Reliable wireless connectivity is crucial for ensuring public safety, especially during emergencies. First responders and civilians alike depend on uninterrupted communication to coordinate efforts, gather critical information, and ultimately save lives.
Wireless infrastructure providers play a vital role in ensuring this connectivity, and many are turning to crowdsourced insights to help identify and address coverage gaps. One such organization is Public Safety Towers Company (PSTC), which has been using Ookla’s Cell Analytics® solution for years to make data-driven decisions to improve public safety connectivity.
This article will explore the critical role of consistently strong connectivity in public safety, the challenges facing public safety communication, and how Public Safety Towers Company uses Ookla Cell Analytics data to identify and address coverage gaps to help emergency responders.
Connectivity in Public Safety: Critical Role and Challenges Faced
With over 80% of 911 calls originating from mobile devices, the need for robust cellular coverage has never been greater. Reliable, uninterrupted communications are essential for fire, police, and EMS personnel to effectively coordinate and respond to emergencies. When first responders experience poor coverage, they may face severe consequences, such as:
Inability to communicate with dispatch or other team members
Limited access to critical data and pre-arrival intelligence
Hindered situational awareness and decision-making capabilities
Dispatchers play a crucial role in gathering information from callers to provide first responders with a comprehensive understanding of the situation they are about to face. However, when connectivity is poor, this process can be disrupted, leaving first responders with incomplete or inaccurate information, potentially compromising public safety.
Chief Barry Hutchings, Senior Operations Advisor at The Western Fire Chiefs Association, shared an example during our recent webinar of arriving on scene and having no portable radio or cell coverage, forcing him to rely on a 100-watt radio in his engine for communication. Such situations highlight the critical need for reliable wireless connectivity in emergency responses.
Despite the critical importance of reliable wireless connectivity, several challenges hinder the development of comprehensive coverage:
Historical gaps in coverage due to narrowed communication bands have left many areas with inadequate service, making it difficult for first responders to communicate effectively
Difficulties in building new towers to address coverage gaps, including identifying optimal locations, navigating regulatory hurdles, and securing funding
Growing importance of pre-arrival intelligence for first responders, which requires expansive coverage and reliable data connections
Addressing these challenges requires collaborative efforts between public safety organizations and wireless infrastructure providers. By leveraging crowdsourced insights and innovative solutions such as Ookla Cell Analytics, stakeholders can work together to identify coverage gaps, prioritize improvements, and ultimately build more resilient and responsive networks that better serve our communities.
Using Ookla Cell Analytics to Identify Coverage Gaps
Ookla Cell Analytics has proven to be an invaluable tool for public safety organizations and wireless infrastructure providers looking to improve connectivity. By leveraging crowdsourced data, Cell Analytics provides accurate and unbiased insights on wireless network performance and coverage, enabling data-driven decision-making. The platform is powered by billions of daily network samples from Speedtest® users, offering information on:
Service quality and performance
RF conditions
Data usage
User density
Cell site locations
And more!
This easy-to-navigate platform enables wireless infrastructure providers to:
Identify locations for new cell sites and tower colocation
Find viable sites to lease to operators
Monitor RF and performance of networks
Identify buildings with poor indoor coverage
Assess the impact of disasters on infrastructure
Ookla’s data has been a game-changer for PSTC. Before using Cell Analytics, PSTC had trouble getting a clear picture of connectivity, and their decision-making process was slow and relied on limited, anecdotal evidence. The tools they were using previously had no numerical data, no multi-carrier views, and was less accurate overall.
However, Ookla’s “data with no agenda” (as Chief Hutchings noted) approach revolutionized PSTC’s methodology, significantly accelerating their ability to identify coverage gaps and make informed decisions.
How PSTC Leverages Cell Analytics Insights
PSTC has developed a comprehensive approach to leverage the insights provided by Ookla Cell Analytics. Their step-by-step process involves:
Visualizing signal strength, user density, and existing infrastructure to identify areas of concern and potential sites for improvement
Collaborating with public safety partners — like the Western Fire Chiefs Association — to pinpoint optimal tower placement and develop targeted solutions that address the specific needs of each community
Using the visuals from Cell Analytics to show internal and external stakeholders exactly where coverage gaps exist
PSTC uses insights from Cell Analytics both Internally and externally. For internal stakeholders, the data drives decision-making processes, helping PSTC prioritize projects and allocate resources effectively. Externally, the information is used to communicate with stakeholders, including public safety organizations and local government officials, to build consensus and secure support for infrastructure improvements.
PSTC’s data-driven approach has already led to significant improvements in wireless connectivity for public safety. In Washington state, for example, PSTC’s efforts resulted in the construction of a new tower that addressed a critical coverage gap, enabling first responders to communicate effectively and access vital information during emergencies.
Lessons for Improving Wireless Networks
The success of PSTC in using Ookla Cell Analytics data to improve connectivity for public safety offers valuable lessons for other organizations looking to enhance their wireless networks:
Identify coverage gaps using crowdsourced data to make data-driven decisions
Benchmark network performance, quality, and availability to prioritize improvements
Strategically place new cell sites or pursue tower colocation opportunities
Foster collaboration between public safety organizations and wireless infrastructure providers
By applying these lessons and working together, organizations can stay ahead of evolving challenges and leverage emerging technologies to build safer, more connected communities.
Conclusion & Looking Ahead
Consistently reliable wireless connectivity is critical for ensuring public safety. As the reliance on mobile devices and data keeps growing, comprehensive coverage and strong connectivity will continue to become even more essential.
Looking ahead, the potential for leveraging crowdsourced data to improve public safety connectivity is immense. In the future, for example, public safety teams responding to emergencies may be able to access critical information from crashed vehicles, such as Teslas, including speed, the number of occupants, and the status of airbag deployments – but only if good connectivity is available.
Wireless infrastructure providers and public safety organizations must work together to identify and address coverage gaps, leveraging crowdsourced insights to make data-driven decisions. By exploring how solutions like Ookla Cell Analytics can help improve public safety connectivity, we can build more resilient and responsive networks that better serve our communities.
To learn more, watch our webinar on-demand and discover how Ookla’s solutions can help you improve wireless connectivity in your community.
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.
Check out the full report available now with the complete results for all 50 states.
Affordable, reliable, high-speed broadband is considered a necessity in the U.S. because it enables people to access online classes, secure health care assistance, register for basic government services, handle their banking needs and participate in many other essential services.
It’s also critical to the economic viability of every state because it supports remote workers, enables businesses to operate more efficiently and attracts new enterprises to an area.
But many states have struggled to make broadband service available to 100% of their residents primarily because service providers are focused on providing it to areas where it’s most profitable. Using Ookla’s Speedtest Intelligence® data, this report identifies the states that are currently delivering the minimum standard for fixed broadband speeds as established by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to the highest percentage of Speedtest users. It also singles out the states that need the most improvement when it comes to delivering the minimum standard for broadband to their residents.
Key takeaways
Connecticut, North Dakota, Delaware and six other states are the top performing states because they have the highest percentage of Speedtest users that meet the FCC’s minimum standard for fixed broadband speeds of 100 Mbps downstream and 20 Mbps upstream. While comparing small, densely populated states with larger, sparsely populated states may seem unfair, we thought it was important to note the current performance of each state so we can track their progress in future reports.
New Mexico, Arizona and Minnesota saw the biggest improvement in the percentage of Speedtest users getting the FCC’s minimum standard for fixed broadband speeds (100 Mbps down/20 Mbps up) between the first half of 2023 and the first half of 2024.
Washington, Alaska, Illinois and Oregon have the most prominent digital divide of all the 50 states. These four states have the biggest gap between the percentage of rural Speedtest users vs. the percentage of urban Speedtest users that get FCC’s minimum standard of broadband speeds of 100 Mbps downstream/20 Mbps upstream.
Not surprisingly, less than 40% of the Speedtest users of Alaska, Montana and Wyoming (which are three of the least densely populated states in the U.S.), are receiving the minimum broadband speeds of 100 Mbps downstream/20 Mbps upstream.
Broadband in the spotlight
The COVID-19 pandemic put a spotlight on the importance of having broadband access and the role it played in allowing people to continue working and receiving access to healthcare as well as keeping students in school. The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 provided $3.2 billion to help low-income households in the U.S. pay for broadband access during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This sudden focus on broadband accessibility, also prompted Congress to pass the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 which set aside $42.5 billion for the Broadband, Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) program and provided funding for every state to expand its broadband services. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) runs the BEAD program and the funding is being used for planning, infrastructure, and adoption programs in all 50 states, Washington, DC and several U.S. territories.
BEAD initially provided $100 million to every state with the remainder of the funding to be divided among the 50 states based upon their unserved and underserved populations. As of September 18, 2024, 44 eligible entities have been approved for both the Volume 1 and Volume 2 phases of BEAD. Volume 1 of the state’s proposal details the list of locations that are eligible for BEAD funding as well as a description of how certain entities can dispute the eligibility status of the various locations. Volume 2 includes each state’s description of how it plans to select ISPs and its overall broadband objectives. Once approved for both phases, states can then get access to the money that has been allocated for them.
To help manage these federal funds every state and territory established a broadband office that is tasked with determining the extent of their broadband coverage problems and draft broadband strategies that will resolve the problem.
The FCC in March 2024 decided to revise its current definition of broadband as 100 Mbps downstream and 20 Mbps upstream, which is a substantial upgrade from its previous benchmark of 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload speed that was first established in 2015.
This is the first time in nearly a decade that the FCC raised the speed requirement. Although this new benchmark is being used throughout the U.S., many households still lack basic broadband services.
Top performing states
Using Ookla’s Speedtest Intelligence® data collected in the first half of 2024 we were able to compare the median download and upload speeds in all 50 states and identify the states that currently doing the best job of delivering the FCC’s minimum standard for fixed broadband speeds (100 Mbps downstream/20 Mbps upstream) to the highest percentage of Speedtest users.
At least 60% or more of the Speedtest users in Connecticut, North Dakota, Delaware, Maryland, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah and Virginia are getting the FCC’s minimum standard for fixed broadband speeds of 100 Mbps downstream and 20 Mbps upstream. In Connecticut, which is the top state, 65.8% of Speedtest users are receiving the minimum broadband standard. But at just 65.8% that indicates that there is much more work ahead for states.
