculé vers une optimisation réseau plus profonde, qui nécessite d’aller au-delà des simples métriques de couverture de base pour comprendre ce que les passagers vivent réellement sur les trains quand ils ont un signal.
En l’absence d’autres mesures de soutien, il convient de prendre en compte les contraintes des obligations de couverture seules dans la stimulation de meilleurs résultats. Par exemple, la performance de débit dominante d’Orange est grâce à son portefeuille sub-1 GHz de 57,4 MHz et son avantage de spectre mi-bande de 10 MHz (et peut également refléter la concurrence entre opérateurs au-delà du mandat), des avantages qu’aucune obligation de couverture ne peut facilement reproduire pour ses rivaux.
À mesure que FRMCS approche et que les projets CEF Digital progressent des études initiales au déploiement, la question stratégique passe de savoir si les trains ont des signaux à ce que ce signal peut fournir. Le modèle allemand de régulation des planchers de bande passante sur les voies ferrées, plutôt que simplement l’existence de la couverture, offre un modèle avant-gardiste. Il pourrait être renforcé par des métriques supplémentaires pour la vidéo, la latence, la QoE, etc. Pour la France et le reste de l’Europe, la prochaine phase de la politique de connectivité ferroviaire devra s’attaquer non seulement à la couverture géographique des réseaux, mais aussi à la performance de ces derniers une fois sur place.
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.
Luke Kehoe leads Ookla’s research and thought leadership efforts in Europe.
An electronic engineering alumnus of University College Dublin, Luke has extensive experience collaborating with mobile operators, telecoms vendors, and government agencies in research and advisory roles across Europe. He has contributed to internationally recognised thought leadership publications in areas such as 5G, IoT, open RAN, and edge computing, working with prestigious organisations like the Telecom Infra Project and the World Economic Forum.
The 2026 World Cup is going to be massive. Forty-eight teams, 16 stadiums, and three host countries – the U.S., Canada, and México – all trying to cram a colossal number of fans, players, broadcasters, and mobile data into cities across the continent.
Beyond that, fans will undoubtedly want to use their phones to track their favorite team’s progress, upload selfies, download game highlights, and otherwise enjoy the event as modern fans do.
Thus, Ookla® data can provide network operators, equipment vendors, city managers, World Cup fans, and others a guide on what kind of connectivity to expect during the festivities. This analysis will consider the event from a Latin American perspective.
Key takeaways:
During this year’s World Cup 2026, fans in and around U.S. stadiums can generally expect faster median mobile download speeds than those at Canadian stadiums. Stadiums in México may trail those in both the U.S. and Canada. Mercedes-Benz Stadium, in Atlanta, stands out as providing the fastest mobile upload and download speeds during the second half of 2025.
In a survey of World Cup locations across México – one that looked at both stadiums as well as the areas where fans are expected to gather – Telcel’s mobile offerings generally provided speedier connections than those from AT&T and Altan Redes.
During the World Cup this summer, inbound and outbound mobile roaming services will be paramount for travelers. Customer experiences here can vary widely. For example, travelers with services from Claro in Brazil may receive much faster 5G speeds in the U.S. when compared with travelers sporting service from TIM or Vivo in Brazil. Similarly, travelers into México who roam onto Telcel’s network there ought to expect LTE connections – unless they bought mobile services from Telus in Canada, or they hail from Brazil or Guatemala and have services from Telcel’s parent company America Movil. In those cases, they’ll have a good chance of connecting to Telcel’s 5G network in México.
Argentina, Brazil, and México contributed to a spike of mobile roamers from Latin America into Qatar during the 2022 World Cup. Most such travelers used Wi-Fi where available, but those who connected to Vodafone’s mobile network generally received faster median download speeds than those who connected to Ooredoo’s network during the event four years ago. Local users didn’t see this difference.
Learnings from Qatar
Qatar hosted the World Cup four years ago, during November 2022, and the country’s event can serve as a guide for fans, network operators, and others preparing for this year’s contest. Importantly, the 2022 World Cup also allowed wireless network operators in the country to show off the performance of 5G, a largely new and untested technology at that time. The results were impressive: Median 5G download speeds reached 472.13 Mbps during the event, according to a review from Ookla in 2022.
Beyond this network performance study, Ookla data can also shine a light on the fans who traveled into Qatar to catch the games. Specifically, Saudi Arabia and the United States contributed the highest number of roamers into Qatar during the 2022 World Cup. These countries also contribute the most overall cellular roamers into Qatar on a yearly basis.
Since this is a Latin American-flavored analysis, it’s worth noting that Argentina, Brazil, and México contributed a spike of roamers from the region into Qatar during the 2022 World Cup, based on the network operators supplying those roamers’ SIM cards:
Not surprisingly, most Latin American roamers connected via Wi-Fi rather than cellular (4G LTE or 5G) when cheering their teams in Qatar. This finding tracks with recent Ookla studies into the behavior of roamers, and is likely due to fans’ desire to avoid cellular roaming fees. Another factor that could affect travelers’ connectivity: eSIM technology, which allows travelers to bypass their home operator’s roaming packages in favor of local or regional data plans that may be less expensive.
Latin American roamers into Qatar, by network technology
November 2022 – December 2022
Personal (Argentina) and Vivo (Brazil) shine by providing their customers with access to Qatar’s 5G connections. This is likely due to roaming partnerships between the mobile network operators in Qatar and those in Latin America.
And here is where such partnerships come into focus. Qatar visitors who roamed onto Vodafone’s network in the country experienced median download speeds almost twice as fast as those who connected to Ooredoo’s network – during the 2022 World Cup, local users didn’t see that kind of difference. This difference in roaming speeds may be due to network-usage limitations imposed by either local or roaming network operators.
Network performance for roamers into Qatar November 2022 – December 2022
Operator
Median download (Mbps)
Median upload (Mbps)
Share of roamers
Ooredoo
48.81
15.98
46%
Vodafone
122.78
21.75
54%
Analyzing the stadiums of 2026
This year’s World Cup will span 16 stadiums across three countries. And the connectivity differences among those venues are clear:
World Cup 2026 Stadium Mobile Network Performance
Speedtest Intelligence | Zip code-level measurements in 2025 | All providers
These findings – which show median mobile download speeds in Mexican stadiums trailing those from Canada and the U.S. – also track with the Speedtest Global Index® for countrywide mobile speeds among the U.S., Canada and México. Such results generally reflect both the availability of hearty mid-band spectrum allotments for 5G as well as operators’ general willingness to invest in the equipment necessary to put that spectrum into action.
