| January 14, 2021

Apple has 5G! But How Fast is the iPhone 12?


Apple’s 5G-capable iPhone 12 is the latest step in the continuous cycle of new technical specifications, new network components, new (or refarmed) radio spectrums and compatible user equipment that aim to deliver enhanced 5G user experience. At Ookla®, we are fortunate to have a front-row seat to observe these advances and we were thrilled when Apple announced its first 5G devices on October 13, 2020. Given the popularity of Apple’s devices, this release marks a major milestone on the way to 5G becoming mainstream.

iPhone 12 launch drives spikes in 5G testing

The daily count of unique devices worldwide that are capable of connecting to 5G jumped dramatically when each new iPhone 12 variant launched. We saw a 138.3% increase when comparing the day the iPhone 12 5G and iPhone 12 Pro 5G were released to the mean of the previous week. On the day the iPhone 12 Mini 5G and iPhone 12 Pro Max 5G launched, there was a further 44.3% increase over that one-day spike.

Daily-Trend_5G-Capable-Devices_Year_0121-1

Pro 5G and Pro Max 5G are the most popular iPhone 12 models

We examined Speedtest® results from the launch date of each model through the end of the year to see which iPhone 12 models are the most popular in 15 major cities across the globe. We found that most Speedtest users have opted for the “Pro” models. The iPhone 12 Pro Max 5G showed the highest number of samples among iPhone models in Singapore, Dubai, Hong Kong, New York, Riyadh and Sydney. The iPhone 12 Pro 5G showed the most samples in London, Madrid, Rome, Helsinki, Zürich, Berlin, Amsterdam, Seoul and Tokyo. While the more affordable models were less popular than the Pro models across all the cities on our list, the iPhone 12 Mini saw the most adoption in Tokyo and the iPhone 12 5G saw the most adoption in Rome.

iPhone-12-Model-Popularity_0121

Seoul tops list of iPhone 12 5G speeds

We analyzed Speedtest Intelligence® data for iPhone 12 devices in the same 15 cities and found that Seoul had the fastest median speed over 5G, followed by Dubai and Riyadh. Seoul also had the fastest upload speed by a considerable margin. This is not a surprise given reports that there are more than 100K 5G base stations in South Korea. It is interesting to note that European cities are relatively close to each other in terms of median download and upload speeds. That is good news for the 5G action plan of the European Commission and their target of having uninterrupted 5G coverage on major terrestrial transport paths by 2025.

iPhone-12-5G-Median-Speeds_0121

Each of these markets utilizes its own unique approach to 5G. Today, the United States is the only market where iPhone 12 models support 5G high-bands, namely n260 and n261. This is to support existing commercial 5G deployments in the mmWave spectrum across all three Tier 1 operators.

Elsewhere on the globe mid-band (specifically the 3300-3800 MHz range in most countries) is the most common frequency range for initial 5G roll-outs. There are several reasons for this, ranging from principles of electromagnetic wave propagation to marketing strategies. High-band frequency ranges (above 24 GHz with 400-800 MHz contiguous bandwidth) can do wonders in terms of download speeds, but due to limited propagation characteristics, it can be challenging to provide a mmWave coverage layer across entire markets. In order to mitigate this well-known challenge, operators tend to rely on the lower frequency bands for coverage and selectively deploy mmWave applications in targeted areas (such as high-traffic locations).

Depending on market dynamics and spectrum availability, most providers choose non-standalone (NSA) 5G configuration with an LTE anchor. Operators with limited amounts of FR1 spectrum tend to use dynamic spectrum sharing (DSS), a feature which allows both LTE and New Radio (NR) operation on the same slice of spectrum at the same time. This feature enables a relatively easy deployment of 5G coverage layers, and is a stepping stone to standalone 5G (5G SA). In addition to these commonly observed strategies, a few operators are considering pushing the limits of digital convergence with open radio access networks (RAN).

No matter which strategy an operator chooses, one important fact about 5G does not change: access to a trio of low, mid and high bands and a strategy for rolling out 5G SA is critical. Deployment of the 5G SA core unlocks the potential of enhanced mobile broadband (eMBB), ultra-reliable low latency communication (uRLLC) and massive machine type communications (mMTC).

Operator breakdown: iPhone 12 performance in select cities

5G deployments vary greatly from country to country, depending on spectrum allocated and the particular channel bandwidths each operator has deployed. This makes comparisons between countries difficult, as these factors directly impact the peak 5G speeds achievable in that market. However, looking at four major cities, we can see that performance by operator also varies.

iPhone-12-5G-Median-Speeds_Seoul_0121

In Seoul, the fastest city for 5G on the list above, the 3.5 GHz (Band n78) is used with 80 to 100 MHz channels per operator, and B2C mmWave (which would add a whopping 800 MHz channels per operator) is on the horizon. Here, LG U+ showed the fastest median download speed over 5G on the iPhone 12 in Seoul at 625.03 Mbps. SK Telecom was second and KT third.

iPhone-12-5G-Median-Speeds_Hong-Kong_0121

The three Hong Kong mobile operators that launched commercial 5G networks on April 1, 2020 ranked fastest for iPhone 12 5G median download speed rankings in Hong Kong. China Mobile HK, the only 5G network provider in Hong Kong that has acquired 3.3 GHz (3380-3400 MHz) and 3.5 GHz (3400-3460 MHz) continuous bandwidth spectrum was the fastest of these three at 212.77 Mbps. CSL and 3 Hong Kong were a close second and third, respectively. SmarTone, which launched its 5G network a month later, was fourth.

iPhone-12-5G-Median-Speeds_Amsterdam0121

The 3.5 GHz band is not yet available in the Netherlands, but this did not slow down Dutch operators in launching their commercial 5G networks in 2020. According to Speedtest Intelligence data, KPN Mobile was comfortably at the top, with a median download speed of 211.80 Mbps over 5G using the iPhone 12 in Amsterdam during Q4 2020. T-Mobile was second and Vodafone third.

iPhone-12-5G-Median-Speeds_Madrid_0121

While Spanish operators currently benefit from the n78 band, the next step is expected to be the delayed addition of low bands (700 MHz). In Madrid, Vodafone showed the fastest median download speed over 5G using the iPhone 12 during Q4 2020 at 232.51. Orange was second fastest, Yoigo third and Movistar at fourth.

We will continue to monitor how Apple’s 5G-capable devices impact the global market. Contact us to learn more about how Speedtest Intelligence can help you understand the latest developments in your market.

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.

| February 22, 2021

Revisiting iPhone 12 5G Performance Across the Globe


As we previously covered, the iPhone 12 is finally allowing Apple enthusiasts to connect to 5G. We’re back with fresh data to see how user adoption and new 5G rollouts have affected performance worldwide.

Unique 5G-capable device counts have leveled off

After the launch of various iPhone 12 models, the daily count of unique devices worldwide that are capable of connecting to 5G spiked significantly compared to the year as a whole. The daily trend of unique 5G-capable devices as a percentage of the whole year is dramatically higher than before the iPhone 12 models launched, but has remained relatively steady since December.
Daily-Trend_5G-Capable-Devices_Year_0221

Pro 5G and Pro Max 5G are the most popular iPhone 12 models

We looked again at Speedtest® results from the launch date of each model, this time including data through the end of January, to see which iPhone 12 models are the most popular. This time we added five additional cities for a total of 20 major cities across the globe. We still found that most Speedtest users have opted for the “Pro” models.

