More than a third of Americans surveyed by U.S. News and World Report last month said they had had to cut personal expenses to be able to pay their cable bill due to inflation’s hit on their pocketbooks.

One-third also said they were paying for download speeds of 100 Megabits per second or less, with 8% saying they had speeds less than 25 Mbps, which does not meet the Federal Communications Commission’s definition of high-speed that is table stakes for broadband access.

The survey of more than 3,500 respondents also found that almost half of those who paid $20 to $60 per month when they signed up for broadband were now paying $41 to $80 for service.

The survey found that a majority (56%) had service of either 101-300 Mbps (31%) or 301-1,000 Mbps (25%), with another 28% getting 25-100 Mbps. The FCC’s current high-speed definition is 25 Mbps downstream and upstream, though there is a push to increase that to 100 Mbps or greater.

Another takeaway was that almost half of respondents said they would be willing to pay up to $10 per month more for “reliably fast high-speed internet.”

The bottom line, according to U.S. News: “Our findings show most U.S. households are now paying more for service that is in many cases way too sluggish — and quite a few of those families are struggling to keep up with the escalating costs to stay connected.”

The top five ISPs to which the respondents subscribed were (1) Xfinity (Comcast), (2) Spectrum, (3) AT&T, (4) Verizon Communications and (5) T-Mobile.

The survey used the Pollfish platform to survey 3,510 adults 18-plus from all 50 states (at least 50 people from each state) “who pay for internet service for their home residence.”

The margin of error was plus or minus 2 percentage points. 

Rep. Antonio Delgado (D-N.Y.) has introduced one bill that would require both better broadband speed measurement and tie funding to higher speeds, and re-introduced another to fund challenges to FCC broadband deployment data.

The Broadband Speed Act would require ISPs to report accurate speed data to the FCC on an annual basis. The bill defines accurate speeds as "the actual speeds they are capable of providing, as opposed to what they can potentially provide within 7-10 business days," as the current speed standard allows.

Also Read: Sen. Wicker Wants FCC Oversight Hearing on Broadband Mapping

He said the law will help demonstrate to the FCC where broadband service is matching advertised speeds. And just for good measure, the law would also require that any new FCC broadband funding for deployment require speeds of at least 100 Mbps "to ensure they are built to last."

The Biden Administration has made "future-proofing" broadband buildouts one of its mantras as well.

The second bill, which is co-sponsored by Republican Rep. David McKinley of West Virginia, would improve broadband mapping, something Congress and the FCC have been trying to do for some time. 

The Community Broadband Mapping Act would allow local governments, utility cooperatives, community groups, small ISPs and others to use USDA Rural Utility Service (RUS) grant money to collect broadband coverage data that it could use to challenge any incorrect designations by the FCC.

Also Read: FCC Launching Public Input Mapping Tool

“Flawed service maps compiled by the FCC paint an inaccurate picture of upstate broadband access,” said Rep. Delgado, something the FCC has conceded. Delgado called the bill, and its help with challenges to FCC data, a first step to secure affordable broadband.

"Reliable access to the internet remains a necessity for all Americans no matter where they live," said Rep. McKinley. "Without maps that provide an accurate assessment of internet connectivity, we can’t target resources correctly to parts of the country that need help. This bill will help address this continuing problem."

The Federal Communications Commission has made 25 Megabits per second the de facto standard for high-speed broadband, which is also its calculated minimum download speed for 4K video.

Some calls for the regulator to bump up that minimum have been tied, in part, to the rise in video streaming that will only grow as broadband access devices become the new home video monitor of choice.

The FCC defines minimum speeds as those needed for "adequate performance" by the relevant application based on one activity at a time, so if there are multiple video streamers concurrently, the need for speed increases significantly.

Recently, the FCC ruled that streaming video can be considered a substitute for standard cable services when it comes to determining effective video competition in a market, so having sufficient speeds will be important to driving that competition and maintaining that competitive profile.

Since the average U.S. household has multiple TV sets and broadband access devices are becoming the new go-to video, broadband speeds will need to keep pace to ensure OTT remains a competitive substitute for traditional cable, at least while traditional cable lasts. (Statistics suggest, though, that the number of in-home TV sets is falling as the number of streaming devices rises.)

Broadband operators don't see it that way. In arguing that the FCC should not raise its benchmark for reasonable and timely broadband deployment, NCTA-The Internet & Television Association told the agency that speeds of 25 Mbps upstream and 3 Mbps downstream can accommodate “critical functions on multiple devices,” including video streaming.

NCTA suggested the FCC could even lower its speed threshold for broadband availability and that even slower speeds can handle streaming, particularly in the 60% of households with only one or two residents.

While cable calls streaming a critical function, the FCC doesn't actually list video streaming in the "advantages of broadband" section of its online "Getting Broadband" Q&A, which include distance learning, telemedicine, voice-over-internet protocol (VoIP) telephone service and online shopping. That’s despite the fact its OTT competition decision presumes streaming video is a competitive alternative sufficient to justify deregulating cable rates. When contacted about the absence of streaming video in the broadband advantages section, a spokesperson thanked Next TV for flagging the omission and said it was being added.

Video does feature prominently among the FCC's "rough guidelines" for what speed is needed for various applications.

For more coverage of the streaming sector, go to nexttv.com. 

