This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-825 
entitled 'Telecommunications: National Broadband Plan Reflects the 
Experiences of Leading Countries, but Implementation Will Be 
Challenging' which was released on October 12, 2010. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

September 2010: 

Telecommunications: 

National Broadband Plan Reflects the Experiences of Leading Countries, 
but Implementation Will Be Challenging: 

GAO-10-825: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-10-825, a report to congressional requesters. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Increasingly, broadband Internet service is seen as critical to a 
nation’s physical infrastructure and economic growth. Universal access 
to, and increased use and adoption of, broadband service are policy 
goals stated in the National Broadband Plan, which the Federal 
Communications Commission (FCC) released in March 2010. Some recent 
studies indicate that despite achieving nearly 95 percent broadband 
deployment and globally competitive adoption rates, the United States 
has moved from the top to the middle of the international rankings. 
Other developed countries, which have made universal access and 
increased adoption priorities, rank higher than the United States in 
these areas, and their experiences may be of interest to U.S. 
policymakers. GAO was asked to address (1) the status of broadband 
deployment and adoption in developed countries, (2) actions selected 
countries have taken to increase deployment and adoption, and (3) how 
recommendations in the National Broadband Plan align with the selected 
countries’ actions. 

GAO analyzed relevant information for 30 developed countries that are 
members of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development 
(OECD) and visited 7 of these countries selected for their broadband 
policies and economic or demographic characteristics. GAO also 
interviewed public- and private-sector contacts in these countries and 
FCC officials. FCC provided technical comments on this report. 

What GAO Found: 

Broadband infrastructure has been widely deployed in developed 
countries, but broadband adoption rates are more variable because of 
cost and other factors. In 27 of the 30 OECD countries, including the 
United States, broadband has been deployed to 90 percent or more of 
households, regardless of differences in demographic and geographic 
factors, while broadband adoption rates are affected by factors such 
as population, cost, and computer ownership. In the United States, 
which ranks 15th for both deployment and adoption, broadband has been 
deployed to 95 percent of households, with 26.4 subscribers per 100 
inhabitants—above the OECD average of 23.3. 

To increase broadband deployment adoption, the 7 countries GAO 
selected—Canada, France, Japan, the Netherlands, South Korea, Sweden, 
and the United Kingdom—have taken actions that stakeholders in these 
countries considered effective. GAO placed these actions in five 
categories—(1) instituting plans and policies (2) providing funds 
through public/private partnerships, (3) increasing competition, (4) 
expanding online services, and (5) providing digital literacy 
training, consumer subsidies, or both. All 7 countries have instituted 
some type of broadband plan. To help increase deployment in areas 
private enterprise views as unprofitable, national or regional 
governments in all 7 countries have used public/private partnerships. 
To help increase usage and thus expand adoption, all 7 have enacted 
policies to encourage competition and have increased the number of 
government services available online. Several countries have also 
offered training or subsidies, often targeting populations with low 
adoption rates. 

The recommendations outlined in the National Broadband Plan reflect 
actions taken in GAO’s 7 selected countries to increase broadband 
deployment and adoption. The plan contains over 200 recommendations 
for FCC, other government agencies, and Congress, which the plan’s 
executive summary groups in four broad areas. These four areas are not 
identical to the five types of actions GAO identified in the selected 
countries, but both represent similar approaches to expanding 
broadband deployment and adoption. For example, the plan calls for 
adopting strategies and long-term goals, while the actions taken by 
the selected countries include instituting plans that contain 
strategies and goals. Similarly, the plan advocates policies to 
promote robust competition, just as the selected countries have taken 
actions to promote competition. While the United States plans to take 
actions similar to those of other leading countries to achieve the 
National Broadband Plan’s goals of universal access and increased 
adoption, achieving these goals will be challenging. Actions will be 
required by governments at all levels and the private sector. 
Furthermore, implementing the plan’s recommendations will require 
coordinating the work of multiple stakeholders and obtaining 
sufficient funding, among other actions. How effectively federal 
agencies will be able to address these challenges and implement the 
plan’s recommendations, as well as what the private sector will do to 
further deployment, use and adoption, remains to be seen. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-825] or key 
components. For more information, contact Mark Goldstein at (202) 512-
2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

Broadband Deployment Rates Are Generally Comparable across OECD 
Countries, but Adoption Rates Vary because of Cost and Other Factors: 

Stakeholders in Selected Countries Have Taken a Wide Variety of 
Similar Actions to Increase Broadband Deployment and Adoption: 

Recommendations in the National Broadband Plan Generally Reflect 
Selected Countries' Actions to Increase Broadband Deployment, Usage, 
and Adoption: 

Agency Comments: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Range of Speed Requirements for Various Digital Content 
Applications: 

Table 2: Comparison of U.S. and OECD Average Broadband Prices, as of 
October 2009: 

Table 3: Broadband Adoption Rates among Certain U.S. Demographic 
Groups: 

Table 4: Comparison of Actions Taken by Selected Countries to Increase 
Broadband Deployment and Adoption with Actions Recommended by the 
National Broadband Plan: 

Table 5: Broadband Goals and Performance Dashboard Sample: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Broadband Deployment as a Percentage of Households by OECD 
Country: 

Figure 2: Land Mass of Each OECD Country: 

Figure 3: Number of OECD Broadband Subscriber Lines per 100 
Inhabitants: 

Figure 4: Total Number of Broadband Subscriber Lines, by Country: 

Figure 5: Broadband Subscriptions per 100 Inhabitants and Gross 
National Income per Capita Compared: 

Figure 6: List of Contacts by Country: 

Abbreviations: 

4G: Fourth Generation: 

ADSL: asymmetric digital subscriber line: 

BIP: Broadband Initiatives Program: 

BTOP: Broadband Technology Opportunities Program: 

BRAND: Broadband for Rural and Northern Development: 

DSL: Digital subscriber line: 

FCC: Federal Communications Commission: 

Gbps: gigabits--one thousand million bits per second: 

GNA: Glasvezel Amsterdam: 

GNI: gross national income: 

GPRA: Government Performance and Results Act of 1993: 

HDTV: high-definition television: 

ICT: Information and Communications Technology: 

IPTV: Internet protocol television: 

