Internet Prices for Highest Speeds May Be Up, But So Is Quality for All Plans

Is the price of Internet service rising or falling? Benton Senior Fellow John Horrigan recently tried to answer this question in a recent analysis for the Benton Institute using the FCC’s Urban Rate Survey (URS). His analysis builds on a prior piece by USTelecom. The answer is important because significant real increases in the cost of broadband may delay its benefits and serve as an argument for greater federal involvement. In brief, the price of most connections has fallen significantly since 2020. However, subscribers are choosing to spend more on faster plans.

 

Horrigan concluded that “[b]roadband service offerings at the highest speeds are expensive, growing in prevalence, and driving up average broadband prices.” Average price across all broadband plan offerings grew 4.8 percent in real terms. However, he also found that the rise is mainly due to increased demand for high-speed connections (2 Gbps or higher), not general inflation. The portion of high-speed plans in the URS sample rose from 9% to 16%. As the number of high-speed plans increases, they form a larger percentage of the URS survey. This in turn raises the average price for all plans, even if the price of every specific plan remains the same.

The chart below gives the average change in the price of different plans between 2020 and 2025 for different equipment and speeds. Higher than 2 Gbps is measured from 2021.

 Change in Real Broadband Prices from 2020 to 2025

Speed or Technology	% Change
Technology
Cable	-13.8
Fiber	+40.1
DSL	-9.3
Fixed Wireless	-50.7
Speed
Below 100 Mbps	-15.0
100-1000 Mbps	-28.9
1000-2000 Mbps	-15.3
Greater than 2000 Mbps	-25.3

Consumer demand has likely driven most of the increase in fiber. Horrigan also found that the quality of Internet plans is increasing. The most obvious improvement has been in data speeds. However, increases in the variety of content and reliability also matter. As the quality of broadband increases, consumers are willing to pay more.

The survey does point to a possible price ceiling in which low-income users are unable to pay higher prices even when better quality is considered. The decline in offerings of the lowest-cost plans may hurt low-income households. However, many Internet providers have special offerings for qualified low-income households that offer discounted prices. For example, Xfinity Essentials provides affordable home Internet for qualifying households ($14.95 per month for up to 75 Mbps, or $29.95 per month for up to 100 Mbps) — as well as low-cost computers, free WiFi hotspots, and free Internet training. CTIA points out that the industry has participated in programs like Lifeline, the Emergency Broadband Benefit and Emergency Connectivity Fund, and the Affordable Connectivity Program.

Streaming Continues to Surge as Short-Form Video Reshapes Consumer Habits

In a June 2025 post to the FSF Blog, I noted that streaming video had achieved a remarkable milestone: for the first time, it surpassed cable and broadcast television combined, capturing 44.8 percent of total viewing in May 2025. That trend continues. According to Nielsen's January edition of The Gauge™, streaming video's viewing share reached 47.5 percent in December 2025, setting yet another record. Perhaps even more impressive is the fact that, on two separate occasions, it represented over half of daily video consumption.

But the story of shifting consumer preferences extends beyond the longstanding streaming-versus-traditional-distribution-platforms narrative. An equally significant transformation is underway as social-media platforms – TikTok, YouTube Shorts, Instagram Reels, and so on – increasingly capture consumer attention with short-form content, particularly among younger demographics.

According to a Digiday article citing a report by GCI (subscription required), global consumers on average spend a tremendous amount of time each week watching short-form video content on social-media platforms: six hours and 39 minutes. In fact, the amount of time global consumers spend accessing such content significantly exceeds the amount of time they view streaming video: 5 hours. This represents a fundamental realignment in how people – especially younger generations – consume video.

These twin trends carry significant implications for communications policy. Indeed, the (1) ongoing ascendance of streaming video over legacy distribution platforms, and (2) explosive growth of short-form video underscore what I and others affiliated with the Free State Foundation long have argued: that the video marketplace is intensely competitive and consumer-driven. Consequently, legacy regulations born of a bygone era interfere with marketplace mechanics and artificially constrain competition-fueled growth in consumer welfare.

