| August 27, 2019

Where to Find the Fastest Airport Wi-Fi in the U.S. and Canada in 2019

We’re back with our annual survey of the fastest airport Wi-Fi in the U.S. and Canada. This year we’re sharing data on twice as many airports, as well as looking at which non-airport-sponsored SSIDs are your fastest choice. Whether you’re taking one last summer vacation or booking business trips for the fall, this guide should help you find the fastest airport internet connections.

Our analysis is based on Speedtest IntelligenceTM data from 51 of the largest airports in the U.S. and Canada during Q1-Q2 2019.

Fastest airport Wi-Fi

We looked first at mean download and upload speeds over the airport’s Wi-Fi SSID to see which airports are prioritizing fast speeds.

Honolulu’s Daniel K. Inouye International Airport makes its debut on the list this year at the very top of the rankings. With a mean download speed of 145.12 Mbps, Honolulu’s Wi-Fi was 37.5% faster than second-place Chicago Midway (which was also new to the list). These two airports unseated Sea-Tac, last year’s winner for fastest airport Wi-Fi. Ranking third, Sea-Tac’s mean download speed over Wi-Fi actually fell 4.4% since our last analysis. Nashville International and Phoenix Sky Harbor rounded out the top five

airport-update-chart1-1

Calgary placed 17th overall but showed the fastest airport Wi-Fi of the five Canadian airports we examined. Montréal–Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport had the slowest Wi-Fi among Canadian airports again this year, but their mean download speed jumped 154.4% since our last analysis.

We were excited to see that while we more than doubled the number of airports on the list this year, the number with Wi-Fi download speeds less than 10 Mbps fell. The airport with the slowest Wi-Fi was Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport, followed by Salt Lake City International Airport, Houston’s William P. Hobby Airport, Southwest Florida International Airport in Fort Myers, and Norman Y. Mineta San José International Airport.

Both Denver and San Francisco split their Wi-Fi between two separate SSIDs that appear to cater individually to 5 GHz and 2.4 GHz devices. In both of these cases we’ve chosen to list the faster of the two SSIDs. Fort Lauderdale has four different Wi-Fi SSIDs for four different terminals. We aggregated the speeds from those SSIDs to report a mean.

Comparing speeds on other Wi-Fi SSIDs at major airports

Airport-provided Wi-Fi is not always your fastest option. This year we also looked for alternate Wi-Fi SSIDs to see which is fastest at each airport. Access to some of these SSIDs may require memberships or day passes, so you can use the information below to decide whether or not to make that investment.

Fastest Wi-Fi SSIDs at 51 Largest Airports in U.S. and Canada
Speedtest IntelligenceTM | Q1-Q2 2019
Airport Fastest SSID Mean Download (Mbps) % Faster than Airport SSID
Austin–Bergstrom International Airport Boingo Hotspot 80.99 0.2%
Baltimore–Washington International Airport Boingo Hotspot 81.91 1.7%
Calgary International Airport YYC-Free-WiFi 69.22
Charlotte Douglas International Airport CLT Free WiFi 47.68
Chicago Midway International Airport _Free_MDW_Wi-Fi 105.51
Chicago O’Hare International Airport united_club 124.96 93.9%
Cleveland Hopkins International Airport CLE-GUEST 52.88
Dallas Love Field DAL Free WiFi 43.56
Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport TheCenturionLounge 70.29 28.8%
Daniel K. Inouye International Airport HNL Free WiFi 145.12
Denver International Airport – DEN Airport Free WiFi 88.47
Detroit Metropolitan Airport Boingo Hotspot 62.28 0.2%
Edmonton International Airport EIA_FREE_WIFI 51.44
Fort Lauderdale–Hollywood International Airport MedallionNet 41.98 237.5%
George Bush Intercontinental Airport united_club 156.73 1117.8%
Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport DeltaSkyClub 111.89 69.8%
Indianapolis International Airport IND PUBLIC WiFi 71.14
John F. Kennedy International Airport TWA 161.66 221.5%
John Wayne Airport JWAFREEWIFI 79.91
Kansas City International Airport KCI_FREE_WiFi 38.28
LaGuardia Airport _Free LGA Wi-Fi 79.40
Logan International Airport Passpoint Secure 58.64 26.8%
Los Angeles International Airport united_club 156.91 122.3%
Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport #MSY-Free_Wifi 4.42 337.6%
McCarran International Airport McCarran WiFi 44.56
Miami International Airport Avianca_VIP 55.58 55.4%
Minneapolis–Saint Paul International Airport Boingo Hotspot 82.11 34.8%
Montréal–Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport VIP 44.37 172.0%
Nashville International Airport Boingo Hotspot 100.42 3.6%
Newark Liberty International Airport united_club 120.31 133.0%
Norman Y. Mineta San José International Airport XFINITY 26.81 208.2%
Oakland International Airport OAK Free WiFi 90.95
Orlando International Airport skyclub 63.06 47.1%
Philadelphia International Airport American Airlines lounge Wi-Fi 79.37 73.3%
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport Free PHX Boingo WiFi 93.47
Portland International Airport flypdx 38.47
Raleigh–Durham International Airport RDU Free WiFi 24.80
Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport FlyReagan 81.72
Sacramento International Airport flysacramento 37.26
Salt Lake City International Airport DeltaSkyClub 18.70 699.1%
San Antonio International Airport SAFreeWiFi 47.83
San Diego International Airport #SANfreewifi 85.30
San Francisco International Airport united_club 151.10 175.3%
Seattle–Tacoma International Airport Alaska Lounge 102.26 3.6%
Southwest Florida International Airport RSWiFly 7.51
St. Louis Lambert International Airport *STL_FREE_WIFI 60.20
Tampa International Airport TPA 19.50
Toronto Pearson International Airport Plaza Premium Lounge 38.52 25.3%
Vancouver International Airport @yvrairport 58.97
Washington Dulles International Airport united_club 185.86 150.2%
William P. Hobby Airport Free Airport WIFI 7.30

The airport’s own SSID was the fastest option for Wi-Fi at 26 airports.

At the other 25 airports, airport lounges (both those affiliated with airlines and other private entities) often topped the pack. We saw that “united_club” was the fastest SSID at six airports and “DeltaSkyClub” at two. “Alaska Lounge,” “American Airlines lounge Wi-Fi,” “Avianca_VIP,” “MedallionNet” and “Plaza Premium Lounge” were each the fastest SSID at one airport.

“Boingo Hotspot” was the fastest SSID at five airports and “Passpoint Secure” (a Boingo service) at one. It’s interesting that at airports where we saw both the “Boingo Hotspot” and “Passpoint Secure” SSIDs, mean download speeds on the “Boingo Hotspot” SSID were routinely faster.

How airline lounges fare for Wi-Fi

We won’t pretend to compare most of the amenities available at various airline lounges, but we do have data on which have the fastest Wi-Fi. We compared mean download speeds over Wi-Fi SSIDs affiliated with airlines and airport lounges to see which memberships you might want to consider.

The United Club has fast Wi-Fi at Dulles, LAX, George Bush Intercontinental, San Francisco, O-Hare and Newark, with mean download speeds well above 100 Mbps. At LAX, the mean download speed of 156.91 Mbps on “united_club” is 263.2% faster than “American Airlines lounge Wi-Fi.” Similarly, “united_club” is 158.9% faster than “American Airlines lounge Wi-Fi” at Chicago O’Hare. United’s more general SSID, “United_Wi-Fi” is slow — 97.3% slower than “united_club” in Houston, and 93.3% slower in Newark.

American Airlines had the fastest lounge Wi-Fi at JFK with a mean download speed of 103.61 Mbps. At Philadelphia International the lounge saw a mean download speed of 79.37 Mbps. It was slower at Miami International Airport, LAX and Chicago O’Hare, however, with mean download speeds in the mid-to-upper 40s. At Phoenix Sky Harbor and Dallas-Fort Worth, though, download speed at the American Airlines Lounge was closer to the mid 20s.

Delta operates three separate SSIDs in Atlanta with “DeltaSkyClub” having the fastest downloads at 111.89 Mbps, “Delta_Guest” at 86.42 Mbps and “DeltaWiFi” at 28.65. In Detroit “DeltaSkyClub” delivered a download speed of 42.12 Mbps and 35.64 Mbps in Minneapolis. Downloads were even slower on this SSID at LaGuardia, Salt Lake City, Sea-Tac, JFK and LAX, with mean speeds that ranged from 15.91 Mbps to 23.20 Mbps.

The Alaska Lounge was the fastest at Sea-Tac with a mean download speed of 102.26 Mbps. The Avianca VIP Lounge was the fastest at Miami International with 55.58 Mbps.

TWA had the fastest Wi-Fi at JFK by far, outpacing other airline-affiliated SSIDs by at least 60 Mbps. Also at JFK, JetBlue’s “Fly-Fi” was slow at 9.83 Mbps but 61.1% faster than “JetBlue Hotspot.”