Kbps: kilobits--one thousand bits per second: 

KT: Korea Telecom: 

Lifeline: Lifeline Assistance: 

Link-Up: Link-Up America: 

Mbps: megabits--1 million bits per second: 

NTIA: National Telecommunications and Information Administration: 

NOFA: Notice of Funds Availability: 

NOI: Notice of Inquiry: 

OECD: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development: 

Ofcom: Office of Communications: 

OSTP: Office of Science and Technology Policy within the Executive 
Office of the President: 

Recovery: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Act: 

RUS: Rural Utilities Service: 

UN: United Nations: 

WiFi: wireless fidelity: 

WiMax: Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548: 

September 14, 2010: 

The Honorable Henry A. Waxman: 
Chairman: 
Committee on Energy and Commerce: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Rick Boucher: 
Chairman: 
Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet: 
Committee on Energy and Commerce: 
House of Representatives: 

Increasingly, broadband Internet service is viewed as a critical 
component of a nation's physical infrastructure and a key driver of 
economic growth in the world's most economically developed countries. 
Both the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)--
which brings together the governments of about 30 developed countries 
to promote sustainable economic growth and expand world trade--and the 
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) have recognized the economic 
and social importance of broadband service today. Ensuring that the 
infrastructure necessary to provide broadband service is universally 
available and that all citizens who wish to subscribe are able to do 
so are policy goals of many governments. Universal availability is, 
for example, a policy goal set forth in the National Broadband Plan, 
issued by FCC in March 2010 in response to a congressional mandate. 
[Footnote 1] To achieve their policy goals, governments of developed 
countries around the world have taken actions to increase broadband 
infrastructure deployment, and to increase usage and adoption, 
particularly in areas with little or no service.[Footnote 2] Several 
recent studies on levels of broadband deployment and adoption across 
countries allow for international comparisons. Although such studies 
have limitations, as we noted in an earlier report,[Footnote 3] 
stakeholders across countries have agreed that they are useful for 
alerting policymakers and the public to areas deserving of particular 
attention in future policy decisions. 

Some recent studies show that, as other developed countries have 
enacted policies to increase their levels of deployment and adoption, 
the United States has moved lower in the international rankings. 
[Footnote 4] Specifically, despite achieving nearly 95% broadband 
deployment and globally competitive adoption rates, the United States 
has moved from the top to the middle of the scale in both areas. 
Hence, the actions of stakeholders in other countries that have 
achieved higher deployment and adoption rates are of interest and 
offer examples that could inform future U.S. broadband policy 
decisions. To obtain a better understanding of these actions, you 
asked us to examine efforts of other countries. Accordingly, this 
report addresses the following questions: 

1. What is the status of broadband deployment and adoption in 
developed countries? 

2. What actions have selected countries taken to increase broadband 
deployment and adoption? 

3. How do recommendations outlined in the National Broadband Plan 
reflect the actions of selected countries to increase broadband 
deployment and adoption? 

To address the first question, we obtained information on broadband 
deployment and adoption in the 30 countries that were members of OECD 
as of January 1, 2010,[Footnote 5] through a review of OECD's ranking 
of broadband subscribers per 100 inhabitants,[Footnote 6] and we 
analyzed key demographic and socioeconomic data identified by FCC as 
potentially affecting broadband deployment and adoption in all 30 
countries. 

To address the second question, we selected 7 countries from the 
original 30 countries--Canada, France, Japan, the Netherlands, South 
Korea, Sweden, and the United Kingdom--for further analysis and 
comparison with the United States, using a case study approach. These 
countries were among those that had instituted policies or practices 
credited with increasing broadband deployment, adoption, or both, and 
had economic or demographic characteristics somewhat similar to those 
of the United States. To determine the actions these selected 
countries have taken to increase broadband deployment and adoption, we 
obtained and analyzed relevant policies, plans, and guidance issued by 
responsible government agencies, regulatory authorities, and broadband 
providers in our 7 selected countries and actions taken by these 
countries' governments and other stakeholders to increase broadband 
deployment and consumer adoption. We identified these actions through 
semistructured interviews with public-and private-sector stakeholders 
in the 7 countries and placed these actions in five categories. 
Actions in the first two categorizes serve primarily to increase 
deployment, while those in the remaining three categories are largely 
intended to increase adoption, although some actions may promote both 
deployment and adoption. Furthermore, to better understand 
stakeholders' views on the effectiveness of these actions, we 
interviewed national and local government officials and 
representatives of broadband providers and consumer interest groups in 
each of the selected countries. 

To address the third question, we analyzed the National Broadband 
Plan's recommendations, which the plan's executive summary groups in 
four broad areas, and compared these areas with the five categories in 
which we placed the selected countries' actions. We also compared 
individual recommendations with specific actions taken in the selected 
countries and spoke with relevant FCC officials about how the actions 
recommended in the plan align with the five identified categories. We 
did not evaluate the potential impact or effectiveness of the 
recommendations. 

We conducted this performance audit from June 2009 to September 2010, 
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. See appendix I 
for more information about our scope and methodology. 

Background: 

During the 1990s, the primary means for residential users to access 
the Internet was a dial-up connection, in which a standard telephone 
line is used to make an Internet connection at data transmission 
speeds of up to 56 kilobits per second (kbps).[Footnote 7] Broadband 
access to the Internet became available to residential customers by 
the late 1990s. Broadband connections offer a higher speed Internet 
connection than dial-up. For example, some broadband connections in 
the United States offered over telephone lines can provide speeds 
exceeding 1 million bits per second (Mbps) both upstream (data 
transferred from the consumer to the Internet service provider, also 
known as upload) and downstream (data transferred from the Internet 
service provider to the consumer, also known as download). These 
higher speeds enable consumers to receive information much faster and 
thus access certain applications and content that might be 
inaccessible with a dial-up connection. Also, broadband typically 
provides an "always on" connection to the Internet, so users do not 
need to establish a connection to the Internet service provider each 
time they want to go online. The higher transmission speeds that 
broadband offers generally cost more than dial-up, and some broadband 
users pay a premium to obtain very-high-speed service. 

