Seventh
Measuring Broadband America
Fixed Broadband Report

A Report on Consumer Fixed Broadband Performance
in the United States

Federal Communications Commission

Office of Engineering and Technology

Table of Contents

• Executive Summary
• Summary of Key Findings  
  • Most popular advertised service tiers
  • Median download speeds
  • Variations in speeds
  • Latency
  • Packet loss
  • Web Browsing Performance
• Methodology  
  • Participants
  • Measurement process
  • Measurement tests and performance metrics
  • Availability of Data
• Test Results  
  • Most popular advertised service tiers
  • Observed Median Speeds
  • Variations in speeds
  • Latency
• Additional test results  
  • Actual speed, by service tier
  • Variations in speed
  • Web browsing performance, by service tier

1. Executive Summary

The Seventh Measuring Broadband America Fixed Broadband Report (“Seventh Report”) discusses data collected and validated in September 2016 from fixed Internet Service Providers (ISPs) as part of the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) Measuring Broadband America (MBA) program.  This program is an ongoing, rigorous, nationwide study of consumer broadband performance in the United States.  We measure the network performance delivered on selected service tiers to a representative sample set of the population.  The thousands of volunteer panelists are drawn from subscribers of Internet service providers serving over 80% of the residential marketplace.^[1] 

The initial Measuring Broadband America Fixed Broadband Report was published in August 2011,^[2] and presented the first broad-scale study of directly measured consumer broadband performance throughout the United States.  As part of an open data program, all methodologies used in the program are fully documented and all data collected is published for public use without restriction.  Including this latest report, seven reports have now been issued.^[3]  These reports provide a snapshot of fixed broadband Internet access service performance in the United States.  They present analysis of broadband information in a variety of ways and have evolved to make the information more understandable and useful, and to reflect the changing applications supported by the nation’s broadband infrastructure. 

A. Major Findings of the Seventh Report

The key findings of this report, based on measurements taken in September 2016^[4] are as follows:

• The maximum advertised download speeds amongst the service tiers measured by the FCC were between 3-200 Mbps for the period covered by this report.
• The median speed experienced by subscribers of the participating ISPs was 57 Mbps.
• For most of the major broadband providers that were tested, measured download speeds were 100% of advertised speeds or better during the peak hours (7 p.m. to 11 p.m. local time).
• Fourteen ISPs were evaluated in this report.  Of these, AT&T, Cincinnati Bell, Frontier and Verizon employed multiple different technologies to provide service across the country.  Overall, 18 different ISP/technology configurations were evaluated in this report.  Of those, 11 met or exceeded their advertised download speeds, all performed better than 75% of their advertised download speed, and only three performed below 90% of their advertised download speed.
• In addition to providing download and upload speed measurements of ISPs, this report also presents a measure of how consistently ISPs provide their advertised speed with the use of our “80/80” metric.  The 80/80 metric measures the minimum speed that at least 80% of subscribers’ experience at least 80% of the time over peak periods.

These and other findings are described in greater detail within this report.  

B. Use Of median speeds and subscriber-weighted speeds

The Seventh Report retains two changes made in the 2016 Report affecting how metrics are calculated and presented, namely the use of median speeds and subscriber-weighted speeds.  First, consistent with the 2016 Report, we continue to present ISP broadband performance as the median,^[5] rather than mean (average), of speeds experienced by panelists within a specific service tier.^[6]  Our focus in these reports is on the most common service tiers used by an ISP’s subscribers.^[7] 

Second, consistent with the 2016 Report, we continue to compute ISP performance by weighting the median for each service tier by the number of subscribers in that tier.  Similarly, in calculating the overall average speed of all ISPs in a specific year, the median speed of each ISP is used and weighted by the number of subscribers of that ISP as a fraction of the total number of subscribers across all ISPs. 

In calculating weighted medians, we have drawn on two sources for determining the number of subscribers per service tier.  ISPs can voluntarily contribute their data per surveyed service tier as the most recent and authoritative data.  Many ISPs have chosen to do so.^[8]  When such information has not been provided by an ISP, we rely on the FCC’s Form 477 data.^[9]  All facilities-based broadband providers are required to file data with the FCC twice a year (Form 477) regarding deployment of broadband services, including subscriber counts.  For this report, we used the June 2016 Form 477 data.  It should be noted that the Form 477 subscriber data values are for a month that generally lags the measurement month, and therefore, there are likely to be small inaccuracies in the tier ratios.  It is for this reason that we encourage ISPs to provide us with subscriber numbers for the measurement month.