The iPhone 12 Pro Max 5G showed the highest number of samples among iPhone models in Bangkok, Kuwait City, Singapore, Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Riyadh, Hong Kong, New York, London, Madrid and Sydney. This was a change for both London and Madrid, which had previously had more samples from the iPhone 12 Pro 5G.

The iPhone 12 Pro 5G showed the most samples in Seoul, Zürich, Berlin, Amsterdam, Warsaw, Helsinki, Rome, Barcelona and Tokyo. While the more affordable models were less popular than the Pro models across all the cities on our list, the iPhone 12 Mini saw the most adoption in Tokyo and the iPhone 12 5G saw the most adoption in Rome and Madrid.
iPhone-12-Model-Popularity_0221

Seoul tops list of iPhone 12 5G speeds

As before, we analyzed Speedtest Intelligence® data for iPhone 12 devices in these 20 cities and found that Seoul had the fastest median speed over 5G, followed by several of the major cities of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), namely Kuwait City, Abu Dhabi, Dubai and Riyadh.

It is also interesting to observe that, in the highly dynamic European market where many different network rollout approaches are possible, 5G download speeds in seven of nine European cities fell between 135-160 Mbps range on the iPhone 12. Helsinki and Warsaw were the exceptions in Europe, with 241.98 and 61.14 Mbps median download speeds, respectively.
iPhone-12-5G-Median-Speeds_0221

Operator breakdown: iPhone 12 performance in select cities

We also expanded our operator analysis to 10 cities. The following charts include median 5G speeds over iPhone 12 models of top operators with sufficient samples.

Operator rankings did not change in the four cities we previously analyzed. LG U+ in Seoul, China Mobile Hong Kong in Hong Kong and KPN Mobile in Amsterdam still had the fastest median 5G download speeds over the iPhone 12 in their local markets.
iPhone-12-5G-Median-Speeds_Seoul_0221-1

iPhone-12-5G-Median-Speeds_Hong-Kong_0221

iPhone-12-5G-Median-Speeds_Amsterdam_0221

iPhone-12-5G-Median-Speeds_Madrid_0221

Barcelona showed similar speeds by operator to those in Madrid. We could not yet determine whether Vodafone or Orange’s 5G networks were fastest for iPhone 12, but both providers had a solid lead over Movistar in both Madrid and Barcelona.
iPhone-12-5G-Median-Speeds_Barcelona_0221

United Arab Emirates was the fastest country for mobile according to the January 2021 Speedtest Global Index. As the capital and the second most populous city in the country, Abu Dhabi contributed to this average with median 5G download speeds of 396.06 Mbps on the iPhone 12 for Etisalat and 211.83 Mbps for du.
iPhone-12-5G-Median-Speeds_Abu-Dhabi_0221

In Bangkok, AIS showed the highest median 5G download speed over the iPhone 12 at 362.68 Mbps. TrueMove H followed at 242.22 Mbps. These two operators also had the highest number of Speedtest results over iPhone 12 among all operators analyzed for this article. Another popular operator in the region, DTAC, is not included in the chart due to limited iPhone 12 5G samples.
iPhone-12-5G-Median-Speeds_Bangkok_0221

Data from Speedtest Intelligence reveals that Sunrise had the fastest median 5G download speed over iPhone 12 by a considerable margin at 328.32 Mbps.
iPhone-12-5G-Median-Speeds_Zurich_0221

Telekom in Berlin comfortably had the fastest median 5G download speed over iPhone 12 at 249.16 Mbps.
iPhone-12-5G-Median-Speeds_Berlin_0221

As mentioned above, median 5G speeds over iPhone 12 lagged in Warsaw when compared with other European cities analyzed. This is likely due to the fact that the auction of 3.4-3.8 GHz bands did not take place as planned in Poland because of the pandemic. As of this analysis, Orange and T-Mobile’s 5G speeds for iPhone 12 devices were faster than Play, which trailed with 42.53 Mbps. We also saw 5G tests from Plus in Speedtest Intelligence, but the operator is not included in the above chart due to lack of iPhone 12 samples compared to other operators.
iPhone-12-5G-Median-Speeds_Warsaw_0221

We will continue to monitor how Apple’s 5G-capable devices impact the global market. Contact us to learn more about how Speedtest Intelligence can help you understand the latest developments in your market.

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.

| October 11, 2021

Internet Access on U.S. Tribal Lands is Imperative to Daily and Creative Life


Tribal lands in the United States have often been sidelined or simply excluded from decisions critical to funding infrastructure initiatives and improvements. As COVID-19 revealed the internet to be an essential utility for daily life, the internet served as a lifeline and an opportunity for people living on reservations and other Tribal lands to connect with education, telehealth resources, businesses and the “at large” community. But with 628,000 Tribal households having no access to the internet, access to those critical services is lacking for too many.

In honor of Indigenous People’s Day, Ookla for Good spoke with a Cherokee Nation citizen and advocate about the importance of the internet to Native communities. We’ve also provided analysis on internet performance on federally recognized Tribal lands and off-reservation trust land areas, including an easy download for anyone who would like to do further research on this important topic.

The internet is a vital connector between places and cultures

We sat down with Joseph Cloud, formerly the Community Hope Center Project Manager at the Boys and Girls Club of Chelsea, Oklahoma and a student of the Cherokee Cultural Studies program at Northeastern State University, to discuss the impact that digital access has on Indigenous communities.

The Boys and Girls Club of Chelsea is funded by the Delaware Tribe and Cherokee Nation to help the children of the region reach their full potential. Cloud began working with the Club when they received a grant from the state of Oklahoma through the CARES Act. Cloud recounted that the CEO contacted him to say they had received a large grant and needed to spend it within a month.

The best way to do that was to install high-speed internet at the Club. Before, they had the one router that served the whole space and you couldn’t access the Wi-Fi from the outbuildings. I thought, “How can we make this center a space for kids who don’t have internet at home?” We installed internet and bought lots of equipment so kids could come there and do their homework. We bought specialized laptops with different editing suites so they could grow their skills in things like photography as they grew older. We weren’t designing for a certain kid, we were growing the program for the future.

The internet was important to getting this project done, too. Cloud was living in New Orleans at the time. He contacted a friend who was a tech wizard in Nashville, Tennessee to consult on this project in Oklahoma. Together they settled on a Ubiquiti system that provides high speed internet throughout the facility.

Cloud has unique insight into how the internet benefits kids on the reservation beyond access to Wi-Fi, too. He grew up as part of the Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma but he was separated from the Tribal community when his family moved to Florida. “All I’ve had in the last 21 years to stay connected to my culture is the internet,” he stated, “I needed to follow an instinct to strengthen my connection with my culture and my heritage.” He found the Cherokee studies program at Northeastern through online research and now continues to rely on the internet to attend class and connect with peers. “Schools are doing very little to hold together Native scholars — so we must turn to the internet to stay connected, not just across the country, but also locally” he said.

Last year, Cloud attended the Symposium on the American Indian, which was held virtually for the first time in 2020. Attending from Florida, he learned from leaders within the Indigenous advocacy community about a variety of issues. Digital access has empowered Joseph to reconnect with his Indigenous heritage through virtual events, online school and a cross-cultural online community.