Consumers can receive a broadband connection to the Internet through a 
variety of technologies, including, but not limited to, the following: 

Cable modem. Cable television companies first began providing 
broadband cable modem service in the late 1990s. This service, which 
is primarily available in residential areas, enables cable operators 
to deliver broadband service through the same coaxial cables that 
deliver pictures and sound to television sets. Although the speed of 
service varies with many factors, download speeds of up to 6 Mbps are 
typical. Some cable providers are offering even higher download 
speeds, up to 100 Mbps. 

Digital subscriber line (DSL). Local telephone companies provide DSL 
service, another form of broadband service, over their telephone 
networks on spectrum unused by traditional voice service. To provide 
DSL service, telephone companies must install equipment in their 
facilities as well as installing or providing DSL modems and other 
equipment at customers' premises; they may also have to remove devices 
on phone lines that may cause interference. Most residential customers 
receive older, asymmetric DSL (ADSL) service with download speeds of 
1.5 Mbps to 3 Mbps. ADSL technology can achieve speeds of up to 8 Mbps 
over short distances. Newer DSL technologies can support services with 
speeds of over 8 Mbps up to 50 Mbps in some areas. 

Satellite. Satellites transmit data to and from subscribers from a 
fixed position above the equator, eliminating the need for a telephone 
or cable connection.[Footnote 8] Typically, a consumer can expect to 
download data at a speed of about 1 Mbps and upload data at a speed of 
about 200 kbps. Transmission of data via satellite results in a slight 
lag in transmission, typically one-half to three-fourths of a second, 
thus rendering this service less suitable for certain Internet 
applications, such as videoconferencing. While satellite broadcast 
service may be available throughout the country, its use requires a 
clear line of sight between the customer's antenna and the southern 
sky. The equipment necessary for service, the recurring monthly fees, 
and the installation costs are generally higher for satellite 
broadband service than for most other broadband transmission modes. 

Wireless. Land-based, or terrestrial, wireless broadband service 
connects a home or business to the Internet using a radio link. Some 
companies are offering fixed wireless broadband service throughout 
cities. Also, mobile telephone carriers have begun offering broadband 
mobile wireless Internet service, allowing subscribers to access the 
Internet with their mobile phones or laptops in areas throughout 
cities where their provider supports the service. Also, wireless 
fidelity (Wi-Fi) networks--which provide broadband service in so-
called "hot spots," or areas within a radius of up to 300 feet--can be 
found in cafes, hotels, airports, and offices. Hot spots generally use 
a short-range technology that provides speeds up to 54 Mbps. In 
addition, Fourth Generation, i.e., 4G, wireless technology, now in the 
early stages of deployment, is expected to achieve broadband speeds as 
fast as 50 to 100 Mbps for a few users over an extended period of time 
or for short periods of time for many users. Some 4G technologies, 
such as Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access (known as 
WiMAX), can provide broadband service up to approximately 30 miles, 
but at that distance, data transmission rates would be low. 

Fiber optic. Fiber optic technology converts electrical signals 
carrying data to light and sends the light through transparent glass 
fibers about the diameter of a human hair. In countries such as Japan 
and Korea, the government is encouraging providers to offer, in the 
next 3-5 years, data transmission speeds exceeding current DSL or 
cable modem speeds, typically by tens or even hundreds of megabits per 
second, up to 1 gigabit per second (Gbps) in some areas.[Footnote 9] 
Fiber may be provided in several ways, including direct connection to 
a customer's home or business, or to a location somewhere between the 
provider's facilities and the customer. In the latter case, the last 
part of the connection to the customer's premises may be provided over 
coaxial cable, copper loop, or radio technology. Such hybrid 
arrangements may be less costly than providing fiber all the way to 
the customer's premises, but they generally cannot achieve the high 
transmission speed of a full fiber-to-the-premises connection. 

In the United States, FCC is the federal agency principally 
responsible for broadband but the scope of its authority has not been 
resolved. In a series of decisions starting in 2002, FCC classified 
broadband Internet services as "information services" under the 
Communications Act. "Information services" are not subject to Title II 
of the Communications Act,[Footnote 10] which addresses 
telecommunications services like phone service, but gives FCC 
authority to regulate these services. However, FCC asserted that it 
had authority to regulate broadband Internet service using its 
"ancillary authority" under Title I of the Communications Act. A 
recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit called that authority into question. In this case, 
Comcast Corp. v. FCC, the court reviewed an FCC decision that relied 
on ancillary authority to address an Internet service provider's 
network management practices.[Footnote 11] The court held that the use 
of ancillary authority must be tied to a specific statutory mandate in 
the Communications Act and that FCC had not done that in its order. 
Since that time, FCC has released a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) to seek 
public comment on its legal framework for regulating broadband 
Internet services.[Footnote 12] The NOI suggests that there are at 
least three legal options for FCC as follows: 

1. Maintain the current "information service" framework for broadband 
Internet service based on the Title I ancillary authority questioned 
in Comcast. 

2. Identify the connectivity portion of broadband Internet service as 
a "telecommunications service" to which all requirements of Title II 
of the Communications Act would apply. 

3. Following the framework Congress established for cell phone 
services in 1993, identify the connectivity portion of broadband 
Internet service as a telecommunications service and simultaneously 
forbear[Footnote 13] from applying all but the minimum number of 
provisions of Title II needed to implement fundamental universal 
service, competition and market entry, and consumer protections. 

The NOI seeks comment on the three legal options and any other 
approaches that will restore a solid legal foundation for FCC's 
broadband policies. Public comments were due on July 15, 2010, and 
replies on August 12, 2010. 

Three other federal agencies also have responsibilities for broadband 
in the United States: 

* The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) within the 
Executive Office of the President has a broad mandate to advise the 
President and the federal government on the effects of science and 
technology on domestic and international affairs and has led 
interagency efforts to develop science and technology policies and 
budgets. 

* Within the Department of Commerce, the National Telecommunications 
and Information Administration (NTIA) serves as the President's 
principal telecommunications and information adviser and works with 
other executive branch agencies to develop the administration's 
telecommunications policies. 

* Within the Department of Agriculture, the Rural Utilities Service 
(RUS) provides financial resources for broadband deployment. 

Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery 
Act), enacted on February 17, 2009, NTIA and RUS have responsibility 
for distributing federal moneys to expand broadband.[Footnote 14] The 
act provided $7.2 billion[Footnote 15] to extend access to broadband 
throughout the United States, including $4.7 billion for NTIA and $2.5 
billion for RUS. Specifically, the Recovery Act authorized NTIA, in 
consultation with FCC, to create the Broadband Technology 
Opportunities Program (BTOP) to manage competitive grants to a variety 
of entities for broadband infrastructure, public computer centers, and 
innovative projects to stimulate demand for, and adoption of, 
broadband. The Recovery Act made up to $350 million of the $4.7 
billion available for developing and maintaining a nationwide map 
featuring the availability of broadband service, as provided in the 
Broadband Data Improvement Act.[Footnote 16] In addition, the Recovery 
Act made some of NTIA's appropriation available for transfer to FCC 
for the development of a national broadband plan to help ensure that 
all people in the United States have access to broadband. The Recovery 
Act also authorized RUS to establish the Broadband Initiatives Program 
(BIP) to make loans and to award grants and loan-grant combinations 
for broadband infrastructure projects in rural areas. Pursuant to the 
Recovery Act, all BTOP and BIP funds must be awarded by September 30, 
2010. 

In May 2009, we reported on the broadband deployment policy of the 
past administration, the principal federal programs that helped fund 
broadband infrastructure, and stakeholders' views on the usefulness of 
those programs.[Footnote 17] We also compared the policies of some 
OECD countries, which had higher broadband adoption rates than the 
United States, and recommended that those agencies responsible for 
overseeing federal efforts to increase broadband deployment and 
adoption--FCC, NTIA, and RUS--work together to specify performance 
goals and measures for broadband deployment and coordinate their 
efforts in carrying out the plan.[Footnote 18] 

Broadband Deployment Rates Are Generally Comparable across OECD 
Countries, but Adoption Rates Vary because of Cost and Other Factors: 

Broadband Infrastructure Has Been Deployed to Nearly All Households in 
Developed Countries despite Significant Demographic and Geographic 
Differences: 

In 27 of the 30 OECD countries, including the United States, broadband 
has been deployed to 90 percent or more of households regardless of 
demographic or geographic differences.[Footnote 19] High rates of 
broadband deployment have been achieved despite geographic and 
financial differences among the OECD countries. However, not all OECD 
countries have overcome the same challenges in deploying broadband 
infrastructure. For example, in Denmark, which is one of the smallest 
and most densely populated OECD countries, with an average of 128 
people per square kilometer, broadband has been deployed to 99 percent 
of households.[Footnote 20] Yet in the United States, which is 228 
times larger geographically, and 56 times more populous, and which has 
an average of 32 people per square kilometer, broadband has been 
deployed to more than 95 percent of households.[Footnote 21] See 
figures 1 and 2. 

Figure 1: Broadband Deployment as a Percentage of Households by OECD 
Country: 

[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph] 

Percentage of broadband deployment: 

Portugal: 100%; 
Netherlands: 100%; 
United Kingdom: 100%; 
Luxembourg: 100%; 
Belgium: 99.7%; 
South Korea: 99.5%; 
Denmark: 99%; 
Japan: 98.6%; 
France: 98.5%; 
Switzerland: 98%; 
Sweden: 97.9%; 
Czech Republic: 97%; 
Spain: 96.1%; 
Finland: 96%; 
United States: 96%; 
Italy: 95.7%; 
Germany: 95%; 
Austria: 95%; 
Greece: 95%; 
Canada: 93.5%; 
Iceland: 93%; 
New Zealand: 93%; 
Mexico: 92%; 
Australia: 91%; 
Hungary: 91%; 
Norway: 90%; 
Ireland: 90%; 
Slovak Republic: 78%; 
Poland: 64%; 
Turkey: 41.4%. 

Source: GAO analysis of OECD data. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 2: Land Mass of Each OECD Country: 

[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph] 

Total land area (km2) in millions: 

Canada: 9.98 million km2; 
United States: 9.83 million km2; 
Australia: 7.74 million km2; 
Mexico: 1.96 million km2; 
Turkey: 0.78 million km2; 
France: 0.55 million km2; 
Spain: 0.50 million km2; 
Sweden: 0.45 million km2; 
Japan: 0.38 million km2; 
Germany: 0.36 million km2; 
Finland: 0.33 million km2; 
Norway: 0.32 million km2; 
Poland: 0.31 million km2; 
Italy: 0.30 million km2; 
New Zealand: 0.27 million km2; 
United Kingdom: 0.24 million km2; 
Greece: 0.13 million km2; 
Iceland: 0.10 million km2; 
South Korea: 0.10 million km2; 
Hungary: 0.09 million km2; 
Portugal: 0.09 million km2; 
Austria: 0.08 million km2; 
Czech Republic: 0.08 million km2; 
Ireland: 0.07 million km2; 
Slovak Republic: 0.05 million km2; 
Denmark: 0.04 million km2; 
Netherlands: 0.04 million km2; 
Switzerland: 0.04 million km2; 
Belgium: 0.03 million km2; 
Luxembourg: 0.03 million km2. 

Source: GAO analysis of Central Intelligence Agency data. 

[End of figure] 

Across the 30 OECD countries, average broadband download speeds range 
from 1.352 Mbps in Mexico to 11.717 Mbps in South Korea, and the 
majority of countries have average broadband speeds of 3 Mbps to 8 
Mbps, according to Akamai Technologies, a global Internet content 
provider that issues reports assessing broadband download speeds in 
approximately 71 countries. The United States, with assessed average 
speeds of 3.808 Mbps, ranks 14th among the OECD countries.[Footnote 
22] However, broadband speeds can exceed averages under certain 
conditions. For example, in the United States, three localities--
Berkeley, California (18.730 Mbps); Chapel Hill, North Carolina 
(17.483 Mbps); and Stanford, California (16.956 Mbps)--offer the 
highest average broadband speeds in the world. In addition, 21 of the 
100 top cities Akamai evaluated are in the United States. 