C. Use of other Performance Metrics

As in our previous reports, we found that for most ISPs, actual speeds experienced by subscribers nearly meet or exceed advertised service tier speeds.  However, since we started our MBA program, consumers have changed their Internet usage habits.  In 2011, consumers mainly browsed the web and downloaded files; thus, we reported average speeds since they were likely to closely mirror user satisfaction.  By contrast, by September 2016, the measurement period for this report, many consumers streamed video for entertainment and education.^[10]  Both the median measured speed and how consistently the service performs are likely to influence the perception and usefulness of Internet access service and we have expanded our network performance analytics to better capture this.

Specifically, we use two kinds of metrics to reflect the consistency of service delivered to the consumer:  First, we report the minimum actual speed experienced by at least 80% of panelists during at least 80% of the daily peak usage period (“80/80 consistent speed” measure).  Second, we show what fraction of consumers obtains median speeds greater than 95%, between 80% and 95%, and less than 80% of advertised speeds.

Although download and upload speeds remain the network performance metric of greatest interest to the consumer, we also spotlight two other key network performance metrics in this report:  latency and packet loss.  These metrics can significantly affect the overall quality of Internet applications.

Latency (or delay) is the time it takes for a data packet to travel across a network from one point on the network to another.  High latencies may affect the perceived quality of some interactive services such as phone calls over the Internet, video chat and video conferencing, or online multiplayer games.  All network access technologies have a minimum latency that is largely determined by the technology.  In addition, network congestion can lead to an increase in measured latency.  Technology-determined latencies are typically small for terrestrial broadband services and are thus unlikely to affect the perceived quality of applications.  The higher latencies of geostationary satellite-based broadband services may impair the perceived quality of such highly interactive applications.  Not all applications are affected by high latencies; for example, entertainment video streaming applications are tolerant of relatively high latencies.

Packet loss measures the fraction of data packets sent that fail to be delivered to the intended destination.  Packet loss may affect the perceived quality of applications that do not request retransmission of lost packets, such as phone calls over the Internet, video chat, some online multiplayer games, and some video streaming.  High packet loss also degrades the achievable throughput of download and streaming applications.  However, packet losses of a few tenths of a percent are unlikely to significantly affect the perceived quality of most Internet applications and are common.  During network congestion, both latency and packet loss typically increase.

The Internet is continuing to evolve in architecture, performance, and services.  We will therefore continue to adapt our measurement and analysis methodologies to help consumers understand the performance characteristics of their broadband Internet access service, and thus make informed choices about their use of such services.

2. Summary of Key Findings

A. Most Popular Advertised Service Tiers

A list of the offered ISP download and upload service tiers that were measured in this report are shown in Table 1.  It should be noted that while upload and downloads speeds are measured independently and shown separately, they are typically offered by the ISP as a set of combined configurations.  Together, these plans serve the majority of Internet users of the participating ISPs.  Generally, service tiers are initially added to this report when five percent or more of an ISP’s customers subscribe to that tier and there are at least 30,000 subscribers in that tier.  Each tier requires a certain number of panelists to meet the program’s target sample size, and it becomes difficult and costly to recruit panelists for tiers with few subscribers or across a very large number of tiers.

Table 1: List of ISP service tiers whose broadband performance was measured in this report

*Tiers that lack sufficient panelists to meet the program’s target sample size.  Note, in the case of Charter, there was an upgrade of the 4 Mbps upload tier to 5 Mbps that occurred during the September 2016 measurement period.

Chart 1 (below) displays the maximum advertised download speeds among the measured service tiers for each participating ISP for September 2016, grouped by the access technology used to offer the broadband Internet access service (DSL, cable, fiber, or satellite).  In September 2016, the weighted average maximum advertised download speed was 111 Mbps among the measured service tiers.

Maximum advertised download speed among the measured service tiers varies by both ISP and technology.

Chart 1: Maximum advertised download speed among the measured service tiers^[11]

The maximum advertised download speed tier included in this report for ISPs using satellite technology is between 10-12 Mbps.  Similarly, the maximum advertised download speed included in this report for DSL providers ranges between 3-45 Mbps.  In contrast, ISPs using cable and fiber technology offer much higher maximum advertised download speeds. The maximum advertised download speeds included in this report for cable technology are between 100-200 Mbps.  Among participating ISPs, only Cincinnati Bell, Frontier, and Verizon use fiber as the access technology for a substantial number of their customers and their maximum speed offerings included in this report are between 30-100 Mbps.  A key differentiator between the providers using fiber technology and those using other technologies is that two of the fiber ISPs offer symmetric maximum advertised upload and download speeds.  This is in sharp contrast to the asymmetric offerings of providers using other technologies, for which the maximum advertised upload speeds are typically 5 to 10 times below the maximum advertised download speeds. 