This reality is particularly relevant in the context of the FCC's ongoing review of the proposed transaction between Charter Communications, Inc. and Cox Enterprises, Inc., currently on day 101 (out of 180) according to the Commission's informal timeline. As the Free State Foundation noted in its comments, the combination of these geographically distinct distribution platforms appears likely to benefit video subscribers, in particular the Cox customers who would gain access to Charter's packages bundled with popular streaming options (HBO Max, Disney+, Paramount+, and ESPN Unlimited, among others).

NCTA Is Right On: "Must Carry" Must Go

For a very long time, Free State Foundation scholars have opposed the calls for the FCC to require that cable and satellite operators must carry broadcast channels in the ATSC 3.0 according to the government's dictate rather than the market's response to consumer demand. See, for example, Free State Foundation Adjunct Senior Fellow Michael O'Rielly's FSF Perspectives, "Let's Strongly Reject NextGen TV Mandates."

 

In this regard, I was pleased to see NCTA's comments filed with the FCC on January 20 contending that such a "must carry" government mandate is unconstitutional as a First Amendment violation. As NCTA puts it: "The Commission should also reject any calls to grant must-carry rights to 3.0 signals. In today’s video marketplace, must carry requirements are no longer supportable under the First and Fifth Amendments. Extending must carry requirements to 3.0 signals would only exacerbate these constitutional infirmities."

 

Right on.

 

Indeed, Free State Foundation scholars have been arguing that the FCC's "must carry" mandates violate the First Amendment since shortly after FSF was founded in June 2006. In that very same month, in "Taking the Constitutional Oath Seriously at the FCC," I wrote this:

 

"In 1994 in the Turner case, a sharply divided Supreme Court (5-4) barely upheld against a First Amendment challenge must-carry provisions that required cable operators to carry one signal of local broadcast stations. There is no evidence that, nor could there be in today's substantially changed communications environment, that the failure to carry multiple signals of local broadcasters will diminish the availability of local programming. And under Turner that is the test that must be met, with substantial and convincing evidence, to pass constitutional muster."

In 2010, FSF scholars penned several pieces arguing that continuing "must carry" mandates violate the First Amendment. This excerpt is from a blog posted in February 2010 by FSF's Seth Cooper titled, "Will the Supreme Court Decide 'Must Carry' Must Go?"

"The current state of video competition renders the 1990s rationale for must-carry obsolete. Only a person who has spent the last decade or so living deep inside a cave with no video reception capabilities whatsoever could be excused for not understanding that the video marketplace has undergone drastic change since the 1990s. Significantly, direct broadcast satellite has proven a strong source of competition with cable. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently acknowledged this in its August 2009 decision in Comcast v. FCC, striking down the FCC's cable subscribership caps. As I related in a prior blog post ("D.C. Circuit: Vindicating Video Competition"), that court expressly recognized the increasingly competitive and dynamic marketplace for video:

[T]he record is replete with evidence of ever increasing competition among video providers: Satellite and fiber optic video providers have entered the market and grown in market share since the Congress passed the 1992 Act, and particularly in recent years. Cable operators, therefore, no longer have the bottleneck power over programming that concerned the Congress in 1992. Second, over the same period there has been a dramatic increase both in the number of cable networks and in the programming available to subscribers.

In fact, the D.C. Circuit observed that "satellite television companies, which were bit players in the early '90s, now serve one-third of all subscribers." DBS subscribership growth over the last decade marks a dramatic change in the competitive video marketplace."

Of course, 2010 was way before the rise of dozens of popular Internet streamers. Nevertheless, we contended that the video marketplace already had changed so much that the notion of cable operators having "bottleneck power" was obsolete. It bears repeating what we said over 15 years ago: "Only a person who has spent the last decade or so living deep inside a cave with no video reception capabilities whatsoever could be excused for not understanding that the video marketplace has undergone drastic change since the 1990s."

Again, I'm pleased NCTA has included a First Amendment argument in its opposition to suggestions that the government should mandate carriage of broadcast channels in the ATSC 3.0. It's way past time for "must carry" to be confined to the constitutional dustbin in which First Amendment violations reside!

 

FSF: Off to a Fast Start in 2026!

 Believe it or not, we're already heading into the end of January 2026. I find it hard to believe regardless of what the calendar tells me!

 Looked at another way, I'm a bit surprised – well, not really –at what we've already accomplished at the Free State Foundation so far this year.