Wherever your travels may take you, remember the number one rule of Wi-Fi: if the connection is not secured, your data isn’t either. Once you’re safely at your gate (or chilling in the lounge), take a Speedtest so we can bring you an updated version of this list next year

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 3, 2022

5G Comes of Age: Five Predictions for 2022

2022 will see work start on defining 5G-Advanced (Release 18), while further spectrum will be assigned for 5G use, new networks rolled out (including private 5G) as well as testing and deployment of Open RAN, standalone (SA) 5G, mmWave, and use of the public cloud. All of this investment stems from the fact that 5G has been deemed to be a transformative technology … but how close are we to that reality? In the lead up to Mobile World Congress (MWC), we reflect on what operators and the wider ecosystem will focus on at the event and beyond when it comes to 5G. If you’d like to know more about these trends and more, we are happy to discuss them in person at MWC or virtually.

As 5G scales, global average speeds will fall and disparities widen

5G continued to scale during 2021, with the Ookla® 5G Map™ recording 5G deployments in 116 countries as of December 31, 2021, up from 99 countries on the same date a year ago. 2022 will see further spectrum auctions in key 5G bands, and further launches, extending 5G’s geographic reach to large but lower-ARPU markets in Latin America, Africa, the Indian subcontinent, and developing areas in Asia Pacific. Characterized by higher population density, lower ARPU and lower levels of fiber backhaul penetration, growth in new markets is likely to drive global 5G median speeds downwards. At the same time, 5G will offer significantly faster speeds than current 4G networks provide in these regions, and in many cases, 5G will help relieve the pressure on over-congested networks. It will also lead to lower average prices for 5G smartphones globally as vendors target these new markets.

Over the course of 2022, we’ll witness further deployments of SA 5G and in mid- and high-frequency spectrum, which will see some markets like the United States begin to play catch-up internationally, while extending the lead of others. We already see huge variation in 5G performance between markets — more so than any cellular technology to date — and even between competing in-market operators. Our end of year wrap up piece on 5G, Growing and Slowing: The State of 5G Worldwide in 2021, examined city-level 5G network performance and found that Seoul, South Korea was the fastest 5G market in Q3 2021 with a median download speed of 530.83 Mbps, while Brasilia, Brazil underperformed, recording only 58.81 Mbps. While backhaul infrastructure can be a bottleneck, particularly in more developing markets, we see two key levers by which regulators and operators can help drive performance improvements: spectrum availability in a combination of low, mid, and high bands and the level of network densification. The recent launch of 5G in the C-band by Verizon Wireless in the U.S. is a prime example, with Ookla®  Speedtest Intelligence® data showing an uplift in early speeds, but still leaving it behind market leader T-Mobile. 

Reducing the environmental impact of 5G is top of the agenda

We’ve already seen considerable attention from vendors and operators as they look to optimize network energy use and this will continue to be a key focus point for 2022 and beyond. While 5G itself is more efficient than 4G per unit of traffic (90% according to a joint study by Nokia & Telefonica), the sheer level of traffic it will support is projected to increase total network energy consumption by approximately 160% by 2030 according to ABI Research. With energy costs at record highs globally and the environmental impact of related emissions rising (despite on-going moves to decarbonize energy grids), the need to make 5G networks more energy efficient is only increasing. 

Putting parts of the RAN to sleep when demand is low is one key energy saving method, where operators can use machine learning and AI to predict traffic patterns and power down individual radios in a MIMO deployment — or even put entire cell sites to sleep. Maintaining legacy networks puts additional pressure on operator margins, while also perpetuating inefficiencies in terms of energy use. Planned generational sunsetting for 2G and 3G will see further spectral assets being made available for 5G, while also transitioning legacy connections to the more efficient technology. 2021 has seen the largest number of networks sunset so far — with 33 set to be turned off according to GSMA Intelligence — and this trend will continue in 2022.

Spectrum ownership and deployment models fall under the spotlight  

2022 will start to see the effectiveness of new models of 5G spectrum and network ownership weighed, starting with the Single Wholesale Network (SWN). Governments and regulators worldwide see 5G as a means to accelerate the digital transformation of their industries and foster economic growth. That’s why we see them playing a much more visible role in the 5G era, looking to spur deployment by providing incentives, easing regulatory and planning bottlenecks, and ensuring timely access to key spectrum bands. We’re also seeing new and in some cases recycled spectrum and network ownership models come to the fore, with innovative models of spectrum assignment like the CBRS band in the U.S.  and the allocation of spectrum to verticals (e.g., manufacturing in Germany). 2021 has already seen a number of mobile private networks launched and this trend will continue in 2022. The Government of Malaysia, having allocated spectrum to a special purpose vehicle (the Digital Nasional Berhad ) to deploy a single wholesale 5G network, is now reconsidering its approach to 5G deployment, with a decision due by the end of January. All eyes will be on the outcome of this decision, given the checkered history of SWNs to date, but it could provide an interesting case study for other markets to consider when launching 5G if successful.

Standalone 5G’s improvements to latency and upload performance begin to bear fruit

Speedtest Intelligence data clearly shows that headline 5G download performance trumps upload performance for network operators. While historically demand has been largely asymmetric, the trend to remote working as a result of the pandemic and continued growth in social media use and video calling increases the reliance on network uplink performance. Over time, we’re likely to see network operators begin to place more emphasis on differentiating their performance across both download and upload speeds. However, in the short term, we’ll start to see upload performance enhancements driven by the implementation of carrier aggregation where it allows operators to migrate uplink and control channels to lower-frequency bands, thereby expanding the reach and capacity of 5G networks, as well as the introduction of 256QAM and MIMO for uplink connections. 

However, speed is just one side of the 5G story. Release 16 brings about additional capabilities in terms of latency and density. Starting in 2022, 5G technology will go beyond pockets of high-speed mobile broadband to deliver low latency, high density, industry specific applications that make use of cloud and edge technologies to deliver widely available and immersive 5G consumer capabilities. Even though there are no concrete timelines for 5G network slicing commercial solutions, Google’s  recent Android 12 announcement brought network slicing one step closer to becoming a commercial reality. Google has already been testing networking slicing with Nokia and Ericsson, and Taiwan’s Far EasTone has conducted proof-of-concept trials using Android 12 devices connected to multiple 5G slices utilizing URSP.

5G networks become a platform for innovation 

MWC will showcase the ways enterprises are utilizing 5G technologies to change business models and create new value. 5G has been designed as a platform play from its inception, bringing together cloud and edge technologies into compelling services. Networks are increasingly becoming virtualized, as telcos consider hosting non network-related applications and moving more assets (such as network functions) to the public cloud in order to increase flexibility and reduce costs. Over the course of 2022, we’re likely to see more operators follow in Dish’s footsteps, which in April 2021 contracted AWS to provide RAN and core infrastructure for its cloud-native, open 5G network. To make this happen at scale, partnerships between hyperscalers and the wider ecosystem is a necessity: AWS, Microsoft, and Google, are already recruiting operators to their respective clouds across core as well as edge estates, as exhibited by the large number of partnerships signed over the past year.

5G has also been designed with enterprises’ requirements in mind. As such, 5G’s improvements in terms of lower latency, faster transmission speeds, and increased network capacity (massive IoT) open the door to digital transformation of enterprises, and what’s more important, enable new use cases. 5G SA offers the most benefits, allowing support for a wide range of devices and applications with more demanding bandwidth requirements, including wireless robots and real-time video surveillance, compared to Wi-Fi and 4G. 

That’s the theory but how are things working out in practice? RootMetrics® recently measured the performance of T-Mobile’s 5G SA vs NSA in Las Vegas. T-Mobile’s 5G SA network delivered speeds over twice as fast as its speed on NSA 5G. In the future, 5G SA will also deliver time-sensitive networking for high-precision devices. As operator deployments of 5G SA networks scale, so too will enterprise adoption of advanced 5G features such as edge computing and network slicing. Operators are already looking for ways to innovate and monetize 5G, with Softbank leveraging its 5G Consortium, consisting of vertical players, experts, and 5G partners, “to support advanced healthcare, automated driving and other next-generation societal infrastructure”.  

Ookla will be at MWC Barcelona 2022 later this month. Come visit us at our Stand 2I28 in Hall 2, to talk with us about the future of 5G.

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 8, 2020

U.S. Internet Speeds Increase 15.8% on Mobile and 19.6% on Fixed Broadband

The Q2 2020 Speedtest® United States Market Report by Ookla® is based on Speedtest Intelligence® data from over 1.6 million unique mobile user devices and 18.9 million fixed broadband devices performing more than 85.1 million consumer-initiated tests on Speedtest apps in the U.S. during the period.

Data from Speedtest Intelligence reveals median download speed over mobile in the U.S. increased 15.8% between Q2 2019 and Q2 2020 to 29.00 Mbps. The median upload speed for mobile was 5.74 Mbps, down 15.2% from Q2 2019.

Median download speed over fixed broadband increased 19.6% during the last year to 86.04 Mbps in Q2 2020, and median upload speed increased 1.5% to 11.86 Mbps in Q2 2020.

We saw a decline in mobile and fixed broadband download speeds in early March as consumer behavior shifted in response to the pandemic. Speeds have since rebounded on both mobile and fixed broadband. Read our week-by-week view of COVID-19’s impact on internet performance.