Chart 2 plots the migration of panelists to a higher service tier based on their access technology.^[12]  Specifically, the horizontal axis of Chart 2 partitions the September 2015 panelists by the advertised download speed of the service tier to which they were subscribed.  For each such set of panelists who also participated in the September 2016 collection of data,^[13] the vertical axis of Chart 2 displays the percentage of panelists that migrated by September 2016 to a service tier with a higher advertised download speed.  There are two ways that such a migration could occur: (1) if a panelist changed their broadband plan during the intervening year to a service tier with a higher advertised download speed, or (2) if a panelist did not change their broadband plan but the panelist’s ISP increased the advertised download speed of the panelist’s subscribed plan.^[14]

Chart 2 shows that the percentage of panelists subscribed in September 2015 who moved to higher tiers in September 2016 did so in larger numbers (40% to 60%) for the low-speed tiers (0-30 Mbps) and the high-speed tiers (100 – 150 Mbps) as compared to about 15-20% for mid-range speeds between 30 Mbps and 100 Mbps.

Chart 2: Consumer migration to higher advertised download speeds

B. Median download speeds

Advertised download speeds may differ from the speeds that subscribers experience.  Some ISPs more consistently meet network service objectives than others or meet them unevenly across their geographic coverage area.  Also, speeds experienced by a consumer may vary during the day if the network cannot carry the aggregate user demand during busy hours.  Unless stated otherwise, all actual speeds are measured only during peak usage periods, which we define as 7 p.m. to 11 p.m. local time.

To compute the average ISP performance, we weigh the median speed for each tier by its subscriber count.  Subscriber counts for the weightings were provided from the ISPs themselves or, if unavailable, from FCC Form 477 data.

Chart 3 shows the median download speeds experienced by the subscribers of the ISPs participating in MBA, averaged across all analyzed service tiers, geography, and time, for 2016.  The median download speed, averaged across all participating ISPs, was approximately 57 Mbps in September 2016.  As shown in this chart, there is considerable variance of median download speed by both ISP and by technology.  While most cable and fiber providers had median speeds ranging from 46 to 95 Mbps, the DSL and satellite providers had median download speeds ranging from 2 to 18 Mbps.

Chart 3: Median download speeds by ISP

However, as we observed above when examining advertised download speeds, the increase in median download speeds is not uniform across access technologies and companies. 

Chart 4 shows the ratio of the weighted median speeds experienced by an ISP’s subscribers to that ISP’s advertised speeds.  The ratios for both download and upload speeds to the advertised download and upload speeds are illustrated.  The actual speeds experienced by most ISPs’ subscribers are close to or exceed the advertised speeds.  However, DSL broadband ISPs continue to advertise “up-to” speeds that on average exceed the actual speeds experienced by their subscribers.  Verizon, instead, advertises a speed range for DSL performance and has requested that we include this range in relevant charts; we indicate this speed range with shading on all bar charts describing Verizon DSL performance.  Out of the 18 ISP/technology configurations shown, 11 met or exceeded their advertised download speed and all reached at least 75% of their advertised download speed.  Only AT&T-DSL (at 82%), Cincinnati-DSL (at 76%) and ViaSat (at 78%) performed below 90% of their advertised download speed.

Chart 4: The ratio of weighted median speed to advertised speed for each ISP

C. Variations In Speeds

As discussed earlier, actual speeds experienced by individual consumers may vary by location and time of day.  Chart 5 shows, for each ISP, the percentage of panelists who experienced a median download speed (averaged over the peak usage period during our measurement period) that was greater than 95%, between 80% and 95%, or less than 80% of the advertised download speed.

Chart 5: The percentage of consumers whose median download speed was greater than 95%, between 80% and 95%, or less than 80% of the advertised download speed

Even though the median download speeds experienced by most ISPs’ subscribers nearly meet or exceed the advertised download speeds, for each ISP, there are some customers for whom the median download speed falls significantly short of the advertised download speed.  Relatively few subscribers of cable or fiber broadband service experience this.  The best performing ISPs, when measured by this metric, are Optimum, Charter, Cox, TWC, Frontier-Fiber, Verizon-Fiber and Hughes; more than 85% of their panelists were able to attain an actual median download speed of at least 95% of the advertised download speed. 