The quality of broadband infrastructure is often characterized by the 
speed it is capable of providing to users. Greater broadband speeds 
enable the use of more services over the Internet. For example, the 
United States and Japan lead the world in demand for high-definition 
television (HDTV), which can consume up to 18 Mbps if broadcast over 
the Internet. Current Internet-based video requires 1-4 Mbps; if these 
speeds grow over time and demand for Internet-based HDTV is combined 
with demand for other broadband-based services, such as Web browsing 
and online gaming, a household's demand for broadband speeds could 
exceed 20 Mbps or more.[Footnote 23] See table 1. However, since most 
HDTV today is carried on dedicated infrastructure, the impact on 
demand for Internet broadband speeds is small. 

Table 1: Range of Speed Requirements for Various Digital Content 
Applications: 

Application type: High-definition television; 
Speed: 10 Mbps to 18 Mbps. 

Application type: Online games; 
Speed: 2 Mbps to 14 Mbps. 

Application type: Video on demand; 
Speed: 1.5 Mbps to 12 Mbps. 

Application type: Internet protocol television (IPTV); 
Speed: 1.5 Mbps to 12 Mbps. 

Application type: Videoconferencing; 
Speed: 1 Mbps to 12 Mbps. 

Application type: Virtual worlds; 
Speed: 1 Mbps to 8 Mbps. 

Application type: Web browsing; 
Speed: 64 kbps to 4 Mbps. 

Application type: Audio streaming; 
Speed: 128 kbps to 1 Mbps. 

Application type: Voice calls; 
Speed: 64 kbps to 512 kbps. 

Source: OECD Information Technology Outlook 2008, Figure 5.5. 

[End of table] 

Broadband Adoption Rates Are Variable and Are Affected by Cost and 
Demographic Factors: 

A number of demographic factors, such as population, cost, and 
computer ownership, affect broadband adoption rates. Seventeen OECD 
countries have broadband adoption rates that exceed the average of 
23.3 subscriber lines per 100 inhabitants,[Footnote 24] including the 
United States, at 26.4 subscriber lines. Furthermore, the United 
States has more subscribers than any other OECD country--81 million, 
or more than twice as many as Japan, which has 31 million, the second 
highest number of subscribers.[Footnote 25] 

Population is an important factor to consider when analyzing broadband 
adoption rates. For example, 7 of the 10 countries with the highest 
adoption rates are also among the 10 countries with the smallest 
populations. Because the population of the United States is 
significantly larger than that of the other OECD countries, a 1-unit 
[Footnote 26] increase in the broadband adoption rate in the United 
States requires more than 3 million new U.S. broadband subscriber 
lines. By contrast, the Netherlands would need another 160,000 
subscriber lines to achieve a 1-unit increase. Assuming all other 
factors are equal, the cost of a 1-unit increase in broadband 
subscriber lines per 100 inhabitants is considerably higher in the 
United States than in any other country. See figures 3 and 4. 

Figure 3: Number of OECD Broadband Subscriber Lines per 100 
Inhabitants: 

[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph] 

OECD average: 23.3. 

Country: Netherlands; 
DSL: 22.1; 
Cable: 14.2; 
Fibre/LAN: 0.8; 
Other: 0. 

Country: Denmark; 
DSL: 22.4; 
Cable: 10.1; 
Fibre/LAN: 4.2; 
Other: 0.3. 

Country: Switzerland; 
DSL: 25.1; 
Cable: 10; 
Fibre/LAN: 0.3; 
Other: 0.3. 

Country: Norway; 
DSL: 20.9; 
Cable: 8.6; 
Fibre/LAN: 4.3; 
Other: 0.1. 

Country: South Korea; 
DSL: 6.6; 
Cable: 10.6; 
Fibre/LAN: 16.4; 
Other: 0. 

Country: Iceland; 
DSL: 30.7; 
Cable: 0; 
Fibre/LAN: 2.2; 
Other: 0. 

Country: Sweden; 
DSL: 17.8; 
Cable: 6.2; 
Fibre/LAN: 7.4; 
Other: 1. 

Country: Luxembourg; 
DSL: 26.5; 
Cable: 5.2; 
Fibre/LAN: 0.1; 
Other: 0.1. 

Country: France; 
DSL: 28.7; 
Cable: 1.6; 
Fibre/LAN: 0.1; 
Other: 0. 

Country: Germany; 
DSL: 27.4; 
Cable: 2.8; 
Fibre/LAN: 0.2; 
Other: 0. 

Country: Canada; 
DSL: 13.2; 
Cable: 16.4; 
Fibre/LAN: 0; 
Other: 0. 

Country: United Kingdom; 
DSL: 23.3; 
Cable: 6.2; 
Fibre/LAN: 0; 
Other: 0. 

Country: Belgium; 
DSL: 16.5; 
Cable: 12.3; 
Fibre/LAN: 0.2; 
Other: 0.1. 

Country: Finland; 
DSL: 22.2; 
Cable: 4.2; 
Fibre/LAN: 0.2; 
Other: 0.1. 

Country: United States; 
DSL: 10.7; 
Cable: 14.1; 
Fibre/LAN: 1.3; 
Other: 0.3. 

Country: Japan; 
DSL: 7.9; 
Cable: 3.4; 
Fibre/LAN: 13.5; 
Other: 0. 

Country: Australia; 
DSL: 19; 
Cable: 4.2; 
Fibre/LAN: 0; 
Other: 0. 

Country: New Zealand; 
DSL: 21.7; 
Cable: 1.5; 
Fibre/LAN: 0; 
Other: 0. 

Country: Austria; 
DSL: 15.1; 
Cable: 6.8; 
Fibre/LAN: 0.1; 
Other: 0.1. 

Country: Spain; 
DSL: 17.1; 
Cable: 4; 
Fibre/LAN: 0.1; 
Other: 0. 

Country: Italy; 
DSL: 19.9; 
Cable: 0; 
Fibre/LAN: 0.6; 
Other: 0. 

Country: Ireland; 
DSL: 16; 
Cable: 3.4; 
Fibre/LAN: 0.1; 
Other: 0. 

Country: Portugal; 
DSL: 10.4; 
Cable: 7.2; 
Fibre/LAN: 0.3; 
Other: 0. 

Country: Hungary; 
DSL: 8.2; 
Cable: 8.4; 
Fibre/LAN: 1.1; 
Other: 0.1. 

Country: Greece; 
DSL: 17; 
Cable: 0; 
Fibre/LAN: 0; 
Other: 0. 

