Access and speed Access to the Internet can be divided into dial-up and
broadband access. Around the start of the 21st century, most residential access was by dial-up, while access from businesses was usually by higher speed connections. In subsequent years dial-up declined in favor of broadband access. Both types of access generally use a
modem, which converts
digital data to
analog for transmission over a particular analog network (ex. the
telephone or
cable networks).
Dial-up access is a connection to the Internet through a
phone line, creating a semi-permanent link to the Internet.
cable Internet access,
satellite Internet access, and
mobile or
wireless broadband, via
cell phones or a
mobile broadband modem, through a
cellular or
wireless network, and from a
cell tower. In 2015, the United States
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) defined broadband as any connection with a download speed of at least 25 Mbit/s and an upload speed of at least 3 Mbit/s, though the definition has used a slower speed in the past. In March 2024, the FCC increased the minimums to 100 Mbit/s downloads and 20 Mbit/s uploads for defining broadband. The percentage of the U.S. population using the Internet grew steadily through 2007, and declined slightly in 2008 and 2009. Growth resumed in 2010, and reached its highest level so far (81.0%) in 2012, the latest year for which data is available. 81.0% is slightly above the 2012 figure of 73% for all developed countries. Based on these figures the U.S. ranked 12th out of 206 countries in 2000, fell to 31st out of 209 by 2010, and was back up slightly to 28th out of 211 in 2012. In 2012 the U.S. figure of 81.0% was similar to those of France (83.0%), Belgium (82.0%), Australia (82.3%), Austria (81.0%), Slovakia (80%), Kuwait (79.2%), and Japan (79.1%). The figures for the top ten countries in 2012 ranged from 91.0% for Finland to 96.9% for the Falkland Islands. Internet usage in the United States varies widely from state to state. For example, in the U.S. overall in 2011, 77.9% of the population used the Internet. But in that same year (2011), there was a large gap in usage between the top three states -
Washington (80.0%),
New Hampshire (79.8%) and
Minnesota (79.0%) - and the bottom three states -
Mississippi (59.0%),
New Mexico (60.4%) and
Arkansas (61.4%). According to an April 2018 article in
Motherboard, "In every single state, a portion of the population doesn't have access to broadband, and some have no access to the internet at all." :
Fixed (wired) and
wireless broadband penetration have grown steadily, reaching peaks of 28.0% and 89.8% respectively in 2012. These rates place the U.S. above the world average of 25.9% for fixed broadband in developed countries and well above the average of 62.8% for wireless broadband in OECD countries. Wireless broadband subscriptions in the U.S. are primarily mobile-cellular broadband. Because a single Internet subscription may be shared by many people and a single person may have more than one subscription, the penetration rate will not reflect the actual level of access to broadband Internet of the population and penetration rates larger than 100% are possible. A 2013 Pew study on home broadband adoption found that 70% of consumers have a high-speed broadband connection. About a third of consumers reported a "wireless" high-speed connection,[8] but the report authors suspect that many of these consumers have mistakenly reported wireless connections to a wired DSL or cable connection.[9] Another
Pew Research Center survey, results of which were published on February 27, 2014, revealed 68% of American adults connect to the Internet with mobile devices like smartphones or tablet computers. The report also put Internet usage by American adults as high as 87%, while young adults aged between 18 and 29 were at 97%. In measurements made between April and June 2013 (Q2), the United States ranked 8th out of 55 countries with an average connection speed of 8.7 Mbit/s. This represents an increase from 14th out of 49 countries and 5.3 Mbit/s for January to March 2011 (Q1). The global average for Q2 2013 was 3.3 Mbit/s, up from 2.1 Mbit/s for Q1 2011. In Q2 2013 South Korea ranked first at 13.3 Mbit/s, followed by Japan at 12.0 Mbit/s, and Switzerland at 11.0 Mbit/s.