In addition to variation based on a subscriber’s location, speeds experienced by a particular consumer may fluctuate during the day.  This is typically caused by increased traffic demand and the resulting stress on different parts of the network infrastructure.  In order to examine this aspect of performance, we use the term “80/80 consistent speed” to refer to a metric designed to assess temporal and spatial variations in measured values of the download speed.^[15]  Consistency of speed is in itself an intrinsically valuable service characteristic and its impact on consumers will hinge on variations in usage patterns and needs.

Chart 6 summarizes, for each ISP, the ratio of 80/80 consistent median download speed to advertised download speed, and, for comparison, the ratio of median download speed to advertised download speed shown previously in Chart 4.  The ratio of 80/80 consistent median download speed to advertised download speed is less than the ratio of median download speed to advertised download speed for all participating ISPs due to congestion periods when median download speeds are lower than the overall average.  When the difference between the two ratios is small, the median download speed is fairly insensitive to both geography and time.  When the difference between the two ratios is large, there is a greater variability in median download speed, either based on location or variations during the peak usage period.

Chart 6: The ratio of 80/80 consistent median download speed to advertised download speed.

Customers of Optimum, Charter, Cox, Time-Warner Cable and Verizon Fiber (Fios) experienced median download speeds that were very consistent; with each provider delivering in excess of 90% of the advertised speed to at least 80% of the panelists for at least 80% of the peak usage period.  As shown in Chart 6, DSL and satellite ISPs performed poorly compared to cable and fiber ISPs with respect to their 80/80 consistent speeds.  For example, for September 2016, the 80/80 consistent download speed for Viasat was 22% of its advertised speed.  Similarly, AT&T-DSL and Cincinnati Bell DSL had an 80/80 consistent download speed of 64% and 54%, respectively, of the advertised speed.

D. Latency

Latency is the time it takes for a data packet to travel from one point to another in a network.  It has a fixed component that depends on the distance, the transmission speed, and transmission technology between the source and destination, and a variable component that increases as the network path congests with traffic.  The MBA program measures latency by measuring the round-trip time from the consumer’s home to the closest measurement server and back.

Chart 7 shows the median latency for each participating ISP.  In general, higher-speed service tiers have lower latency, as it takes less time to transmit each packet.  Satellite technologies inherently experience longer latencies since packets must travel approximately 44,500 miles from an earth station to the satellite and back.  Therefore, the median latencies of satellite-based broadband services are much higher, at 594 ms to 624 ms, than those for terrestrial-based broadband services, which range from 11 ms to 43 ms in our measurements.

Chart 7: Latency by ISP

Amongst terrestrial technologies, DSL latencies (between 25 ms to 43 ms) were slightly larger than cable (15 ms to 35 ms).  Fiber ISPs showed the lowest latency (11 ms to 14 ms).  The differences in median latencies among terrestrial-based broadband services are relatively small, and are unlikely to affect the perceived quality of highly interactive applications.

E. Packet Loss

Packet loss is the percentage of packets that are sent by the source but not received at the destination.  The most common reason that a packet is not received is that it encountered congestion along the route.  A small amount of packet loss is expected, and indeed some Internet protocols use the packet loss to infer Internet congestion and to adjust the sending rate accordingly.  The MBA program considers a packet lost if the round-trip latency exceeds 3 seconds.

Chart 8 shows the average peak-period packet loss for each participating ISP, grouped into bins.  We have broken the packet loss performance into three bands which allows a more granular view of the packet loss performance of the ISP network.  The breakpoints for the three bins used to classify packet loss have been chosen with an eye towards commonly accepted packet loss standards; provider packet loss SLAs; and various standards.  Specifically, the 1% standard for packet loss is referred to in international documents and commonly accepted as the point at which highly interactive applications such as VoIP will experience significant degradation and quality.^[16]  The 0.4% breakpoint was chosen as a generic breakpoint between highly desired performance of 0% packet loss described in many documents and the 1% unacceptable on the high side.  The specific value of 0.4% is based upon a compromise value between those two limits and generally supported by many network performance and service level agreements (SLAs) provided by major ISPs.  Indeed, most SLAs support 0.1% to 0.3% SLA packet loss guarantees,^[17] but these are generally for enterprise level services which generally have more stringent requirements for higher-level performance.