Interestingly, all nine of the states in this list have received final approval for both phases of BEAD funding. However, it’s unlikely that BEAD funding approval played any role in these nine states leading the rest of the country in delivering the minimum standard for broadband because BEAD funding isn’t expected to start impacting broadband deployment projects until 2025 at the earliest, with some states having to wait longer depending on their proposal status with NTIA.
Top performing U.S. states with over 60% of Speedtest users achieving broadband speeds
Rank
State
Percentage of Speedtest users achieving broadband speeds
BEAD funding approval
1
Connecticut
65.8
Yes
2
North Dakota
65.5
Yes
3
Maryland
63.7
Yes
4
Delaware
63.3
Yes
5
Rhode Island
62.7
Yes
6
Tennessee
62.2
Yes
7
Utah
61.8
Yes
8
New Hampshire
60.5
Yes
9
Virginia
60.1
Yes
Source: Ookla Speedtest data. *Note NTIA approval of BEAD funding is changing rapidly. While BEAD funds haven’t likely played a role in broadband deployments yet, they will in the future.
Southwestern US sees big improvements in broadband
New Mexico, Arizona and Minnesota saw the biggest improvement in the percentage of their residents getting the FCC’s minimum standard for fixed broadband speeds (100 Mbps down/20 Mbps up) between the first half of 2023 and the first half of 2024.
New Mexico leads the rest of the states with its gains in broadband in the past year. Ookla data indicates that New Mexico saw a 50% increase in the percentage of its population with access to the FCC’s minimum broadband speeds of 100 Mbps/20 Mbps. Arizona also saw a 45% jump in the percent of its population with access to the FCC’s minimum broadband speeds of 100 Mbps/20 Mbps.
Arizona, and specifically, the city of Mesa, AZ, has been a hotbed of activity for fiber deployments. In 2022 Google Fiber decided to deploy fiber to Mesa, AZ after the city council approved plans to bring a data center to the area. In addition, AT&T also announced plans to bring its fiber service to Mesa in 2023. These new fiber entrants are competing with existing broadband providers Cox Communications and Lumen.
U.S. states with largest year-on-year increase in Speedtest users achieving broadband speeds
Rank
State
Increase in Speedtest users obtaining broadband speeds (1H 2023 vs 1H 2024)
BEAD funding approval
1
New Mexico
50%
Yes
2
Arizona
45%
Yes
3
Nevada
37%
Yes
4
Minnesota
38%
No
5
Colorado
35%
Yes
6
Washington
35%
Yes
7
Oregon
32%
Yes
8
Wyoming
32%
Yes
9
Maine
30%
Yes
10
Utah
29%
Yes
Source: Ookla Speedtest data. *Note NTIA approval of BEAD funding is changing rapidly. While BEAD funds haven’t likely played a role in broadband deployments yet, they will in the future.
Sparse population equals inferior broadband
Not surprisingly, the most sparsely populated states in the U.S. tend to also have the smallest percentage of their population receiving the FCC’s minimum broadband speeds. Building broadband networks in rural states is incredibly expensive, and in some areas the terrain can make it nearly impossible. For example, in Alaska, where the ground may be frozen for many months out of the year, it’s difficult to dig trenches to install fiber.
Ookla’s Speedtest data collected in the first half of 2024 found that less than 40% of the residents of Alaska, Montana and Wyoming (which are three of the most sparsely populated states in the U.S.), receive the minimum broadband speeds of 100 Mbps downstream/20 Mbps upstream.
The digital divide is still evident in many states
A big part of the impetus behind the federal government’s BEAD program is to finally close the gap between those with and without access to broadband, or what is commonly referred to as the digital divide.
But there are still many states that have a prominent gap between the number of rural and urban residents that have access to the FCC’s minimum standard of broadband speeds of 100 Mbps downstream/20 Mbps upstream.
Using the Census Bureau’s urban-rural classification and Ookla data compiled in the 1H of 2024, Washington, Alaska, Illinois and Oregon have the biggest digital divide compared to the other 50 states. For example, while 61.1% of urban Speedtest users in Washington state receive broadband speeds of 100 Mbps/20 Mbps, only 28.7% of its rural Speedtest users receive those same speeds.
Breaking Down the Digital Divide
Percentage of urban and rural Speedtest users in each state with access to broadband speeds of 100/20 Mbps.
Broadband speeds are improving but more work is needed
U.S. broadband networks offer faster and more reliable connectivity to more people today than they did just a few years ago, however there’s still a large percentage of the U.S. population without adequate access to broadband connectivity.
Thanks to new funding such as the BEAD program, there are many efforts underway to improve modern broadband networks. We expect to see these advancements in 2025 as more states start to put their BEAD funding into action.
We will provide semi-annual updates on the broadband speed performance of providers in the 50 states and also to track the improvements that states are making to bridge the digital divide. For more information about Speedtest Intelligence data and insights, please get in touch.
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.
Every day, millions of people rely on Speedtest® to get the most accurate, trusted view of their real-world internet performance. Whether streaming 4K content out and about, looking for a reliable connection to work remotely, or managing a smart home hub of devices, people need to know if their connection can keep up with their needs.
But end users aren’t the only ones that benefit from accurate, real-world connectivity testing information. Businesses, universities, healthcare facilities, and even the leading Internet service providers (ISPs) all use Speedtest to optimize their own networks.
At Ookla®, we sit at the intersection between the service providers tasked with designing and optimizing networks and the consumers that make use of those networks every day. Our insights not only help people choose a mobile or Wi-Fi service provider, we help organizations of every type optimize the networks and services they provide.
Speedtest Powered™ bridges the gap between these two worlds. As part of the enterprise side of Speedtest that most users never see, it encompasses three solutions — Speedtest Custom, Speedtest SDK, and Speedtest Embedded. These tools allow organizations to leverage the trusted testing capabilities that have made Speedtest the global standard for internet performance measurement while maintaining their unique brand identity. Enterprises rely on these solutions to solve connectivity challenges and deliver reliable service across every network touchpoint.
Let’s take a look at how different enterprises are putting these tools to work!
Real-World Data Making a Real-World Impact
From education to aviation, organizations are integrating Speedtest capabilities directly into their systems to solve critical connectivity challenges. Here’s how they’re putting Speedtest Powered tools to work:
Enhanced Customer Experience for Airline In-Flight Connectivity
Many airlines offer in-flight Wi-Fi as a way for passengers to work or just consume some entertainment during their journey. Some even offer upgraded experiences with faster speeds or longer durations at an additional cost. To ensure the highest level of customer experience, airlines use Speedtest Embedded to consistently monitor Wi-Fi performance across their entire fleet. This solution enables real-time performance tracking and SLA verification, ensuring passengers receive the connectivity they expect (and at many times, pay for) at 35,000 feet. Airline IT teams can quickly identify and address connectivity issues, while flight crews have immediate visibility into network performance.
Remote Testing Solutions for Schools and Enhanced Work-from-Home Efficiency
A school district in a major city integrated Speedtest SDK into their student devices to support remote learning initiatives. With this capability, IT teams can monitor student connectivity without requiring manual testing, ensuring educational continuity and compliance with federal remote learning programs. The solution also helps the school district quickly identify and address connectivity challenges, enhancing both student success and operational efficiency. Similarly, enterprises use Speedtest Embedded to monitor connectivity performance across their remote workforce, enabling both automatic and on-demand testing to their private servers to ensure reliable work-from-home experiences.
Healthcare Innovation
A major healthcare system integrated Speedtest solutions across their operations to ensure reliable connectivity for critical medical services and remote staff. By implementing Speedtest Custom in their facilities, medical teams can verify network performance for bandwidth-intensive tasks like medical image transfers. Healthcare providers also use Speedtest Embedded to monitor connectivity for remote employees, ensuring their IT infrastructure supports seamless operations whether staff are on-site or working from home. This approach helps maintain operational efficiency while supporting the high-performance network demands of modern healthcare delivery.
5G Network Optimization
A major 5G provider integrated Speedtest SDK into their customer-facing mobile app to gain comprehensive insights into network performance. The solution enables periodic measurements across consumer devices while allowing both customers and support teams to run on-demand tests. This allows the provider to collect over 200 data points — including device information, Wi-Fi details, connection metrics, and location data — helping optimize their 5G network deployment and identify areas needing coverage improvements.
Customer Care Evolution
Relaying experiential information to a customer care rep can be challenging for invisible mediums like cellular and Wi-Fi services. Terms like “slow,” “stuttery,” “sometimes not great,” are instantly cleared up with a simple Speedtest. A leading ISP integrated Speedtest Custom into their support workflow, empowering customers to verify their connection speeds while providing valuable data to internal support teams. This has reduced the need for on-site technician visits and enhanced customer satisfaction through more efficient problem diagnosis and troubleshooting.
Telecom Compliance and Optimization
A mobile operator in Europe integrated Speedtest SDK into their mobile and web platforms to meet new regulatory requirements for subscriber speed reporting. The solution enabled users to test and report their speeds while providing the operator with comprehensive network performance insights. This breadth and depth of data — including device types, connection quality, and location information — helps the operator optimize their network, diagnose customer issues efficiently, and provide stakeholders with actionable information while meeting regulatory requirements.
Conclusion
Speedtest isn’t just the tool millions use to check their home internet speeds — it’s also powering network measurement and optimization behind the scenes across multiple industries.
Through Speedtest Powered solutions — Speedtest Custom, SDK, and Embedded — organizations can integrate trusted performance testing directly into their platforms while maintaining brand consistency. The result? Better data, better insights, and better customer experiences.
Ready to bring the power of Speedtest to your organization? Visit our product page for a deeper look into our solutions, or reach out to learn more!
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.
More than 80% of Canadians have access to fixed broadband networks, but for rural Canadians that figure drops to just 60%. Yet, this gap between who has broadband access and who doesn’t is closing in rural areas at a rate nearly three times faster than in urban areas. Canada is narrowing its rural broadband divide thanks to a clearly articulated and well-funded connectivity strategy to ensure high-speed internet access for all.
Using Speedtest Intelligence® data, this report identifies Canada’s Provinces and Territories that are delivering the minimum standard for fixed broadband speeds, as established by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC). Based on data from the 1H 2024 (and compared to 1H 2023), it also analyzes performance in other geographic splits, including Urban-vs-Rural and the Remoteness Index.
Key Takeaways
As many as 2 million more Canadians enjoyed broadband speeds in the first half of 2024 compared to the first half of 2023.