Ownership Unlike in countries such as China, Japan and New Zealand,
internet infrastructure such as
fibre optic cables,
4G LTE,
5G base stations,
DSL (Digital Subscriber Line) and satellite networks in the United States are owned by private ISP's as opposed to the state, this in conjunction with high concentration of market share among four major players:
AT&T (41.4%),
Comcast (36.1%),
Charter (33.4%) and
Verizon (17.4%) as of 2021 allows for the creation of local monopolies whereby providers have little incentive to compete with each other or enter other providers' "territory" in order to fix prices and maintain market share. Since ownership of underlying infrastructure is decentralised and privatised, the construction of internet infrastructure is also fragmented and driven by profit instead of public need. Given this, government attempts at funding roll out of infrastructure in rural and under-served areas where no financial incentive exists to for private companies to build any remains slow and costly, since the US government is forced to subsidise private ISP's to construct fibre optic cable networks and other key infrastructure. As of 2022, a study by the Fibre Broadband Association estimated that only 43% of US households had access to fibre optic connections with "Tier 1" providers such as AT&T, Verizon,
Lumen five others building 72% of fiber coverage in the United States. FCC data as of 2019 indicated that some 21.3 million Americans lacked access to fixed broadband with speeds of at 25 Mbit/s down and 3 Mbit/s up. Attempts by the US government to roll out or upgrade key internet infrastructure in any uniform or integrated way remain strongly influenced by corporate interests,
lobbying at both the state and federal level and objections to what is perceived as government intervention in free market dynamics.
Competition A lack of competition and
consumer choice in the broadband provider market has been cited as the primary reason Internet costs can be high and speeds and access can be poor even in urban areas. In the DSL market, the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 required
incumbent local exchange carriers to lease lines to consumers to
competitive local exchange carriers, but changes to FCC regulations in 2005 significantly weakened these requirements. In the cable broadband market, the 1996 law also allowed cable companies to consolidate, resulting in a small number of large companies, which agreed to give each one a monopoly in a certain geographic area. Specifically, such criticism has referenced limitations regarding access to and development of the physical infrastructure necessary to broadband, including right-of-way to land and ownership of utility poles. The Rural Broadband Association, an organization representing rural-centric providers, has pointed to the expensive permits and procedural delays in preventing "universal" broadband access. For rural areas such as the ones the RBA represents, financial returns can be insufficient and thus private actors have little incentive to compete over another in establishing relevant facilities. This problem is particularly salient for indigenous parts of the U.S., where tribal lands "have some of the lowest internet access rates of any demographic". Policy goals of equity, not profit, have been driving the few access projects targeted towards these communities as a result of unrewarding demand. In other circumstances, where demand is high enough to propel investment, the fixed costs associated with building broadband infrastructure are high enough to deter even the larger providers. Sprint claims it spent "tens of millions of dollars" in their checking for compliance with NEPA, a set of environmental impact regulations, that found "no significant impact" by the conclusion and ultimately delayed their entrance in that particular geography. To remedy this anti-competitive climate, governments have worked to minimize costs entrants may incur. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 expanded access rights to pole attachments for ISPs with federal subsidies in an aim to encourage provider participation. In 2015, the Federal Communications Commission granted a preemption petition requested by local utility boards in North Carolina and Tennessee over the state laws that, as a result of private provider lobbying, had legally prevented municipalities from entering the broadband market. To reduce costs and expand the market, the FCC has also approved a "Dig Once" policy—a mandate that requires cities to implement broadband conduits during construction of federally-funded roads. Because the financial price of laying down fiber constitutes such a large portion of deployment costs, measures sympathetic towards this step of entrance make it easier for more actors to invest. A number of counties have also issued ordinances or grants that waive or offset certain fees associated with building infrastructure in order to encourage broadband building projects. Outside of regulatory and legislative action, states have at their disposal informal policies that offer other incentives for investment, such as collecting and providing local data to streamline deployment action or communication efforts.
Internet taxes In 1998, the federal
Internet Tax Freedom Act halted the expansion of direct taxation of the Internet that had begun in several states in the mid-1990s. The law, however, did not affect sales taxes applied to online purchases which continue to be taxed at varying rates depending on the jurisdiction, in the same way that phone and mail orders are taxed. The absence of direct taxation of the Internet does not mean that all transactions taking place online are free of tax, or even that the Internet is free of all tax. In fact, nearly all online transactions are subject to one form of tax or another. The Internet Tax Freedom Act merely prevents states from imposing their sales tax, or any other kind of gross receipts tax, on certain online services. For example, a state may impose an income or franchise tax on the net income earned by the provider of online services, while the same state would be precluded from imposing its sales tax on the gross receipts of that provider.