Chart 8:  Percentage of consumers whose peak-period packet loss was less than 0.4%, between 0.4% to 1%, and greater than 1%.

Chart 8 shows that ISPs using fiber technology had the lowest packet loss, and that ISPs using DSL and satellite technology tended to have the highest packet loss.  Within a technology class, packet loss varied as well among companies.  

F. Web browsing performance

The MBA program also conducts a specific test to gauge web browsing performance.  The web browsing test accesses nine popular websites that include text and images, but not streaming video.  The time required to download a webpage depends on many factors, including the consumer’s in-home network, the download speed within an ISP’s network, the web server’s speed, congestion in other networks outside the consumer’s ISP’s network (if any), and the time required to look up the network address of the webserver.  Only some of these factors are under control of the consumer’s ISP.  Chart 9 displays the average webpage download time as a function of the advertised download speed. As shown by this chart, webpage download time decreases as download speed increases, from about 7.4 seconds at 0.5 Mbps download speed to about 0.8 seconds for 25 Mbps download speed.  Subscribers to service tiers exceeding 25 Mbps do not experience further significant decreases in webpage download times.  These download times assume that a single user is using the Internet connection when the webpage is downloaded, and does not account for more typical scenarios where multiple users within a household are simultaneously using the Internet connection for viewing web pages as well as other applications such as real-time gaming or video streaming.

Chart 9: Average webpage download time, by advertised download speed.

3. Methodology

A. Participants

Fourteen ISPs participated in the Fixed MBA program in September 2016.^[18]  They are:

• AT&T
• CenturyLink
• Charter Communications
• Cincinnati Bell
• Comcast
• Cox Communications
• Frontier Communications Company
• Hughes Network Systems
• Mediacom Communications Corporation
• Optimum
• Time Warner Cable
• Verizon
• ViaSat
• Windstream Communications

The methodologies and assumptions underlying the measurements described in this Report are reviewed at meetings that are open to all interested parties, and documented in public ex parte letters filed in the GN Docket No. 12-264.  Policy decisions regarding the MBA program involving issues such as inclusion of tiers, test periods, mitigation of operational issues affecting the measurement infrastructure, and terms-of-use notifications to panelists were discussed at these meetings prior to adoption.  Participation in the MBA program is open and voluntary.  Participants are drawn from academia, consumer equipment vendors, telecommunications vendors, network service providers, consumer policy groups as well as our contractor for this project, SamKnows.  In 2016-2017, participants at these meetings (collectively and informally referred to as “the broadband collaborative”), included all fourteen participating ISPs and the following additional organizations:

• Center for Applied Data Analysis (CAIDA)
• International Technology and Trade Associates (ITTA)
• Internet Society (ISOC)
• Level 3 Communications (“Level 3”)
• Massachusetts Institute of Technology (“MIT”)
• M-Lab
• NCTA – The Internet and Television Association
• New America Foundation
• Practicum Team, NCSU, Institute for Advanced Analytics
• Princeton University
• United States Telecom Association (“US Telecom”)
• University of California - Santa Cruz

Participants have contributed in important ways to the integrity of this program and provide valuable input to FCC decisions for this program.  Initial proposals for test metrics and testing platforms were discussed and critiqued within the broadband collaborative.  M-Lab and Level 3 contributed their core network testing infrastructure, and both parties continue to provide invaluable assistance in helping to define and implement the FCC testing platform.  We thank the participants for their continued contributions to the MBA program.

B. Measurement process

The measurements that provided the underlying data for this report relied both on measurement clients and measurement servers.  The measurement clients (i.e., whiteboxes) resided in the homes of 6,193 panelists who received service from one of the 14 participating ISPs.  The participating ISPs collectively accounted for over 80% of U.S. residential broadband Internet connections.  After the measurement data was processed, as described in greater detail in the Appendix, test results from 4,545 panelists were used in this report.

The measurement servers were hosted by M-Lab and Level 3 Communications, and were located in nine cities across the United States near a point of interconnection between the ISP’s network and the network on which the measurement server resided.^[19]

The measurement clients collected data throughout the year, and this data is available as described below.  However, only data collected from September 1 through 11 and September 21 through October 9, 2016, referred to throughout this report as the “September 2016” reporting period, were used to generate the charts in this Report.^[20]

Broadband performance varies with the time of day.  At peak hours, more people are attempting to use their broadband Internet connections, giving rise to a greater potential for congestion and degraded user performance.  Unless otherwise stated, this Report focuses on performance during peak usage period, which is defined as weeknights between 7:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. local time at the subscriber’s location.  Focusing on peak usage period provides the most useful information because it demonstrates the performance users can expect when the Internet in their local area is experiencing the highest demand from users.

