Broadband Prices: Evidence of a Competitive Market

Recent reports have described falling prices in broadband coverage. These declines are kind of surprising given the high initial costs of deploying broadband and the general increase in most other costs of living basics, including food and gas. Two recent articles look at some of the actual plans offered by Internet service providers. They confirm the general price declines but look more closely at how prices play out in the actual market

The conclusion of both articles is that both users and companies have been experimenting with pricing policy to get the best deal. The key finding is that broadband is already affordable to the vast majority of Americans, largely as the result of market competition. One of the articles (subscription required) states that: “It would not be an exaggeration to say that many U.S. ISPs – responding to free-market forces rather than regulatory gimmicks – have on their own established a competitively driven replacement for the defunct Affordable Connectivity Program.”

The second article describes plans from a number of technologies and companies, including Charter, Optimum, and Comcast. Providers for the most part have done away with extra costs including equipment rental, junk fees, and automatic price increases. Instead, companies are offering price freezes, in some cases for life. There is no reason that these guarantees could not be standard practice in the next few years.

Companies compete using a number of technologies including cable, fixed wireless, fiber overbuilders, and satellite. On average Americans pay $78 a month for broadband. Surprisingly, 63% of adults are paying $195 more for Internet this year than they were last year. This may be because users are relatively price insensitive once they find an acceptable plan, the expiration of promotional prices, or they are purchasing higher speeds. Still, the article lists several ways for users to lower their cost, such as buying the modem and router, negotiating with their current supplier, choosing a slower plan, and switching providers.

All this goes to show that, like any competitive market, buyers and sellers continually negotiate for a better deal. The difference is that, with the help of a lot of innovation and private investment, the broadband market promises further benefits to consumers. Once quality is held constant, broadband prices are clearly falling, so much so that users are buying more of it.

 

Consumer Choice in Sports Proves that Video Competition Abounds

On February 25, the FCC's Media Bureau released a public notice seeking comment on "current and emerging trends in the distribution of live sports programming." With a particular focus on football, the item longs for a bygone era – and, what's more, views it through rose-colored glasses. Indeed, it seems to presuppose a time when football fans had free access to every game played. In other words, gridiron glory days that never existed.

Setting to the side, at least for the moment, the significant legal authority questions posed by the notice, I submit that, rather than a basis for concern, the current state of live sports carriage demonstrates that video programming distribution is highly competitive; that consumers derive substantial benefits, including expanded viewing options, as a result; and that any impact on legacy business models is an inevitable and necessary consequence of the welcome transition to a broader marketplace defined by abundant choice.

As the notice recalls, "[f]or decades, Americans have enjoyed turning on their television sets and quickly finding the games they wanted to watch for free on an over-the-air broadcast." Let us not forget, however, that a primary driver of that simplicity was a lack of choice. Consumers typically had access, via broadcast network affiliated local television stations, to a half dozen (give or take) NFL games on Sunday as well as Monday Night Football.

Until the launch of the NFL Sunday Ticket subscription service in 1994, that essentially was the whole picture.

Today, however, consumers can choose from a healthy roster of viewing options. That includes, of course, local broadcasters, which continue to offer a comparable number of games and can be received in a wide range of ways: for free using an over-the-air antenna; by subscribing to a traditional, facilities-based multichannel video programming distribution (MVPD) platform (that is, cable, direct broadcast satellite , and telco TV); and, more recently, with a subscription to a virtual MVPD such as YouTube TV, which also is the current home of the NFL Sunday Ticket.

In addition, the existence of numerous, competing video distribution platforms – including cable channels like ESPN (which has carried Monday Night Football games for the past two decades) and streaming services such as Amazon Prime (Thursday Night Football), Peacock (Sunday Night Football), and Netflix (Christmas Day) – creates additional opportunities for consumers to view games. Thursday Night Football games on Amazon Prime, as one example, represent an additive option. Similarly, NFL Sunday Ticket and NFL Red Zone provide diehard pigskin fans new couch-based opportunities that did not exist in the halcyon days of old.

This brings me to an important point. Commenters frequently make apples-to-oranges comparisons between the single-digit game schedules offered when local broadcasters were the only game in town and what it might cost today to view every game – nearly 300 in total, including the playoffs.

The notice itself, citing a CBS News article, states that "[i]n 2025, NFL games aired on 10 different services, which, according to some estimates, could cost a consumer over $1,500 to watch all games." That article in turn references a USA Today story for a total of $651 (although the latter in fact calculates a price somewhere between $811 and $833, figures seemingly inflated by double charges for ESPN, which already is included in the YouTube TV base plan); the $1,500 figure comes from an unsourced X post that appears to overstate the price of NFL Sunday Ticket + YouTube TV and similarly double charges for ESPN. Aside from the unrealistic assumption that more than a very few people – or perhaps anyone at all – would want to watch every single game or be able to do so, it's clear that the price figures cited are likely inflated. 