However, stadium upload speeds don’t track directly along country lines – nor is there as much difference among the venues as there is with download speeds. This likely will come as a relief to World Cup fans keen on uploading their celebrations during games.
As for the venues specifically, Mercedes-Benz Stadium, in Atlanta, Georgia, is conspicuous as a speedy location for uplinks and downlinks, as well as a place for snappy, low-latency connections. The stadium opened less than a decade ago, in 2017, and therefore likely benefits from the latest in wireless networking technologies, as well as a substantial backhaul connection that can shuttle fans’ data out of the venue and onto the wider internet.
Wireless network operators typically invest into equipment dedicated to stadiums and other popular, high-traffic venues. High-capacity distributed antenna systems (DAS), temporary cell sites, or millimmeter-wave (mmWave) spectrum can be used to better support large, dense collections of users, like those expected to attend World Cup 2026 festivities. Indeed, these are some of the techniques Verizon employed to provide median download speeds of 1464.38 Mbps in January in preparation for February’s Super Bowl LX at Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara, California.
Given that this is a Latin American analysis, let’s look at México in more detail. According to El Diario, the country expects 5.5 million World Cup fans to descend onto the country. World Cup activities there ought to stretch far beyond each of the country’s World Cup stadiums: Estadio Akron in Guadalajara, Estadio BBVA in Monterrey and Estadio Banorte in México City.
Thus, we’ll look at metrics across each of these large city areas. These areas – roughly 310 square miles around the stadiums – are the broad locations where visitors and fans are expected to stay and play during the World Cup.
In this assessment, Telcel – which has invested in its 5G network in México – excelled in providing speedy median mobile download connections. Telcel also plans to use network slicing technology to manage potential congestion amid an influx of traffic on its network during the World Cup.
Median mobile download speeds in Mexico's large city areas
2H 2025
Telefonica’s Movistar isn’t listed in the above charts because the company piggybacks on AT&T’s network in México – but Telefonica is responsible for handling its customers’ roaming experience abroad. Moreover, Telefonica officials have said they plan to use analytics and AI technology to monitor the company’s network for potential bottlenecks.
Finally, a closer look at México’s World Cup locations shows the differences among the country’s providers as well as the differences among their various networking technologies, from 5G to 4G LTE to 3G. The below charts measure page load time (in ms), which is the period required for a specific webpage to display on a user’s screen. This serves as a critical benchmark for internet quality as it directly impacts a user’s browsing experience (meaning, how fast they can check World Cup scores). Similarly, video start time is the duration between when a user hits play and when the first frame of their video actually appears (meaning, how fast they can watch World Cup highlights). This reflects their operator’s ability to serve up a responsive and stable connection.
Not surprisingly, 5G consistently delivers the fastest times for both page loading and video starting. Further, both Telcel and AT&T are standouts. This indicates that Telcel may offer more raw speed, but that AT&T’s network also provides speedy response times to users’ requests.
Roaming in 2026: Which network will host the data?
A final question for network operators and World Cup fans alike involves the networks their phones will connect to while abroad. This roaming question creates complex dynamics for both mobile users and network operators.
For users, they must ensure connectivity while dealing with the anxiety of unpredictable costs and varying network quality. Meanwhile, operators must navigate intricate roaming agreements that cover billing systems, settlements across currencies, and a wide range of network- and phone-related technical details.
These complexities are clear in a look at Telcel’s inbound roaming metrics. The below charts show the top 10 international wireless operators that connected to Telcel’s network in México in the second half of 2025, based on the number of international customers roaming into México observed in Ookla data. This data highlights not only the experiences these travelers may receive when they arrive in México for the World Cup later this year, but also the types of roaming agreements international operators may ink with Telcel’s parent America Movil.
These findings indicate that World Cup fans traveling into México and connecting to Telcel (the country’s biggest operator with roughly 70% of the mobile market) should expect to spend most of their time on the operator’s 4G LTE network. However, that network generally provides downloads between 50 Mbps and 70 Mbps, speeds that are suitable for activities like checking team scores and watching game highlights. Not surprisingly, Telcel’s 5G network delivers clear improvements over 4G LTE, but only a few of the operator’s roaming partners (such as Telus in Canada) show meaningful 5G usage. Considering America Movil also owns Claro in Brazil and Guatemala, it’s no surprise that customers from those countries also connect to America Movil’s 5G network in México.
A final calculation in a Latin American-themed roaming analysis involves the reverse of inbound roaming: outbound roaming. Here we’ll look at travelers from Brazil into the U.S.; based on the SIM card in those roamers’ phones, T-Mobile is the preferred operator for two of Brazil’s three big mobile network operators.
Roamers from Brazil into the U.S.
2H 2025
Then, after that connection was established, Brazilian roamers into the U.S. often relied on 5G. However, those roaming customers didn’t necessarily receive the speedy download connections often available through 5G. Customers with service from Brazil’s Claro did see a speed gain, but those from TIM and Vivo experienced more modest improvements. This may suggest differences in those operators’ devices, roaming agreements, or traffic prioritization.
Of course, the World Cup is still several months away, which will give operators more time to expand and improve their networks, as well as to deploy temporary equipment in select locations where there may be extra network traffic. Nonetheless, this report provides a baseline – a way to prepare – in anticipation of high-demand conditions.
Ookla will be monitoring performance during and after the World Cup matches – look for further analysis later this year. Also, don’t miss our March 26 webinar: World Cup 2026: Is Your Roaming Strategy Ready for High-Density Traffic? Get expert insights into roaming performance and network readiness for the 2026 World Cup host countries. Multiple sessions are available in English, Spanish, and Portuguese.
Preparando la Red para la Copa del Mundo 2026: perspectiva latinoamericana
La Copa del Mundo 2026 será enorme. Cuarenta y ocho equipos, 16 estadios y tres países anfitriones —EE. UU., Canadá y México— intentando albergar una cantidad colosal de aficionados, jugadores, emisoras y datos móviles en ciudades de todo el continente.