AT&T is fastest and most consistent

US_Report_Fastest_Mobile_Provider_June_2020

With a Speed Score of 41.23, AT&T was the fastest operator in competitive geographies in the U.S. during Q2 2020. AT&T also had the highest Consistency Score with 79.7% of Speedtest® results meeting or exceeding speed thresholds of 5 Mbps for download and 1 Mbps for upload.

To learn more about how operators performed for 4G Availability and latency, read the full report.

Mobile operators doubled down on 5G

All major U.S. operators were focused on implementing 5G over the past year.
AT&T continued to roll out its millimeter wave “5G+” network in parts of major cities. In addition, AT&T repurposed its 850 MHz low-band spectrum, previously used for 3G service, in parts of 30 states to offer improved 5G coverage.

Verizon launched new 5G markets and expanded its millimeter wave “Ultra Wideband” 5G footprint in parts of 35 cities. Verizon recently completed Dynamic Spectrum Sharing (DSS) field trials, and is expected to start leveraging its sub-6GHz spectrum for 5G by the end of the year.

In June 2019, T-Mobile launched their millimeter wave 5G in parts of six markets, followed by the nationwide rollout of 5G in the 600 MHz band to cover more than 200 million users. With the successful completion of the Sprint merger, T-Mobile accelerated the rollout of 5G in the 2.5 GHz band, which became commercially available in Philadelphia and New York City.

For specific information about how flagship phones performed and how speeds compare by manufacturer, read the full report.

Verizon has the fastest fixed broadband

US_Fastest_Fixed_Providers_June_2020
With a Speed Score of 117.14, Verizon had the fastest fixed broadband in the U.S. during Q2 2020. Verizon also had the lowest median latency at 9 ms. Spectrum provided the most consistent internet experience with a Consistency Score of 84.4%.

D.C. fastest for mobile, New Jersey for fixed

Analyzing performance at the state level, the District of Columbia showed the fastest median download speed on mobile during Q2 2020, while New Jersey showed the fastest median download speed over fixed broadband during the same period.

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania was the fastest city in the U.S. for mobile during Q2 2020 while Kansas City, Missouri was the fastest city for fixed broadband.

Read our full report for full rankings in all fifty states and the 100 most populous cities in the country. We also include data on providers’ performance in states and major cities.

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 5, 2018

Best Metros for Remote Workers: Where Fast Internet Meets Affordable Homes

“Work from anywhere with an internet connection” is a common refrain in today’s growing tech economy. If you want both a fast internet connection and an affordable home, use this list to discover the location of your new remote “office.”

Looking at Speedtest data from the 100 largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) in the U.S. during September 2018, we ranked each by their Speed Score over fixed broadband. Speed Score is a weighted measure of mean download and upload speeds that also considers performance at the lowest and highest tiers.

We then partnered with Zillow to compare our rankings to their data on median home value. Cities that ranked comparatively high for Speed Score and low for median home value made our list. The results present some interesting opportunities for digital nomads looking for a new home base.

Map-Legend-Speed-Score-3

Chattanooga takes the number one spot with a blend of fast internet speeds and affordable housing stock that make working from home (WFH) easy and appealing. Shreveport is number two and Kansas City places third. Five of the top ten metros were located in the Southeast and three in the Southwest. The western U.S. was notably absent from the top ten.

More affordable and fast cities if you plan to work from home

If you didn’t find your new best life on the map above, here is the full list of 25 places remote workers should consider. Each has the fast internet speeds that will keep you connected and the affordable home values that could help you reimagine your budget.

25 Best Cities for Remote Workers
Where fast internet meets affordable real estate

Based on September 2018 data from Speedtest and Zillow

WFH Rank MSA Name Speed Score Gigabit? Median Home Value
1 Chattanooga, TN-GA 151.23 Y $141,700
2 Shreveport, LA 107.66 N $103,300
3 Kansas City, MO-KS 128.76 Y $195,900
4 El Paso, TX 90.47 N $120,800
5 Pittsburgh, PA 102.14 Y $146,200
6 San Antonio, TX 119.97 Y $201,400
7 Oklahoma City, OK 95.13 Y $144,200
8 Jacksonville, FL 113.16 Y $210,200
9 Piedmont Triad, NC 89.50 Y $137,000
10 Charlotte-Gastonia, NC 115.59 Y $221,100
11 York, PA 103.04 Y $180,100
12 Wilmington, DE-NJ-MD 110.73 Y $219,800
13 Harrisburg, PA 100.22 Y $172,300
14 Raleigh-Durham, NC 128.91 Y $263,400
15 Houston, TX 104.94 Y $206,900
16 Syracuse, NY 82.75 N $128,800
17 Philadelphia, PA 110.86 Y $238,400
18 Baton Rouge, LA 90.86 Y $162,400
19 Davenport-Rock Island-Moline, IA/IL 83.85 Y $129,800
20 Wichita, KS 87.14 Y $143,600
21 Youngstown-Warren, OH 72.48 N $89,900
22 Louisville, KY-IN 91.04 Y $170,400
23 Richmond, VA 110.72 Y $235,900
24 Atlanta, GA 104.45 Y $216,700
25 Baltimore, MD 111.66 Y $260,500

The Southeast picks up another seven metros when looking at the full list of the 25 best metros for remote workers with a grand total of 12. North Carolina is home to three. As the Louisville, KY MSA straddles a regional border, we counted it in both the Southeast and the Midwest.

The Midwest and the Northeast are each home to five metros that made our list of best places to WFH. While the metros in the Midwest are spread widely, there’s a tight concentration of contenders in southeastern Pennsylvania. Pair those with Baltimore, MD and Wilmington, DE and you have a nice cluster of places to work from home that are a mere train ride away from one of a certain mega retailer’s new headquarters.

Four metros on our list of 25 best metros for remote workers are in the Southwest, three of which are in Texas. Sadly, the western U.S. loses out completely. Though left coast tech hubs like Silicon Valley and Seattle have access to internet speeds that make developers drool, high median home prices keep them out of the running. Instead, these digital strongholds are fast becoming the kinds of places that remote workers flee in the great rush toward more livable second cities.

Nine of the metros on our list are located in the rust belt. Could an economic resurgence be in the cards in these former manufacturing powerhouses? Maybe. What is certain is that these metros all contain two important ingredients to attract the kinds of people who innovate, create and build.

Do they have gigabit?

We all love fast internet, but not all metros have the infrastructure in place to offer gigabit speeds. If you need (or want) these super-fast speeds for work (or play), the “Gigabit?” column shows a “Y” for all metros where we saw at least 100 samples where download speeds exceeded 750 Mbps. Only four of the metros on our list failed to meet that threshold.

Of course access to gigabit is not always uniform across cities, so check with local internet service providers (ISPs) to verify these speeds are available at your new address.

Seeking out your own remote work haven? Zillow can help you find just the right place for your new home office. Just make sure you ask the seller to take a Speedtest before closing escrow.

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.

| January 21, 2021

New Year, Great Data: The Best Ookla Open Data Projects We’ve Seen So Far


When we announced Ookla® Open Datasets from Ookla For Good™ in October, we were hoping to see exciting projects that raise the bar on the conversation about internet speeds and accessibility — and you delivered. From analyses of internet inequity in the United States to measures of data affluence in India, today we’re highlighting four projects that really show what this data can do. We also have a new, simpler tutorial on how you can use this data for your own efforts to improve the state of networks worldwide.

Highlighting the digital divide in the U.S.

Jamie Saxon with the Center for Data and Computing at the University of Chicago married Ookla data on broadband performance with data from the American Community Survey to create interactive maps of the digital divide in 20 U.S. cities. These maps provide views into many variables that contribute to internet inequities.

Ookla_open_datasets_James_Saxon_0121-1

Building a data affluence map

Raj Bhagat P shows how different variables can be combined with this map of data affluence that combines data on internet speeds and device counts in India.

Ookla_open_datasets_Raj-Bhagat-P_0121-1

Internet speeds are beautiful

This map of fixed broadband speeds across Europe from Boris Mericskay shows that internet performance can be as visually stunning as a map of city lights.

Ookla_open_datasets_Boris-Mericskay_0121-1

Topi Tjunakov created a similar image of internet speeds in and around Japan.

Ookla_open_datasets_Topi-Tjunakov_0121-1

Use Ookla Open Datasets to make your own maps

This section will demonstrate a few possible ways to use Ookla Open Datasets using the United Kingdom as an example. The ideas can be adapted for any area around the world. This tutorial uses the R programming language, but there are also Python tutorials available in the Ookla Open Data GitHub repository.

library(tidyverse)
library(patchwork)
library(janitor)
library(ggrepel)
library(usethis)
library(lubridate)
library(colorspace)
library(scales)
library(kableExtra)
library(knitr)
library(sf)

# colors for plots
purple <- "#A244DA"
light_purple <- colorspace::lighten("#A244DA", 0.5)
green <- colorspace::desaturate("#2DE5D1", 0.2)
blue_gray <- "#464a62"
mid_gray <- "#ccd0dd"
light_gray <- "#f9f9fd"

# set some global theme defaults
theme_set(theme_minimal())
theme_update(text = element_text(family = "sans", color = "#464a62"))
theme_update(plot.title = element_text(hjust = 0.5, face = "bold"))
theme_update(plot.subtitle = element_text(hjust = 0.5))

Ookla Open Datasets include quarterly performance and test count data for both mobile networks and fixed broadband aggregated over all providers. The tests are binned into global zoom level 16 tiles which can be thought of as roughly a few football fields. As of today, all four quarters of 2020 are available and subsequent quarters will be added as they complete.