 

Be sure to check out all the activity – including FSF Adjunct Senior Fellow Michael O'Rielly's first videocast of the new year – in the Constant Contact message you'll be receiving shortly. Here I'll just highlight a few pieces.

 

Free State Foundation Senior Fellow Andrew Long asks and answers, at least preliminarily, "The $21 Billion Question: What Should NTIA's Roth Do With the BEAD Program Surplus?" He points out that NTIA Administrator Arielle Roth, speaking at a Free State Foundation event on December 2, commendably emphasized that the savings produced by the Trump Administration's important reforms to the BEAD program should not be spent "wastefully," should "produce real, measurable value," should "not duplicate investment the private sector is already making," and should not "distort investment or stifle innovation." Those should be considered foundational non-negotiable principles governing any decisions regarding the disbursement of any savings that are not returned to the Treasury for the benefit of taxpayers. Don't be surprised if we have more to say on this topic in the coming weeks and months.

 

One of the nation's priorities should be to act to accelerate the modernization of our communications networks by promptly transitioning to all Internet Protocol networks. Free State Foundation scholars have advocated doing so for many years. Take a look at the comments we submitted on January 20 in the FCC's "Advancing IP Interconnection and Accelerating Network Modernization" proceeding supporting the Commission's proposals in this regard.

 

To the same end – hastening the build-out of advanced communications – please see FSF comments filed on January 15 in the FCC's "Eliminating Barriers to Wireless Deployments" proceeding. Our comments advocate various actions that would eliminate costly and unnecessary state and local barriers to deployment. The comments explain why these actions are essential to maintaining our nation's leadership in deploying and using 5G (and beyond) broadband wireless services.

 

And if you're still in a New Year's mood, or just have the contemplative disposition, and wish to ponder how we Americans should think about our nation – and ourselves as citizens – during this year celebrating our 250^th birthday, I invite you to read my essay, "Let's Make 2026 About 'We the People'" published on January 1 by the Washington Times. Here's the way I closed: "In times like the present, when America's citizenry seems to be bitterly divided, a resolve to engage in deep reflection regarding what it means to be part of "We the People" – as each of us is – would be a worthwhile resolution for the new year. Deep reflection is another worthwhile resolution for the 250th celebration of the American experiment in democracy." That remains my sentiment.

 

And, finally, speaking of anniversaries, this June marks the Free State Foundation's 20^th anniversary. Having started from "scratch," just me and my laptop, I'm very proud of what we accomplished in those two decades to support free markets, free speech, property rights, and the rule of law. More about that throughout our anniversary year. For now, I'll just say we couldn't have done it without your support and friendship. For that, I'll remain forever grateful!

Senate Hearing Should Consider Replacing the Public Interest Standard

By Randolph May

On December 17, the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee is holding an FCC oversight hearing. Conducted properly, oversight hearings can be valuable tools in assisting legislators, and the public too, in understanding an agency's work – what an agency is doing, and why. And, sometimes, an oversight hearing can lead to the subsequent introduction of legislation to reform the agency's enabling statute.

That should be the case regarding the Communications Act – specifically legislation replacing the public interest standard.

But it's a good bet that some Democrats on the committee, perhaps all of them, will use most of their allotted time to lambaste FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, especially regarding his remarks in "l'affaire Jimmy Kimmel." Without rehearsing all the details here, you'll recall that Chairman Carr issued what was reasonably taken to be a threat that, unless Kimmel's show was taken off the air, the broadcast station owners airing it would suffer adverse consequences. After all, by virtue of the licenses the FCC issues requiring that broadcasters operate consistent with the "public interest," the agency exercises substantial power over their operations. And if broadcasters wish to transfer or assign their licenses to another entity, the FCC first must find the transaction is in the "public interest."

At the time of Chairman Carr's remarks regarding Jimmy Kimmel, I said that, regardless of whether they rose to an actual violation of the First Amendment, and despite what I considered to be Kimmel's factually inaccurate and insensitive monologue regarding Charlie Kirk's assassination, I didn't like what appeared to be Carr's threats directed at the broadcasters. I stand by that.