La conectividad durante el Mundial de este año será crucial. Las entradas para los partidos sólo se gestionarán a través de la aplicación oficial FIFA World Cup 2026™. Los correos electrónicos y las impresiones no funcionarán.
Además, los fans querrán usar sus teléfonos para seguir el progreso de sus equipos, subir selfies, descargar momentos destacados y disfrutar del evento como lo hacen los aficionados modernos.
Por ello, los datos de Ookla® pueden ofrecer a los operadores de red, proveedores de equipos, gestores municipales y aficionados una guía sobre qué tipo de conectividad esperar. Este análisis analiza el evento desde una perspectiva latinoamericana.
Conclusiones clave:
Durante la Copa del Mundo 2026 de este año, los aficionados en los estadios de EE.UU. y sus alrededores pueden esperar velocidades medianas de descarga móvil generalmente más rápidas que las de los estadios canadienses. Los estadios en México pueden quedar por detrás de los de EE.UU. y Canadá. El Mercedes-Benz Stadium, en Atlanta, destaca por haber ofrecido las velocidades de carga y descarga móvil más rápidas durante la segunda mitad de 2025.
En un análisis de las localizaciones de la Copa del Mundo en todo México —una que analizó tanto los estadios como las áreas donde se espera que se reúnan los aficionados— las ofertas móviles de Telcel ofrecieron conexiones generalmente más rápidas que las de AT&T y Altan Redes.
Durante la Copa del Mundo de este verano, los servicios de roaming móvil entrantes y salientes serán fundamentales para los viajeros. Las experiencias de los clientes aquí pueden variar ampliamente. Por ejemplo, los viajeros con servicios de Claro en Brasil pueden experimentar velocidades 5G mucho más rápidas en los EE.UU. en comparación con los viajeros que cuentan con el servicio de TIM o Vivo en Brasil. Del mismo modo, quienes viajen a México y utilicen el roaming en la red de Telcel deberían esperar conexiones LTE —a menos que hayan comprado servicios móviles de Telus en Canadá, o provengan de Brasil o Guatemala y tengan servicios de la empresa matriz de Telcel, América Móvil. En esos casos, tendrán una buena oportunidad de conectarse a la red 5G de Telcel en México.
Argentina, Brasil y México contribuyeron a un aumento de viajeros en roaming móvil desde América Latina hacia Qatar durante la Copa del Mundo 2022. La mayoría de esos viajeros utilizaron Wi-Fi donde estaba disponible, pero aquellos que se conectaron a la red móvil de Vodafone generalmente recibieron velocidades medias de descarga más rápidas que aquellos que se conectaron a la red de Ooredoo durante el evento hace cuatro años. Los usuarios locales no vieron esta diferencia.
Aprendizajes de Qatar
Qatar fue el anfitrión de la Copa del Mundo hace cuatro años, durante noviembre de 2022, y el evento del país puede servir como guía para los aficionados, operadores de red y otros que se preparan para la contienda de este año. Es importante destacar que la Copa del Mundo 2022 también permitió a los operadores de redes inalámbricas en el país presumir el rendimiento del 5G, una tecnología en gran medida nueva y no probada en ese momento. Los resultados fueron impresionantes: las velocidades medianas de descarga 5G alcanzaron los 472.13 Mbps durante el evento, según un análisis de Ookla en 2022.
Más allá de este estudio de rendimiento de red, los datos de Ookla también pueden arrojar luz sobre los aficionados que viajaron a Qatar para ver los juegos. Específicamente, Arabia Saudita y los Estados Unidos contribuyeron con el mayor número de viajeros en roaming hacia Qatar durante la Copa del Mundo 2022. Estos países también contribuyen con la mayor cantidad de viajeros en roaming celular total hacia Qatar anualmente.
Dado que este es un análisis con sabor latinoamericano, vale la pena señalar que Argentina, Brasil y México contribuyeron a un aumento de viajeros en roaming de la región hacia Qatar durante la Copa del Mundo 2022, de acuerdo con los operadores de red que suministraron las tarjetas SIM de esos viajeros:
No es de extrañar que la mayoría de los viajeros latinoamericanos en roaming se conectaran a través de Wi-Fi en lugar de celular (4G LTE o 5G) para animar a sus equipos en Qatar. Este hallazgo coincide con estudios recientes de Ookla sobre el comportamiento de los viajeros en roaming, y es probable que se deba al deseo de los aficionados de evitar las tarifas de roaming celular. Otro factor que podría afectar la conectividad de los viajeros: la tecnología eSIM, que permite a los viajeros omitir los paquetes de roaming de su operador local en favor de planes de datos locales o regionales que pueden ser menos costosos.
Latinoamericanos en itinerancia en Qatar, por tecnología de red
Noviembre 2022-Diciembre 2022
Personal (Argentina) y Vivo (Brasil) brillan al proporcionar a sus clientes acceso a las conexiones 5G de Qatar. Esto probablemente se deba a los acuerdos de roaming entre los operadores de redes móviles en Qatar y los de América Latina.
Y aquí es donde tales asociaciones entran en escena. Los visitantes de Qatar que utilizaron roaming en la red de Vodafone en el país experimentaron velocidades medias de descarga casi dos veces más rápidas que aquellos que se conectaron a la red de Ooredoo. Durante la Copa del Mundo 2022, los usuarios locales no vieron ese tipo de diferencia. Esta diferencia en las velocidades de itinerancia puede deberse a las limitaciones de uso de red impuestas por los operadores de red locales o de roaming.
Rendimiento de red para roamers en Qatar Noviembre 2022 – Diciembre 2022
Operador
Mediana bajada (Mbps)
Mediana subida (Mbps)
Porcentaje de roamers
Ooredoo
48.81
15.98
46%
Vodafone
122.78
21.75
54%
Analizando los estadios de 2026
La Copa del Mundo de este año abarcará 16 estadios en tres países. Y las diferencias de conectividad entre estas sedes son claras:
Rendimiento de red móvil de los estadios de la Copa del Mundo 2026
Speedtest Intelligence / Mediciones for código postal en 2025 / Todos los proveedores
Estos hallazgos —que muestran que las velocidades medianas de descarga móvil en los estadios mexicanos están por detrás de las de Canadá y EE.UU.— también coinciden con el Speedtest Global Index® para las velocidades móviles a nivel nacional entre EE.UU., Canadá y México. Tales resultados generalmente reflejan tanto la disponibilidad de asignaciones sustanciales de espectro de banda media para 5G como la disposición general de los operadores para invertir en el equipo necesario para poner ese espectro en acción.