Network neutrality In the United States,
net neutrality, the principle that
Internet service providers (ISPs) treat all data on the
Internet the same, and not discriminate, has been an issue of contention between network users and access providers since the 1990s. To elucidate the term "net neutrality", one can apply a metaphor that was given and illustrated by Michael Goodwin: In his illustration, he illustrates ISPs as the driveway that connects a home to the vast network of destinations on the internet, and net neutrality is the principle that prevents ISPs from slowing some traffic or charging a premium fee for other traffic. On August 5, 2005, the FCC reclassified some services as information services rather than telecommunications services, and replaced common carrier requirements on them with a set of four less-restrictive net neutrality principles. These principles, however, are not FCC rules, and therefore not enforceable requirements. Actually implementing the principles requires either official FCC rule-making or federal legislation. On June 6, 2010, the United States Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia in
Comcast Corp. v. FCC ruled that the FCC lacks the authority as an information service, under the ancillary statutory authority of Title One of the
Communications Act of 1934, to force Internet service providers to keep their networks open, while employing reasonable network management practices, to all forms of legal content. On December 21, 2010, the FCC approved the
FCC Open Internet Order banning
cable television and
telephone service providers from preventing access to competitors or certain web sites such as
Netflix. The rules would not keep ISPs from charging more for faster access. On February 26, 2015, the FCC's Open Internet rules went into effect when the FCC designated the Internet as a telecommunications tool and applied to it new "rules of the road". "[Open Internet Rules are] designed to protect free expression and innovation on the Internet and promote investment in the nation's broadband networks. The Open Internet rules are grounded in the strongest possible legal foundation by relying on multiple sources of authority, including: Title II of the Communications Act and Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. As part of this decision, the Commission also refrains (or "forbears") from enforcing provisions of Title II that are not relevant to modern broadband service. Together Title II and Section 706 support clear rules of the road, providing the certainty needed for innovators and investors, and the competitive choices and freedom demanded by consumers. The new rules apply to both fixed and mobile broadband service. This approach recognizes advances in technology and the growing significance of mobile broadband Internet access in recent years. These rules will protect consumers no matter how they access the Internet, whether on a desktop computer or a mobile device." In summary the new rules are as follows: • No blocking: broadband providers may not block access to legal content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices. • No throttling: broadband providers may not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices. • No paid prioritization: broadband providers may not favor some lawful Internet traffic over other lawful traffic in exchange for consideration of any kind—in other words, no "fast lanes." This rule also bans ISPs from prioritizing content and services of their affiliates. and the classifications fell out of use on June 11, 2018.
Internet censorship The strong protections for freedom of speech and expression against federal, state, and local government censorship are rooted in the
First Amendment to the United States Constitution. These protections extend to the Internet and as a result very little government mandated technical filtering occurs in the U.S. Nevertheless, the Internet in the United States is highly regulated, supported by a complex set of legally binding and privately mediated mechanisms. After a decade and half of ongoing contentious debate over content regulation, the country is still very far from reaching political consensus on the acceptable limits of free speech and the best means of protecting minors and policing illegal activity on the Internet. Gambling, cyber security, and dangers to children who frequent social networking sites—real and perceived—are important ongoing debates. Significant public resistance to proposed content restriction policies have prevented the more extreme measures used in some other countries from taking hold in the U.S. However, the government has been able to exert pressure indirectly where it cannot directly censor. With the exception of child pornography, content restrictions tend to rely more on the removal of content than blocking; most often these controls rely upon the involvement of private parties, backed by state encouragement or the threat of legal action. In contrast to much of the rest of the world, where ISPs are subject to state mandates, most content regulation in the United States occurs at the private or voluntary level. ==Broadband providers==