But when the Democrats and those on the Left get in high dudgeon railing at Carr at the hearing or otherwise, the theatre is a bit too contrived. For over the long history of the FCC, it's been Democrats in Congress, and those sitting on the FCC, who have been most persistent and insistent in wielding the FCC's public interest authority to dictate or influence broadcast content. I recited some of the historical evidence here. And, significantly, it was a Democrat-controlled FCC that employed the "Fairness Doctrine," with its requirement that broadcasters present balanced coverage of issues of public importance, as a content regulation sword. Most notably, the Fairness Doctrine was invoked, successfully, to silence conservative broadcasters. See Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC – which now is ripe for history's constitutional dustbin.

 

Moreover, with the current focus on the FCC's "news distortion" rule – a prohibition grounded in the FCC's public interest authority – it's worth recalling the April 2018 letter to then-FCC Chairman Ajit Pai signed by twelve Senate Democrats. That letter urged the FCC to consider sanctioning Sinclair Broadcasting Group, including revoking its broadcast licenses and preventing it from acquiring others, allegedly on the basis that Sinclair stations engaged in "news distortion" inconsistent with its public interest obligations. (Some of the twelve Senators who signed that April 2018 letter likely will participate in the December 17 oversight hearing.)

Nevertheless, my purpose today is not to tote up a scorecard demonstrating that one side of the aisle or the other, either political or philosophical, has abused the public interest standard more than the other side. That's backward-looking and likely counterproductive. Rather, consistent with the legislative purpose of an oversight hearing, I want to suggest – as I have many times previously –a more productive way forward.

The Commerce Committee Senators, led by their able, reformist-minded Chairman Ted Cruz, should use the oversight hearing, at least in part, to begin a serious discussion about replacing the FCC's public interest standard, upon which the agency's program content regulation, including its news distortion rule, is grounded. It should be replaced with some form of consumer welfare standard more attuned to the current competitive environment and technological dynamism of the marketplace. To the extent there are special considerations, such as maintaining the availability of communications relating to public health and public safety, or universal service, they can be delineated and dealt with discretely.

As I recounted recently in this recent FSF Perspectives, The Public Interest Standard: The Historical Legislative Context, "for almost two decades now, Free State Foundation scholars have been advocating that any meaningful updating of the Communications Act must include replacement of the public interest standard with one oriented towards a proper assessment of consumer welfare and marketplace competition." You can find links to that advocacy in that paper. And throughout the FCC's website you can find numerous papers each year documenting the dramatic changes, driven by relentless technological innovation, that have occurred in the media and telecommunications marketplace in the last several decades.

The long and short of it is that these conspicuous marketplace changes have rendered obsolete the original anti-monopoly and "scarcity" rationale that was the principal impetus for inclusion of the public standard in the Communications Act of 1934, which itself merely incorporated the standard from even earlier legislation.

The public interest standard, malleable and ambiguous as it is, has been a ready means for expanding the FCC's authority in the hands of those commissioners who wish to use it for that purpose. And, more particularly, for those who wish to use it in this way, it has been the means by which the agency has restricted speech, or preferred some speech over other speech, by regulating program content or threatening to do so. All under the claim of furthering the "public interest."

As far back as 2001, I argued in a law review article that the public interest standard is so indeterminate that it constitutes an unconstitutionally unintelligible delegation of legislative authority. The Supreme Court has yet to agree, but I suspect that Chairman Cruz might be sympathetic to the argument. Justice Felix Frankfurter, a New Deal acolyte, proved my point over six decades earlier in the landmark FCC v. Pottsville Broadcasting Co. (1940) case when he declared that the public interest standard "is as concrete as the complicated factors for judgment in such a field of delegated authority permit."

Read Justice Frankfurter's elucidation again. I challenge you to tell me what it means.

In other words, the public interest standard is standardless. And this means it is inconsistent with the rule of law and invites abuse. The Senate Commerce Committee should begin to consider replacing it with some form of consumer welfare standard fit for the Digital Age.

FSF Announces the Appointment of Joseph V. Kennedy as Director of Policy Studies and Senior Fellow

Free State Foundation President Randolph May announced on December 4, 2025, that Joseph V. Kennedy, an accomplished economist and lawyer with deep public policy expertise and experience, is joining FSF on a full-time basis as Director of Policy Studies and Senior Fellow, effective January 1. 