Sin embargo, las velocidades de carga en los estadios no siguen directamente las líneas nacionales, ni existe tanta diferencia entre las sedes como ocurre con las velocidades de descarga. Es probable que esto represente un alivio para los aficionados de la Copa del Mundo interesados en subir sus celebraciones durante los partidos.
En cuanto a las sedes específicamente, el Mercedes-Benz Stadium, en Atlanta, Georgia, destaca como una ubicación rápida para enlaces de subida y bajada, así como un lugar para conexiones ágiles de baja latencia. El estadio se inauguró hace menos de una década, en 2017, y por lo tanto probablemente se beneficia de lo último en tecnologías de redes inalámbricas, así como de una conexión de backhaul sustancial que puede transportar los datos de los aficionados fuera del recinto hacia el internet en general.
Los operadores de redes inalámbricas suelen invertir en equipos dedicados a estadios y otros lugares populares de alto tráfico. Los sistemas de antenas distribuidas (DAS) de alta capacidad, los sitios celulares temporales o el espectro de ondas milimétricas (mmWave) pueden utilizarse para dar un mejor soporte a grandes y densas concentraciones de usuarios, como los que se espera que asistan a la Copa del Mundo 2026. De hecho, estas son algunas de las técnicas que Verizon empleó para proporcionar velocidades medianas de descarga de 1464,38 Mbps en enero, en preparación para la Super Bowl LX de febrero en el Levi’s Stadium en Santa Clara, California.
Dado que este es un análisis latinoamericano, analicemos México con más detalle. Según El Diario, el país espera la llegada de 5,5 millones de aficionados de la Copa del Mundo. Las actividades de la Copa del Mundo allí deberían extenderse mucho más allá de cada uno de los estadios mundialistas del país: el Estadio Akron en Guadalajara, el Estadio BBVA en Monterrey y el Estadio Banorte en la Ciudad de México.
Por lo tanto, analicemos las métricas en cada una de estas grandes áreas urbanas. Estas áreas —de aproximadamente 310 millas cuadradas alrededor de los estadios— son las ubicaciones amplias donde se espera que los visitantes y aficionados se hospeden y se diviertan durante la Copa del Mundo.
En esta evaluación, Telcel —que ha invertido en su red 5G en México— destacó por ofrecer conexiones medianas de descarga móvil rápidas. Telcel también planea utilizar la tecnología de segmentación de red (network slicing) para gestionar la posible congestión ante la afluencia de tráfico en su red durante la Copa del Mundo.
Velocidades medianas de descarga móviles en grandes áreas urbanas de México
2º Sem. 2025
Movistar de Telefónica no figura en los gráficos anteriores porque la empresa utiliza la red de AT&T en México —pero Telefónica es responsable de gestionar la experiencia de roaming de sus clientes en el extranjero. Además, directivos de Telefónica han señalado que planean utilizar tecnología de analítica e IA para monitorear la red de la empresa ante posibles cuellos de botella.
Finalmente, un análisis más detallado de las sedes de la Copa del Mundo en México muestra las diferencias entre los proveedores del país, así como las diferencias entre sus diversas tecnologías de red, desde 5G hasta 4G LTE y 3G. Los siguientes gráficos miden el tiempo de carga de la página (en ms), que es el periodo necesario para que una página web específica se muestre en la pantalla de un usuario. Esto sirve como un punto de referencia crítico para la calidad de internet, ya que impacta directamente en la experiencia de navegación del usuario (es decir, qué tan rápido pueden consultar los resultados de la Copa del Mundo). De manera similar, el tiempo de inicio de vídeo es la duración entre el momento en que un usuario presiona “reproducir” y cuando aparece realmente el primer cuadro de su vídeo (es decir, qué tan rápido pueden ver los momentos destacados de la Copa del Mundo). Esto refleja la capacidad de su operador para ofrecer una conexión estable y con buena respuesta.
Como era de esperar, el 5G ofrece consistentemente los tiempos más rápidos tanto para la carga de páginas como para el inicio de vídeos. Además, tanto Telcel como AT&T son destacados. Esto indica que Telcel puede ofrecer una mayor velocidad bruta, pero que la red de AT&T también proporciona tiempos de respuesta rápidos a las solicitudes de los usuarios.
Roaming en 2026: ¿Qué red albergará los datos?
Una última pregunta, tanto para los operadores de red como para los aficionados de la Copa del Mundo, hace referencia a las redes a las que se conectarán sus teléfonos mientras estén en el extranjero. Esta cuestión del roaming crea dinámicas complejas tanto para los usuarios móviles como para los operadores de red.
Para los usuarios, estos deben asegurar su conectividad mientras lidian con la ansiedad de los costos impredecibles y la calidad variable de la red. Mientras tanto, los operadores deben navegar por intrincados acuerdos de roaming que cubren sistemas de facturación, liquidaciones en distintas divisas y una amplia gama de detalles técnicos relacionados con las redes y los teléfonos.
Estas complejidades quedan claras al observar las métricas de roaming entrante de Telcel. Los siguientes gráficos muestran los 10 principales operadores inalámbricos internacionales que se conectaron a la red de Telcel en México en la segunda mitad de 2025, según el número de clientes internacionales en roaming observados en México por los datos de Ookla. Estos datos resaltan no sólo las experiencias que estos viajeros podrían recibir al llegar a México para la Copa del Mundo a finales de este año, sino también los tipos de acuerdos de roaming que los operadores internacionales podrían firmar con América Móvil, la empresa matriz de Telcel.