Rural Canadian Speedtest users saw a 23% increase in those with broadband speeds in 1H 2024over 1H 2023.
Satellite internet service plays a key role in closing the broadband divide for Canada’s vast geography. In the U.S., regulators were ambivalent about allowing satellite internet to qualify for government broadband funding (this attitude has recently begun to change in favor). Canada knew many years ago that satellite internet was critical.
Broadband in the Spotlight
While the COVID-19 pandemic shined a light on the digital divide, the government of Canada has long been investing in broadband deployments to close the gap. In 2014 it established the Connecting Canadians program (CCP), allocating C$305M to improve connectivity for 300,000 underserved households.
The Connect to Innovate (CTI) program was launched in December 2016 with C$500M (and C$85M added to CTI in 2019) to expand high-speed Internet in communities underserved by the private sector. The CTI aimed to improve access for over 380,000 homes.
Deepening its investments in 2020, perhaps in response to COVID-19 lockdowns, the Canadian government launched the C$3.225B Universal Broadband Fund (UBF).
UBF
Universal Broadband Fund (2020)
$3.225B
CTI
Connect To Innovate (2016)
$585M
CCP
Connecting Canadians Program (2014)
$305M
With over C$4B from these programs alone, the CRTC has a goal of connecting 98% of Canadians to high-speed internet (broadband) delivering at least 50 Mbps download (DL) and 10 Mbps upload (UL) speeds (50/10 Mbps) by 2026, and 100% by 2030.
Conquer Divide
Canada’s population of 41 million is concentrated in a handful of large, urban metropolitan areas near the U.S. border. However, despite the country’s large land mass, it is highly urbanized. Approximately two-thirds, or 27 million, of Canadians live within 100 kilometers of the U.S. border —about the distance from the border to Winnipeg —yet this is only 4% of Canada’s land mass.
Imagine a line across lower Canada, 100 km north of Canada’s southern border – crossing Winnipeg in the middle of the population distribution map. In the area below the line and above the border with the U.S., 82.2% of Speedtest users are getting the CRTC’s minimum standard for fixed broadband speeds (50/10 Mbps). For Speedtest users north of the 100 km line, 76.3% met (or exceeded) the standard. Just a 5.9 percentage points gap.
However, the 100 km line is rather blunt and unsophisticated (and imaginary). Instead let’s look at the Urban-vs-Rural division as well as a more-granular designation based on the Remoteness Index.
Compared with the 100 km line’s gap, the Urban-vs-Rural digital divide aligns more closely with expectations of a larger disparity between these geographic areas. Specifically, 83.8% of Urban users meet the 50/10 Mbps standard, compared to 60.0% of Rural users resulting in a 23.8 percentage point gap.
The good news is the gap has closed from the prior year with Rural users seeing a 23% improvement compared to 5% for Urban users. To emphasize this further, in the first half of 2023 fewer than 50% of Rural users were able to get broadband speeds of 50/10 Mbps. This indicates that efforts to address this gap (i.e., UBF) were targeting the right places.
Continuing across the table, median download and upload speeds are roughly three times faster among urban than rural Speedtest users (DL 251.62 Mbps vs 90.76 Mbps and UL 64.82 Mbps vs 18.88 Mbps, respectively). Comparing the rural median speeds to the 50/10 Mbps threshold shows that half of Speedtest users in rural Canada enjoy download speeds that are 40.76 Mbps (i.e., 90.76 minus 50) and upload speeds that are 8.88 Mbps (i.e., 18.88 minus 10) faster than the target. (This is not to say that an individual Speedtest user experiences both upload and download speeds over the threshold, which is required for the target.)
The difference in Urban and Rural latency literally demonstrates the difference in physical distances (which not only means farther, but also more hops or switching; even buffering time based on the capacity of the data transport) .
The Remoteness Index presents a similar picture in finer geographic slices. (As one would expect, since the underlying data is the same.) Not surprisingly, the percentage of Speedtest users that meet the 50/10 Mbps threshold decreases as their location moves from least remote to most remote. Here too, speed and latency degrade at each step of remoteness, correlating with those meeting the 50/10 Mbps threshold percentages.
The percentage change from the prior year tells a similar story of greater improvement in the more remote geographies, but with some nuance. While we might expect Most Remote to demonstrate even more improvement and be greater than More Remote, deployment challenges and associated costs to deliver telecommunications infrastructure in the most remote geographies can be exponentially prohibitive. Thus, this extreme lack of population density coupled with difficult topography explain why government programs like CTI are needed, and why other solutions like satellite are viable.
The Provinces and The Territories
In the above analysis, broadband speeds were assessed using an imaginary 100 km demarcation, illustrating the concentration of population along Canada’s southern border. Before examining broadband performance and the digital divide among Canada’s provinces and territories, here are additional facts about Canada’s relative sparseness of people in its vast geography.
Landmass: The combined land area of the territories (Yukon, Northwest, Nunavut) is larger than the land area of India, the world’s 7th largest (and most populous) country
Population: The population of the territories is equivalent to the total number of births across Canada every four months.
The territories hold just 0.3% of Canada’s population on 39% of its land. Canada is often compared to the U.S., but Australia is a better comparison, with both Canada and Australia ranking among the least densely populated countries in the world.
Now let’s examine the 50/10 Mbps threshold in the provinces and territories.
Province / Territory
% Meeting 50/10 Mbps 1H 2024
Change from 1H 2023
Urban-Rural Gap 1H 2024, %pts
Newfoundland and Labrador
81.7
6%
22.5
British Columbia
79.8
4%
21.9
New Brunswick
78.1
2%
14.0
Nova Scotia
77.8
9%
8.2
Québec
76.5
8%
9.8
Ontario
76.0
8%
33.9
Alberta
75.7
5%
30.0
Manitoba
71.7
11%
20.8
Prince Edward Island
71.2
14%
18.5
Saskatchewan
64.7
17%
33.0
Northwest Territories
57.3
8%
-7.1
Yukon Territory
53.2
14%
6.7
Nunavut
36.2
94%
Not meaningful
In this table, by geography, percentage of Speedtest users achieving the CRTC broadband speed targets in 1H 2024, compared with the same period in prior year, and the digital divide.
Following the logic of the Remoteness Index, the territories have the fewest Speedtest users meeting the 50/10 Mbps threshold. The percentage changes in the territories from 2023 do not follow the same pattern seen in the Urban-vs-Rural chart and Remoteness Index because these geographies are a mix of these geographic definitions (as it is in the provinces). Similarly, the Urban-vs-Rural gap result is confounded by sparse population. In Nunavut, more than half of the population is defined as rural.
On the top of the table, Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia may be unexpected leaders in meeting the 50/10 Mbps threshold. New Brunswick and Nova Scotia have relatively higher population density among the provinces and territories which (economically) encourages the deployment of telecommunications infrastructure. This appears to play out in the Urban-vs-Rural gap as well, ranking among the lowest gaps in the provinces.
The exceptional performance of Newfoundland and Labrador (81.7% meeting 50/10 Mbps) can partly be attributed to the vast majority of its population residing on the island of Newfoundland, and half of them, in turn, residing on the Avalon peninsula (see the population distribution map above and St. John’s in the east). This concentration of population underscores the fundamental reality of economics in telecommunications deployment. And in the opposite direction, the Urban-vs-Rural gap (22.5%pts) also makes this same point for the need for the funding programs like UBF to address the digital divide.
Breaking Down the Digital Divide
Percentage of Urban and Rural Speedtest users in each Province/Territory with broadband speeds of at least 50/10 Mbps, 1H 2024, Nunavut: Urban n too small; Rural 43.6%
Look, Up in the Sky
As addressed in the discussion about Most Remote, because of Canada’s topographical challenges, fiber and electricity are cost prohibitive in many deployment cases. In 2019, Canada added C$85M to its CTI program because it recognized that it needed support for low-Earth orbit (LEO) satellites to reach its connectivity goals (50/10 Mbps connectivity to 95% of Canadians by 2026, and the hardest-to-reach Canadians by 2030).
Briefly looking across Canada for Speedtest users of satellite internet services during the first half of 2024, over half saw download speeds of 72.90 Mbps or greater, and upload speeds of 12.47 or greater. Moreover, in the territory of Nunavut the speeds were basically identical (75.16 Mbps and 12.50 Mbps, respectively), which makes sense since Nunavut is equally Urban or Rural (or More Remote or Less Remote) to an orbiting satellite a few hundred miles overhead. Clearly LEO is a viable solution technically and economically.
Whether fiber or satellite, broadband connectivity means nothing without power. The cost of electricity in the north can be ten times more expensive than in southern cities. In some cases, diesel fuel burned for both heat and electricity is flown, shipped by sea, or by tanker over frozen lakes and rivers in the winter. As with broadband, the Canadian government has a plan to invest in Rural and Northern Communities to make available affordable and clean energy.
Another barrier to fully-connected communities that affects Urban as well as the Most Remote is digital literacy (though the latter faces compounding factors). Here again the Canadian government is addressing the issue with initiatives such as its Digital Literacy Exchange Program.
No matter the geographic lens – Urban-vs-Rural, Remoteness Index, or Provinces and Territories – the goal is to get to 100% in 2030. But even 100% broadband connectivity from a purely technical perspective, would not be 100% in spirit without other programs and initiatives like these. Communication is achieved when the signal is received, not just sent.
Recently, Ookla also looked at the broadband and digital divide in the U.S. – How the 50 U.S. States Stack up in Broadband Speed Performance: 1H 2024 | Ookla®. We look forward to providing more updates on the U.S. and Canada’s progress to provide high-speed internet connectivity for all. For more information about Speedtest Intelligence data and insights, please get in touch.
Le Rétrécissement de la Fracture Numérique au Canada
Plus de 80 % des Canadiens ont accès à des réseaux fixes à large bande, mais pour les Canadiens des régions rurales, ce chiffre tombe à seulement 60 %. Pourtant, cet écart entre ceux qui ont accès à la large bande et ceux qui n’en ont pas se rétrécit dans les régions rurales à un rythme près de trois fois plus rapide que dans les zones urbaines. Le Canada réduit la fracture numérique dans les régions rurales grâce à une stratégie de connectivité clairement articulée et bien financée pour assurer l’accès à l’Internet haute vitesse pour tous.