Previously, Mr. Kennedy served as Senior Principal Economist at the MITRE Corporation. Prior to that, he served as a Senior Fellow at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. Mr. Kennedy’s former positions include serving as a Senior Officer at The Pew Charitable Trusts; Chief Economist for the U.S. Department of Commerce; Senior Economist for the U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee; and General Counsel for the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. He is also an Adjunct Professor at Georgetown University.
 
Dr. Kennedy received his Ph.D. in Economics from George Washington University, his M.S. in Agricultural and Applied Economics from the University of Minnesota, and his J.D. from the University of Minnesota. He received his B.S. in Foreign Service from Georgetown University. Mr. Kennedy has written two books and more than 70 articles. He has provided legal and economic advice to members of Congress, Cabinet secretaries, and top business executives. Much of this advice has been directed at public policies involving technology, competitiveness, and the social contract.
 
In announcing Dr. Kennedy’s appointment, Mr. May stated: “I am very excited that Joe Kennedy is joining the Free State Foundation as Director of Policy Studies and Senior Fellow. With his outstanding academic background in both economics and law, and his real-world professional experience in both disciplines, Joe will play a major role in leading FSF’s law and policy work in the communications, Internet, intellectual property, and other related fields. FSF already is widely acknowledged for its thought leadership in these areas, and in his senior position, Joe will further enhance our leadership position.”
 
Upon accepting FSF’s offer, Mr. Kennedy stated: “I am thrilled to be joining an institution that is so highly regarded for the quality and impact of its free market-oriented work. My goal is to use my decades of expertise and experience in law and economics to help make FSF even stronger and even more respected than it already is and to help expand its work into related fields. I look forward to the challenge ahead.”

Traveling Backwards in Time: The Public Knowledge Petition to Deny the Charter – Cox Transaction

 by Randolph May

As predictable as the sun rising tomorrow morning, Public Knowledge and like-minded organizations have filed a petition to deny the proposed acquisition of Cox Communications by Charter Communications. The pro-regulatory groups contend that, if approved, the combination "would reshape the American broadband landscape" and "would create unchecked gatekeeper power over Internet distribution."

Unchecked gatekeeper power? Reshape the American broadband landscape? 

Public Knowledge and the co-signers must have pushed the wrong button in a time-travel machine, for they are surely looking backwards regarding the current state of the communications and media environment. In the process, they may have set a new low bar for extreme hyperbole.

We'll have more to say about the Public Knowledge petition and the FCC's consideration of the Charter – Cox transaction going forward. For the moment, I refer you to the comments submitted by the Free State Foundation and this Free State Foundation Perspectives authored by Daniel Lyons, a member of FSF's Board of Academic Advisors. They completely refute any notion that a combined Charter – Cox would possess any "gatekeeping" power over Internet distribution. And they demonstrate how dramatically the communications and media landscape already has been "reshaped" by vigorous competition among cable, fiber, satellite, fixed wireless, wireless, and hybrid facilities-based platforms – and continues to be reshaped, even as I write.

 

If approved by the Commission, the combination of Charter and Cox, "each now struggling with the challenge of competing in multiple maturing markets," as Daniel Lyons put it, will have an opportunity to survive and provide further competition in an already competitive intermodal marketplace.

Oh, while in the time-travel machine looking backwards, please recall the notorious AOL – Time Warner merger. Some of the very same signers of the petition to deny Charter – Cox petitioned to deny the AOL – Time Warner combination. The rhetoric – extreme hyperbole, you could say – regarding the supposed harms to consumers were that merger to be approved by the FCC was over-the-top.

The petition to deny the AOL – Time Warner merger described the "dangerous new dimension" being added to "the emerging structure of the cable TV/broadband Internet industry…." Among the "findings" cited in their petition: "The merger would allow two enormous firms to dominate the markets for broadband and narrowband Internet services, cable television, and other entertainment services, which could leave consumers with higher prices, fewer choices, and the stifling of free expression on the Internet." The petition claimed that the new "media giant" would "be able to quickly capture the new product market for interactive TV."

Well, the FCC approved the AOL – Time Warner merger…and you know how that combination worked out. We've seen this movie – I mean petition to deny! – before. Talk of "gatekeeper power" may have been slightly relevant in the early 2000s. Now it's downright frivolous.

It's time for Public Knowledge and the other like-minded groups to stop looking backwards through the looking glass and acknowledge the current marketplace reality.