Estos hallazgos indican que los aficionados de la Copa del Mundo que viajen a México y se conecten a Telcel (el operador más grande del país con aproximadamente el 70% del mercado móvil) deben esperar pasar la mayor parte de su tiempo en la red 4G LTE del operador. No obstante, esa red generalmente proporciona descargas de entre 50 Mbps y 70 Mbps, velocidades que son adecuadas para actividades como consultar los resultados de los equipos y ver los momentos destacados de los partidos. Como era de esperar, la red 5G de Telcel ofrece mejoras claras sobre la 4G LTE, pero sólo algunos de los socios de roaming del operador (como Telus en Canadá) muestran un uso significativo de 5G. Considerando que América Móvil también es propietaria de Claro en Brasil y Guatemala, no es de extrañar que los clientes de esos países también se conecten a la red 5G de América Móvil en México.
Un cálculo final en un análisis de roaming de temática latinoamericana involucra lo opuesto al roaming entrante: el roaming saliente. Aquí analizaremos a los viajeros de Brasil hacia los EE.UU.. Si tenemos en cuenta la tarjeta SIM de los teléfonos de esos usuarios en roaming, T-Mobile es el operador preferido para dos de los tres grandes operadores de redes móviles de Brasil.
Roamers de Brasil a EE.UU.
2º sem. 2025
Posteriormente, una vez establecida esa conexión, los usuarios brasileños en roaming en los EE.UU. a menudo dependen del 5G. Sin embargo, esos clientes en roaming no necesariamente recibieron las conexiones de descarga rápidas que suelen estar disponibles a través del 5G. Los clientes con servicio de Claro de Brasil sí percibieron una mejora de velocidad, pero los de TIM y Vivo experimentaron mejoras más modestas. Esto puede sugerir diferencias en los dispositivos de esos operadores, en los acuerdos de roaming o en la priorización del tráfico.
Por supuesto, aún quedan unos meses para la Copa del Mundo, lo que dará a los operadores más tiempo para expandir y mejorar sus redes, así como para desplegar equipos temporales en ubicaciones seleccionadas donde pueda haber un tráfico de red adicional. No obstante, este informe proporciona una base —una forma de prepararse— para anticiparse a las condiciones de alta demanda.
Ookla estará monitoreando el rendimiento durante y después de los partidos de la Copa del Mundo. Publicaremos más análisis a finales de este año.
Preparação da Rede para a Copa do Mundo de 2026: uma perspectiva latino-americana
A experiência de conectividade dos fãs pode variar bastante dependendo para onde eles estão indo e de onde estão vindo.
A Copa do Mundo de 2026 será gigantesca. Quarenta e oito seleções, 16 estádios e três países-sede – Estados Unidos, Canadá e México – todos tentando acomodar um número colossal de torcedores, jogadores, emissoras e dados móveis em cidades por todo o continente.
A conectividade durante a Copa do Mundo deste ano será crucial. Os ingressos para as partidas serão entregues exclusivamente pelo aplicativo oficial da Copa do Mundo da FIFA 2026™ . E-mails e impressões não serão aceitos.
Além disso, os fãs certamente vão querer usar seus celulares para acompanhar o desempenho de seus times favoritos, enviar selfies, baixar os melhores momentos das partidas e aproveitar o evento como fazem os fãs modernos.
Assim, os dados da Ookla® podem fornecer aos operadores de rede, fornecedores de equipamentos, gestores municipais, torcedores da Copa do Mundo e outros, um guia sobre o tipo de conectividade que podem esperar durante as festividades. Esta análise considerará o evento sob uma perspectiva latino-americana.
Principais conclusões:
Durante a Copa do Mundo de 2026, os torcedores nos estádios dos EUA e arredores podem esperar velocidades médias de download em dispositivos móveis mais rápidas do que nos estádios canadenses. Os estádios no México podem ficar atrás tanto dos EUA quanto do Canadá. O Mercedes-Benz Stadium, em Atlanta, se destaca por oferecer as velocidades de upload e download em dispositivos móveis mais rápidas durante o segundo semestre de 2025.
Em um levantamento realizado em locais da Copa do Mundo no México – que analisou tanto os estádios quanto as áreas onde se espera que os torcedores se reúnam – os serviços móveis da Telcel geralmente oferecem conexões mais rápidas do que AT&T e Altan Redes.
Durante a Copa do Mundo 2026, os serviços de roaming móvel serão cruciais para os viajantes. As experiências dos clientes nesse quesito podem variar bastante. Por exemplo, viajantes com serviços da Claro Brasil podem receber velocidades 5G muito mais rápidas nos EUA em comparação com viajantes que utilizam serviços da TIM ou da Vivo Brasil. Da mesma forma, viajantes que chegam ao México e utilizam a rede da Telcel devem esperar conexões LTE – a menos que tenham adquirido serviços móveis da Telus Canadá, ou sejam originários do Brasil ou da Guatemala e possuam serviços da America Movil, empresa controladora da Telcel. Nesses casos, terão boas chances de se conectar à rede 5G da Telcel no México.
Argentina, Brasil e México contribuíram para um aumento significativo de usuários de roaming móvel da América Latina no Catar durante a Copa do Mundo de 2022. A maioria desses viajantes utilizou Wi-Fi quando disponível, mas aqueles que se conectaram à rede móvel da Vodafone geralmente obtiveram velocidades médias de download mais rápidas do que aqueles que se conectaram à rede da Ooredoo durante o evento quatro anos antes. Os usuários locais não perceberam essa diferença.
Lições aprendidas com o Catar
O Catar sediou a Copa do Mundo há quatro anos, em novembro de 2022, e o evento realizado no país pode servir de guia para torcedores, operadoras de rede e outros que se preparam para a competição deste ano. É importante destacar que a Copa do Mundo de 2022 também permitiu que as operadoras de redes sem fio do país demonstrassem o desempenho do 5G, uma tecnologia em grande parte nova e ainda não testada na época. Os resultados foram impressionantes: a velocidade média de download em 5G atingiu 472,13 Mbps durante o evento, de acordo com uma análise da Ookla em 2022 .
Além deste estudo de desempenho da rede, os dados da Ookla também podem revelar informações sobre os torcedores que viajaram para o Catar para assistir aos jogos. Especificamente, a Arábia Saudita e os Estados Unidos foram os países que mais contribuíram com roaming para o Catar durante a Copa do Mundo de 2022. Esses países também são os que mais contribuem com roaming celular para o Catar anualmente.