Administrative unit data

I chose to analyse the mobile data at the Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS) 3 level (1:1 million). These administrative units are maintained by the European Union to allow for comparable analysis across member states. NUTS 3 areas mean:

  • In England, upper tier authorities and groups of unitary authorities and districts
  • In Wales, groups of Principal Areas
  • In Scotland, groups of Council Areas or Islands Areas
  • In Northern Ireland, groups of districts

To make a comparison to the U.S. administrative structure, these can be roughly thought of as the size of counties. Here is the code you’ll want to use to download the NUTS shapefiles from the Eurostat site. Once the zipfile is downloaded you will need to unzip it again in order to read it into your R environment:

# create a directory called “data”
dir.create("data")
use_zip("https://gisco-services.ec.europa.eu/distribution/v2/nuts/download/ref-nuts-2021-01m.shp.zip", destdir = "data")

uk_nuts_3 <- read_sf("data/ref-nuts-2021-01m.shp/NUTS_RG_01M_2021_3857_LEVL_3.shp/NUTS_RG_01M_2021_3857_LEVL_3.shp") %>%
  filter(CNTR_CODE == "UK") %>%
  st_transform(4326) %>%
  clean_names() %>%
  mutate(urbn_desc = case_when( # add more descriptive labels for urban variable
    urbn_type == 1 ~ "Urban",
    urbn_type == 2 ~ "Intermediate",
    urbn_type == 3 ~ "Rural"
  ),
  urbn_desc = factor(urbn_desc, levels = c("Urban", "Intermediate", "Rural")))

# contextual city data
uk_cities <- read_sf("https://opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/6996f03a1b364dbab4008d99380370ed_0.geojson") %>%
  clean_names() %>%
  filter(fips_cntry == "UK", pop_rank <= 5)

ggplot(uk_nuts_3) +
  geom_sf(color = mid_gray, fill = light_gray, lwd = 0.08) +
  geom_text_repel(data = uk_cities, 
                           aes(label = city_name, geometry = geometry), 
                           family = "sans", 
                           color = blue_gray, 
                           size = 2.2, 
                           stat = "sf_coordinates",
                           min.segment.length = 2) +
  labs(title = "United Kingdom",
       subtitle = "NUTS 3 Areas") +
  theme(panel.grid.major = element_blank(),
        panel.grid.minor = element_blank(),
        axis.text = element_blank(),
        axis.title = element_blank())

plot_uk-1-1

Adding data from Ookla Open Datasets

You’ll want to crop the global dataset to the bounding box of the U.K. This will include some extra tiles (within the box but not within the country, i.e. some of western Ireland), but it makes the data much easier to work with later on.

uk_bbox <- uk_nuts_3 %>%
  st_union() %>% # otherwise would be calculating the bounding box of each individual area
  st_bbox()
  

Each of the quarters are stored in separate shapefiles. You can read them in one-by-one and crop them to the U.K. box in the same pipeline.

# download the data with the following code:

use_zip("https://ookla-open-data.s3.amazonaws.com/shapefiles/performance/type=mobile/year=2020/quarter=1/2020-01-01_performance_mobile_tiles.zip", destdir = "data")
use_zip("https://ookla-open-data.s3.amazonaws.com/shapefiles/performance/type=mobile/year=2020/quarter=2/2020-04-01_performance_mobile_tiles.zip", destdir = "data")
use_zip("https://ookla-open-data.s3.amazonaws.com/shapefiles/performance/type=mobile/year=2020/quarter=3/2020-07-01_performance_mobile_tiles.zip", destdir = "data")
use_zip("https://ookla-open-data.s3.amazonaws.com/shapefiles/performance/type=mobile/year=2020/quarter=4/2020-10-01_performance_mobile_tiles.zip", destdir = "data")

# and then read in those downloaded files
mobile_tiles_q1 <- read_sf("data/2020-01-01_performance_mobile_tiles/gps_mobile_tiles.shp") %>%
  st_crop(uk_bbox)
mobile_tiles_q2 <- read_sf("data/2020-04-01_performance_mobile_tiles/gps_mobile_tiles.shp") %>%
  st_crop(uk_bbox)
mobile_tiles_q3 <- read_sf("data/2020-07-01_performance_mobile_tiles/gps_mobile_tiles.shp") %>%
  st_crop(uk_bbox)
mobile_tiles_q4 <- read_sf("data/2020-10-01_performance_mobile_tiles/gps_mobile_tiles.shp") %>%
  st_crop(uk_bbox)

As you see, the tiles cover most of the area, with more tiles in more densely populated areas. (And note that you still have tiles included that are outside the boundary of the area but within the bounding box.)

ggplot(uk_nuts_3) +
  geom_sf(color = mid_gray, fill = light_gray, lwd = 0.08) +
  geom_sf(data = mobile_tiles_q4, fill = purple, color = NA) +
  geom_text_repel(data = uk_cities, 
                           aes(label = city_name, geometry = geometry), 
                           family = "sans", 
                           color = blue_gray, 
                           size = 2.2, 
                           stat = "sf_coordinates",
                           min.segment.length = 2) +
  labs(title = "United Kingdom",
       subtitle = "Ookla® Open Data Mobile Tiles, NUTS 3 Areas") +
  theme(panel.grid.major = element_blank(),
        panel.grid.minor = element_blank(),
        axis.text = element_blank(),
        axis.title = element_blank())

tile_map-1-3

Now that the cropped tiles are read in, you’ll use a spatial join to determine which NUTS 3 area each tile is in. In this step, I am also reprojecting the data to the British National Grid (meters). I’ve also added a variable to identify the time period (quarter).

tiles_q1_nuts <- uk_nuts_3 %>%
  st_transform(27700) %>% # British National Grid
  st_join(mobile_tiles_q1 %>% st_transform(27700), left = FALSE) %>%
  mutate(quarter_start = "2020-01-01")

tiles_q2_nuts <- uk_nuts_3 %>%
  st_transform(27700) %>%
  st_join(mobile_tiles_q2 %>% st_transform(27700), left = FALSE) %>%
  mutate(quarter_start = "2020-04-01")

tiles_q3_nuts <- uk_nuts_3 %>%
  st_transform(27700) %>%
  st_join(mobile_tiles_q3 %>% st_transform(27700), left = FALSE) %>%
  mutate(quarter_start = "2020-07-01")

tiles_q4_nuts <- uk_nuts_3 %>%
  st_transform(27700) %>%
  st_join(mobile_tiles_q4 %>% st_transform(27700), left = FALSE) %>%
  mutate(quarter_start = "2020-10-01")

In order to make the data easier to work with, combine the tiles into a long dataframe with each row representing one tile in one quarter. The geometry now represents the NUTS region, not the original tile shape.

tiles_all <- tiles_q1_nuts %>%
  rbind(tiles_q2_nuts) %>%
  rbind(tiles_q3_nuts) %>%
  rbind(tiles_q4_nuts) %>%
  mutate(quarter_start = ymd(quarter_start)) # convert to date format

With this dataframe, you can start to generate some aggregates. In this table you’ll include the tile count, test count, quarter and average download and upload speeds.