Digital access has also had a large impact on his advocacy work, “The internet allows us to bring people into the conversation. We can combat power dynamics by addressing Indigenous issues with predominantly white institutions. These are very important moments.” For Joseph Cloud and so many other Native people, the internet is essential. It provides them with a platform to connect with other scholars, artists and with the world at large — allowing them to be heard and advocate for themselves and their communities.

Too many Tribal lands fall behind U.S. averages for internet performance

As we’ve seen, the internet is a critical utility for people living on Tribal lands in the U.S. However, that vital connection only works well if the internet performance is strong enough to support modern use cases, like video conferencing and streaming. We analyzed Speedtest Intelligence® data from American Indian/Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian (AIANNH) Areas in the U.S. during Q3 2021 to see how they compare to the U.S. as a whole.

29% of Tribal lands did not meet the FCC’s fixed broadband standards for download speed

Our analysis showed that fixed broadband speeds varied wildly between different AIANNH areas in the U.S. during Q3 2021. The Chickahominy Tribal designated statistical area between Richmond and Williamsburg, Virginia, for example, with one of the fastest median broadband speeds among Tribal lands in the U.S. at 218.86 Mbps, serves as a model of how state funding can radically improve internet infrastructure and performance. Quinault Reservation in northwestern Washington had one of the slowest download speeds at 3.98 Mbps.

Of the 140 AIANNH areas that met our sample count criteria for fixed broadband, 36 did not meet the FCC minimum download speed for broadband of 25 Mbps. Sixteen did not meet the minimum 3 Mbps for upload. For context, the median download speed over fixed broadband in the U.S. was 119.84 Mbps. Only 13 Native areas exceeded that.

ookla_tribal-lands_us_fixed-broadband_1021-1

124 Tribal lands had slower mobile download speeds than U.S. average

There was also a wide array of mobile speeds across AIANNH areas in the U.S. during Q3 2021. Of the 203 Tribal lands that met sample count criteria for mobile performance, 124 showed a slower median download speed than the U.S. average of 44.84 Mbps. Fifty-eight Native areas showed a mobile download speed less than 25 Mbps and 17 had uploads slower than 3 Mbps. Lualualei Hawaiian Home Land, on the west side of Oahu, had one of the fastest median download speeds over mobile during Q3 2021 at 162.09 Mbps. Moapa River Indian Reservation in southern Nevada had one of the slowest median download speeds over mobile during the same period at 3.73 Mbps.

ookla_tribal-lands_us_mobile_1021

4G Availability varies widely between Tribal lands

Of the 217 Tribal lands with sufficient samples, 102 showed a 4G Availability (the percent of users on all devices that spend the majority of their time on 4G and above) lower than the U.S. average of 96.0% during Q3 2021. Nine Tribal lands showed 100% 4G Availability: Auburn Rancheria in California, Big Pine Reservation in California, Reno-Sparks Indian Colony in Nevada, Soboba Off-Reservation Trust Land in California, Sycuan Reservation in California, Viejas Reservation in California, Kapolei Hawaiian Home Land, Waimanalo Hawaiian Home Land and the Kiowa-Comanche-Apache-Fort Sill Apache/Caddo-Wichita-Delaware joint Oklahoma Tribal statistical area. Walker River Reservation in Nevada had one of the lowest 4G Availability calculations at 30.2%.

ookla_tribal-lands_us_4g-availability_1021g-1

The internet is a lifeline and a basic utility. While some Tribal lands do have good connectivity and speeds according to our data, those that do not are being further left behind. As experts in internet performance (but not Tribal policy), we are offering our full Tribal data set for anyone who would like to do further analyses. Download the full data set here.

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.

| September 22, 2020

How Georgia is Leveraging Cell Analytics™ to Enable Virtual Classrooms

Students are returning to class as the school year begins, but in many areas it is not safe to return to the classroom. This means the massive and unprecedented shift to remote learning we saw in the early spring continues for many into the fall. Even where schools have chosen to reconvene in-person classes, the moment a case of COVID-19 is detected, students and faculty are pushed back out of the facility and into online learning. Eager to keep their 1.7 million students connected, education boards in cities and counties throughout the state of Georgia are outfitting school buses with hotspot devices. And they are using Cell AnalyticsTM data from Ookla® to identify the best locations to position those buses to help remote learners.

The digital divide makes remote learning even harder for some families

Many families are simply not equipped to deal with remote learning. This is especially true in economically stressed households where children often do not have the equipment or connectivity necessary to participate in virtual classes. In the state of Georgia alone, an estimated 80,000 households with students cannot access a wireline service.

National wireless operators have donated thousands of portable Wi-Fi hotspots to connect students to their 4G LTE networks (5G networks are so new, coverage is limited and only a few devices are available). As generous as these donations have been, they do not come close to filling the total need.

CARES Act funding provides resources

The U.S. Congress passed the $2.2 trillion Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, also known as the CARES Act, earlier this year. Signed into law on March 27, this stimulus bill includes funding to assist each state with providing broadband connectivity for students so that they can continue to attend classes remotely. The CARES Act has provided the respective state departments of education and municipal and county education boards with resources needed to buy the millions of laptops required to allow remote learning as well as hotspots that can connect these new laptops or existing ones to the internet.

Hotspots can only help in areas with adequate coverage

Programs providing broadband for education over the past decade have focused on installing high-speed service in community anchor institutions, which include schools and libraries. If these facilities are closed for safety reasons, those connections may not be available. Even when those connections are available, wireless coverage at many anchor institutions is quite poor. Compounding the issue, some constituents have objected to installing critically important cell sites near schools.

Additionally, schools are sometimes located where a plot of land is inexpensive or large enough to accommodate a new campus. This may place the anchor institution far from the residential areas from which students are trying to connect to their online classes.

Hotspots can help by connecting previously unserved buildings with the internet. Even when service is available to a building, some families cannot afford the additional expense of a fixed internet connection. However, indoor coverage from hotspots can be insufficient to provide enough throughput for sustained video streaming for one user, let alone multiple students at a time. In many rural areas, even outdoor hotspot coverage will be too weak to provide students with the level of connectivity needed to remain engaged in the remote classroom.

Read the full case study

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.

| May 17, 2022

Federal Broadband Funding is Available for Local Governments — It’s Time to Get in Line

Local governments, the clock is ticking. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) set billions of dollars out on the infrastructure buffet table for local governments in the United States and there are more guests invited to the party than ever before. This funding is almost certainly a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to connect your community and provide access for all to the digital economy. The question is: will you be at the front or the back of the line?

Ookla® can help you. This article is designed to give you the information you need to get started on the path toward getting the funding you need for your communities.

Look to your state for funding

Historically, broadband funding has had a very top-down approach. The FCC has held almost all the power to determine where federal broadband infrastructure dollars have been spent. But for the first time, state governments will have an active role in guiding these decisions.

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) directs $65 billion to improving broadband connectivity across the US, with $42.45 billion earmarked for building new infrastructure. Once the initial FCC map has been released, each state that has declared their intent to participate through NTIA will be provided a minimum $100 million to get the process started (U.S. territories will split an additional $100 million). Much of the remaining $22 billion will target affordability, but more on that later. The race for resources will be officially off and running.