Como esta análise tem um enfoque latino-americano, vale a pena notar que Argentina, Brasil e México contribuíram com um aumento significativo de usuários em roaming da região para o Catar durante a Copa do Mundo de 2022, com base nas operadoras de rede que forneceram os chips SIM desses usuários:
A maioria dos viajantes latino-americanos conectou-se via Wi-Fi em vez de rede celular (4G LTE ou 5G) ao torcer por seus times no Catar. Essa descoberta está de acordo com estudos recentes da Ookla sobre o comportamento de viajantes em roaming e provavelmente se deve ao desejo dos torcedores de evitar as tarifas de roaming celular. Outro fator que pode afetar a conectividade dos viajantes é a tecnologia eSIM, que permite que eles ignorem os pacotes de roaming de suas operadoras de origem, optando por planos de dados locais ou regionais que podem ser mais baratos.
Usuários em roaming latino-americanos no Catar, por tecnologia de rede
Novembro de 2022 – Dezembro de 2022
A Personal (Argentina) e a Vivo (Brasil) se destacaram por oferecer aos seus clientes acesso às conexões 5G do Catar. Isso provavelmente se deve às parcerias de roaming entre as operadoras de telefonia móvel no Catar e na América Latina.
É aqui que essas parcerias se tornam importantes. Visitantes do Catar que utilizaram a rede da Vodafone no país experimentaram velocidades médias de download quase duas vezes maiores do que aqueles que se conectaram à rede da Ooredoo – durante a Copa do Mundo de 2022, os usuários locais não observaram essa diferença. Essa diferença nas velocidades de roaming pode ser atribuída às limitações de uso da rede impostas pelas operadoras locais ou pelas operadoras de roaming.
Desempenho da rede para usuários em roaming no Catar Novembro de 2022 – Dezembro de 2022
Operador
Velocidade média de download (Mbps)
Velocidade média de upload (Mbps)
Participação dos viajantes
Ooredoo
48,81
15,98
46%
Vodafone
122,78
21,75
54%
Analisando os estádios de 2026
A Copa do Mundo deste ano será disputada em 16 estádios em três países. E as diferenças de conectividade entre esses locais são evidentes:
Desempenho da Rede Móvel nos Estádios da Copa do Mundo 2026
Speedtest Intelligence | Medições ao nível de código postal em 2025 | Todas as operadoras
Esses resultados – que mostram velocidades médias de download móvel em estádios mexicanos inferiores às do Canadá e dos EUA – também estão em consonância com o Índice Global de Velocidade da Speedtest® para velocidades móveis em todo o país entre os EUA , Canadá e México . Tais resultados geralmente refletem tanto a disponibilidade de amplas alocações de espectro de banda média para o 5G quanto a disposição geral das operadoras em investir nos equipamentos necessários para colocar esse espectro em funcionamento.
No entanto, as velocidades de upload nos estádios não seguem uma distribuição geográfica direta, e a diferença entre os locais também não é tão grande quanto a observada nas velocidades de download. Isso provavelmente será um alívio para os fãs da Copa do Mundo que adoram compartilhar suas comemorações durante os jogos.
Em relação aos locais específicos, o Mercedes-Benz Stadium, em Atlanta, Geórgia, destaca-se como um local de alta velocidade para conexões de upload e download, além de oferecer conexões rápidas e de baixa latência. O estádio foi inaugurado há menos de uma década, em 2017, e, portanto, provavelmente se beneficia das mais recentes tecnologias de redes sem fio, bem como de uma conexão de backhaul robusta que pode transmitir os dados dos torcedores para fora do estádio e para a internet em geral.
Operadoras de redes sem fio geralmente investem em equipamentos dedicados a estádios e outros locais populares com grande fluxo de usuários. Sistemas de antenas distribuídas (DAS) de alta capacidade, estações base temporárias ou espectro de ondas milimétricas (mmWave) podem ser usados para melhor suportar grandes concentrações de usuários, como os que devem comparecer às festividades da Copa do Mundo de 2026. De fato, essas são algumas das técnicas que a Verizon empregou para fornecer velocidades médias de download de 1464,38 Mbps em janeiro, em preparação para o Super Bowl LX, em fevereiro, no Levi’s Stadium, em Santa Clara, Califórnia.
Considerando que esta é uma análise da América Latina, vejamos o México com mais detalhes. Segundo o El Diario , o país espera receber 5,5 milhões de torcedores da Copa do Mundo. As atividades relacionadas à Copa do Mundo por lá devem ir muito além dos estádios do país: Estádio Akron em Guadalajara, Estádio BBVA em Monterrey e Estádio Banorte na Cidade do México.
Assim, analisaremos as métricas em cada uma dessas grandes áreas urbanas. Essas áreas ao redor dos estádios são os locais onde se espera que visitantes e torcedores se hospedem e joguem durante a Copa do Mundo.
Nessa avaliação, a Telcel – que investiu em sua rede 5G no México – se destacou por fornecer conexões móveis com velocidade média de download rápida. A Telcel também planeja usar a tecnologia de fatiamento de rede para gerenciar possíveis congestionamentos em meio ao aumento de tráfego em sua rede durante a Copa do Mundo.
Mediana das velocidades de download móvel nas grandes cidades do México
2S 2025
A Movistar, da Telefónica, não está listada nos gráficos acima porque utiliza a rede da AT&T no México – mas a Telefónica é responsável por gerenciar a experiência de roaming de seus clientes no exterior. Além disso, executivos da Telefónica afirmaram que planejam usar análises e tecnologia de IA para monitorar a rede da empresa em busca de possíveis gargalos.
Por fim, uma análise mais detalhada dos locais da Copa do Mundo no México revela as diferenças entre os provedores do país, bem como entre suas diversas tecnologias de rede, do 5G ao 4G LTE e ao 3G. Os gráficos abaixo medem o tempo de carregamento da página (em ms), que é o período necessário para que uma página da web específica seja exibida na tela do usuário. Isso serve como um parâmetro crítico para a qualidade da internet, pois impacta diretamente a experiência de navegação do usuário (ou seja, a rapidez com que ele pode conferir os resultados da Copa do Mundo). Da mesma forma, o tempo de início do vídeo é a duração entre o momento em que o usuário clica em reproduzir e o momento em que o primeiro quadro do vídeo aparece (ou seja, a rapidez com que ele pode assistir aos melhores momentos da Copa do Mundo). Isso reflete a capacidade da operadora de fornecer uma conexão estável e resposta rápida.