As of the end of 2017, the most recent data the FCC has crunched for broadband deployment and speeds, 85% of residential fixed broadband connections had speeds of at least 10 Mbps downstream and 1 Mbps upstream. 

That is according to a just-released FCC accounting of carrier-reported mobile and fixed speeds (form 477) as of December 2017, numbers that could clearly have changed in the intervening almost two years. The FCC has also conceded that the form 477 data has issues. 

               Distribution of Fixed Connections (108.2 million) by Downstream Speed  

With those caveats, the data showed 70% of connections had speeds of at least 25 Mbps downstream/3 Mbps up, and 39% with speeds of at least 100 Mbps downstream. The FCC points out that the 25 Mbps upstream speed was up from 44% of connections in 2014. 

California led the way among residential fixed connections of at least 100 Mbps with 4.175 million, followed by New York with 3.287 million and Texas with 2.698 million. Wyoming brought up the rear among states with 17,000. 

The data was released by the FCC's new office of Economics and Analytics. 

Mobile connections showed the greater growth, percentage wise, increasing 4.5% between December 2016 and December 2017. Fixed connections were up about 2% over the same period. 

But the bureau said it believes the mobile connection number remains under reported "by as much as 5%." 

The FCC has recently adopted a new broadband data-collection methodology that should provide more granular broadband deployment data, and more opportunity for that data to be vetted and corrected via crowd-sourcing.

The commission has been under pressure from both sides of the aisle in Congress to improve data collection, and FCC chair Ajit Pai has conceded the data has to get better, particularly so that Universal Service Fund broadband subsidies can be targeted to where they are most needed, furthering his goal of weeding out waste, as well as fraud and abuse, in subsidy programs.

Although the U.S. ranks No. 1 in 10 of the 38 categories in a new global "Net Vitality" study, American broadband systems often fall into the middle range in many factors when compared with those in other countries, according to the report, which the Telecommunications Research and Policy Institute unveiled on Wednesday (March 7).

Nonetheless, the "Net Vitality 2.0" report puts the U.S. among the five top-tier countries for global broadband internet ecosystem leaders; but that ranking is based on factors beyond actual Internet operations.

The new study updates a 2015 report. Both reports were intended to help policymakers develop appropriate rules to encourage broadband expansion, according to the reports' author, Stuart Brotman, a University of Tennessee professor and long-time policy official.

The U.S. and United Kingdom made the Top Five in both the 2015 and the new Net Vitality reports, but this year China, Germany and Canada have replaced South Korea, Japan and France as leading broadband Internet ecosystem countries. Brotman said he believes that Australia and Singapore are candidates for a future Top Five list, "thanks to their innovation and competitiveness."

The five leading countries for Broadband Communications Infrastructure are South Korea, Denmark, Ireland, Iceland and the Netherlands. The U.S. is #18, according to the new study. As for Broadband Access and Affordability, the top five are South Korea, Denmark, Finland, Estonia and Norway; again the U.S. is #18. In Average Fixed Broadband Connection Speed, the top five are South Korea, Norway, Sweden, China and Switzerland, with the U.S. coming in at #13.

U.S. systems rank highly in Internet "market attractiveness," "technology efficiency" and IPv6 adoption, according to the report (see chart). In key categories such as Fixed Broadband Subscriptions per 100 inhabitants, the U.S. ranks 24th, well behind relatively small countries such as Monaco, Switzerland and Denmark (ranked 1-2-3) , but also below France, South Korea, Germany, U.K., Canada and China.

The U.S. also scores poorly in categories such as "inherent cyber risk" (#41) and "information and communications technology development" (#27).

The study found that all of the most widely used personal computer operating systems and the top web browsers (Apple Safari, Google Chrome, Microsoft Internet Explorer) originated in the U.S.

Policymaking Tool
As a former National Telecommunications and Information Administration official, a telecom policy advisor to the U.S. State Department and veteran academic (with relationships at Harvard, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Stanford), Brotman insists that one value of the comparative analysis is to put broadband and Internet policies into a global matrix.

He contends that the widespread reliance on using service and operations data to compare broadband deployment in different countries "has become too narrowly focused on raising these metrics nationally." Calling such comparative analytic approaches "flawed," he said mixing and matching data that measure different things, such as advertised versus actual broadband network speeds, leads to faulty conclusions.

Against that problematic background, Brotman said he believes that the Net Vitality analysis is a more pertinent document because it uses "more timely, reliable, and comprehensive data reflecting the broadband Internet ecosystem, along with relevant macroeconomic forces that help shape it," such as eCommerce and eGovernment utilization.

In many countries, the regulatory structure provides "too narrow a foundation for Net Vitality," Brotman said. "Rather, the Wide Open Internet is what the United States and other countries around the world should be trying to achieve." He characterized "the Wide Open Internet" as one that "encompasses the broader goal of an efficient ubiquitous broadband Internet ecosystem with virtually unlimited applications and content available on multiple devices."

The new analysis is based on data from the United Nations (including the International Telecommunications Union,) the World Economic Forum, the World Wide Web Foundation plus academic and corporate research. It includes material on more than 130 countries, although not every nation has been ranked in every category.

Brotman characterizes the five leading countries as sharing "one commonality: they have benefitted the most when government challenges companies to raise their aspirations, increase the pace of innovation, and expand the scale of investments.”