Exploratory data analysis

aggs_quarter <- tiles_all %>%
  st_set_geometry(NULL) %>%
  group_by(quarter_start) %>%
  summarise(tiles = n(),
            avg_d_mbps = weighted.mean(avg_d_kbps / 1000, tests), # I find Mbps easier to work with
            avg_u_mbps = weighted.mean(avg_u_kbps / 1000, tests),
            tests = sum(tests)) %>%
  ungroup()


knitr::kable(aggs_quarter) %>%
  kable_styling()

aggregates_table_kj

We can see from this table that both download and upload speeds increased throughout the year, with a small dip in upload speeds in Q2. Next, you’ll want to plot this data.

ggplot(aggs_quarter, aes(x = quarter_start)) +
  geom_point(aes(y = avg_d_mbps), color = purple) +
  geom_line(aes(y = avg_d_mbps), color = purple, lwd = 0.5) +
  geom_text(aes(y = avg_d_mbps - 2, label = round(avg_d_mbps, 1)), color = purple, size = 3, family = "sans") +
  geom_text(data = NULL, x = ymd("2020-02-01"), y = 47, label = "Download speed", color = purple, size = 3, family = "sans") +
  geom_point(aes(y = avg_u_mbps), color = light_purple) +
  geom_line(aes(y = avg_u_mbps), color = light_purple, lwd = 0.5) +
  geom_text(aes(y = avg_u_mbps - 2, label = round(avg_u_mbps, 1)), color = light_purple, size = 3, family = "sans") +
  geom_text(data = NULL, x = ymd("2020-02-05"), y = 14, label = "Upload speed", color = light_purple, size = 3, family = "sans") +
  labs(y = "", x = "Quarter start date",
       title = "Mobile Network Performance, U.K.",
       subtitle = "Ookla® Open Datasets | 2020") +
  theme(panel.grid.minor = element_blank(),
        panel.grid.major = element_blank(),
        axis.title.x = element_text(hjust=1)) +
  scale_y_continuous(labels = label_number(suffix = " Mbps", scale = 1, accuracy = 1)) +
  scale_x_date(date_labels = "%b %d")

line_up_down-1

Examining test counts

We also saw above that the number of tests decreased between Q1 and Q2 and then peaked in Q3 at a little over 700,000 before coming back down. The increase likely followed resulted from interest in network performance during COVID-19 when more people started working from home. This spike is even more obvious in chart form.

ggplot(aggs_quarter, aes(x = quarter_start)) +
  geom_point(aes(y = tests), color = purple) +
  geom_line(aes(y = tests), color = purple, lwd = 0.5) +
  geom_text(aes(y = tests - 6000, label = comma(tests), x= quarter_start + 5), size = 3, color = purple) +
  labs(y = "", x = "Quarter start date",
       title = "Mobile Test Count, U.K.",
       subtitle = "Ookla® Open Datasets | 2020") +
  theme(panel.grid.minor = element_blank(),
        panel.grid.major = element_blank(),
        axis.title.x = element_text(hjust=1),
        axis.text = element_text(color = blue_gray)) +
  scale_y_continuous(labels = comma) +
  scale_x_date(date_labels = "%b %d")

line_tests-1-1

Data distribution

Next, I wanted to check the distribution of average download speeds.

ggplot(tiles_all) + 
  geom_histogram(aes(x = avg_d_kbps / 1000, group = quarter_start), size = 0.3, color = light_gray, fill = green) + 
  scale_x_continuous(labels = label_number(suffix = " Mbps", accuracy = 1)) +
  scale_y_continuous(labels = comma) +
  facet_grid(quarter_start ~ .) +
  theme(panel.grid.minor = element_blank(), 
        panel.grid.major = element_blank(), 
        axis.title.x = element_text(hjust=1),
        axis.text = element_text(color = blue_gray),
        strip.text.y = element_text(angle = 0, color = blue_gray)) + 
  labs(y = "", x = "", title = "Mobile Download Speed Distribution by Tile, U.K.", 
       subtitle = "Ookla® Open Datasets | 2020")

histogram-1-1

The underlying distribution of average download speeds across the tiles has stayed fairly stable.

Mapping average speed

Making a quick map of the average download speed in each region across the U.K. is relatively simple.

# generate aggregates table
nuts_3_aggs <- tiles_all %>%
  group_by(quarter_start, nuts_id, nuts_name, urbn_desc, urbn_type) %>%
  summarise(tiles = n(),
            avg_d_mbps = weighted.mean(avg_d_kbps / 1000, tests), # I find Mbps easier to work with
            avg_u_mbps = weighted.mean(avg_u_kbps / 1000, tests),
            tests = sum(tests)) %>%
  ungroup()
ggplot(nuts_3_aggs %>% filter(quarter_start == "2020-10-01")) +
  geom_sf(aes(fill = avg_d_mbps), color = blue_gray, lwd = 0.08) +
  scale_fill_stepsn(colors = RColorBrewer::brewer.pal(n = 5, name = "BuPu"), labels = label_number(suffix = " Mbps"), n.breaks = 4, guide = guide_colorsteps(title = "")) +
  theme(panel.grid.minor = element_blank(),
        panel.grid.major = element_blank(),
        axis.title.x = element_text(hjust=1),
        legend.text = element_text(color = blue_gray),
        axis.text = element_blank()) +
  labs(title = "Mobile Download Speed, U.K.", subtitle = "Ookla® Open Datasets | Q4 2020")

choropleth-1-1

As you can see, the areas around large cities have faster download speeds on average and the lowest average download speeds are typically in more rural areas.

Rural and urban analysis

People are often interested in the difference between mobile networks in urban and rural areas. The Eurostat NUTS data includes an urban indicator with three levels: rural, intermediate and urban. This typology is determined primarily by population density and proximity to a population center.

ggplot(uk_nuts_3) +
  geom_sf(aes(fill = urbn_desc), color = light_gray, lwd = 0.08) +
  geom_text_repel(data = uk_cities, 
                           aes(label = city_name, geometry = geometry), 
                           family = "sans", 
                           color = "#1a1b2e", 
                           size = 2.2, 
                           stat = "sf_coordinates",
                           min.segment.length = 2) +
  scale_fill_manual(values = c(purple, light_purple, green), name = "", guide = guide_legend(direction = "horizontal", label.position = "top", keywidth = 3, keyheight = 0.5)) +
  labs(title = "U.K., NUTS 3 Areas") +
  theme(panel.grid.major = element_blank(),
        panel.grid.minor = element_blank(),
        axis.text = element_blank(),
        axis.title = element_blank(),
        legend.position = "top")

rural_urban_reference-1

Data distribution overall and over time

When you aggregate by the urban indicator variable different patterns come up in the data.

# generate aggregates table
rural_urban_aggs <- tiles_all %>%
  st_set_geometry(NULL) %>%
  group_by(quarter_start, urbn_desc, urbn_type) %>%
  summarise(tiles = n(),
            avg_d_mbps = weighted.mean(avg_d_kbps / 1000, tests), # I find Mbps easier to work with
            avg_u_mbps = weighted.mean(avg_u_kbps / 1000, tests),
            tests = sum(tests)) %>%
  ungroup()

As you might expect, the download speeds during Q4 are faster in urban areas than in rural areas – with the intermediate ones somewhere in between. This pattern holds for other quarters as well.

ggplot(rural_urban_aggs %>% filter(quarter_start == "2020-10-01"), aes(x = avg_d_mbps, y = urbn_desc, fill = urbn_desc)) +
  geom_col(width = .3, show.legend = FALSE) +
  geom_jitter(data = nuts_3_aggs, aes(x = avg_d_mbps, y = urbn_desc, color = urbn_desc), size = 0.7) + 
  geom_text(aes(x = avg_d_mbps - 4, label = round(avg_d_mbps, 1)), family = "sans",  size = 3.5, color = blue_gray) +
  scale_fill_manual(values = c(purple, light_purple, green)) +
  scale_color_manual(values = darken(c(purple, light_purple, green))) +
  scale_x_continuous(labels = label_number(suffix = " Mbps", scale = 1, accuracy = 1)) +
  theme(panel.grid.minor = element_blank(),
        panel.grid.major = element_blank(),
        axis.title.x = element_text(hjust=1),
        legend.position = "none",
        axis.text = element_text(color = blue_gray)) +
  labs(y = "", x = "", 
       title = "Mobile Download Speed Distribution by NUTS 3 Area, U.K.", 
       subtitle = "Ookla® Open Datasets | 2020")  

rural_urban_bar-1-2
Interestingly though, the patterns differ when you look at a time series plot. Urban mobile networks steadily improve, while the intermediate and rural areas saw slower average download speeds starting in Q2 before going back up after Q3. This is likely the result of increased pressure on the networks during stay-at-home orders (although this graph is not conclusive evidence of that).

ggplot(rural_urban_aggs) +
  geom_line(aes(x = quarter_start, y = avg_d_mbps, color = urbn_desc)) +
  geom_point(aes(x = quarter_start, y = avg_d_mbps, color = urbn_desc)) +
  # urban label
  geom_text(data = NULL, x = ymd("2020-02-01"), y = 50, label = "Urban", color = purple, family = "sans", size = 3) +
  # intermediate label
  geom_text(data = NULL, x = ymd("2020-02-15"), y = 35, label = "Intermediate", color = light_purple, family = "sans", size = 3) +
  # rural label
  geom_text(data = NULL, x = ymd("2020-01-15"), y = 26, label = "Rural", color = green, family = "sans", size = 3) +
  scale_color_manual(values = c(purple, light_purple, green)) +
  scale_x_date(date_labels = "%b %d") +
  scale_y_continuous(labels = label_number(suffix = " Mbps", scale = 1, accuracy = 1)) +
  theme(panel.grid.minor = element_blank(),
        panel.grid.major = element_blank(),
        axis.title.x = element_text(hjust=1),
        legend.position = "none",
        axis.text = element_text(color = blue_gray)) +
  labs(y = "", x = "Quarter start date", 
       title = "Mobile Download Speed by NUTS 3 Urban-Rural Type, U.K.", 
       subtitle = "Ookla® Open Datasets | 2020") 

rural_urban_line-1-1

When you repeat the same plot but map the test count to the site of the point, you can see why the overall download speed increased steadily. The number of tests in urban areas is much higher than in intermediate and rural areas, thus pulling up the overall average.