Não é surpresa que o 5G ofereça de maneira consistente os tempos mais rápidos tanto para carregamento de páginas quanto para reprodução de vídeos. Além disso, tanto a Telcel quanto a AT&T se destacam. Isso indica que a Telcel pode oferecer maior velocidade, mas que a rede da AT&T também proporciona tempos de resposta rápidos às solicitações dos usuários.
Roaming em 2026: Qual rede hospedará os dados?
Uma questão final para as operadoras de rede e para os fãs da Copa do Mundo diz respeito às redes às quais seus telefones se conectarão no exterior. Essa questão do roaming cria uma dinâmica complexa tanto para os usuários de telefonia móvel quanto para as operadoras.
Para os usuários, a conectividade é um desafio, ao mesmo tempo que enfrentam a ansiedade causada por custos imprevisíveis e qualidade de rede variável. Enquanto isso, as operadoras precisam lidar com acordos de roaming complexos, que abrangem sistemas de faturamento, pagamentos em diferentes moedas e uma ampla gama de detalhes técnicos relacionados à rede e aos telefones.
Essas complexidades ficam evidentes ao analisarmos as métricas de roaming de entrada da Telcel. Os gráficos abaixo mostram as 10 principais operadoras internacionais de telefonia móvel que se conectaram à rede da Telcel no México no segundo semestre de 2025, com base no número de clientes internacionais em roaming no México, conforme observado nos dados da Ookla. Esses dados destacam não apenas as experiências que esses viajantes poderão ter ao chegar ao México para a Copa do Mundo ainda este ano, mas também os tipos de acordos de roaming que as operadoras internacionais poderão firmar com a América Móvil, controladora da Telcel.
Esses resultados indicam que os torcedores da Copa do Mundo que viajarem para o México e se conectarem à Telcel (a maior operadora do país, com aproximadamente 70% do mercado de telefonia móvel) devem esperar passar a maior parte do tempo na rede 4G LTE da operadora. No entanto, essa rede geralmente oferece downloads entre 50 Mbps e 70 Mbps, velocidades adequadas para atividades como consultar o placar e assistir a melhores momentos das partidas. A rede 5G da Telcel oferece melhorias claras em relação ao 4G LTE, mas apenas algumas das parceiras de roaming da operadora (como a Telus no Canadá) apresentam uso significativo do 5G. Considerando que a América Móvil também é proprietária da Claro no Brasil e na Guatemala, não é surpresa que clientes desses países também se conectem à rede 5G da América Móvil no México.
Um cálculo final em uma análise de roaming com foco na América Latina envolve o inverso do roaming de entrada: o roaming de saída. Aqui, analisaremos viajantes do Brasil para os EUA; com base no chip SIM dos celulares desses usuários, a T-Mobile é a operadora preferida de duas das três maiores operadoras de telefonia móvel do Brasil.
Viajantes em roaming do Brasil para os EUA
2º Semestre de 2025
Depois que essa conexão era estabelecida, os brasileiros em roaming nos EUA frequentemente utilizavam o 5G. No entanto, esses clientes em roaming nem sempre recebiam as altas velocidades de download normalmente oferecidas pelo 5G. Clientes da operadora brasileira Claro observaram um aumento na velocidade, enquanto os da TIM e da Vivo experimentaram melhorias mais modestas. Isso pode indicar diferenças nos dispositivos dessas operadoras, nos acordos de roaming ou na priorização de tráfego.
É claro que a Copa do Mundo ainda está a alguns meses de distância, o que dará às operadoras mais tempo para expandir e aprimorar suas redes, bem como para implantar equipamentos temporários em locais selecionados onde possa haver tráfego de rede adicional. No entanto, este relatório fornece uma base de referência – uma forma de se preparar – em antecipação a condições de alta demanda.
A Ookla estará monitorando o desempenho durante e após as partidas da Copa do Mundo – aguarde mais análises ainda este ano.
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.
Mike Dano is a Lead Industry Analyst in Ookla’s research and content team. He covers the North and South American markets, and global technology trends. Previously, Mike was a journalist covering the global telecom industry for 25 years at publications including RCR Wireless News, Fierce Network and Light Reading.
A year on from our inaugural report, the global 5G SA narrative in 2026 has shifted from a coverage race to a capability contest. The GCC now delivers median download speeds five times those in Europe, while the U.S. has completed its Tier-1 SA launches. Europe is accelerating, but from a low base, and the gap with global leaders risks widening as 5G Advanced scales elsewhere.
The second edition of Ookla and Omdia’s flagship report on the global state of 5G Standalone confirms that the technology has moved beyond launch announcements into an execution-driven phase. By the close of 2025, the “coverage gap” between major economic blocs had narrowed, but a more consequential “capability gap” has emerged, reflecting divergent spectrum strategies, investment depth, and the extent to which operators have moved beyond baseline SA deployment toward end-to-end network optimization.
Globally, 5G SA availability based on Speedtest® sample share reached 17.6% in Q4 2025, up modestly from 16.2% a year earlier, indicating that roughly one in six 5G Speedtests worldwide now occurs on a standalone network. The headline global median SA download speed of 269.51 Mbps represents a 52% premium over non-standalone networks, though this figure masks significant regional variation driven by spectrum allocation depth, carrier aggregation maturity, and user-plane engineering.
For governments and regulators, the stakes of the SA transition have intensified. National competitiveness, digital sovereignty, and AI readiness have converged to reshape investment priorities across major markets. The European Commission’s Digital Networks Act, the U.S.’ supply chain diversification program, and China’s integration of 5G Advanced into its 15th Five-Year Plan all signal that 5G SA is now treated as foundational national infrastructure central to AI ambitions, and not merely a connectivity upgrade.