À l’aide des données de Speedtest Intelligence®, le présent rapport identifie les provinces et les territoires du Canada qui fournissent la norme minimale pour les vitesses à large bande fixes, telle qu’établie par le Conseil de la Radiodiffusion et des Télécommunications Canadiennes (CRTC). Sur la base des données du 1er semestre 2024 (et par rapport au 1er semestre 2023), il analyse également les performances dans d’autres catégories géographiques, y compris les catégories urbaine et rurale ainsi que l’indice d’éloignement (Remoteness Index).
Principaux points à retenir
Pas moins de 2 millions de Canadiens supplémentaires ont bénéficié de l’accès à Internet haute vitesse au premier semestre 2024 par rapport au premier semestre 2023.
Les utilisateurs ruraux canadiens de Speedtest ont vu une augmentation de 23 % de ceux qui ont accès à Internet haute vitesse au cours du premier semestre 2024par rapport au premier semestre 2023.
Le service Internet par satellite constitue un levier essentiel pour réduire la fracture numérique et améliorer l’accès à la large bande sur l’immense territoire canadien. Aux États-Unis, les organismes de réglementation étaient ambivalents quant à autoriser le financement par le gouvernement de l’Internet par satellite (cette attitude a récemment commencé à changer). Le Canada savait il y a de nombreuses années que l’Internet par satellite était essentiel.
La large bande sous les feux de la rampe
Alors que la pandémie de COVID-19 a mise en lumière la fracture numérique, le gouvernement du Canada investit depuis longtemps dans le déploiement de la large bande pour réduire cet écart. En 2014, il a mis sur pied le programme Un Canada branché, allouant 305 millions de dollars canadiens pour améliorer la connectivité de 300 000 ménages mal desservis.
Le programme Brancher pour innover a été lancé en décembre 2016 avec 500 millions de dollars canadiens (85 millions de dollars canadiens supplémentaires alloués en 2019) pour étendre l’accès a l’Internet à haut débit dans les communautés mal desservies par le secteur privé. Ce programme visait à améliorer l’accès à plus de 380 000 foyers.
Renforçant ses investissements en 2020, peut-être en réponse aux confinement lié au COVID-19, le gouvernement canadien a lancé le Fonds universel pour la large bande, doté de 3,225 milliards de dollars canadiens.
UBF
Fonds universel pour la large bande (2020)
3,225 milliards de dollars
CTI
Brancher pour innover (2016)
585 M$
CCP
Programme « Un Canada branché » (2014)
305 M$
Avec plus de 4 milliards de dollars canadiens provenant de ces programmes uniquement, le CRTC a pour objectif de connecter 98 % des Canadiens à l’Internet haute vitesse (large bande) offrant des vitesses d’au moins 50 Mbps en téléchargement (DL) et 10 Mbps en téléversement (UL) (50/10 Mbps) d’ici 2026, et 100 % d’ici 2030.
Vaincre la fracture
La population de 41 millions d’habitants du Canada est concentrée dans une poignée de métropoles près de la frontière américaine. Malgré l’immensité du pays, le Canada est fortement urbanisé. Environ les deux tiers, soit 27 millions, des Canadiens vivent à moins de 100 kilomètres de la frontière américaine, soit environ la distance entre la frontière et Winnipeg; mais cette zone ne représente que 4 % de la superficie du Canada.
Imaginez une ligne traversant le Canada, à 100 km au nord de sa frontière méridionale, et traversant Winnipeg au milieu de la carte de répartition de la population. Dans la zone située sous la ligne de démarcation et au-dessus de la frontière avec les États-Unis, 82,2 % des utilisateurs de Speedtest obtiennent la norme minimale du CRTC pour les vitesses des services à large bande fixe (50/10 Mbps). Pour les utilisateurs du Speedtest au nord de la ligne des 100 km, 76,3 % respectent (ou dépassent) la norme. Soit un écart de seulement 5,9 points.
Cependant, la ligne des 100 km reste une mesure assez simpliste, peu sophistiquée et, de surcroît, imaginaire. Examinons plutôt la division entre les zones urbaines et rurales, ainsi qu’une classification plus détaillée basée sur l’indice d’éloignement.
Comparée à celle définie par la ligne des 100 km, la fracture numérique entre les zones urbaines et rurales correspond davantage aux attentes, reflétant une disparité plus marquée entre ces zones géographiques. Plus précisément, 83,8 % des utilisateurs urbains respectent la norme de 50/10 Mbps, comparativement à 60,0 % des utilisateurs ruraux, ce qui donne un écart de 23,8 points.
La bonne nouvelle est que l’écart s’est réduit par rapport à l’année précédente, les utilisateurs ruraux ayant constaté une amélioration de 23 %, contre 5 % pour les utilisateurs urbains. Pour souligner davantage ce point, au cours du premier semestre de 2023, moins de 50 % des utilisateurs ruraux ont pu obtenir des vitesses à large bande de 50/10 Mbps. Cela indique que les efforts déployés pour combler cette lacune (c’est-à-dire le Fonds universel pour la large bande) ont été utilisés à bonne fin.
Si l’on poursuit la lecture du tableau, les vitesses médianes de téléchargement et de téléversement sont environ trois fois plus élevées chez les utilisateurs urbains que chez les utilisateurs ruraux de Speedtest (DL 251,62 Mbps contre 90,76 Mbps et UL 64,82 Mbps contre 18,88 Mbps, respectivement). La comparaison des vitesses médianes en milieu rural avec le seuil de 50/10 Mbps montre que la moitié des utilisateurs de Speedtest dans les régions rurales du Canada bénéficient de vitesses de téléchargement de 40,76 Mbps (c.-à-d. 90,76 moins 50) et de vitesses de téléversement de 8,88 Mbps (c.-à-d. 18,88 moins 10) plus rapides que l’objectif fixé. (Cela ne signifie pas pour autant qu’un utilisateur individuel de Speedtest bénéficie à la fois de vitesses de téléchargement et de téléversement dépassant le seuil requis, ce qui est nécessaire pour atteindre l’objectif.)
La différence entre les temps de latence en milieu urbain et en milieu rural illustre littéralement la différence entre les distances physiques (ce qui signifie non seulement des distances plus grandes, mais aussi un plus grand nombre de sauts de traffic).
L’indice d’éloignement présente une image similaire dans des tranches géographiques plus fines. (Comme on pouvait s’y attendre, puisque les données sous-jacentes sont les mêmes.) Il n’est pas surprenant de constater que le pourcentage d’utilisateurs Speedtest qui atteignent le seuil de 50/10 Mbps diminue au fur et à mesure que cette indice augmente. Ici aussi, la vitesse et la latence se dégradent avec l’augmentation de l’indice, en corrélation avec le pourcentage d’utilisateurs atteignant de seuil de 50/10 Mbps.
La variation (en pourcentage) par rapport à l’année précédente offre des similarités, avec une amélioration dans les zones géographiques les plus éloignées, mais avec tout en apportant une certaine nuance. On pourrait s’attendre à ce que les régions les plus éloignées s’améliorent, mais les difficultés de déploiement et les coûts associés à la mise en place d’une infrastructure de télécommunications dans les zones géographiques les plus reculées peuvent être exponentiellement prohibitifs. Ainsi, ce manque extrême de densité de population, associé à une topographie difficile, explique pourquoi des programmes gouvernementaux sont nécessaires et pourquoi d’autres solutions comme l’accès par satellite sont viables.
Les provinces et les territoires
Dans l’analyse ci-dessus, les vitesses à large bande ont été évaluées à l’aide d’une démarcation imaginaire de 100 km, illustrant la concentration de la population le long de la frontière sud du Canada. Avant d’examiner les performances de la large bande et la fracture numérique parmi les provinces et territoires du Canada, voici quelques faits supplémentaires concernant la relative faiblesse de la densité de population dans l’immensité géographique du pays.
Masse continentale : La superficie terrestre combinée des territoires (Yukon, Nord-Ouest, Nunavut) est plus grande que la superficie de l’Inde, le 7e pays le plus grand (et le plus peuplé) du monde
Population : La population des territoires équivaut au nombre total de naissances au Canada tous les quatre mois.
Les territoires ne représentent que 0,3 % de la population du Canada mais 39 % de son territoire. Le Canada est souvent comparé aux États-Unis, mais l’Australie est une meilleure comparaison; le Canada et l’Australie se classant parmi les pays les moins densément peuplés du monde.
Examinons maintenant le seuil de 50/10 Mbps dans les provinces et les territoires.
Province / Territoire
% Atteignant l’objectif 50/10 Mbps 1H 2024
Changement par rapport à 1H 2023
Écart entre les zones urbaines et rurales 1H 2024, %pts
Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador
81,7
6 %
22,5
Colombie-Britannique
79,8
4 %
21,9
Nouveau-Brunswick
78,1
2 %
14,0
Nouvelle-Écosse
77,8
9 %
8,2
Québec
76,5
8 %
9,8
Ontario
76,0
8 %
33,9
Alberta
75,7
5 %
30,0
Manitoba
71,7
11 %
20,8
Île-du-Prince-Édouard
71,2
14 %
18,5
Saskatchewan
64,7
17 %
33,0
Territoires du Nord-Ouest
57,3
8 %
-7,1
Territoire du Yukon
53,2
14 %
6,7
Nunavut
36,2
94 %
Pas significatif
Pourcentage d’utilisateurs de Speedtest atteignant les objectifs de vitesse de large bande du CRTC au premier semestre 2024 par région par rapport à la même période de l’année précédente.
Suivant la logique de l’indice d’éloignement, les territoires ont le moins d’utilisateurs Speedtest répondant au seuil de 50/10 Mbps. Les variations en pourcentage dans les territoires à partir de 2023 ne suivent pas la même tendance que celle observée dans le graphique urbain/rural et l’indice d’éloignement, car ces géographies sont un mélange de ces définitions géographiques (comme c’est le cas dans les provinces). De même, le résultat de l’écart entre les zones urbaines et les zones rurales est faussé par la faible densité de population. Au Nunavut, plus de la moitié de la population est définie comme rurale.
En haut du tableau, Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador, le Nouveau-Brunswick et la Nouvelle-Écosse pourraient être des chefs de file inattendus dans la réalisation du seuil de 50/10 Mbps. Le Nouveau-Brunswick et la Nouvelle-Écosse ont une densité de population relativement plus élevée parmi les provinces et les territoires, ce qui encourage (économiquement) le déploiement de l’infrastructure de télécommunications. Cela semble également se jouer dans l’écart entre les régions urbaines et rurales, qui se classe parmi les écarts les plus faibles dans les provinces.