Country: Czech Republic; 
DSL: 7.4; 
Cable: 4.2; 
Fibre/LAN: 1.3; 
Other: 0. 

Country: Poland; 
DSL: 8.1; 
Cable: 3.9; 
Fibre/LAN: 0.1; 
Other: 0. 

Country: Slovak Republic; 
DSL: 6.8; 
Cable: 1.5; 
Fibre/LAN: 3.3; 
Other: 0. 

Country: Mexico; 
DSL: 6.8; 
Cable: 2; 
Fibre/LAN: 0; 
Other: 0.5. 

Country: Turkey; 
DSL: 8.6; 
Cable: 0.2; 
Fibre/LAN: 0.1; 
Other: 0.1. 

Source: OECD. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 4: Total Number of Broadband Subscriber Lines, by Country: 

[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph] 

Total broadband subscriber lines (in millions): 

United States: 81.15 million; 
Japan: 31.63 million; 
Germany: 24.84 million; 
France: 19.58 million; 
United Kingdom: 18.21 million; 
South Korea: 16.35 million; 
Italy: 12.34 million; 
Canada: 9.98 million; 
Mexico: 9.92 million; 
Spain: 9.79 million; 
Turkey: 6.45 million; 
Netherlands: 6.13 million; 
Australia: 5.13 million; 
Poland: 4.62 million; 
Belgium: 3.13 million; 
Sweden: 3.02 million; 
Switzerland: 2.78 million; 
Denmark: 2.05 million; 
Greece: 1.92 million; 
Portugal: 1.90 million; 
Austria: 1.84 million; 
Hungary: 1.79 million; 
Norway: 1.64 million; 
Finland: 1.43 million; 
Czech Republic: 1.35 million; 
New Zealand: 0.99 million; 
Ireland: 0.87 million; 
Slovak Republic: 0.63 million; 
Luxembourg: 0.16 million; 
Iceland: 0.11 million. 

Source: OECD. 

[End of figure] 

Cost and Demographic Factors Affect Broadband Adoption Rates: 

Cost--including a monthly broadband subscription price and the price 
of a computer or other device for accessing the Internet--is another 
key factor affecting broadband adoption rates. A 2009 survey conducted 
for FCC determined that 65 percent of American adults use broadband at 
home, although another 12 percent use the Internet, either through a 
dial-up connection or at a place other than their home.[Footnote 27] 
However, this study also surveyed nonadopters in the United States and 
determined that more than one-third identified cost as the main factor 
affecting their decision not to subscribe to broadband service. 
Additionally, subscription costs generally increase with speed, making 
higher-speed services typically more challenging for users to adopt. 
As a result, cost concerns may limit the level of Internet-based 
applications consumers can access.[Footnote 28] 

Broadband service prices can be assessed along several criteria, such 
as the average price per megabit or the price for a given "speed 
tier."[Footnote 29] As table 2 shows, prices for broadband service in 
the United States are below OECD averages except for very-high-speed 
service. 

Table 2: Comparison of U.S. and OECD Average Broadband Prices, as of 
October 2009: 

United States: 
Average price per megabit/second: $8.06; 
Average monthly price for low-speed tier: $23.74; 
Average monthly price for medium-speed tier: $36.90; 
Average monthly price for high-speed tier: $60.13; 
Average monthly price for very-high-speed tier: $122.45. 

OECD average: 
Average price per megabit/second: $8.75; 
Average monthly price for low-speed tier: $30.23; 
Average monthly price for medium-speed tier: $41.94; 
Average monthly price for high-speed tier: $67.43; 
Average monthly price for very-high-speed tier: $72.85. 

Source: GAO analysis of OECD data. 

[End of table] 

In the United States, several demographic factors, including education 
and income, are also thought to affect broadband adoption.[Footnote 
30] For example, having a child in school and having a higher income 
are associated with higher broadband adoption levels. According to 
FCC's 2009 survey, 75 percent of parents with a minor child have 
broadband services at home, as do 91 percent of households with annual 
incomes of more than $75,000. Conversely, 40 percent of households 
with annual incomes of less than $20,000 have broadband services at 
home. See table 3. 

Table 3: Broadband Adoption Rates among Certain U.S. Demographic 
Groups: 

Demographic group: National average; 
Current adoption rates, in percent: 65. 

Demographic group: Rural Americans; 
Current adoption rates, in percent: 50. 

Demographic group: Low income (under $20,000/year); 
Current adoption rates, in percent: 40. 

Demographic group: Older Americans (65+); 
Current adoption rates, in percent: 35. 

Demographic group: Less educated (no high school degree); 
Current adoption rates, in percent: 24. 

Source: FCC Connect America: The National Broadband Plan (Washington, 
D.C.: Mar. 17, 2010). 

Note: Data presented are measured at the household level, not per 
capita. 

[End of table] 

Personal computer ownership has also been linked to broadband 
adoption, since computers enable users to access Internet-based 
services. Of the 30 OECD countries, the United States ranks fifth in 
personal computer ownership, with 80.6 per 100 inhabitants--a rate 
considerably above the average of 52.3 per 100 inhabitants. Yet 
despite this high personal computer ownership rate, FCC's 2010 survey 
indicates that 10 percent of U.S. individual nonadopters surveyed 
cited the cost of computer ownership as one of the main reasons for 
nonadoption. 

According to our analysis of OECD and World Bank data, income is a 
factor that drives broadband adoption across the OECD countries. For 
example, Turkey, which has the lowest adoption rate (9.0 subscribers 
per 100 inhabitants), also has the lowest gross national income (GNI) 
[Footnote 31] per capita ($9,020) of the OECD countries, while the 
United States, which ranks 15th in adoption (with 26.4 subscribers per 
100 inhabitants), ranks eighth in GNI per capita ($47,930). Norway, 
which ranks third in adoption (with 33.9 subscribers per 100 
inhabitants), has the highest GNI per capita ($87,340). As figure 5 
shows, broadband adoption generally declines as income declines, 
although outliers do exist. 

Figure 5: Broadband Subscriptions per 100 Inhabitants and Gross 
National Income per Capita Compared: 

[Refer to PDF for image: combination vertical bar and line graph] 

Country: Netherlands	
Broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants: 37.1
GNI per capita (U.S. dollars): $49,340. 