Our methodology focuses on the network performance of each of the participating ISPs.  The metrics discussed in this Report are derived from traffic flowing between a measurement client, located within the modem or router within a panelist’s home, and a measurement server, located outside the ISP’s network.  For each panelist, the tests automatically choose the measurement server that has the lowest latency to the measurement client.  Thus, the metrics measure performance along a path within each ISP’s network, through a point of interconnection between the ISP’s network and the network on which the chosen measurement server resides.

However, the service performance that a consumer experiences may differ from our measured values for several reasons.  First, as noted, we measure performance only to a single measurement server rather than to multiple servers, following the approach chosen by most network measurement tools.  ISPs, in general, attempt to maintain consistent performance throughout their network.  However, at times, some paths or interconnection points within an ISP’s network may be more congested than others and this can affect a specific consumer’s service.

Congestion beyond an ISP’s network and not measured in our study, can affect the overall performance a consumer experiences with their service.  A consumer’s home network rather than the ISP’s network, may be the bottleneck.  We measure the performance of the ISP’s service delivered to the consumer’s home network, but this connection is often shared among simultaneous users and applications within the home.  This in-home network, which typically includes Wi-Fi, may not have sufficient capacity to support peak loads.^[21]

In addition, consumers typically experience performance through the set of applications that they utilize, not as raw speed, latency or packet loss.  The performance of an application depends on both the network performance and on the architecture and implementation of the application itself and the operating system and hardware on which it runs.  While network performance is considered in this Report, application performance is generally not. 

C. Measurement Tests And Performance Metrics

This Report is based on the following measurement tests:

· Download speed: This test measures the download speed of each whitebox over a 10-second period, once every hour during the peak hours (7 p.m. to 11 p.m.) and once during each of the following periods: midnight to 6 a.m., 6 a.m. to noon, and noon to 6 p.m.  The results of each whitebox are then averaged across the measurement month; the median value for these average speeds across the set of whiteboxes is used to determine the median download speed for a service tier.  The overall ISP download speed is computed as the weighted median for each service tier, using the subscriber counts for the tiers as weights.

· Upload speed: This test measures the upload speed of each whitebox over a 10-second period, with the same measurement intervals as the download speed.  The speed measured in the last five seconds of the 10-second interval is retained, the results of each whitebox are then averaged over the measurement period, and the median value for the average speed taken over the set of whiteboxes is used to determine the median upload speed for a service tier.  The ISP upload speed is computed in the same manner as the download speed.

· Latency and packet loss: These tests measure the round-trip times for approximately 2,000 packets per hour sent at randomly distributed intervals.  Response times less than three seconds are used to determine the mean latency.  If the whitebox does not receive a response within three seconds, the packet is counted as lost.

· Web browsing: The web browsing test measures the total time it takes to request and receive webpages, including the text and images, from nine popular websites and is performed once every hour.  The measurement includes the time required to translate the web server name (URL) into the webserver’s network (IP) address.

This Report focuses on three key performance metrics of interest to consumers of broadband Internet access service, as they are likely to influence how well a wide range of consumer applications work: download and upload speed, latency, and packet loss.  Download and upload speeds are also the primary network performance characteristic advertised by ISPs.  However, as discussed above, the performance observed by a user in any given circumstance depends not only on the actual speed of the ISP’s network, but also on the performance of other parts of the Internet and on that of the application itself.^[22]

The Technical Appendix to this Report describes each test in more detail, including additional tests not contained in this Report.

D. Availability Of Data

The Validated Data Set^[23] on which this Report is based, as well as the full results of all tests, are available at http://www.fcc.gov/measuring-broadband-america.  To encourage additional research, we also provide raw data for the reference month and other months.  Previous reports of the MBA program, as well as the data used to produce them, are also available there.

Both the Commission and SamKnows, the Commission’s contractor for this program, recognize that, while the methodology descriptions included in this document provide an overview of the project, interested parties may be willing to contribute to the project by reviewing the software used in the testing.  SamKnows welcomes review of its software and technical platform, consistent with the Commission’s goals of openness and transparency for this program.^[24]