Following this initial disbursement, there will be roughly $37 billion more to be awarded from the IIJA alone. Many states are still sitting on billions of dollars from the American Rescue Plan Acts (ARPA) and broadband is an allowable expenditure for these remaining stimulus dollars. Add to that the long running connectivity programs such as CAF, RDOF, Mobility Fund, and the upcoming Rural 5G Fund, and all those programs combined approach $100 billion over the next decade.

Plan ahead to increase your competitiveness

Past programs have provided funding without setting proper expectations on results. More emphasis is now being placed on planning. With a focus on estimated cost per service address, network design takes a front seat to ensure these resources are spent efficiently and state officials will be allowed to use up to five percent of this for mapping, designing, and cost estimation. 

Most states are already planning, or already building, their own broadband availability maps. But if you have connectivity issues in your community, it’s time to make it known to those who will be responsible for directing funds and deciding which communities will see investment and which will not.

Ookla helped Loudoun County, Virginia secure $17 million

We have experience helping local governments navigate this challenging planning process. When FCC Form 477 broadband availability data showed that nearly 100% of Loudoun residents have access to what the FCC defines as broadband (25 Mbps download, 3 Mbps upload), this was inconsistent with the connectivity experiences of county residents. So the Loudoun Broadband Alliance (LBA) chose to use Ookla Speedtest Intelligence® to create an accurate and reliable broadband access mapping methodology using real-world network performance data. With this data, LBA identified a large number of unserved households in contrast to FCC data which showed them as served. Loudoun County was subsequently awarded over $17 million of funding to help eliminate the broadband gap.

Keep in mind that the maps will never be finished. They will change and evolve as the networks in your area grow. Funded projects will need to be monitored for compliance and older networks will need to be watched for signs of deterioration. Everyone will need to keep an eye on progress, measure successes, and have the data to act early when projects go off track.

Acadiana, Louisiana used Speedtest data to win $30 million

With Speedtest data, the Acadiana Planning Commission (APC) was able to successfully challenge FCC maps on over 900 out of approximately 1,000 census blocks. The APC applied for funding through the NTIA Broadband Infrastructure Program, which made $288 million in funding available to help close the digital divide in the U.S.. There were over 230 applicants, and only 13 grants were awarded. Vice President Kamala Harris visited Acadiana in March to announce that the APC had been awarded a $30 million grant that will fund high-speed internet in 11 rural Acadiana communities.

Think big! Broadband funding is available for more than just infrastructure

Accessibility to broadband requires at least four components: infrastructure, affordability, equipment, and knowledge. The lack of any one of these means an individual does not have access to today’s digital economy. Much of the focus has been on the lack of infrastructure in many rural communities, but infrastructure is the absolutely essential piece for anyone in any community to get connected. The second component, affordability, often drives the last two requirements as people who cannot afford internet service often cannot afford the necessary equipment and, therefore, are less likely to have developed the knowledge to use it. Tracking both of these two primary elements is key to understanding the digital divide.

You might qualify for funding in more than one of these four areas. For example, over $14 billion in a new Affordable Connectivity Program is included in the broadband portion of the IIJA. Remaining funds include $2.75 billion for the Digital Equity Grant Program and the $2 billion Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program, as well as two more programs that will assist the USDA improve the internet in agricultural communities.

Agencies and local governments should work together

Cities should be coordinating with counties and other government entities within the same region — but someone needs to be in charge. If your local government does not have an individual charged with coordinating all these efforts, there is bound to be duplication of efforts, wasted resources, stagnation of ideas, or all of the above. Whether this person reports directly to the CTO, CIO, Mayor, or City Manager, their purpose is to understand what all departments are doing in the space and coordinate discussions, grant opportunities, and overlapping initiatives to make sure that departments aren’t working at cross purposes. Non-profits, community activists, and local corporations all have a stake in the success of these efforts. Traffic problems won’t suddenly end at the municipal boundary. Improving traffic on one side of the line may create more problems on the other side. Working together with your neighbors is just as important as working with internal departments. The same can be said of both fixed and wireless broadband infrastructure.

Dig-once projects will score extra points in the competition to have projects selected. Broadband is only part of the $1.2 billion infrastructure law. Roads, bridges, ports, and rail have billions of dedicated dollars as well. Digging a new trench for a clean water system? Coordinate with the project to include conduit and fiber and your efficient use of taxpayer funds will likely be rewarded.

Consider funding for multiple technologies 

As great as it might be to provide every service address in the country with a fiber connection, it may not make economic sense in some places. But an important detail was clearly stated in the legislation that recognizes a technology neutral stance on solutions. The rules are not yet complete on how the FCC and NTIA will award the IIJA funds and contend with challenges to their findings, but there are certainly far fewer restrictions on the ARPA funds that are already disbursed to the states. Many connectivity projects are already underway whether through infrastructure development, equipment distribution, or subsidies for affordable service.

Wireless services can get people connected much faster and there are several forms. Traditional mobile operators are rolling out 5G and Fixed Wireless Access (FWA) in some areas that can directly compete with traditional fixed services. Wireless Internet Service Providers (WISPs) have launched coverage to homes and businesses that previously had satellite as their only option. Some municipalities and school systems have launched private 4G LTE networks to connect underserved areas in their communities. And municipal Wi-Fi can still be an important part of an overall solution.

A portion of families may never find subscribing to a fixed network practical, but wireless services allow for easier movement and some don’t even require a residence. Understanding wireless network availability and performance across your jurisdiction is just as important as planning a fiber network. And here’s a bonus — cellular and other transmission sites need fiber for any new 5G cell site. So if you know where your wireless networks need additional infrastructure, you can plan for places in the network to offer them accessible fiber connections.

If your state still has ARPA funds available, you still have an opportunity to make improvements and learn more about connectivity issues so you are better able to make your case for the IIJA funds as they begin to flow.

Ookla can provide you with the data you need to be competitive for federal funding

It has been said for years that broadband is the fourth utility. Local governments have spent a lot of their resources managing the first three: water, gas, and electricity. If any of those become unavailable, even for a brief period of time, their citizens will make their unhappiness known. Resiliency of these services will play a part in how elected officials are judged, whether the local government supplies these services or just manages an external provider.

If you serve in local government, you should anticipate the same expectations going forward for broadband in your community. The internet has become vital to the way we live our lives, and access to it dictates much of our success both as residents and businesses. Recognizing connectivity as a critical service may have been a consequence of a pandemic, but that change in thinking is here to stay.

That’s why Ookla is here to help you learn more about the connectivity in your area. We’ve already helped local governments secure tens of millions of dollars in federal funding in Loudoun County, Virginia and Acadiana, Louisiana. We are also working with state broadband offices as well as municipalities to help them gain visibility into network availability and performance. If you want your community to take advantage of the billions pouring into improving connectivity, get in line before it’s too late. 

Drawn from billions of Speedtest® results, Ookla’s Broadband Performance Dataset provides governments, regulators, ISPs, and mobile operators with insights about the state of fixed networks and broadband accessibility. The Broadband Performance Dataset helps you identify unserved and underserved areas, prioritize investment opportunities to improve access to broadband, challenge funding decisions, and secure grants. 