This year’s report significantly expands the scope of the analysis. For the first time, our research examines 5G SA’s impact on end-user battery life and voice performance (VoNR), quality of experience (QoE) metrics to cloud and gaming infrastructure, and the first wave of commercial monetization strategies spanning consumer network slicing, enterprise SLAs, and 5G Advanced segmentation. We also provide an assessment of the geopolitical context now shaping SA’s evolution, from Europe’s Digital Networks Act to the GCC’s sovereign AI infrastructure strategies.
Key Takeaways:
The GCC has established itself as the global 5G SA performance leader, with the UAE setting the speed benchmark
Led by e& and du’s aggressive 5G Advanced deployments, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) delivered the world’s fastest 5G SA median download speeds in Q4 2025 at 1.13 Gbps, nearly five times that of Europe. The UAE alone reached a median of 1.24 Gbps on SA networks, a speed that would be considered exceptional even for full-fiber broadband in developed markets. The deployment of four-carrier aggregation and enhanced MIMO technology, coupled with the strategic allocation of premium mid-band spectrum to the SA network, demonstrates the performance ceiling that a fully realized 5G SA architecture can achieve.
South Korea followed at 767 Mbps, driven by wide 3.5 GHz channel bandwidth, with the U.S. at 404 Mbps following the completion of nationwide SA deployments by all three Tier-1 operators. Europe, at 205 Mbps, trails all developed regions, though the region’s SA networks still deliver a 45% download speed premium over NSA, confirming the performance value of the SA transition where material spectrum depth is allocated.
Europe’s 5G SA gap with global peers is narrowing, but the region still trails North America by 27 percentage points
Europe’s 5G SA sample share more than doubled from 1.1% to 2.8% between Q4 2024 and Q4 2025, driven by accelerated deployments in Austria (8.7%), Spain (8.3%), the United Kingdom (7.0%), and France (5.9%). These four markets now account for the vast majority of European SA connections. The United Kingdom and France registered the strongest year-on-year acceleration in Europe, each gaining 5.3 percentage points, reflecting the impact of investment-linked merger conditions and competition in the United Kingdom, as well as targeted R&D policy support in France.
U.S. Widens 5G SA Lead Over Europe & Gulf
Speedtest Intelligence® | Q1 2023 – Q4 2025
However, the region still trails North America by 27 percentage points and emerging Asia by 30. At the global level, the U.S. remains the largest accelerator in absolute terms over the last year, with SA sample share rising 8.2 percentage points to 31.6% year-on-year, driven by the sequential rollout of SA across all Tier-1 operators beyond T-Mobile. Firmware fragmentation, where handset OEMs gatekeep SA network access pending individual carrier certification, and tariff structures that fail to incentivize migration from NSA, remain the primary barriers to faster European adoption.
5G SA delivers measurable performance and quality of experience gains, but end-to-end optimization separates leaders from laggards
Globally, SA connections delivered a 52% download speed premium (mostly an artifact of rich spectrum allocation and lower network load) and improved median multi-server latency by over 6% compared to NSA. However, this year’s report finds that a standalone core migration alone does not guarantee a better end-user experience. Quality of experience analysis reveals a nuanced picture: SA improves video and cloud infrastructure latency in Europe versus NSA, but underperforms NSA for gaming latency within the same region. North America records the lowest absolute SA cloud and gaming latency, consistent with dense hyperscaler adjacency and mature interconnect ecosystems.
Among European markets, France (41 ms to cloud endpoints), Austria (48 ms), and Finland (50 ms) demonstrate what is achievable where backbone quality, peering density, and routing discipline are strong. These outcomes reflect an underappreciated end-to-end network stack optimization dividend, encompassing data-center proximity, fiber backhaul depth, and user-plane topology, rather than a pure “SA dividend” alone.
The report also presents early evidence of a tangible consumer benefit of SA: battery life. In the UK, devices on EE’s 5G SA network recorded median discharge times approximately 22% longer than those on NSA, with O2 showing an 11% advantage. These gains likely stem from features like SA’s unified control plane, which eliminates the dual-connectivity overhead of NSA configurations.
Core network investment is accelerating as monetization transitions from concept to selective execution
Omdia’s latest forecasts confirm the industry’s shift toward software-defined core capability as the primary driver of next-cycle investment. Global 5G core software spending is projected to grow at an 8.8% CAGR between 2025 and 2030, with EMEA leading at 16.7%, significantly outpacing North America (5.5%) and Asia & Oceania (4.2%). This reflects EMEA’s later position in the deployment cycle, as the region is entering its period of peak 5G core adoption, while North America’s core spending trajectory is expected to have peaked in 2025 following the commercial launches by AT&T and Verizon. By end of Q3 2025, 83 operators worldwide had deployed 5G core networks, with 5G core investment accounting for 63.6% of global core network function software spending.
5G Core Investment Accelerates Across Regions
Omdia | 2023-2030
On monetization, consumer strategies now span speed tiers (primarily Europe), network slicing (Singapore, France, and the U.S.), and 5G Advanced segmentation packages (China). Enterprise slicing presents the much larger long-term revenue opportunity, with T-Mobile’s SuperMobile representing the first nationwide commercial B2B slicing service in the U.S. Countries with coordinated regulatory frameworks, implementing clear coverage obligations, investment incentives, or infrastructure consolidation policies with deployment remedies, consistently outperform those with fragmented or reactive approaches, reinforcing the report’s finding that policy has emerged as a primary competitive differentiator in 5G SA outcomes globally.
Download the full report
For the comprehensive analysis of 5G SA and 5G Advanced deployment, performance, and monetization across global markets, including new research on battery life, voice performance, quality of experience, geopolitical context, and expanded policy case studies from the UK, France, Brazil, Japan, and the UAE, download the full report, 5G Standalone and 5G Advanced: A Global Reality Check on 5G SA and 5G Advanced in 2026.
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.
Luke Kehoe leads Ookla’s research and thought leadership efforts in Europe.
An electronic engineering alumnus of University College Dublin, Luke has extensive experience collaborating with mobile operators, telecoms vendors, and government agencies in research and advisory roles across Europe. He has contributed to internationally recognised thought leadership publications in areas such as 5G, IoT, open RAN, and edge computing, working with prestigious organisations like the Telecom Infra Project and the World Economic Forum.