Country: Denmark	
Broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants: 37.1
GNI per capita (U.S. dollars): $58,800. 

Country: Switzerland	
Broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants: 35.6
GNI per capita (U.S. dollars): $55,510. 

Country: Norway	
Broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants: 33.9
GNI per capita (U.S. dollars): $87,340. 

Country: South Korea	
Broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants: 33.5
GNI per capita (U.S. dollars): $21,530. 

Country: Iceland	
Broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants: 32.8
GNI per capita (U.S. dollars): $40,450. 

Country: Sweden	
Broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants: 32.4
GNI per capita (U.S. dollars): $50,910. 

Country: Luxembourg	
Broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants: 31.9
GNI per capita (U.S. dollars): $69,390. 

Country: France	
Broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants: 30.4
GNI per capita (U.S. dollars): $42,000. 

Country: Germany	
Broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants: 30.3
GNI per capita (U.S. dollars): $42,710. 

Country: Canada	
Broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants: 29.6
GNI per capita (U.S. dollars): $43,640. 

Country: United Kingdom	
Broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants: 29.5
GNI per capita (U.S. dollars): $46,040. 

Country: Belgium	
Broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants: 29
GNI per capita (U.S. dollars): $44,570. 

Country: Finland	
Broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants: 26.7
GNI per capita (U.S. dollars): $47,600. 

Country: United States	
Broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants: 26.4
GNI per capita (U.S. dollars): $47,930. 

Country: Japan	
Broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants: 24.8
GNI per capita (U.S. dollars): $38,130. 

Country: Australia	
Broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants: 23.3
GNI per capita (U.S. dollars): $40,240. 

Country: New Zealand	
Broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants: 23.2
GNI per capita (U.S. dollars): $27,830. 

Country: Austria	
Broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants: 22.1
GNI per capita (U.S. dollars): $45,900. 

Country: Spain	
Broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants: 21.2
GNI per capita (U.S. dollars): $31,930. 

Country: Italy	
Broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants: 20.5
GNI per capita (U.S. dollars): $35,460. 

Country: Ireland	
Broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants: 19.5
GNI per capita (U.S. dollars): $49,770. 

Country: Portugal	
Broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants: 17.9
GNI per capita (U.S. dollars): $20,680. 

Country: Hungary	
Broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants: 17.8
GNI per capita (U.S. dollars): $12,810. 

Country: Greece	
Broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants: 17
GNI per capita (U.S. dollars): $28,400. 

Country: Czech Republic	
Broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants: 12.9
GNI per capita (U.S. dollars): $16,650. 

Country: Poland	
Broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants: 12.1
GNI per capita (U.S. dollars): $11,730. 

Country: Slovak Republic	
Broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants: 11.6
GNI per capita (U.S. dollars): $16,590. 

Country: Mexico	
Broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants: 9.2
GNI per capita (U.S. dollars): $9,990. 

Country: Turkey	
Broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants: 9
GNI per capita (U.S. dollars): $9,020. 

Sources: GAO analysis of OECD and World Bank data. 

[End of figure] 

Stakeholders in Selected Countries Have Taken a Wide Variety of 
Similar Actions to Increase Broadband Deployment and Adoption: 

The seven countries we selected as case studies, all of which had 
achieved higher levels of either broadband deployment or broadband 
adoption than the United States as of the fourth quarter of 2009, have 
taken similar actions to increase deployment and adoption--actions 
that stakeholders in these countries told us they considered 
effective. Through our case studies, we identified five overall 
categories of actions: (1) establish plans and policies to guide 
deployment and provide leadership support, (2) provide government 
funding through public/private partnerships, (3) promote competition, 
(4) implement strategies to make broadband services more available and 
useful to consumers, and (5) provide digital literacy training and 
consumer subsidies. 

All Seven Selected Countries Have Instituted Broadband Plans, and 
Leaders Have Emphasized Broadband Initiatives: 

All seven selected countries have instituted broadband plans. 
Generally, these plans include some mix of short-and long-term goals, 
action plans, and performance metrics. Such attributes align with the 
framework set forth by the Government Performance and Results Act of 
1993 (GPRA),[Footnote 32] which stresses the importance of having 
clearly stated objectives, performance plans, goals, and measures to 
improve a program's effectiveness. Some stakeholders told us that the 
adoption of such plans, with their accompanying goals and action 
items, helped focus national efforts to increase the deployment and 
adoption of broadband. The following are examples: 

* Japan adopted a plan in 2001 with the goal of providing speeds of up 
to 30 Mbps to at least 30 million households and speeds of up to 100 
Mbps to at least 10 million households by 2005 and achieved this goal 
by 2003. In 2009, Japan adopted the e-Japan Strategy 2015 and set new 
target speeds of 1 Gbps for fixed networks, more than 100 Mbps for 
mobile networks, and 100 percent adoption of broadband services by 
approximately 2015. 

* In 1997, Canada started the Government On-Line program to organize 
service and information around the needs of its people and businesses. 
Since 2002, through such programs as Broadband for Rural and Northern 
Development (BRAND) and Connecting Canadians, Canada has brought 
connectivity to rural and remote areas and achieved the goal of 
connecting public institutions, including schools and libraries, in 
all of Canada's 4,000 communities. In 2009, Canada adopted Broadband 
Canada, a program that will provide $225 million over 3 years to 
deploy broadband infrastructure to residents in unserved rural and 
remote areas. 

* In 2009, the United Kingdom issued the Digital Britain plan, which 
calls for 100 percent availability of a connection capable of download 
speeds of at least 2 Mbps by 2012. 

* In Sweden, from 2001 to 2007, the government adopted a policy of 
deploying broadband to rural areas lacking access, and, in 2008, 99 
percent of households had access to some form of broadband. In 2009, 
the Swedish government adopted the Broadband Strategy for Sweden with 
the goal of ensuring that 90 percent of households have access to 
broadband speeds of at least 100 Mbps by 2020. 