ggplot(rural_urban_aggs) +
  geom_line(aes(x = quarter_start, y = avg_d_mbps, color = urbn_desc)) +
  geom_point(aes(x = quarter_start, y = avg_d_mbps, color = urbn_desc, size = tests)) +
  # urban label
  geom_text(data = NULL, x = ymd("2020-02-01"), y = 50, label = "Urban", color = purple, family = "sans", size = 3) +
  # intermediate label
  geom_text(data = NULL, x = ymd("2020-02-15"), y = 35, label = "Intermediate", color = light_purple, family = "sans", size = 3) +
  # rural label
  geom_text(data = NULL, x = ymd("2020-01-15"), y = 26, label = "Rural", color = green, family = "sans", size = 3) +
  scale_color_manual(values = c(purple, light_purple, green)) +
  scale_x_date(date_labels = "%b %d") +
  scale_y_continuous(labels = label_number(suffix = " Mbps", scale = 1, accuracy = 1)) +
  theme(panel.grid.minor = element_blank(),
        panel.grid.major = element_blank(),
        axis.title.x = element_text(hjust=1),
        legend.position = "none",
        axis.text = element_text(color = blue_gray)) +
  labs(y = "", x = "Quarter start date", 
       title = ("Mobile Download Speed by NUTS 3 Urban-Rural Type, U.K."), 
       subtitle = "Ookla® Open Datasets | 2020",
       caption = "Circle size indicates test count")  

rural_urban_line_size-1-1

Spotlighting regional variances

Parsing the data by specific geographies can reveal additional information.

bottom_20_q4 <- nuts_3_aggs %>% 
  filter(quarter_start == "2020-10-01") %>% 
  top_n(n = -20, wt = avg_d_mbps) %>%
  mutate(nuts_name = fct_reorder(factor(nuts_name), -avg_d_mbps))
map <- ggplot() +
  geom_sf(data = uk_nuts_3, fill = light_gray, color = mid_gray, lwd = 0.08) +
  geom_sf(data = bottom_20_q4, aes(fill = urbn_desc), color = mid_gray, lwd = 0.08, show.legend = FALSE) +
  geom_text_repel(data = uk_cities, 
                           aes(label = city_name, geometry = geometry), 
                           family = "sans", 
                           color = blue_gray, 
                           size = 2.2, 
                           stat = "sf_coordinates",
                           min.segment.length = 2) +
  scale_fill_manual(values = c(purple, light_purple, green), name = "", guide = guide_legend(direction = "horizontal", label.position = "top", keywidth = 3, keyheight = 0.5)) +
  labs(title = NULL,
       subtitle = NULL) +
  theme(panel.grid.major = element_blank(),
        panel.grid.minor = element_blank(),
        axis.text = element_blank(),
        axis.title = element_blank(),
        legend.position = "top")
barplot <- ggplot(data = bottom_20_q4, aes(x = avg_d_mbps, y = nuts_name, fill = urbn_desc)) +
  geom_col(width = .5) +
  scale_fill_manual(values = c(purple, light_purple, green), guide = guide_legend(direction = "horizontal", label.position = "top", keywidth = 3, keyheight = 0.5, title = NULL)) +
  scale_x_continuous(labels = label_number(suffix = " Mbps", scale = 1, accuracy = 1)) +
  theme(panel.grid.minor = element_blank(),
        panel.grid.major = element_blank(),
        axis.title.x = element_text(hjust=1),
        legend.position = "top",
        axis.text = element_text(color = blue_gray)) +
  labs(y = "", x = "", 
       title = ("Slowest 20 NUTS 3 Areas by Download Speed, U.K."), 
       subtitle = "Ookla® Open Datasets | Q4 2020") 
# use patchwork to put it all together
barplot + map

bottom_20-1-2
Among the 20 areas with the lowest average download speed in Q4 2020 there were three urban areas and six intermediate. The rest were rural.

top_20_q4 <- nuts_3_aggs %>% 
  filter(quarter_start == "2020-10-01") %>% 
  top_n(n = 20, wt = avg_d_mbps) %>%
  mutate(nuts_name = fct_reorder(factor(nuts_name), avg_d_mbps))
top_map <- ggplot() +
  geom_sf(data = uk_nuts_3, fill = light_gray, color = mid_gray, lwd = 0.08) +
  geom_sf(data = top_20_q4, aes(fill = urbn_desc), color = mid_gray, lwd = 0.08, show.legend = FALSE) +
  geom_text_repel(data = uk_cities, 
                           aes(label = city_name, geometry = geometry), 
                           family = "sans", 
                           color = blue_gray, 
                           size = 2.2, 
                           stat = "sf_coordinates",
                           min.segment.length = 2) +
  scale_fill_manual(values = c(purple, light_purple, green), name = "", guide = guide_legend(direction = "horizontal", label.position = "top", keywidth = 3, keyheight = 0.5)) +
  labs(title = NULL,
       subtitle = NULL) +
  theme(panel.grid.major = element_blank(),
        panel.grid.minor = element_blank(),
        axis.text = element_blank(),
        axis.title = element_blank(),
        legend.position = "top")
top_barplot <- ggplot(data = top_20_q4, aes(x = avg_d_mbps, y = nuts_name, fill = urbn_desc)) +
  geom_col(width = .5) +
  scale_fill_manual(values = c(purple, light_purple, green), guide = guide_legend(direction = "horizontal", label.position = "top", keywidth = 3, keyheight = 0.5, title = NULL)) +
  scale_x_continuous(labels = label_number(suffix = " Mbps", scale = 1, accuracy = 1), breaks = c(50, 100)) +
  theme(panel.grid.minor = element_blank(),
        panel.grid.major = element_blank(),
        axis.title.x = element_text(hjust=1),
        legend.position = "top",
        axis.text = element_text(color = blue_gray)) +
  labs(y = "", x = "", 
       title = "Fastest 20 NUTS 3 Areas by Mobile Download Speed, U.K.", 
       subtitle = "Ookla® Open Datasets | Q4 2020") 
top_london <- ggplot() +
  geom_sf(data = uk_nuts_3 %>% filter(str_detect(fid, "UKI")), fill = light_gray, color = mid_gray, lwd = 0.08) +
  geom_sf(data = top_20_q4 %>% filter(str_detect(nuts_id, "UKI")), aes(fill = urbn_desc), color = mid_gray, lwd = 0.08, show.legend = FALSE) +
  geom_text_repel(data = uk_cities %>% filter(city_name == "London"), 
                           aes(label = city_name, geometry = geometry), 
                           family = "sans", 
                           color = "black", 
                           size = 2.2, 
                           stat = "sf_coordinates",
                           min.segment.length = 2) +
  scale_fill_manual(values = c(purple, light_purple, green), name = "", guide = guide_legend(direction = "horizontal", label.position = "top", keywidth = 3, keyheight = 0.5)) +
  labs(title = NULL,
       subtitle = NULL) +
  theme(panel.grid.major = element_blank(),
        panel.grid.minor = element_blank(),
        axis.text = element_blank(),
        axis.title = element_blank(),
        legend.position = "top",
        panel.border = element_rect(colour = blue_gray, fill=NA, size=0.5))
top_map_comp <- top_map + inset_element(top_london, left = 0.6, bottom = 0.6, right = 1, top = 1)

top_barplot + top_map_comp

top_20-1-1
Meanwhile, all of the fastest 20 NUTS 3 areas were urban.

What else you can do with this data

Don’t forget there are also more tutorials with examples written in Python and R. Aside from what I showed here, you could do an interesting analysis looking at clustering patterns, sociodemographic variables and other types of administrative units like legislative or school districts.

We hope this tutorial will help you use Ookla’s open data for your own projects. Please tag us if you share your projects on social media using the hashtag #OoklaForGood so we can learn from your analyses.

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 7, 2016

Cleveland Wins the World Series… of Mobile Speed

Cubs fans rejoiced early Thursday morning when Cleveland’s final play landed in Anthony Rizzo’s glove and ended the 108-year curse of the goat. But they might not realize that all of their celebratory tweets, selfies and phone calls may have been interminably delayed if that game had taken place in Chicago.

That’s because Speedtest data shows the one contest Cleveland did win this past week was the battle for the fastest mobile internet speeds.

While neither ball field had amazing speeds (something that won’t surprise you if you’ve tried to connect to the internet at any crowded event), fans at games held in Cleveland were treated to an average download speed nearly twice as fast as those at Chicago’s Wrigley Field.

What’s interesting about results from World Series games is that the average upload speed at Cleveland’s Progressive Field is even faster than the average download speed — something that’s rarely true on mobile networks. Meanwhile, Wrigley Field’s average upload speed was only slightly faster than that in Yan Gomes’s native Brazil. Fans connecting on T-Mobile had a clear advantage in upload speed at both fields, while those using AT&T experienced the slowest connections overall.