*    *    *

As I have documented in a multiyear series of Perspectives from FSF Scholars and posts to the Free State Foundation blog – including one just a few weeks ago – consumers are migrating steadily away from the "Big Bundle" traditionally offered by traditional MVPDs to a self-selected collection of streaming options. In that highly competitive environment, numerous distributors are choosing to offer live sporting events, in addition to the original and licensed content that they carry, to win and retain customers. That competition-fueled decisionmaking benefits consumers through lower costs and greater choice. It therefore should be celebrated, even as it unavoidably disrupts existing revenue models.

The Proposed Railway Safety Act Is Highly Problematic

Yesterday's lead editorial in the Washington Post, "Legislators Think They're Making Trains Safer. They're Not," is spot on. It explains why it would be wrong for Congress to adopt the highly problematic Railway Safey Act as it now stands. And it shows how seemingly well-intentioned "feel good" regulatory measures not only may not resolve the issues they supposedly are intended to address, but rather actually may depress overall consumer welfare and suppress economic efficiencies.

 

The Railway Safety Act was first introduced in 2023 after the East Palestine, Ohio, train accident that led to chemicals being vented and burned. Not surprisingly, there was serious environmental damage due to the escaping chemicals. Perhaps it is also not surprising that legislators felt compelled to react by "doing something."

But, as the Post editorial explains, the bill that the Trump administration is now endorsing is not the proper response. Without addressing any rail safety issues that are rationally related to the causes of the train derailment, the bill would add costly unrelated mandates that, as the Post puts it, "would drive costs higher and slow innovation." Several of the proposed new regulatory mandates, such as requiring the use of certified mechanics and government-directed train crew sizes, respond to union demands. In the meantime, Norfolk Southern already has addressed all four recommendations made to it by NTSB's after-accident report, while federal government has yet to implement any of the ten recommendations made to it.

 

There are lessons here that go beyond getting any proposed rail safety legislation right, although that is obviously important. Of utmost importance, as the Post says, "[r]egualtion should be based on evidence, especially when it could be costly." And it's important for the government not to issue new mandates that are not related in a rational way to addressing the issues supposedly at hand.

 

And, finally, as the editorial points out, by several measures, "including the rates of derailments and employee injuries, 2025 was the safest year on record." It makes sense for the Trump administration to reconsider its support for the Railway Safety Act as it now stands.

Commission to Vote on IP Transition Item at March Open Meeting

In a March 4 blog post, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr announced that at its March 26 open meeting the Commission will vote on a draft notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) "that builds on our prior efforts to streamline copper retirement and reduce outdated regulatory burdens that force providers to maintain aging networks instead of investing in modern, high‑speed ones." In a news release released the same day, he highlighted the fact that "[t]his FCC decision will free up billions of dollars in private capital so that Americans in communities across the country can go from old and slow copper lines to modern, high-speed ones."

Among other things, the draft item would eliminate filing requirements; simplify the technology transitions discontinuance application process; and provide carriers with blanket authority to grandfather legacy services delivered via copper wire. It also would preempt state and local requirements that "have the effect of continuing to require carriers to provide legacy voice services" even after the Commission has authorized them to stop doing so.

In a companion proceeding that remains pending, the Commission proposed to exercise its Section 10 forbearance authority and relieve incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) from a statutory obligation to offer interconnection via legacy time-division multiplexing (TDM) equipment. Free State Foundation President Randolph May and I filed supportive comments in response to that NPRM, emphasizing that "[t]his is yet another key regulatory reform proposal that is crucial to advancing the implementation of the FCC's 'Build America' program by spurring the deployment and use of advanced broadband IP networks."

PRESS RELEASE: FSF Applauds FCC Proposal to Accelerate Network Modernization Inbox

Regarding FCC Chairman Carr’s announcement that the Commission will vote later this month on a proposal to accelerate network modernization, Free State Foundation President Randolph May issued the following statement:

“I applaud FCC Chairman Brendan Carr’s announcement that the Commission will vote on its proposal to accelerate the transition to fully modernized, high speed broadband networks. Adoption of the plan to eliminate outdated and costly analog-age regulations in order to speed the transition away from legacy copper wire networks is essential to securing America’s economic prosperity and innovative environment. By aligning the FCC's rules with what the digital age demands, this important deregulatory step will enhance overall consumer welfare and incentivize investment in advanced high-speed networks. At the same time, the proposal contains necessary consumer protection and public safety safeguards.”

The comments filed with the FCC on January 20 by FSF President Randolph May and Senior Fellow Andrew Long advocating adoption of the rulemaking proposal are here. 

House Orders Study on How to Speed Approvals to Access Federal Land to Build Out Broadband Networks.