La performance exceptionnelle de Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador (81,7 % atteignant 50/10 Mbps) peut en partie être attribuée au fait que la grande majorité de sa population réside sur l’île du Terre Neuve, dont la moitié vit sur la péninsule d’Avalon (voir la carte de répartition de la population ci-dessus et la ville de St. John’s à l’est). Cette concentration de population souligne la réalité fondamentale de l’économie dans le déploiement des télécommunications. Et dans la direction opposée, l’écart entre les zones urbaines et rurales (22,5 % de points) souligne également la nécessité de programmes de financement pour combler la fracture numérique.
Briser la fracture numérique
Pourcentage d’utilisateurs de Speedtest fixe en milieu urbain et rural dans chaque province et territoire ayant accès à des vitesses à large bande de 50/10 Mbps, 1H 2024, Nunavut: Urbain n trop petit; Rural 43.6%
Regardez vers les étoiles
Comme mentionné précédemment, en raison des défis topographiques du Canada, la fibre et l’électricité peuvent avoir des coûts de déploiement prohibitifs dans de nombreux cas. En 2019, le Canada a ajouté 85 millions de dollars canadiens à son programme Brancher pour innover (CTI), car il a reconnu qu’il avait besoin de satellites en orbite basse (LEO) pour atteindre ses objectifs en matière de connectivité (connectivité de 50/10 Mbps pour 95 % des Canadiens d’ici 2026, et pour les Canadiens les plus difficiles à atteindre d’ici 2030).
En examinant brièvement les utilisateurs de Speedtest des services Internet par satellite à travers le Canada durant la première moitié de 2024, plus de la moitié ont enregistré des vitesses de téléchargement de 72,90 Mbps ou supérieures, ainsi que des vitesses de téléversement de 12,47 Mbps ou supérieures. De plus, dans le territoire du Nunavut, les vitesses étaient pratiquement identiques (75,16 Mbps et 12,50 Mbps, respectivement), ce qui est logique, puisque le Nunavut est à la fois urbain et rural (ou plus éloigné et moins éloigné) pour un satellite en orbite à quelques centaines de kilomètres au-dessus. Il est clair que le LEO est une solution viable techniquement et économiquement.
Qu’il s’agisse de fibre ou de satellite, la connectivité à large bande ne signifie rien sans électricité. Le coût de l’électricité dans le nord peut être dix fois plus élevé que dans les villes du sud. Dans certains cas, le carburant diesel utilisé pour le chauffage et l’électricité est transporté par avion, par bateau ou par camion-citerne sur des lacs et des rivières gelés en hiver. Comme pour la large bande, le gouvernement canadien a un plan pour investir dans les collectivités rurales et nordiques afin de rendre disponible une énergie propre et abordable.
Un autre obstacle à des communautés pleinement connectées, qui touche tant les zones urbaines que les régions les plus éloignées, est la maîtrise des outils numériques (bien que ces dernières fassent face à des facteurs aggravants). Là encore, le gouvernement canadien s’attaque au problème avec des initiatives comme son Programme d’échange en matière de littératie numérique.
Peu importe la perspective géographique – urbain par rapport à rural, indice d’éloignement ou provinces et territoires – l’objectif est d’atteindre 100 % en 2030. Mais même une connectivité à large bande à 100 %, d’un point de vue purement technique, ne serait pas à 100 % dans l’esprit sans d’autres programmes et initiatives comme ceux-ci. La communication est réalisée lorsque le signal est reçu, pas seulement envoyé.
Récemment, Ookla a également examiné la fracture numérique et l’accès à la large bande aux États-Unis. – Comment les 50 États américains se positionnent en matière de vitesse de la large bande : 1H 2024 | Ookla®. Nous sommes impatients de fournir d’autres mises à jour sur les progrès réalisés par les États-Unis et le Canada pour fournir une connectivité Internet haute vitesse pour tous. Pour plus d’informations sur les données et les analyses de Speedtest Intelligence, veuillez prendre contact.
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.
The internet has become a fundamental tool of daily life, serving as a key resource for consumers and businesses alike. As our reliance on connectivity continues to grow, it’s become critical for all internet users to have access to accurate and transparent information about their internet service providers (ISPs). This need for transparency has prompted the FCC to introduce its Broadband Consumer Label initiative, which will educate consumers with standardized, easy-to-understand information about the broadband services that ISPs across the United States are offering.
Broadband Consumer Labels are similar in appearance to the nutrition labels affixed to nearly every product at the grocery store, with both types of labels providing consumers with key information–and transparency–about the products they’re buying. ISPs will soon be required to display their own version of “nutrition labels” at the point of sale, including in marketing materials and on provider websites. Broadband Consumer Labels, which must be machine-readable, are required to disclose several key service attributes, such as the typical download and upload speeds associated with a plan, the typical latency users can expect, as well as pricing and other information. Specifically, ISPs are required to display the following information on Broadband Consumer Labels:
Plan name/tier
Monthly pricing information, including one-time charges, early termination fees, introductory discounts, and bundled services
Whether or not an ISP participates in the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP), though this could change if the ACP program isn’t extended
Performance metrics, including typical download and upload speed, as well as typical latency
Data cap information
Links to ISP policy information
Customer support contact information
FCC reference ID (a unique identifier supplied by the FCC), as well as a link to the FCC’s consumer page
Providers with more than 100,000 subscribers are required to display Broadband Consumer Labels by April 10, 2024, while all other providers have until October 10, 2024.
Broadband Consumer Labels will provide consumers with much-needed transparency into the level of service they can expect when choosing an ISP. By organizing performance and pricing details in a simple, repeatable format, users can be sure they’re getting what they pay for, and they can compare different providers and plans more easily. The benefits to providers, meanwhile, largely comes in the form of increased consumer trust, confidence, and ultimately, brand loyalty. The labels will also provide ISPs with a medium to promote their offerings to users across the country.
Broadband Consumer Label risks & challenges
On the other hand, the introduction and continued maintenance of broadband labels marks a sea change for the telco industry at large. The more pricing tiers and technologies that exist across multiple markets, the more unique labels will need to be published. For example, one provider’s label in Seattle could be different from the same provider’s label in nearby Tacoma in terms of price, plan tiers, speeds, and more. It will be a behemoth effort for many ISPs to create and update labels, and internet providers will undoubtedly face challenges. Providers not only need to adhere to the FCC’s guidelines in relatively short order, but labels must also be updated every six months, as well any time an ISP modifies an existing plan or introduces a new one.
Providers also face both regulatory and commercial risks with the new labels. Some of those risks and challenges include:
Regulatory Risks:
Although the program begins in April, the rules are subject to change as the FCC is still requesting input from key stakeholders.
Latency is considered particularly important for people who use video conferencing, including those with disabilities.
The FCC has yet to define what “typical” means in the context of speeds and latency.
Consumer advocacy groups believe many subscribers are not getting what they pay for.
Expect FCC enforcement mechanisms to be developed for situations in which the information displayed on labels doesn’t match with the real-world user experience.
Commercial Risks:
Competition will have broad visibility into performance claims for every plan a provider offers.
Administrative overhead for ISPs driven by the number of price plans, markets, technologies, etc.
Existing subscriber misconceptions of service experienced compared to the actual service delivered.
Resellers must provide performance metrics even though they have limited control over quality of service (QoS) metrics.
Consumer advocacy groups and consumers pose a legal risk for providers if information on labels isn’t reflected in reality.
How Ookla can help ISPs with the broadband label revolution
With deadlines for providers right around the corner, it’s critical for ISPs to coordinate across IT, marketing, legal, and regulatory teams to determine the number of labels needed for various regions, price points, performance metrics, and more. Two label requirements that may prove particularly difficult for providers to manage are the typical speed and latency performance metrics in a given area.
While the FCC hasn’t yet defined what “typical” means for performance metrics on broadband labels, providers could find it difficult to both determine and validate those metrics because the real-world speeds experienced by consumers often differ from a provider’s advertised speeds, and it can also be difficult to distinguish real-world performance between different technologies or tiers of service, such as fiber or cable.
That’s where Ookla can help. Ookla receives over 11 million consumer-initiated Speedtests per day from all over the world, with over 50 billion total tests taken to date. Ookla’s detailed data and insights on speed, latency, and a host of other metrics can help Internet Service Providers substantiate typical speed or latency claims, ensuring their subscribers know what to expect and ultimately get what they pay for.
Three Ookla solutions that should be particularly helpful in both the rollout and maintenance of broadband labels are Speedtest Embedded™, Speedtest Custom™, and the Ookla Enrichment API™.
Speedtest Embedded allows Speedtest to be integrated as a testing solution on servers and desktops, as well as CPE devices. Ookla captures millions of these CPE tests every day on consumer gateways, Wi-Fi routers, and set-top boxes, providing ISPs with measurements directly from or very near to the service connection.
Speedtest Custom provides users with accurate network performance testing backed by the same trusted testing engine as Speedtest, helping ISPs and their customers understand their connected experiences with performance metrics including download, upload, latency, and jitter.
Ookla Enrichment API lets ISPs link a given test to a specific plan subscription, allowing providers to enrich test data with subscriber tiers/provisioned speeds, technology types, whether a test was conducted in a residential or commercial area, and more. Please reach out to learn more about the Ookla Enrichment API.
Conclusion
As we navigate the quickly approaching deadlines of April and October 2024 for the implementation of Broadband Consumer Labels, the urgency for ISPs to adapt cannot be overstated. These labels should add a new level of transparency and trust within the telecommunications sector, offering consumers and businesses clear, standardized information about broadband services.
However, the path to compliance won’t be easy. ISPs must navigate complex logistical and data management hurdles to produce and maintain these labels accurately. Each label must reflect specific service characteristics relevant to the geographic location it serves, which will require a granular level of detail and regular updates (every six months) to ensure accuracy. What’s more, regulatory uncertainties and the dynamic nature of broadband services can add layers of additional complexity to this endeavor. The FCC will likely offer some latitude on implementation during the first several months, but ISPs should prepare to contend with eventual enforcement of the rules. Perhaps more immediate is the potential for challenges from aggressive public interest groups and impassioned subscribers.