For reference, average mobile download speed in the U.S. was 19.61 Mbps in Q1-Q2 2016. Average upload speed was 7.94 Mbps. Chicago’s average download speed was 18.14 Mbps and average upload was 9.56 Mbps, while Cleveland’s average speeds were 20.73 Mbps for downloads and 8.97 Mbps for uploads. That means the download speed at Wrigley Field was less than half Chicago’s average, while the download speed Progressive Field was a little slower than Cleveland’s overall. The Progressive Field upload speed was 75% higher than Cleveland’s average.<

Test stats

Cleveland also triumphed in overall tests taken with 333 Speedtest results at Progressive Field and only 75 at Wrigley. You might also notice the lack of results from Sprint customers at Wrigley. Rapt attention or failure to connect, we decline to speculate. But we can only share the stats we have.

So if you want to help prove your home field, stadium, rink, or court is the faster than your rival’s, download our app for Android or iOS and take a Speedtest at the next game. Tweet your result at us with #Crowdspeed or watch here for our next analysis.

Victory Parade

Fear not faithful Cubs fans, your mobile speeds at Grant Park during Friday’s victory celebration, though slow, were pretty impressive for the seventh largest gathering in human history. The average upload speed was 5.88 Mbps and the average download was 3.42 Mbps.

While those speeds might frustrate a U.S. mobile user on any random day, you were probably so immersed in the glory of your historic victory that you didn’t even notice. We can tell, because only 34 tests were taken.

World Series and to Cleveland fans for winning the World Series of internet speeds! If you want to capture the title of fastest sports venue in America next year for your team, be sure to take a Speedtest at the home games. Between plays and celebratory tweets, of course.

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 11, 2020

New Consumer Sentiment Data Reveals Relationship Between Network Performance and Customer Satisfaction

At Ookla® we believe speeds are a foundational measure of customer experience. But what happens when a customer is getting great speeds and still isn’t happy with their provider? Would that provider even know? This is why we ask Speedtest® users to rate their provider on a five-star scale at the end of a test. The resulting data forms the core of Consumer SentimentTM, a new dashboard in Speedtest Intelligence®. With Consumer Sentiment, we can gauge customer satisfaction and pair that information with performance data to get a full picture of customer experience.

We analyzed Consumer Sentiment data on ratings from the United States in Q4 2019 to gauge some of the nuances of customer satisfaction.

Overall customer satisfaction varies widely by location and operator

Ookla’s five-star rating system gauges a customer’s overall satisfaction with a provider’s service and brand. Comparing ratings data across the home states of the top four mobile operators in the U.S., we saw that customers’ perception of their operators varies between the states.

chart-mobile-ops-ratings-us

Speedtest Intelligence shows T-Mobile consistently had among the best ratings with their highest average rating (3.7) in Kansas and their lowest (3.5) in both Texas and Washington. Average customer ratings for AT&T ranged between a low of 2.9 in their home state of Texas to a high of 3.5 in Washington State. Sprint’s highest average rating (3.8) was in their home state of Kansas, while their lowest rating (2.7) was in Texas. Verizon’s highest rating (3.4) was in Kansas and New York, while their lowest (2.9) was in Washington.

Kansas showed the highest ratings for almost all operators, with the exception of AT&T which was 0.1 higher in Washington than in Kansas. Texas showed the lowest. This Consumer Sentiment data from Speedtest Intelligence forms a jumping off point for providers to investigate what else might be going on in those locations, whether it’s infrastructure that needs improvement or a perception challenge.

Performance data plus Consumer Sentiment tells a broader story

We paired Speedtest Intelligence data on mean download speed in each of the states considered with Consumer Sentiment ratings to see how speed might affect customer satisfaction.
Ookla_Download_Speeds_Customer_Ratings_Mobile_Operators_US_0220
We found that having the fastest mean download speed in a location does not necessarily indicate that an operator will have the highest Consumer Sentiment ratings. In two states, Kansas and Washington, the operator with the fastest speed also had (or tied for) the highest rating. In New York, however, Verizon had the fastest speed, while T-Mobile had the highest rating. In Texas, Sprint had the fastest speed and the lowest rating.

Analyzing performance at different ratings tiers

To better understand the relationship between network performance and customer satisfaction, we broke out performance results by star ratings. Looking more deeply at mean performance data at each ratings tier, we can see that consumers with higher speeds and lower latency generally gave higher ratings.

chart-mean-fixed-download

chart-mean-fixed-upload-1

chart-mean-fixed-latency-5

Location alone does not account for satisfaction

Based on the “happy Kansas, unhappy Texas” data above, it might be easy to assume that satisfaction is regional. However, such an assumption could cause a provider to overlook important nuances of customer contentment. For example, an examination of Consumer Sentiment ratings data from the five boroughs of New York City reveals that satisfaction varied among the boroughs and between ratings by mobile and fixed customers.

chart-mobile-ops-ratings-nyc

A fixed broadband provider might think Manhattan was the unhappiest borough of all, when in fact they had the highest Consumer Sentiment ratings among mobile customers. The story in Queens was the opposite, with that borough showing the highest overall satisfaction for fixed broadband we saw in all of New York City. Meanwhile, their overall satisfaction on mobile was among the lowest reported.
Ookla_Mobile_Fixed_Speeds_Ratings_NYC_0220
As we saw above with the state data, the locations with the fastest speeds were not necessarily the locations with the highest Consumer Sentiment ratings.

There is much more to explore here, and Consumer Sentiment in Speedtest Intelligence gives providers a new layer of data to understand how consumers’ real-life experience impacts their satisfaction. Consumer Sentiment can be tracked over time and benchmarked against competitors, without the overhead of custom market research. Curious how satisfied your customers are with their overall network performance? Request a demo of the new Consumer Sentiment dashboard in Speedtest Intelligence.

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.

| January 6, 2020

Football Playoffs Take Out Sports Betting Site FanDuel

The NFL playoffs are an inopportune time for a fantasy sports and betting site like FanDuel to be down, but a period of increased usage is exactly what can take a website out of commission. Downdetector® reports that FanDuel crashed on January 4, 2020 and January 5, 2020, just when football fans were reaching near peak excitement for the season. We have data on when FanDuel went down, how severe those outages were and where frustrated users were located.

How the outages played out

FanDuel Outages During Playoffs per Downdetector®
January 4-5, 2020
Date Reports Approx. Duration of Reports (Hours)
January 4, 2020 (outage 1) 1140 1.25
January 4, 2020 (outage 2) 5757 3.50
January 5, 2020 2248 7.00

January 4 (outages 1 and 2)

The Texans had barely started playing the Bills on Saturday, January 4 when reports of FanDuel being down started rolling in, primarily from Chicago, Brooklyn and Pittsburgh. This outage was relatively short, but then so was the reprieve.

New outage reports spiked right about kickoff time for the Titans v. Patriots. This outage was both more severe, showing 5 times as many reports, and lasted longer. Sports fans in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Indianapolis provided the highest number of outage reports.

Pennsylvania and Indiana are two states where FanDuel users can legally bet online.

January 5

On Sunday, January 5, it was the Seahawks v. Eagles that gave FanDuel the most trouble with an outage that started right before kickoff and petered along for about 7 hours. The highest concentration of reports came from Pennsylvania, home territory of the Eagles.

Will FanDuel be ready for The Big Game?

Outages are not isolated incidents, and previous outages on November 28 and December 29 could have been warning signals for FanDuel site managers. We hope these issues don’t pop up again when fans around the world tune into the Big Game on February 2, but we can’t say for certain.

If you’re concerned about outages on your site, Downdetector can help. Downdetector helps reduce downtime by providing data on regions and services affected that can point to a root cause. Learn more about how Downdetector can help you.

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 12, 2017

Analyzing Internet Speeds at the Busiest Airports in North America

The last time we analyzed internet speeds at airports in North America, we focused entirely on the busiest airports in the U.S. As part of our series on the fastest airports around the world, this time we’re expanding to include the busiest airports across the entire North American continent.

Using Speedtest data from March-May 2017, we’re ranking free airport Wi-Fi and cellular speeds at 30 airports from Calgary to Panamá City. For airports we’ve examined before, we’ve also included details on how much their speeds have improved, or (sadly) declined.

Fastest airport Wi-Fi

Free airport Wi-Fi is clearly an expectation travelers have at North American airports and many airports are rising to the challenge. Once again, Denver International’s Wi-Fi is fast. In fact, downloads at Denver’s airport are 27% faster than the last time we crunched the numbers. Even better, it’s the fastest Wi-Fi we’ve seen at any airport on the planet. Second fastest in North America and (as far as airports we’ve examined in Africa, Asia, Europe and North America) second fastest in the world is Vancouver International Airport.


Flyers at international airports in Philadelphia, San Francisco, Seattle-Tacoma and Calgary should also be delighted with the free airport Wi-Fi they see at those hubs—all of which are faster than any free airport Wi-Fi we saw in Asia, Europe or Africa. Though mostly slower than the average mobile Wi-Fi download speed in the U.S. (57.31 Mbps) and Canada (51.17 Mbps), travelers at these airports should have no complaints about Wi-Fi speeds.