Over the past year there has been a growing emphasis on expanding public access to broadband services. Although actual progress is slow, planning and evaluation seems to have gained momentum. One aspect of this is a growing focus on the amount of time it takes government agencies at all levels to approve the use of federal lands to install broadband systems. Fortunately, some progress was recently made.

On March 3 the House of Representatives passed H.R. 5419 by a unanimous voice vote. The Enhancing Administrative Reviews for Broadband Deployment Act was originally introduced by Rep. Tom Kean (R-NJ). It requires the Departments of Agriculture and Interior to study whether there are any programmatic or administrative barriers to the timely review of requests to access federal land to deploy broadband. The study will also identify whether regulatory reforms could improve efficiency with respect to reviewing requests and try to identify processes for prioritizing the review of requests. Within one year the Departments shall issue a report summarizing the results of the study. It should also include a plan for providing the staffing necessary to ensure timely review of broadband land use authorizations in the future.

 A 2024 report by the Government Accountability Office found that between 2018 and 2022 the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service lacked sufficiently reliable data to determine whether they were meeting the statutory requirement of 270 days to process applications to use federal land to extend broadband coverage.

Permitting delays, for whatever reasons, add directly to the cost of deploying broadband projects. Thus, any actions to shorten approval times have a significant effect on economic growth. Such actions by Congress are welcome and show that, even in an atmosphere of strong partisan dialogue, it is still possible to find bipartisan support for policies that improve American life.

Bipartisan Bill Would Impose Time Limits on the FCC’s Approval Process

On February 26 Representatives August Pfluger (R-TX) and Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.) introduced legislation to increase transparency and accountability in the FCC’s review of spectrum license transfers. The legislation is especially appropriate because the FCC is currently going through two regulatory processes to speed the state and local permitting process for wired and wireless deployments, respectively. Shortening regulatory delays has lately attracted more attention as a way to increase the deployment of broadband networks. Its importance can be seen by the push to use nondeployment funds in the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment Program to improve the permitting process.

The Keep It Moving Act (H.R. 7742) makes two major changes. First, it would impose strict time limits on the FCC’s license transfer review process. Second, it would require a full Commission vote to deny any application, ensuring licensing decisions are driven by the views of the Commission rather than its staff.

Under the bill a new Section 417 of the Communications Act of 1934 would place time limits on the Commission’s consideration of applications to transfer control or assignment of any license or lease subject to the jurisdiction of the FCC.

Under the Act, within 15 days of receiving an application the FCC must either tell the applicant that the application is complete or provide the information needed to make it complete. If the applicant submits an amended application, the FCC has five days to determine whether it is complete. If the Commission misses the deadline, the application is deemed to be complete.

 

Once the application is completed, the FCC has seven days to issue a public notice and invite public comment, if appropriate. The decision that an application is incomplete is considered an appealable decision under the FCC rules. If it is decided that the application is complete, the application is deemed to have been complete 15 days after it was submitted or, if the application was amended, 5 days after the last amendment.

The Act requires the Commission to approve an application within 180 days after the public notice. This does not apply if the FCC issues a formal request for additional information or refers the application to the Committee for the Assessment of Foreign Participation in the United States Telecommunications Services Sector, in which case the deadline is extended to one year. In the latter case, the Commission may take an additional 90 days to conduct a secondary assessment. If more information is needed for review, the Commission must issue a request by the earlier of a) 30 days after the end of the public comment period if there was one or b) 120 days after the public notice date. If the Commission decides that a substantial and material question of fact requires a hearing, it then has 15 months from the date of the public notice to issue a final order on the application.

If the FCC does not approve the application within the relevant time period, the applicant may obtain a writ from the appropriate court compelling the Commission to either approve the application or justify its denial in court. In the latter case, the FCC must show by clear and convincing evidence that approval of the application is not in the public interest. If an applicant files a major amendment or waiver request with respect to its application, the Commission may extend its deadline by 30 days.

Applications that are currently pending before the FCC are treated as if the application was filed on the date of enactment for purposes of determining deadlines under the Act. These time requirements do not apply to pro forma transactions that do not require Commission approval in advance of the proposed transfer of control. However, the holder of the pro forma license or other authorization must notify the Commission of the transfer within 30 days of its completion.

The Act also requires more involvement on the part of the Commission itself. While the FCC staff may still approve applications pursuant to existing delegations of authority, denying an application or designating it for a hearing will require a Commission vote.

The legislation should provide much more clarity to license reviews, making it easier and faster to get spectrum into the hands that can use it best. Several industry groups, including the NCTA, CTIA, and the National Association of Broadcasters released statements praising the bill and predicting that it would increase both innovation and deployment of broadband networks.