Ookla is here to help! With an unmatched depth and breadth of connectivity data derived from millions of consumer-initiated Speedtests taken daily, Ookla’s solutions can help ISPs streamline the process of substantiating the claims made on these new broadband labels. With Speedtest Embedded, Speedtest Custom, and the Ookla Enrichment API, ISPs can access real-time insights into network performance, customer experience, and other critical metrics.
These tools are instrumental in validating the typical speed and latency performance information required on broadband labels, ensuring that ISPs can meet FCC guidelines with confidence and precision. Contact us to learn more.
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.
As regulators focus on improving network coverage, performance, and availability for their countries, they need a real-world view into consumers’ connectivity to understand where constituents lack adequate network speeds and coverage — as well how operators use new networks and spectrum allocations. Without these insights, regulators may not have the information they need to help improve connectivity in underserved areas. But how do regulators ensure they have an accurate view into connectivity gaps?
While mobile network operators (MNOs) supply regulatory bodies with their own performance and coverage maps, this information is often outdated by the time regulators receive it. Furthermore, information provided by the MNOs is often only predicted coverage and doesn’t provide a granular view into real-world network conditions experienced by consumers in a market. For accurate insights on network coverage and performance, validated third-party data can give regulators the information they need to bring better connectivity to their countries.
In the upcoming webinar, you’ll hear four ways regulatory bodies from around the world leverage Ookla® data to inform policy decisions and improve local connectivity.
Keep reading to find out how telecommunications regulators put these insights into action, and sign up for the webinar on Wednesday, May 11, at 6 a.m. PDT (1 p.m. GMT), for a more in-depth discussion.
Target areas for improving mobile connectivity
Identifying areas with little or no coverage and slow data speeds is the first step to improving networks and increasing availability. With these insights, regulators can introduce policies that encourage mobile operators to invest in expansion efforts, leading to stronger economic growth, better access to education, improved public safety, and more job opportunities.
Drawn from hundreds of millions of daily coverage scans and over 15 million consumer-initiated tests per day, the crowdsourced data in Cell Analytics™ shows an accurate picture of mobile network performance, availability, data usage, user density, and many more metrics — for virtually every operator in the world.
Above, we see Vodafone’s service availability and data speeds west of Sydney, Australia, with the red areas marking no service, showing areas where regulators can encourage operators to improve coverage.
Monitor new network and technology deployments
As operators roll out new 5G service and greenfield networks, regulators need to monitor these deployments to ensure they meet the necessary requirements. This is especially true for recently licensed spectrum. Operators typically must use new spectrum in a required timeframe or return it to the government for reallocation. Ookla data can help regulatory bodies monitor new network deployments, alongside spectrum information, network performance, and coverage metrics for the newly allocated spectrum.
Cell Analytics captures the LTE RSRP for DITO in Manila, Philippines, over the last two years, showing their buildout starting from small isolated pockets of coverage to strong signal across the metropolitan area.
Track spectrum utilization and data usage hotspots to prepare for 5G
In addition to tracking if operators use the acquired spectrum by the required deadline, regulators can monitor how operators use their spectrum. This gives regulators insights into whether operators are optimally balancing their spectrum among the different technologies to maximize the user experience and capacity.
In this example, Cell Analytics tracks mobile data usage in Singapore to identify areas of high data use (red areas in this map).Cell Analytics displays spectrum utilization to help regulators monitor the ways each operator manages their spectrum. In this view, we see the band most often utilized by Singtel’s LTE users in Singapore. This can be compared to the data usage map to verify that users in high demand areas receive service on higher frequency bands that have more capacity. Additionally, regulators can check that operators are balancing spectrum appropriately across the various technologies from 2G to 5G.
Identify signals covering beyond national borders
Regulators want to keep signals from neighboring countries out of their territory. Not only does service leaking in from another country take away revenue from local operators, but it also interferes with the performance of the local networks. With visibility into signal crossing over national boundaries, regulators can proactively and diplomatically address the issue with their neighboring counterparts.
With crowdsourced data, Cell Analytics shows where signals from Austria cross into Bratislava, Slovakia. Slovakian regulators can share this data with Austrian regulators and request that they order the operator to contain the signal within the national boundary.
For a more detailed look at how regulators put this data into practice, join us for the webinar on May 11 at 6 a.m. PST. Even if you can’t attend at this time, you will receive a video recording after the live event. We look forward to sharing how regulators are making better connectivity a reality and answering your questions.
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.
Connecting people with emergency services reached a pinnacle of simplicity when 911 was rolled out as an emergency number across the United States. With one number, people in distress could get the help they needed dispatched as soon as possible. As increasing numbers of households have cut the cord on their traditional landline telephones, 80% of 911 calls are now placed via cell phone. Emergency calls need to connect 100% of the time, which makes mobile coverage, first and foremost, a public safety issue.
Understanding which buildings fall short of providing adequate service can assist local governments in working with building owners and mobile operators to make needed improvements. This falls into two broad categories: First Responder Push to Talk systems, and Commercial Mobile Services used by both Public Safety Agencies and the general public.
Poor indoor coverage impacts public safety
If someone is in distress and unable to place an outgoing call, first responders will not be aware there is an emergency that requires their response. For this reason, the Safer Buildings Coalition defines three pillars of in-building safety communications:
Mobile 911 Calls Must Get Out with Location Accuracy
Mobile Mass Notifications Must Get In
First Responder Communications Must Work
If a building cannot deliver these basic characteristics, the environment puts the occupants and the property itself at risk.
Determining a precise location can be a significant challenge if the device does not have an unobstructed view of the sky. As more GPS satellites can “see” the device, the more accurate the location the system can provide. Work is underway by industry leaders and public safety agencies to improve indoor location, but since it is a complex issue unto itself, this article will focus solely on indoor wireless network coverage.
Why indoor coverage is challenging
Anyone who’s ever tried to place a call from an elevator is not surprised that indoor coverage can be much worse than outdoor coverage. And the deeper into a building you go, the worse the signal typically gets. Penetrating walls is difficult for a cellular signal, though some of the spectrum blocks that mobile companies have licenced are better for this task than others. Low band (longer wavelengths) spectrum tends to be much better at penetrating concrete and brick than high band (shorter wavelength) spectrum.
Low-e glass can inhibit signals
Another factor in poor indoor signal strength is often windows. The introduction of low-e glass has provided huge energy savings for building owners and is positive for the environment. However, the unintended effect is a negative impact on wireless communications.
How glass compares to other building materials in shielding the interior from wireless signals depends upon the type of glass. The chart below offers some surprising comparisons. The attenuation column represents the reduction in the amplitude of the signal. For this example we use 900 MHz, a common low-band spectrum used throughout most of the world and considered to be better at building penetration than higher band frequencies.
The more energy efficient the glass, the more the signal level is reduced. Consider that for each 3 dB attenuation (loss), the signal strength is reduced by half. A 6 dB attenuation means a 75% loss in signal; at 9 dB, an 87.5% loss. As this reduction is exponential, the double glazing low-e glass, near the bottom of the chart, represents a signal reduction of 99.9%.
It’s not uncommon to see someone who is struggling to maintain a call walk toward the window in an attempt to improve their reception. If a building has installed energy efficient glass, most of the available signal may well be coming through the walls. If this person is trying to connect to emergency services, the results could be tragic.
How first responders get coverage
After an initial investment by the federal government, billions of dollars are currently being spent by AT&T to build the new FirstNet network, bringing prioritized broadband telecommunications to the nation’s first responders. State and local governments are also investing to upgrade equipment. This new network is using a dedicated spectrum band (Band 14, also known as the Upper 700 MHz D-block) and also provides prioritized access to the AT&T commercial bands as needed during an emergency.
With fewer users compared to a commercial network, the FirstNet network will experience less congestion and, therefore, a higher signal quality than those serving hundreds of millions of users and devices.
With the addition of High-Power User Equipment (HPUE) Power Class 1, the FirstNet devices can transmit on Band 14 at up 31 dBm. This is a significant increase from the standard 23 dBm (Power Class 3). This can improve FirstNet coverage in fringe areas by up to 80%. Specifically, the ability for the cell site to better “hear” the user equipment can be the difference between a dropped or completed VoLTE call, delivered text message, or the transfer of mission critical data.
While FirstNet is being built into the robust system that has been promised, first responders still use their proprietary Land Mobile Radio (LMR) networks as their primary means of voice communication. Portable cell sites are also available in some circumstances to supplement wireless coverage where needed.
What’s being done to help the public
A significant federal effort has been underway during the past decade to improve wireless coverage in rural areas, but poor wireless coverage can be experienced in big cities as well. The wireless networks were originally designed to work well in a “mobile” environment – namely outdoors while in moving vehicles or walking. As indoor usage has grown, the networks have densified and greater efforts have been made to provide a signal strong enough to penetrate buildings.
Most single-family residential structures will typically be made from materials such as lumber and brick which the chart above shows as contributing to a minimal loss of signal. Buildings with a greater population density, such as multi-family residential and high-rise commercial structures, will typically employ thicker construction material in order to achieve the strength required to bear the weight of multiple floors.
Even where signal strength is strong, high demand on the network can impact user experience. These larger buildings mean more network users per square meter and that, in turn, creates added strain on signal quality. Wrap that building in eco-friendly low-e glass and poor wireless service shouldn’t be a surprise.
The above image from Ookla’s Cell AnalyticsTM portal depicts a gradient heatmap of the outdoor signal strength provided by the Verizon Wireless network in downtown Philadelphia. The crowdsourced readings are averaged over the past twelve months. Red and orange represent a very high signal strength, whereas green to blue represent a lower signal strength. It is clear that Verizon has made significant investments in their Philadelphia network.
Providing high quality indoor coverage is much more difficult. Over the same twelve-month period, using Cell Analytics Pro building layers, we can view the same area in downtown Philadelphia with each building outlined in a color representing the average signal quality from readings captured inside each structure. It is clear that many buildings show an average signal quality rated as poor. Every mobile operator experiences these difficulties.
How we can solve this public safety dilemma
Understanding which buildings fall short of providing adequate service can assist local governments in working with building owners and mobile operators to make needed improvements. This falls into two broad categories: First Responder Push to Talk systems and Commercial Mobile Services used by both Public Safety Agencies and the general public.
The solutions used today for First Responder Push to Talk systems are Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) and signal boosters. For commercial mobile services, DAS, Booster Systems and Small Cells can be deployed based on individual use case. CBRS is a future Private LTE offering that is currently being developed and deployed in the United States.
Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS)
There have been solutions on the market for many years now, but the economic viability varies depending upon the use case. A DAS effectively deploys a miniature cellular network throughout a structure. DAS are very effective and have been deployed in large buildings, arenas and stadiums, but they are not appropriate for smaller buildings.
Signal boosters
Many companies make boosters that can capture outdoor signals from a nearby tower site then route them to repeaters inside of a building. This can solve a problem with signal strength and is more common for Public Safety LMR than cellular. This solution tends to be less expensive than installing a DAS network. However, if there is a need for higher capacity, a signal booster can actually exacerbate an issue by routing additional traffic to a cell site that may already be overloaded.
Small cells
Small cells are much in the news. Those being mounted to streetlights and other municipal structures are meant primarily to increase outdoor coverage at the ground level. This is particularly true with the new millimeter wave spectrum (extremely high frequencies) being used for some 5G deployments. These deployments will greatly improve coverage and quality on sidewalks and in vehicles, but mmWave is not designed to penetrate buildings.
Small cells can also be installed indoors, greatly improving floor by floor coverage in taller buildings. Using high-band (mmWave) spectrum also means that the high efficiency windows can block signals from escaping, lessening the chance that a small cell within one building would leak signal that could interfere with a different system in a neighboring building.
CBRS
The recently approved CBRS (Citizens Broadband Radio Service) technology promises to bring private LTE service to commercial buildings. Instead of depending upon the national wireless operators to provide a strong indoor coverage, an enterprise can deploy a solution to meet their specific needs, much like they have done with Wi-Fi.
So, what do most of the solutions above have in common? They are often deployed by the building owners, managers or commercial tenants. Although we will certainly see the mobile operators deploy solutions where the ROI justifies the cost, it will be up to the organizations that use wireless services every day in their businesses to underwrite the expense. The game-changer with CBRS is that a significant portion of the spectrum is unlicensed, therefore, coordination with a wireless operator is not required.
The game-changer with CBRS is that building owners have an opportunity to own and control the spectrum inside their own buildings, giving them more control over the quality delivered to their tenants and visitors. They will also have more visibility into call patterns and other data usually available only to the wireless carriers.
Building codes need to change
If the goal is to improve safety by ensuring the callers can reach 911 in an emergency and that first responders can maintain adequate coverage when being called to an emergency, then building codes must reflect this need. Sprinkler systems were initially installed to protect property from damage. The first fire code for sprinkler systems was written in 1896. As statistics began to show the death rate in buildings with these systems were dramatically lower, they became required in new construction. The requirement to retrofit existing buildings with sprinkler systems varied greatly from city to city and state to state.
As the cost to deploy indoor coverage technology declines, public safety officials within each local government should be considering how to implement code changes that will improve access to emergency communications. This process will take many years, so it is important to have empirical data to help prioritize which structures are most at risk. This may be a national issue, but it will be solved at the local level, one building at a time.
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.
The recent Inaugural Data Science Institute Summit at the University of Chicago brought experts together to discuss topics in data science research, education, and outreach, including digital inequities across the United States. Ookla® was honored to attend and see how Speedtest® data is being used by the Data Science Institute (DSI) at the University of Chicago through our Ookla For Good™ initiative to help identify digital inequities.
Ookla data is helping to identify internet inequities
During the summit, DSI Director of Research Nick Feamster announced the launch of the new Internet Equity Initiative data portal, which uses Speedtest data along with other data sets to map out internet inequities across U.S. Census tracts. This important work shows the disparity of internet access and performance, as well as a variety of different demographic measures, including race, wealth, and education by Census tract.
You can explore that map here and see how internet connectivity ranks in your community, as well as discovering average internet performance and latency using Speedtest open data. The initiative has also deployed Internet measurement devices in over 100 households across Chicago, with a particular focus on measuring disparities in Internet performance and reliability between low-income and high-income neighborhoods. The initiative’s measurement devices collect a variety of performance and reliability measurements and use Speedtest to measure a connection’s download and upload speeds continuously over time. You can read more about the data they collect and download their data for free here.
More ways DSI is using Speedtest data
In addition to the Internet Equity Initiative map, researchers at DSI are using Ookla data to create data stories and research studies to understand the digital inequities many people face in the U.S. Here are a few recent publications:
A Tale of Two Gigs explores internet performance in two households in two different neighborhoods in close proximity to show that even among the same ISPs, internet speeds and access can vary by a wide margin.
We’re excited about what our partnership with DSI holds for the future, because we know it exposes great work toward creating a better, faster, and more accessible internet for all. Want to learn more about Ookla For Good? Please reach out 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.
Ookla® hosted its inaugural Telecommunications Regulatory Summit for policymakers across Asia Pacific on July 16, 2023, in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The Summit event brought together over 40 regulatory participants from ten countries in the region, to examine how crowdsourced data can support more effective policy-making. The Summit also reflected on the regional telecommunication landscape, its challenges, opportunities, ways to bridge the digital divide, and ensuring consumers have a good quality of experience (QoE).
Key takeaways
Data-driven regulation to drive connectivity. The summit emphasized that crowdsourced data plays a crucial role in measuring progress, identifying connectivity gaps, and making informed decisions to bridge the digital divide, ensuring that high-quality broadband is accessible to everyone, including rural and remote areas.
Diverse technology solutions for connectivity. While 5G technology can replace fixed broadband access in certain scenarios, satellite and 5G FWA technology are effective solutions for remote areas. Adopting these technologies, combined with digital literacy initiatives, can help address challenges related to device accessibility, affordability, and usage gaps.
Regulation and collaboration as catalysts for digital transformation. Effective regulatory policies, collaboration with various stakeholders, and implementing programs like Malaysia’s Jendela initiative are instrumental in promoting digital infrastructure, improving customer experience, and ensuring widespread access to telecommunications services. When internet providers, governments, and regulators work together (like in the Malaysia example), internet service and coverage will continue to improve and expand, including in rural areas.
Data-driven regulation to increase connectivity
Many governments in Asia Pacific see improvements to broadband connectivity as a means to drive digital transformation of their economies. However, this requires that high-quality broadband be accessible nationwide.
Speedtest Intelligence data shows that fixed network performance varies across the region, while mobile networks are catching up in performance and are often the primary means of connection. 5G performance has already exceeded fixed network performance in Malaysia and Indonesia – Speedtest Intelligence data shows that Malaysia recorded a median 5G download speed of 511.79 Mbps versus 93.19 Mbps for fixed, while in the Philippines, our results showed median download speeds of 133.47 Mbps on 5G versus 93.19 Mbps over fixed broadband.
Although connectivity continues to improve, connecting rural and remote areas remains a challenge. To tackle this issue, some countries have established programs like Malaysia’s Universal Service Provision and Indonesia’s Universal Service Obligation fund. These programs aim to provide basic telephony and internet services to individuals and communities. Operators contribute to the fund, which is then used to deploy networks in rural areas that may not be financially viable otherwise. Mr. Sam Majid, CTIO of the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC), emphasized the importance of making informed decisions, driving tangible improvements, and revolutionizing the approach to strengthen internet connectivity in the country. He added, “Crowdsourced data has become critical for us to understand where the demand for connectivity is, where we need to improve, and where we need to deploy. These insights help us manage regulatory policy to address the digital divide, support consumer protections, and increase competition within the market.”
A mix of technologies is required to advance connectivity
5G technology can potentially replace fixed internet access in situations where the cost of fiber deployments is high and rolling out traditional fixed broadband networks isn’t commercially viable. However, in countries like Indonesia, satellite technology may be a more effective solution for providing connectivity to remote areas. While 5G Fixed Wireless Access (FWA) and satellite technology can complement each other, the adoption of satellite technology is currently limited by factors such as coverage, device affordability, and cost of service (Starlink modems cost around $800) in comparison to existing fixed or mobile broadband options. On the other hand, based on our data from the U.S.A., we can see that in the best-case scenario, 5G-based FWA can compete with fiber in terms of median download speeds.
Malaysia has taken a proactive approach to address the growing demand for better quality fixed and mobile broadband coverage. The government’s 12th Malaysia Plan (2021-2025) includes the Jalinan Digital Negara (Jendela) initiative, which utilizes various technology solutions for different sub-areas. To achieve its objectives, Jendela uses Ookla’s crowdsourced data to monitor mobile broadband speeds and identify coverage gaps. In contrast to other countries, Malaysia has adopted a nationwide single wholesale network (SWN) approach for its 5G rollout. The Digital Nasional Berhad (DNB) was established in 2021 to construct and operate the 5G network infrastructure and provide 5G services to mobile network operators at wholesale prices. With 5G DNB coverage reaching 64.75% as of June 2023, Jendela is making significant progress in expanding internet access and achieving its goals of digital transformation.
Regulators play a role in advancing digital transformation
In a panel discussion about the impact of regulation on digital transformation, MTC Laos’ Ms. Phavanhna Douangboupha and Indonesia’s DG SDPPI, Mr. Adis Alifiawan, shared their strategies for increasing broadband connectivity and narrowing the digital divide. Ms. Douangboupha revealed that Laos is collaborating with the private sector and government agencies towards Digital Transformation and Digital Economy development. As part of this it recently launched the National Digital Transformation Committee, chaired by the Prime Minister, in order to reduce redundancy to improve efficiency. Laos also launched the 20-year Vision for Digital Economy Development (2021-2040), 10-year Strategy (2021-2030), and 5-year National Digital Development Plan for 2021-2025. The Ministry of Technology and Communications of Laos is also raising awareness for digital transformation by visiting each province and educating on its benefits.
Meanwhile, Indonesia has taken a targeted approach to accelerate the development of digital infrastructure and provide internet access in villages and public service locations as part of the “Connected Indonesia: the more digital, the more advanced” initiative.
The government has developed all three layers of digital infrastructure, including its Fiber Optic Backbone Network “Palapa Ring,” high throughput satellite (SATRIA-1) for middle-mile connectivity, and last mile connectivity through 4G base stations and WiFi internet access deployed solely by the government in rural areas. Sharing telecom infrastructure is another supportive regulatory framework, which can reduce business costs, ensure faster rollouts and enhance a country’s connectivity, according to Ms. Syeda Shafaq Karim, a representative from the Pakistan’s Telecom Regulator. She also added that enabling Telecom Infrastructure Sharing brings multiple benefits for all stakeholders, from telecom consumers, operators, and regulatory perspective. Additionally, Mr. Tith, during his presentation, discussed how the Telecommunication Regulator of Cambodia intervened to address issues related to QoS and network coverage by setting a floor price for mobile data packages, ensuring they are not sold below the cost base.