To learn more about the Broadband Performance Dataset, Speedtest Intelligence, and other solutions for your state and/or local governments, please 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.

| July 11, 2022

More Consumers are “Always On” Your Network, Here’s What They Need From You

We know the COVID-19 pandemic changed mobile user behavior, but new research commissioned by Ookla® shows just how much more consumers came to rely on their mobile connections. Ookla conducted a survey of five thousand mobile phone users from a diversity of demographic groups across Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States to learn more about how they use their devices and how they view their mobile operators. Computer Weekly recently shared a look at what this looked like in the U.K. For this article, we’ve paired this information with Speedtest® data on consumer sentiment in all three countries to get a full picture of what consumers expect from their mobile operators today.

Key takeaways:

  • The percentage of consumers who describe themselves as always online grew from 30% to 69%.
  • Fewer than two-thirds of respondents are satisfied with customer service with “always on” customers at least twice as likely to report issues with customer service.
  • “Always on” consumers have different support needs, prioritizing a more well-rounded customer service experience.
  • Nearly half (47.4%) of customers who have had customer service issues in the past 18 months are likely to want to switch to another operator.

Increasing numbers of mobile customers are “always on”

The number of mobile customers who described themselves as always online grew from 30% in November 2019 to 69% in November 2021. Whereas consumers used to put down their phones for a variety of reasons, “always on” users are online for a variety of economic reasons (accessing customers and generating business, traffic information and remote working, social media, and information sharing) and lifestyle reasons (parenting and caregiving, health and fitness, and gaming). It’s no surprise then, that these valuable customers need reliable networks to keep up with the demands of their mobile internet use.

Chart of how more users are "always on" comparing 2019 versus 2021

Between 2019 and 2021 we saw a drop in users who were only “always on” for only economic reasons from 16% to 7%. Meanwhile, users who were “always on” for lifestyle reasons grew from 3% to 32%. The largest increases were in users who were “always on” for economic and lifestyle reasons.

Fewer than two-thirds of respondents satisfied with customer service

The 2020 American Customer Satisfaction Index found the telecom industry lags significantly in customer satisfaction. While customer service could be a key component of improving customer satisfaction, our survey revealed that fewer than two-thirds of respondents were satisfied with the customer service they received. Wait time had the lowest proportion of satisfied respondents (51%) while clarity of communication and multiple options for contact had the highest (62%). In addition, an operator-by-operator analysis showed that between 10% and 25% of customers of each operator had to submit a formal complaint. This obviously leaves significant room for improvement.

Chart of net satisfaction with operator customer service

“Always on” users have different support needs

With more customers categorizing themselves online all the time, it’s increasingly important that their network be available whenever they need it. It is also vital that they get the kind of customer support they need when they encounter a problem.

Chart of top three rated components of customer satisfaction

We asked respondents to rank the top three components of customer satisfaction that make for good customer service. While customers who are not “always on” are looking for well trained staff, a quick resolution, and clear communication, “always on” users are looking for a more well-rounded customer service experience. “Always on” users also prioritize short wait times, clear paths to resolution, multiple methods of communication, and that they feel valued as a customer.

This means operators with a robust support network that customers can comprehend and access in the ways that they prefer to communicate will win the customer service race — and consequently, customer retention. Our clients have seen this already with Spatialbuzz™, which allows mobile operators to identify, prioritize, and diagnose customer dissatisfaction areas in real time with quick, actionable resolutions.

“Always on” customers experience more problems with customer service

Chart of percentage of users who report customer service issues

“Always on” respondents in all three countries were at least twice as likely to report issues with customer service. The difference was especially pronounced in the U.K. where “always on” users were more than three times as likely to report customer service issues than their counterparts. This, plus the growth in the number of “always on” customers, poses a difficulty for mobile operators whose customer support programs have not evolved to meet these changing needs. If operators want to retain these key customers, there is work to be done.

Users who contact customer service are still likely to churn

The fact that customer service is a key factor in customer retention is no surprise, still our survey revealed that nearly half (47.4%) of customers who have had customer service issues in the past 18 months are likely to want to switch to another operator. The data tells us that even when issues are resolved, customers are often not satisfied with how they have been dealt with and still consider switching.

Infographic comparing customer satisfaction and likelihood to churn

Respondents in the U.S. were the most likely to consider switching (24-37%, depending on operator). Customers in the U.K. were open to switching (25%, 29%, 29%, and 32%, depending on operator) and those in Switzerland were slightly less likely to consider switching (25, 27%, and 32%, depending on operator).

As important as adequate customer service is, it’s clear that mobile operators need to meet customers’ needs before they have to resort to customer service. Providing a high level of network performance is important to this as is checking in with consumer sentiment, especially as consumers’ habits shift toward being “always on.”

Solving customer issues is not enough to retain your customer base. Those issues need to be resolved with care through clear communication and expertise in a timely manner. To learn more about Consumer SentimentTM data or how Spatialbuzz could help you connect with in-need customers faster and more efficiently, 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.

| November 10, 2020

Make Better Funding Decisions with Accurate Broadband Network Data: A Guide for Federal, State and Local Governments [White Paper]

State and federal officials are charged with spending billions of dollars in funding to improve broadband availability, particularly in rural areas. While many yearly budgets had already earmarked money for broadband development projects before COVID-19, the pandemic has highlighted deep digital divides at a time when the public is more reliant than ever on the internet for work, education and other essential services.

Federal, state and local governments need accurate data on broadband availability and network performance to correctly allocate this funding to serve the most constituents. This data drives budget and spending decisions — and historically, a significant portion of these funds have been misdirected by relying on bad data.

In this new Ookla® white paper, we share a case study where misleading data from Measurement Lab (M-Lab) led a U.S. Congressional office to an incomplete picture of broadband performance in Upstate New York. The white paper also includes a guide to the key considerations a savvy policymaker should take when evaluating network data on which to base funding decisions.




Using broadband network data to understand — and close — the digital divide

The shift to working and learning from home has underscored the need for high-speed connectivity across the entire country. Many households are trying to do much more with their internet connections than they ever have before. As more family members in a household use an internet connection for teleconferencing or distance learning, their need for internet speeds will go beyond the FCC minimum guidelines of what constitutes a broadband connection: 25 Mbps download speed and 3 Mbps upload speed.

In the U.S., legislators whose districts include rural areas have long been aware of the “digital divide” created by a lack of broadband access — and the economic and educational opportunities rural communities miss out on because of this divide. While urban dwellers usually have access to high-speed connections at or near their home addresses, sometimes broadband service can be cost prohibitive. Their rural counterparts are faced with the additional challenge of a lack of connectivity in their area. To commercial internet service providers (ISPs), there is a tipping point where population density is too low to make investments in high-speed internet infrastructure profitable.

Broadband funding efforts are often focused on closing this digital divide by targeting the most under-served communities for investment and development.

The dangers of using bad data to prioritize broadband funding

The white paper explores a case study where inaccurate network performance data created an incomplete picture of broadband access in Upstate New York. In August 2020, the office of Congressman Anthony Brindisi, New York, District 22, U.S. House of Representatives, released a report highlighting the lack of broadband service across the district. New York’s District 22 (NY-22) is large, and the people of the district are somewhat evenly distributed between city and country life, with 57.5% living in urban areas and 42.5% (roughly four out of ten people) living in rural areas. Like so many rural regions of the U.S., broadband has not yet reached all constituents in NY-22.