The FCC Must Concurrently Consider the Impact of Greater Television Station Consolidation on Retransmission Consent Negotiations

On February 18, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr told reporters that he supports the proposed acquisition of TEGNA Inc. by Nexstar Media Inc. – and, specifically, that the Commission is "going to be moving forward." Because the combined entity would own stations reaching approximately 80 percent of U.S. households (according to the applicants, 54.5 percent after the UHF discount is applied), approval of this $3.54 billion transaction would require a waiver of, or substantial revisions to, the current 39 percent national television ownership cap (the cap).

However, as Free State Foundation President Randolph May and I argued in comments filed last August regarding potential changes to the cap, it would be inappropriately shortsighted to assess the primary justification asserted by the broadcast industry for regulatory relief – that is, the need for greater scale and scope in order to compete for advertising dollars with national online distribution platforms – in a vacuum.

The reason: it is inevitable that any regulatory relief provided regarding the cap (whether in general or specifically in the context of the instant transaction) intended to level the playing field between broadcasters and Big Tech (Amazon, Alphabet, Apple, and so on) will further skew the already lopsided retransmission consent negotiating positions of broadcasters and facilities-based multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs): cable operators and direct broadcast satellite (DBS) operators.

As DIRECTV, LLC described in great detail in its petition to deny, "[a]mple evidence corroborates Applicants' own statements that the local consolidation proposed here will lead to higher retransmission consent rates." In addition – and echoing the fear recently expressed by Emily Barr, the former CEO of Graham Media Group, which owns multiple television stations in four states, that relief from the cap "is more about driving up stock prices for the few companies that survive consolidation" than it is about greater localism – DIRECTV warned that the transaction "would (notwithstanding Applicants' claims) almost certainly decrease the amount and quality of local news."

Accordingly, when assessing the claimed benefits of the proposed combination of Nexstar and TEGNA, the Commission should simultaneously evaluate – and take steps to mitigate – the impact that substantially larger station groups would have on the already asymmetric, heavily regulated relationships between local television stations and traditional MVPDs. As Mr. May and I wrote:

[I]f the FCC concludes that it should – and can, in a post-Chevron appellate environment – modify the national television ownership cap, at the same time it should (1) urge Congress to modernize the Communications Act, and, in the interim, (2) identify additional ways to eliminate unwarranted rules targeting facilities-based MVPDs.

To that list of remedial measures, at this time, I would add that greater consolidation on the broadcaster side certainly should factor heavily into the agency's consideration of pending, as well as future, transactions involving facilities-based MVPDs. As the Free State Foundation noted in its comments on the proposed combination of Charter Communications, Inc. and Cox Enterprises, Inc. currently before the Commission, "given that the FCC is considering allowing greater concentration in local broadcast television station ownership to facilitate competition vis-à-vis Big Tech platforms with global reach – a one-sided deregulatory step that inevitably would further skew retransmission consent negotiations – it would seem appropriate to afford the applicants similar relief here."

Arielle Roth's Spirited Defense of Free Speech

 On February 25, in an address at the Media Institute, NTIA Administrator Arielle Roth delivered a spirited defense of free speech. Such a defense is always welcome at any time. But now, while America is in the midst of celebrating our 250^th birthday, and while, at the same time, there are threats to free speech around the globe, Administrator Roth's address is especially welcome.

 

To provide a framework for her remarks, Ms. Roth began this way:

"In the 250 years since our founding, technology has repeatedly transformed speech—from the printing press to radio, from the telegraph to the telephone, and from the television to the global internet. 

Every major advancement in communications technology has shifted who holds power over speech. In our current age, that increasingly means that whoever controls communications technology controls the boundaries of free expression. Today, that struggle plays out not only at the edge of the network but deep in the infrastructure layers—in spectrum policy, standards bodies, satellite governance, AI systems, and network architecture. 

That is also why communications policy—especially international communications policy—is now a central battleground for free speech."

And then this:

"The internet is the most powerful engine of free expression ever created. It amplifies individual voices, dismantles gatekeepers, enables journalists to expose corruption, and helps dissidents organize. 

That is no accident. The internet is what it is today because it was built in America under American legal traditions, powered by American ingenuity, and protected by the First Amendment. It rests on principles of openness, decentralization, and a private sector-led model that resists control by any single government or treaty regime."

Having set the stage, the remainder of Ms. Roth's address, with impressive clarity, details some of the threats to free speech from around the world – including from friendly nations that, at times, perversely, justify suppressing speech their governments disfavor in the name of promoting other values or supposed "truths." And she also explains why protection of free speech depends on freedom from government intervention in the various layers or "stacks" of the Internet's architecture.

There's a rich discussion of threats arising from some countries wishing to change the governance model of the ITU in ways that would give the international organization more authority to control speech in individual nations. And a look ahead at technological developments, and policy disputes, in the satellite and wireless areas that will be crucial to maintaining the U.S. global leadership.

I will say no more here, except that it's well worth your time to read Administrator Roth's address in its entirety.