While much progress has been made, in our recent article, we shared how several markets in the Asia Pacific region experienced faster median download performance compared to that in the top five European economies. For example, Malaysia, South Korea, Singapore, India, New Zealand, China, and Australia achieved a median 5G download speed exceeding 200 Mbps. In comparison, only France recorded speeds above 200 Mbps among the European countries mentioned, while Italy, Germany, United Kingdom, and Spain, recorded median download speeds below 150 Mbps. However, there is another important factor to consider when discussing expanding broadband adoption, and that is the usage gap, those people that live within the footprint of mobile broadband networks and not using them. According to GSMA, almost half of the population in Asia Pacific is connected to the mobile internet. The mobile internet usage gap – in the region has narrowed significantly from 60% in 2017 to 47% in 2022, reflecting the increasing affordability of devices and improving digital skills.
Mr. Kevin Henry, representing the GSMA, during Fireside Chat: Democratizing Broadband Through 5G Fixed Wireless Access Implementation, discussed the current challenges to expanding internet adoption across the region, such as device accessibility, affordability, coverage, and usage gaps. These challenges can be addressed through digital literacy, relevant content, and education. He also added that governments and mobile operators have a crucial role to play in driving internet adoption via subsidies or tax, as well as educating the citizens on the benefits of being connected.
Overall, the event emphasized the importance of digital transformation, partnerships, and regulation in shaping the future of the telecom ecosystem. The focus of the APAC Regulatory Summit was on improving customer experience, digital advancement, and closing the digital gap, all of which depend on reliable mobile networks. While progress is clearly being made, we will keep a close eye on 5G and network development across Asia going forward. In the meantime, if you want to learn more, subscribe to Ookla research to be the first to read our 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.
A lot of energy has been expended in the last several months to dispute the FCC National Broadband Map. The focus has been on two primary issues:
The first is a disagreement about the number of broadband service locations (BSLs) that exist in each state. Only residential buildings are eligible and many multi-dwelling units (MDUs) are considered a single location.
The second issue regards how many of those locations do not have access to broadband service. Those with throughput speeds less than 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload are considered unserved. Locations served with speeds less than 100 down and 20 up are considered underserved.
These counts are important because the number of total locations and unserved locations in each state will define how much funding each state receives of the over $42 billion available through the Broadband, Equity, Access and Deployment Program (BEAD).
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) that established this program was bipartisan, and so is the concern over the current state of the map. The deadline to challenge the accuracy of these location counts passed in January, but many state broadband offices and the legislators that represent them have made it clear they were unhappy with the process. Some of them felt that there was simply not enough time to analyze the data after gaining access to it.
New legislation proposed to “fix” the map
The demand to fix the map became increasingly serious on Friday, March 31, 2023, as Senators Jacky Rosen (D-NV) and John Thune (R-SD) introduced the “Accurate Map for Broadband Investment Act.” Calling the current map “deeply flawed,” the bill aims to provide additional time to challenge the number of BSLs as well as which ones are considered unserved or underserved.
Everyone expects the FCC map to forever be a work in progress as communities grow and networks expand. It has already improved from its first release and it will continue to get better. As we approach a moment in time that will divide up a finite funding pool, accuracy on the metrics has real monetary consequences. Once allocations are made, it will be up to NTIA to work with each state to fund broadband infrastructure projects and connect communities. However, the dollars each state has to work with won’t change.
The newly proposed legislation would add seven more months to the challenge process for states and other interested parties to dispute the map’s accuracy. To ensure that broadband projects aren’t brought to a complete halt, 20% of the funding would be made available on the original timetable, delaying assignment to states of the remaining funds while more scrutiny is applied to the underlying data.
Multiple bites at the apple
There are two agencies, not just one, that will impact which communities get broadband infrastructure assistance and how soon they get it. Up until now, providing input to the FCC for corrections to the map has been the primary focus. But NTIA will be responsible for working with each state broadband office to identify areas of need and approve project awards. These plans will certainly evolve as new evidence is presented.
During the first phase of their mapping effort, the only significant challenges to the map the FCC accepted were for the number of broadband service locations and individual reports of availability not matching those reported by ISPs. There were certainly some individual challenges submitted, but many states were frustrated at the lack of public awareness and participation. Through NTIA, state offices were always going to get a second bite at the apple as far as getting funding to the right communities. Depending upon the outcome of the Rosen/Thune legislation, states may get an extra bite from the FCC apple as well.
Confusion over crowdsource data
The Commission defined a process for crowdsource data to be presented as evidence to support that reported service availability and performance was less than claimed. However, many filers have found this process unclear or difficult, notably in regard to the requirement that all submissions include Broadband Serviceable Location (BSL) identification numbers. To make this process even more difficult, the only file types accepted as additional evidence were formats that lacked geospatial awareness. In other words, they could not easily be imported into a mapping system.
As of late February, the FCC now accepts JSON files in addition to those formats already approved (PDF, DOC, DOCX, JPG and PNG). This new format can include columns for longitude and latitude, making it easier to include crowdsource data evidence, and has the added benefit of making analysis by the FCC significantly more efficient.
Multipurpose research
Crowdsource data evidence has multiple target audiences. The very same evidence developed to submit to the FCC can be used to work with NTIA during the next phase. NTIA is very familiar with how crowdsource data is employed to define “indicators of need,” and used data from Ookla®, M-Lab, and Microsoft extensively to build their National Broadband Availability Map a couple of years ago.
These federal agencies have been the primary concern, but local interests will become very vocal as projects are chosen. Which communities receive grants and in what priority may be vigorously debated. ISPs that compete for expansion areas will need to prove a track record, and the states will need independent evidence on how well they are serving their existing customers. And those providers that stretched the truth on the level of service they actually provide will fight being overbuilt. States should be preparing for local challenges to their own decisions.
Crowdsource data provides the largest pool of evidence to understand the quality of service being delivered to a community. Hundreds of millions of tests across the country means that even less populated states have hundreds of thousands of points to analyze and better understand the availability and performance of each serving network.
How to support your claim with crowdsource data
Crowdsource data from Ookla Speedtest® measurements can easily be overlaid with FCC maps to produce the needed evidence that indicates where services don’t meet minimum broadband standards. Through crowdsource data submissions, broadband offices can dispute existing maps, advocate for federal funding eligibility, and assist federal officials in their mission to improve broadband availability and performance.
Below are some helpful tips for submitting crowdsource data for disputed areas in a format that can meet FCC requirements.
As an example, we are going to focus on an area near Durango, Colorado — a mountainous area that is both difficult and expensive to cover. We start by looking at all of the BSLs represented in the FCC’s map within the area of interest for early 2023.
Step 2: Overlay FCC hexagon system with BSLs
Next, we overlay the BSLs with hexagons where the FCC defines broadband service as being available. The darker the hexagon, the more ISPs claiming to provide service in that area.
Step 3: Layer Speedtest data with FCC hexagon system and BSLs
By layering Speedtest data from fixed terrestrial operators on top of the hexagons, we can see that Durango and Durango West have high test densities. There are many households packed closely together, making those areas more viable to justify the cost of building high-speed services to them from a purely economic standpoint. Location accuracy for most tests is under 100 meters, so tests will grid into bins measuring approximately 1002 meters (this varies based upon latitude). If there are multiple tests within each bin, they will stack, and we are showing the fastest recorded speed on the top in this view. Speedtest measurements shown are for the four quarters (Q1-Q4, 2022) immediately previous to the published FCC data.
Step 4: Create clusters to see Speedtest data at scale within the FCC hexagon system
To get an idea of the actual volume of Speedtest data we’re looking at, we created a clustered version demonstrating where the number of tests are much greater. Some hexagons have 100+ tests, and a few hexagons have no tests, usually because there are fewer households.
Step 5: View Speedtest performance within the FCC hexagon system
Using that methodology, we can show how the aggregated test results appear within the hexagons defined by the FCC. The red hexagons (levels 8 and 9) demonstrate where the median speed is not meeting FCC minimum standards for broadband. This helps you get an idea of the overall experiences people are having, as well as the maximum speeds experienced in an area referencing the stacked tests previously shown.
Step 6: Create a polygon of Speedtest data with BSLs
Next, create a polygon that surrounds the community or specific area of interest. Many ISPs have created polygons to capture all of the BSLs that fall within their territories for their service area and technology submissions. In our discussions with the FCC, staffers have suggested following a similar approach for crowdsource submissions.
Step 7: Export the polygon of BSLs as a CSV file
Next, export a CSV file of the locations that are within the polygon, including the Location ID, as directed in the instructions defined by the Broadband Data Task Force (BDTF). The entire FCC submission process has been built around identifying these location IDs for each BSL.
Step 8: Export the polygon of Speedtest data as a JSON file
Using the same polygon, select and export the Speedtest results as a JSON file, including speed and latency measurements, ISP names, timestamps, anonymized user ID, and source test ID.
Step 9: Submit the files to the FCC
Submit the CSV file as well as the JSON file as additional evidence to the FCC along with any other documents supporting your dispute of the service availability, using one of the accepted file formats. This may include maps defining the area being disputed, documents from residents claiming inadequate or no service, and any other pertinent information.
Step 10: Be prepared to use the evidence to partner with NTIA
The FCC maps will ultimately define how many dollars go to NTIA to determine state funding. NTIA is preparing to use the same map fabric and BSL data as that used by the FCC. This will allow collaboration with all the above parties and will assist with reconciling the differences between the federal stakeholders. You can utilize this same data as you work with NTIA to demonstrate where you would like to focus funding as well as resolving local disputes on broadband availability.
Want to learn more? Watch our recent webinar
We hosted a webinar on March 30, 2023 titled “Using Crowdsource Broadband Data to Dispute FCC Maps”. In this webinar, a panel of experts came together to discuss common challenges in the mapping process and successful broadband mapping projects. Panelists included Jamie Hoffman, Program Manager at the West Virginia Department of Economic Development, Patrick Ryan, Senior Solution Engineer, Telecommunications at Esri, Tom Reid, President at Reid Consulting Group and me, Bryan Darr, VP of Government Affairs at Ookla.
You can watch the recording of the recent webinar 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.