The report provided valuable insights gleaned from constituents’ direct feedback on their connectivity, and the congressman’s office made excellent recommendations on how the district should approach improving broadband access. However, our concern with the rest of the report is that it was based on network performance test results that painted an inaccurate picture of what many constituents were actually experiencing in the district. The presented results greatly underestimated the speeds being delivered by internet service providers (ISPs) throughout most of the study area while overestimating speeds in some others. The speeds included in the report used network performance information exclusively from tests taken with M-Lab.

The speeds measured by Speedtest® for the same areas during the same time period are dramatically higher in most areas, which indicates that some constituents can already achieve network speeds that meet FCC minimums — meaning that additional infrastructure investments are unnecessary. By relying on numbers that inaccurately indicate lower speeds than reality, the congressman’s office runs the danger of targeting certain areas for funding that already have adequate broadband service. Resources are limited, and these funds should be allocated to areas that lack the connectivity needed to meet the FCC’s minimum of 25 Mbps download speed and 3 Mbps upload speed.

The table below shows comparisons of the median download and upload throughputs for the twenty ZIP codes specified in the report as having the “worst” speeds within NY-22. Looking at Ookla and M-Lab data side by side, you can see that M-Lab vastly under-reported the network throughput in every single “worst” ZIP code in the congressional report.
Ookla_NY22_slowest_zips_chart_1120

The ZIP code showing the least amount of difference between Ookla and M-Lab data was 13803 (Marathon) where M-Lab’s recorded median was 5.5 Mbps and the median from Ookla data was 14.5 Mbps. This means the typical speed in Marathon measured by Ookla’s Speedtest was over two and a half times as fast as the average measurement captured by M-Lab. On the other end of the scale, in Whitney Point, M-Lab’s recorded median was 0.9 Mbps while Ookla measured a median of 71.6 Mbps, almost eighty times faster.

Contrary to M-Lab’s data, Ookla data determined that 12 of the listed ZIP codes met the FCC minimum threshold of 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload, with two additional ZIP codes falling just below the thresholds.

A policymaker looking at M-Lab’s data alone might incorrectly assume that every single listed ZIP code in the district is wildly underserved. In this case, funding may be allocated to areas that already have adequate broadband service, leaving underserved constituents without connectivity.

When bad data leads to underserved communities

In a few outlying ZIP codes, the speeds measured by Ookla were actually much slower than those measured by M-Lab. Below is a comparison of the “best” ZIP codes in NY-22, as reported by M-Lab, compared to Speedtest results.

While the majority of their data vastly under-reported network speeds, we zoomed in on one example where M-Lab’s data looked questionable in the very rural town of New Berlin (13411). M-Lab results showed a median download speed of 103.5 Mbps, but the median upload speed of 102.6 Mbps looked too good to be true. If this measurement was accurate, it would be outstanding service for such an isolated community. M-Lab’s report names New Berlin’s ZIP code the fastest in the entire district, which may have come as a shock to the residents there.
Ookla_NY22_fastest_zips_chart_1120

Ookla’s results for the New Berlin ZIP code show a strikingly different picture: a median download speed of 18.5 Mbps and median upload speed of 3.3 Mbps. While the upload number meets FCC minimums, the download certainly does not. If ZIP codes are used to determine eligibility for broadband funding, the M-Lab results would indicate that the area around New Berlin is not in need of broadband infrastructure assistance.

While reporting data aggregated by ZIP code is common among network testing providers like M-Lab, Ookla does not recommend using ZIP codes as an arbitrary boundary for measuring broadband performance.

ZIP codes were created for a single purpose — to efficiently deliver the mail via linear routes. While an urban ZIP code may contain several neighborhoods in the same city, rural ones can encompass several small communities many miles apart from one another. ZIP code names do not reflect every community served, and are usually named for the community that hosts the postal facility.

The disparities between network data providers

Federal, state and local policymakers need to use the most accurate, comprehensive data available on the networks when deciding where to spend broadband funding. However, not all network testing providers are created equal.

To accurately measure the download speed of an internet connection, a testing application such as Ookla’s Speedtest or M-Lab’s Network Diagnostic Tool, running on the end users’ machine, pings dedicated testing servers to send as much data as possible. The testing application then measures how much data it receives back from the servers during a period of time (usually 10 or 15 seconds).
Test2_graphic_1102

Each test requires a large enough data transfer to ensure that it fully saturates the network connection and measures the full throughput capability. With ISPs offering high-speed connectivity such as optical fiber to the home, this problem is only getting worse. These connections are able to handle speeds between 1 and 2 Gbps, roughly 40 to 80 times more than the minimum broadband speed of 25 Mbps.

Some network testing providers, however, do not have adequate testing infrastructure to account for normal demand on the network, and thus are incapable of accurately measuring peak network speed.

Since M-Lab is a Google partner, search engine results drive traffic their way for performance testing. This is not because they are the best test, but because of the relationship between the two organizations. In fact, M-Lab’s testing infrastructure is extremely limited in a way that produces inferior testing outcomes. Currently, M-Lab has fewer than 60 servers across the entire United States listed on their infrastructure map below (with no servers shown in Alaska, Hawaii or the U.S. territories.)

The Speedtest Server Network™ was purpose-built to manage a global scale of volume, with testing servers strategically located in every country and most major population centers. We have over 12,000 servers in the network, with more than 1,600 in the United States and 68 servers in New York State alone.
Ookla_server-location-comparison_US_NY_1120

When a user takes a test through M-Lab, the test measures the speed between the user’s device and a single — and often distant — server. When data travels between the user’s device and a distant server it may have to traverse many network “hops” (when a packet of data is passed from one network segment to the next) to get there. The additional lag time this introduces to the test results can negatively impact the user’s perception of the local network’s performance. If the server being used for that specific test is also trying to run many other tests at the same time, it may not have sufficient capacity to provide an accurate result. If there are multiple users simultaneously testing their high-speed connection, the tests might consume all the available throughput from a single test server, thus denying other users the capacity required to measure their own connection. Simply put, M-Lab’s infrastructure is insufficient for internet performance testing in the modern era.

Learn how bad data can negatively impact government funding

There are billions of dollars of federal, state and local government funding at stake — not to mention the educational opportunities and livelihoods of millions of constituents. It is critical that policymakers vet their data sources to fully understand the broadband landscape in their jurisdictions — and prioritize spending to best serve their most vulnerable constituents.

Download the full white paper to learn the five considerations every policymaker should take into account when evaluating data sources for their broadband funding decisions.

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.

| September 16, 2021

How to Challenge the FCC’s Mobile Service Funding Eligibility Decisions [Webinar]


As part of the initiative to bring advanced wireless services to unserved areas in rural America, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is in charge of allocating billions of dollars in funding to mobile network operators. Funding eligibility is based on broadband availability data submitted by mobile operators and aggregated into coverage maps by the FCC. FCC coverage maps often overstate the availability of networks in some areas because operators show their footprint expanding to locations where they have minimal coverage. The FCC has introduced a new Mobile Service Challenge Process to help address this issue.

Register for our September 30 webinar to learn more about the Mobile Service Challenge Process and how to challenge FCC coverage maps with crowdsourced coverage information.


What is the Mobile Service Challenge Process?