Wi-Fi download speeds at airports in Boston, Dallas-Fort Worth and Mexico City are about as fast as those in Moscow or Seoul. Miami’s speed is similar to that in Delhi. Meanwhile the speeds in Toronto, Atlanta and Montréal were slower than any Wi-Fi we saw in Africa, though comparable to many airports in China. The Wi-Fi at Benito Juárez is 87% faster than Mexico’s country average for mobile Wi-Fi of 14.81 Mbps.

We were delighted to see how much some airports had improved their Wi-Fi download speeds in the last 6 months. San Francisco, in particular, offered a 718% improvement. Boston was up 283%, LaGuardia increased 145% and Orlando 124%. And then there are the airports where Wi-Fi got slower: Miami, Chicago, and Newark all saw double-digit drops.

We saw no tests on the published free airport Wi-Fi SSIDs in San Salvador, Cancún, Panamá City and San José. Guadalajara did not seem to have free airport Wi-Fi.

Fastest airport cell

Canada’s airports rule when it comes to the fastest cellular service at airports in North America. Of the top five airports with the fastest download speeds over cellular, only one (Detroit) is located in the U.S., and pretty close to the Canadian border at that. That makes sense considering Canada has the fastest cellular download speeds for the country as a whole (33.40 Mbps) of any of the countries included in this analysis. Vancouver and Toronto had particularly fast cellular download speeds, faster than any other airports we’ve examined, including those in Munich or Rome.


Of the next 10 fastest airports for cellular downloads, Mexico City is the only one not in the U.S. Ranging from nearly 20 Mbps to just over 30 Mbps, download speeds at these airports most closely resemble those in South Africa.

It’s a little surprising how many major U.S. airports have cellular download speeds that are about half as slow as the country-wide average of 22.64 Mbps during the same time period. Monseñor Óscar Arnulfo Romero International Airport in San Salvador fares better with a download speed that’s more than twice as fast as the El Salvadorean average of 8.13 Mbps.

Elsewhere on the continent, airport speeds more closely mirror country averages. Of the airports we looked at in Mexico, both Benito Juárez and Guadalajara closely straddle the country average of 19.75 Mbps, while Cancún falls a little behind. Tocumen is only somewhat slower than the 13.03 Mbps average download speed in Panamá and Juan Santamaría International Airport in San José is barely above Costa Rica’s 3.37 Mbps.

The 60% improvement in cellular download speeds at Denver International is impressive and Phoenix Sky Harbor, LaGuardia, George Bush Metropolitan and Detroit Intercontinental all showed double-digit increases. Disappointing, though is the fact that cellular download speeds decreased at 9 of the 30 airports we’d previously surveyed.

Wi-Fi or cell?

The answer to this question very much varies depending on which airport you’re at, providing you’re somewhere that both free airport Wi-Fi and cellular service are available.


Canadian airports have such great cellular speeds that you can skip the Wi-Fi. Even though Wi-Fi is technically faster in Calgary. And you’re better off with Wi-Fi in Mexico City.

U.S. airports are all over the map when it comes to choosing Wi-Fi or cell. Nothing beats the Wi-Fi download speed at the Denver airport and, in general, Wi-Fi tends to be faster than cell speeds at airports in the western (but not southwestern) U.S. Wi-Fi is better than cell throughout the northeastern U.S. Meanwhile, airports from Houston to Orlando have better cellular service. But then you’re back to Wi-Fi in Miami.

Regional trends

Canada

Canada has great cellular speeds overall but the Wi-Fi varies a lot by airport. It’s poor at the two easternmost airports we looked at and wonderfully fast at the two westernmost airports.

Central America

Free Wi-Fi is a no-go at the Central American airports we looked at and cellular speeds varied widely depending on the country.

Mexico

Cellular service is a safe bet in Mexico. Though free Wi-Fi is faster at Benito Juárez International Airport, it’s either not available or untested at the other two airports we surveyed and the cellular speeds aren’t terrible at any of the three.

United States

Because we looked at so many airports in the U.S., it became difficult to draw larger trend lines through the data. Unless you’re at LaGuardia or LAX, cellular speeds are pretty good. Free Wi-Fi is generally available, though slow in Atlanta, Minneapolis, Orlando and Phoenix. We’re excited that cellular speeds are getting better in most places and mystified by the places where Wi-Fi is even slower than before.

Do these findings mirror your experience? Do you want us to check out other airports? Take a Speedtest on iOS or Android to help us all better understand internet performance around the globe.

Editor’s note: This article was updated on July 14, 2017 to include data on Vancouver Airport’s Wi-Fi once the SSID was confirmed.

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 12, 2018

How Much Have Wi-Fi Speeds Improved at the Largest Airports in the US and Canada?

Summer’s here and travelers across North America are flooding airports with suitcases and mobile devices, so we’re back with a fresh look at Wi-Fi speeds in the busiest airports in the U.S. and Canada. We can’t help you with the long security lines, but we can give you a heads up on whether the Wi-Fi’s fast enough to keep you entertained or if you’re better off wandering in search of the best coffee on each concourse.

This year we looked at Speedtest results from January through April 2018 on free Wi-Fi at each airport. We then compared this year’s speeds with those from March through May 2017 as outlined in our fastest airports coverage last year.

Seattle takes the lead

Seattle has now taken the crown of fastest airport Wi-Fi in North America from Denver, a strong contender that had held the title for two years running. Seattle’s also faster than our other global winners from last year including Gold Coast Airport in Australia, Congonhas-São Paulo Airport in Brazil, Dubai International, Seoul Incheon International Airport in South Korea, Sheremetyevo International Airport in Russia and Mohammed V International Airport in Morocco.

One interesting note about Denver’s Wi-Fi setup is that they appear to have separate SSIDs set up for 5 GHz and 2.4 GHz connections. The 5 GHz band is very effective for providing lots of capacity within relatively short distance and usually at faster speeds. But some older devices only operate on 2.4 GHz connections, so it’s nice to see that option called out, and 2.4 GHz can provide connectivity over a longer distance which could be crucial at a large airport like Denver. With a mean download speed of 18.04 Mbps, Denver’s 2.4 GHz SSID was significantly slower than its 5 GHz counterpart. We saw a similar split of service when investigating speeds at Seoul Incheon International Airport.

Third place Calgary had the fastest Wi-Fi download speed of any of the airports we looked at in Canada.

There are far too many airports on this list with a mean download of less than 10 Mbps. Free Wi-Fi is good. Free Wi-Fi that’s fast enough to keep travelers happily entertained is even better.

Atlanta’s massive improvement

In Atlanta, mean download speed over Hartsfield-Jackson’s free public Wi-Fi jumped over 2,124% since last year, despite being out of commission for 10 days after a cyber attack. Other airports with very impressive improvements to mean download speed over Wi-Fi include Orlando (over 282%) and Montréal (over 233%).


Keeping on top of Wi-Fi improvements can make all the difference in a fast-paced world. For example though Denver’s still fast, their speeds remained relatively flat while Seattle’s jumped 135.9% to take the lead.

What does it take to vastly improve the speeds on a Wi-Fi network? In 2014, Atlanta built a free wireless network based on 802.11a/b/g/n technology. According to Sharon Brown, Assistant General Manager of IT Operations at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, the improvements we saw are related to recent implementation of approximately 1400 Cisco 3802 access points which use 802.11ac Wave 2 and m-Gig technology. This supports a higher wireless network speed and more robust wireless coverage throughout the passenger terminal. They’re also using four Cisco 8540 next-generation Wireless LAN Controllers, operating in high availability mode and 3850XU switches with UPOE capabilities to support the 3802 access points at a network speed of 5.5G. The 3850 switches also allow for 10G uplinks to the distribution layer of the network. And three 20G circuits from the local carrier help facilitate all that passenger traffic. A professional site survey utilizing Ekahau® Site Survey Pro is part of ongoing efforts Atlanta is making to fine-tune their network.

Orlando’s Wi-Fi network benefited from similar upgrades. Jason Gross, Assistant Manager of Networks at Greater Orlando Aviation Authority said, “At the time that the Ookla report came out last year, we were in the midst of replacing our older 802.11b/g/n APs with newer 802.11ac Wave 2 APs.” As part of larger renovation projects at the airport, Gross said, “We engaged our Wi-Fi equipment vendor, Aruba Networks, to work out a design that would provide better coverage and more consistent service to our customers. The design involves steering more clients to the 5 GHz band and implementing a high-density design to cover the 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz channels in a non-overlapping manner. This makes it more likely for a client to connect to an access point on a clearer channel.” The Orlando airport has also removed a 10 Mbps cap and increased their bandwidth to the internet from 1 Gbps to 5 Gbps. Orlando continuously monitors utilization to ensure they always have enough capacity to meet demand from the travelling public.

Overall improvement is great, but it’s also important to note that speed still matters. For example, the mean download speed at Montréal–Pierre Elliott Trudeau International is still at the bottom of our list despite a massive percentage improvement.

And there were far too many airports that saw declines in Wi-Fi speeds including: Detroit (58.9% decrease), Miami (27.1% decline) and Dallas Fort Worth (25.6% decline).

How are the speeds where you’re traveling? Take a Speedtest on iOS or Android to help us all better understand internet performance around the globe.

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.