The FCC’s Mobility Fund Phase II would have allocated up to $4.53 billion for mobile operators to bring 4G LTE to rural America. Unfortunately, the program was suspended in 2019 due to a finding that coverage data submitted by three providers likely overstated actual coverage in many instances.

In 2020, the The Broadband DATA Act was signed into law and required the FCC to improve the way broadband data is collected, verified and reported. In response to The Broadband DATA Act, the FCC recently released a Public Notice that proposes procedures for testing the accuracy of carrier coverage maps and outlines a Mobile Service Challenge Process.

The Mobile Service Challenge Process will allow operators to challenge FCC broadband data using crowdsourced network performance tests that show an “on-the-ground” truth that differs from the FCC coverage map. Challenging parties are required to present a sufficient number of tests within a hexagon to illustrate gaps in carrier coverage.

Using Ookla® data to contest FCC funding decisions

This article will explore how Ookla data and targeted field testing can be used to contest coverage data that determines funding eligibility. Register for our September 30 webinar to learn more about navigating the FCC’s Mobile Service Challenge Process.

Determine where on-the-ground truth differs from FCC data

A comparison of Ookla Cell Analytics™ data with FCC coverage data shows where there are discrepancies and underserved areas. Operator-provided coverage data is shown in the FCC’s Mobile LTE Coverage Map below. Looking at State Highway 119 near the popular Golden Gate Canyon recreation area in north central Colorado as an example, we can see that AT&T and Verizon both claim to have 4G LTE coverage on the majority of the highway.

fcc_hwy119_lte_map_0921

However, the crowdsourced measurement data in Cell Analytics shows poor signal quality along State Highway 119. In the image below, you can see that both AT&T and Verizon have significant areas with no service along the highway. This indicates that the on-the-ground truth may be different from the FCC coverage maps.

ookla_cell-analytics_hwy119_lte_map_0921

Perform targeted walk or drive tests within an underserved area

Once you’ve determined that State Highway 119 is likely an unserved area, you can use Ookla Wind™, a handset-based testing solution, to perform a targeted data collection campaign within the hexagon to confirm network availability, signal strength, throughput and other KPIs. The images below show drive tests performed on the AT&T and Verizon networks along Highway 119. The results show that the signal strength is very weak (shown in red) along most of the route. You can use this data to fill out the FCC challenge process. Once the area has officially been determined as eligible for funding, you can bid for funding allocation.

ookla_wind_hwy119_lte_map_0921

ookla_wind_hwy119_vzw_lte_map_0921

Validate your improved coverage and throughput

After you’ve received FCC funding to build out new infrastructure in a rural area, you’ll need to prove that you’ve used those funds properly. Cell Analytics can also be used to validate KPIs like improved coverage and faster throughput on your network within that area. The ability to show the outcome of these enhancements could help you secure more funding in the future.

Cell Analytics and Wind will equip you with the real-world network performance data that you need to challenge FCC eligibility decisions and influence funding allocation. To learn more about navigating the Mobile Service Challenge Process, tune into the webinar on Thursday, September 30 at 7 a.m. Pacific (10 a.m. Eastern). A recording will be provided for registrants who can’t make the live presentation. Register now.

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.

| December 12, 2017

The World’s Internet Speeds Increased More than 30% in 2017. Are You Keeping Up?

In a world where business and life are increasingly fast and global, you want to know if your country’s internet is up to speed. In August, we launched Speedtest Global IndexTM to provide you that objective look at internet performance around the world. Knowing what your speeds are and how they compare to your neighbors’ makes for a good story, but what was missing was a benchmark. To provide you that worldwide context, we’re introducing Global Speed, the average internet speed of the world, to the top of the Speedtest Global Index.

You can still use the Speedtest Global Index to see download and upload speeds by country and rank who’s fastest and slowest. Here we’ve paired data about those individual country speeds over the past year with the new global averages call out which countries have improved most over the past year, who’s shown the least improvement and what speeds are like in the world’s most populous countries. Read on to see who’s winning the internet speed race and who has a lot of catching up to do.

The comparisons here are based on Speedtest data from November 2016-November 2017. We used the same monthly threshold for this article that we do for inclusion in the Speedtest Global Index: to be ranked in each category, countries must have at least 670 Speedtest results from unique users on mobile and at least 3,333 for fixed broadband. Although we use the word “country” throughout, you will notice some regions like Hong Kong and Puerto Rico that are large or autonomous enough to call out as separate entities, even though they are not separate countries. Global speeds are a weighted average of all samples from around the world.

Global download speeds are up more than 30% across the board

With a mean global speed of 20.28 Mbps, mobile downloads increased 30.1% over the last 12 months and mobile uploads increased 38.9%. A global average of 40.11 Mbps makes fixed broadband downloads 97.8% faster than mobile and this speed increased 31.6% during the same period. Uploads over fixed broadband showed the smallest increase of 25.9%.

Global Internet Speeds
November 2016 – November 2017
Download: November 2017 Average (Mbps) Download: Year Over Year Increase Upload: November 2017 Average (Mbps) Upload: Year Over Year Increase
Mobile 20.28 30.1% 8.65 38.9%
Fixed 40.11 31.6% 19.96 25.9%

In November 2017, 119 countries boasted a faster mobile download speed than the global average while 134 were slower. On the fixed broadband side, 71 countries and regions beat the global average download speed and 185 were slower. As we reported last week, gigabit Speedtest results are rolling in from across the planet, but their distribution across continents is wildly uneven.

Most improved countries

It was a good year for Laotian mobile speeds. With a 249.5% jump in mobile download speeds, Laos showed the largest improvement in the world. Vietnam came in second with an increase of 188.7% and Trinidad and Tobago was third at 133.1%. All of the countries listed on the table below are to be commended for making mobile internet faster.

Countries with the Largest Improvement
Mobile Download Speed

November 2016 – November 2017
Year Over Year Increase November 2017 Speed (Mbps)
Laos 249.5% 13.77
Vietnam 188.7% 19.54
Trinidad and Tobago 133.1% 11.68
Hong Kong (SAR) 102.6% 35.64
Lebanon 92.3% 24.50
Cyprus 90.2% 26.14
Republic of the Union of Myanmar 81.0% 11.72
Costa Rica 80.9% 7.89
Cambodia 70.5% 14.97
Sudan 68.9% 9.85

The tiny island of Reunion, a region of France off the coast of Africa, saw the largest improvement in download speed over fixed broadband in the world with a gain of 141.5%. Guatemala was second at 116.7% and Ghana third at 82.1%.

Countries with the Largest Improvement
Fixed Broadband Download Speed

November 2016 – November 2017
Year Over Year Increase November 2017 Speed (Mbps)
Reunion 141.5% 62.64
Guatemala 116.7% 12.04
Ghana 82.1% 18.96
Peru 80.1% 16.48
India 76.9% 18.82
Panama 76.6% 28.62
Italy 72.1% 31.58
Libya 67.6% 3.84
Argentina 62.2% 15.49
Kenya 60.9% 15.59

In some countries, notably Libya, a small gain in megabits per second (Mbps) can result in a large percentage increase. Although the actual performance improvement is small, we’re glad to see speeds moving in the right direction.

Speeds in some countries declined

On the flip side, there were far too many countries and regions where internet speeds decreased. The devastation of Puerto Rico’s mobile infrastructure by Hurricane Maria surely contributed to the island’s 39.8% drop in mobile download speed during the past twelve months. Uzbekistan saw a decline of 31.8% and Côte d’Ivoire 26.1%.

Countries with the Smallest Improvement
Mobile Download Speed

November 2016 – November 2017
Year Over Year Change November 2017 Speed (Mbps)
Puerto Rico -39.8% 8.53
Uzbekistan -31.8% 6.47
Côte d’Ivoire -26.1% 10.95
Brunei -23.4% 9.83
Thailand -19.7% 13.38
Iraq -16.8% 3.12
Algeria -10.8% 7.19
Nigeria -8.4% 9.90
Bangladesh -7.4% 4.97
Morocco -6.3% 15.03

Algeria saw the largest decrease in download speed over fixed broadband speed in the world at 23.9%. Dips of 9.1% in Ecuador and 6.5% in Latvia were less troubling but still moving in the wrong direction.

Countries with the Smallest Improvement
Fixed Broadband Download Speed

November 2016 – November 2017
Year Over Year Change November 2017 Speed (Mbps)
Algeria -23.9% 3.76
Ecuador -9.1% 10.40
Latvia -6.5% 47.25
Tunisia -3.2% 6.90
Iraq -1.1% 7.87
Syria -0.3% 7.12
Taiwan 0.5% 42.32
Maldives 1.0% 12.04
Namibia 1.2% 9.74
Jamaica 1.5% 19.11

Performance in the world’s most populous countries

With 57% of the world’s population, any internet performance improvements seen in the world’s ten most populous countries have a wide reach. Pakistan came out on top of the world’s largest countries with a 56.2% jump in mobile download speed during the past 12 months. India came in second in this category at 42.4% and Brazil third at 27.6% .

World’s Most Populous Countries
Improvement in Mobile Downloads

November 2016 – November 2017
Year Over Year Change November 2017 Speed (Mbps)
Pakistan 56.2% 13.08
India 42.4% 8.80
Brazil 27.6% 16.25
Japan 23.5% 21.67
United States 22.0% 26.32
Russia 19.2% 15.80
Indonesia 18.1% 9.73
China 3.3% 31.22
Bangladesh -7.4% 4.97
Nigeria -8.4% 9.90

At the other end of the spectrum, Nigeria’s mobile download speed actually dropped 8.4% and Bangladesh’s dipped 7.4%. China showed only a modest 3.3% increase in mobile download speed in 2017.

On the fixed broadband side, India came out on top of the world’s most populous countries for improvements to download speed during the past 12 months with an increase of 76.9%, beating China’s second place 42.3% increase and a 37.3% gain in the U.S.

World’s Most Populous Countries
Improvement in Fixed Broadband Downloads

November 2016 – November 2017
Year Over Year Change November 2017 Speed (Mbps)
India 76.9% 18.82
China 42.3% 61.24
United States 37.3% 75.94
Japan 20.7% 73.51
Indonesia 18.9% 13.38
Brazil 18.5% 17.80
Pakistan 15.5% 6.13
Russia 14.6% 36.90
Bangladesh 13.7% 16.14
Nigeria 3.8% 9.53

Nigeria again came out at the bottom of the world’s largest countries, this time with a 3.8% increase in download speed over fixed broadband.

We’ll revisit global internet speeds periodically here on our blog, but you can keep up to date on the latest trends in worldwide internet speeds by visiting the Speedtest Global Index. It’s updated every month with individual country data and, now, global averages. Keep track of your country’s performance and see how you rank against the world.

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.

| June 10, 2021

How to Make Data-Driven Broadband Funding Decisions [Webinar]

Billions of dollars in federal funding are being dispersed this summer as part of the United States government’s mission to expand broadband across America. State and local policymakers are currently tasked with ensuring that funding goes to broadband investments that will connect constituents to the speeds they need. This article highlights two instances where Ookla® data is uniquely positioned to help federal, state and local governments understand where constituents don’t have access to high-speed internet.

Register for our June 23 webinar to learn more about how accurate, up-to-date information about internet performance and accessibility can help you prioritize funding decisions and bridge the digital divide in your jurisdiction.





Addressing the digital divide in network access

This past year has made it increasingly clear that broadband is essential in our daily lives — students have needed high-speed internet to connect to the classroom, employees have needed to be able to connect to work remotely and sick people have needed access to broadband to use telehealth services. At the same time, broadband issues in both rural and urban communities have made the digital divide increasingly obvious. For those below or near the poverty line, a lack of equipment to get connected and a lack of financial resources acts as a barrier. In many areas there is a lack of adequate connectivity, impacting everyone, regardless of their economic circumstance.

Less populated, more rural areas of the U.S. tend to have less access to high-speed internet. Take Colorado, for example, where much of the greater Colorado Springs area has broadband speeds of 300+ Mbps. Yet many underserved areas exist in the more rural areas of Colorado. These underserved areas are clearly demonstrated by the red dots on the below map of Speedtest® measurements for all fixed operators via Android and iOS devices. This data reveals that many of the rural communities in Colorado don’t have access to the FCC minimum download speeds of 25 Mbps. By looking only at tests taken on devices that provide GPS location information, we can see the precise geographic boundaries of the digital divide, illustrated with real-world network performance data.

speedtest_consumer_initiated_fixed_performance_so_colorado_0621

Connectivity problems exist in urban communities as well. The map below shows Cell Analytics™ data for Atlanta, Georgia. The red circles are locations of schools, the green circles are locations of libraries and the color gradient on the map indicates the signal strength in those locations. As you can see, many of the schools and libraries in Atlanta only have access to medium or weak signal strength, depending upon the carrier they have chosen. Within some neighborhoods, coverage quality is poor across all operators, leaving residents with no good option. Residents in urban communities under economic stress often depend on their phone to connect to the internet. This is especially true for students who rely on hotspots and tablets to connect to the classroom. Higher quality wireless service is critical when it comes to closing the homework gap in urban communities such as Atlanta.

cell_analytics_wirelss_signal_strength_atlanta_0621

The federal government aims to make big strides towards closing the gap in both rural and urban communities across the nation with the billions of dollars in broadband funding allocated in the American Rescue Plan (ARP) Act. While this new funding is welcome, it creates a question for policymakers around how to best use the budget to solve for digital equity. Decision makers often lack the data that they need to make smart infrastructure investments that will provide broadband access to the greatest number of people.

Using Ookla data for smarter spending

The webinar will show how policymakers can use Speedtest datasets to determine specific locations where constituents can’t access adequate broadband. Learn how we can help you allocate resources to areas that show a clear need for investment in broadband infrastructure.

Speedtest Intelligence® data can help answer questions like:

  • How is performance in a geographic area or for an internet service provider (ISP) trending over time?
  • How widespread are any changes (e.g., network improvements) impacting typical network performance in a given area?
  • Are minimum thresholds needed for remote work, education and telehealth being met in a given area?
  • How commonly does an ISP deliver a minimum level of service?
  • How does an ISP’s real-world network performance compare to their self-reported speeds and service levels?

To learn how to turn this data into actionable broadband policy, tune into the webinar on Wednesday, June 23 at 9 a.m. Pacific (12 p.m. Eastern). A recording will be provided for registrants who can’t make the live presentation.






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.