In addition to goals, leadership is recognized as important in helping 
to increase broadband deployment and adoption. In Korea, government 
officials cited their President's constant emphasis on broadband 
initiatives as a factor that has helped to increase broadband 
adoption. In addition, the country's ministries emphasize e-government 
services and often compete with each other to develop new Internet 
applications. In France, the government created the Office of the 
Digital Development Minister in March 2008 and made it responsible for 
crafting a national broadband strategy known as Digital France 2012. 
The goal of this strategy is to achieve 100 percent broadband access 
by 2012 and to facilitate coordination among the various ministries 
with authority over information technology. 

In All Seven Countries, National or Regional Governments Have Provided 
Funds for Public/Private Partnerships to Deploy Broadband 
Infrastructure: 

Case study governments, at the national or regional levels or both, 
have used public/private partnerships to help fund broadband 
deployment in unserved and underserved areas.[Footnote 33] Whereas 
private enterprises have deployed broadband infrastructure in high-
density urban areas where there is a strong business case for such 
investment, they have independently invested less in low-density rural 
areas or isolated communities, where deployment costs more per 
household and offers less opportunity for profit. Officials in both 
the public and private sectors of several of the countries we visited 
acknowledged that some areas are unprofitable to serve and some 
incentive, usually in the form of government funding, is required to 
motivate private investment and achieve universal access. The 
public/private partnerships in our case-study countries range from 
local authorities and private companies that have shared the cost of 
building a network to municipalities that own broadband networks and 
contract with private companies to operate and maintain them. The 
following are examples: 

* Japan's Ministry of Information and Communications told us that, 
although 98.6 percent of households have broadband access, the 
government has instituted a public/private partnership program to 
support the establishment of broadband infrastructure in rural and 
remote areas where broadband service is not available and hopes to 
eliminate all areas without broadband access by the end of March 2011. 
Under this arrangement, the national government provides one-third of 
the total cost of installing broadband networks, requiring that the 
local government formulate plans in collaboration with the private 
sector and help create demand for broadband. Local governments in 
Japan maintain ownership of the network and attract the private sector 
by selecting one company to provide service for the area. 

* From 2001 to 2007, Sweden initiated a broadband funding initiative 
to expand broadband to rural and remote areas using a public/private 
partnership model. Financing was provided through state funds, local 
authorities, and broadband operators, and, in order to participate, a 
local authority had to provide at least 5 percent of the funding. A 
government evaluation of the funding program determined that broadband 
had been deployed to more remote areas than would have received 
broadband without the funding. 

* In 2006, in order to stimulate economic growth, a large suburb of 
Paris, France, Hauts-de-Seine, issued a request for proposal; in 2007, 
Hauts-de-Seine hired a private company to deploy a fiber network to 
all its residents, enterprises, and public sites within 6 years and to 
operate the network as a shared fiber network, one open to all 
competitors. Regional officials told us they entered into this 
arrangement to prevent the creation of a digital divide, which would 
have occurred without the involvement of the municipality because no 
commercial provider was expected to deploy infrastructure equally to 
all areas, both rich and poor, urban and suburban. Public officials of 
Hauts-de-Seine told us that the public/private partnership arrangement 
would optimize the implementation of the network by reducing the cost 
of deployment of a fully open infrastructure and allowing service 
providers to increase their customer base. In addition, after 25 
years, ownership of the network will revert to Hauts-de-Seine. 

* In Canada, in 2001, the City of Ottawa was amalgamated with several 
of its surrounding municipalities, and, within the new boundaries, 90 
percent of the city's landmass and 10 percent of its residents were 
rural. At that time in the rural areas, 2 percent of the residents had 
access to broadband. To bring broadband to the entire amalgamated 
area, in 2007, Ottawa entered into a partnership with a private 
broadband provider. Ottawa issued a request for proposal, set a goal 
of 100 percent availability, and selected a company that provided both 
fixed wireless and satellite service. A city official told us that 
some satellite coverage was necessary because Ottawa's uneven terrain 
would have made it too costly to erect enough towers to provide 
wireless connections for all residents. The city official told us that 
the private company had given the city more than it had asked for and 
its bid did not request the maximum contribution from the city. 
Currently, broadband service is available to 100 percent of the 
amalgamated area's residents, with 98 percent of rural areas served by 
terrestrial wireless and the last 2 percent served by satellite. 
[Footnote 34] Adoption rates range from 80 percent in the city to 50 
percent in the rural areas. 

* In Korea, officials told us they have used public/private 
partnerships to help reduce the digital divide between urban and rural 
areas. For example, rural villages with more than 50 households are 
receiving broadband service at speeds of up to 50 Mbps from Korea 
Telecom (KT) in partnership with the Korean government. When KT 
transitioned from government to private ownership in 2002, it had to 
commit to providing infrastructure to rural areas. However, since 
2005, the government has shared the cost, with KT contributing 50 
percent, the central government 25 percent, and the local government 
25 percent. 

Localities Have Also Used Public/Private Partnerships to Deploy Fiber 
to Gain Greater Broadband Speed: 

Private enterprise has been slow to deploy fiber directly to 
customers' premises in several countries. While fiber can provide the 
highest speeds, it is costly to deploy, and consumer demand for speeds 
above 50 Mbps is limited. Moreover, some existing DSL and cable 
networks can provide speeds in excess of 50 Mbps. Nevertheless, some 
municipalities have determined that fiber is necessary for their 
future well-being and have decided to deploy it despite private 
companies' unwillingness to bear the full investment costs. To finance 
the deployment of fiber in their area, some of these municipalities 
have established public/private partnerships and examples of some of 
these are as follows: 

* Stokab, a municipally-owned fiber network, was founded in 1994. 
Stokab officials told us that the municipality of Stockholm had 
determined that fiber appeared to be the most viable technology for 
the foreseeable future, although the local telephone provider did not 
express any interest in deploying fiber infrastructure at that time. 
In addition, city officials told us they knew that if, in the future, 
multiple companies chose to provide fiber to the city, the streets 
could be dug up several times, causing disruption and damaging 
Stockholm's historic buildings and cobblestone streets. To avoid such 
a scenario, Stockholm officials set up Stokab, which deploys and 
maintains the physical infrastructure and leases dark fiber[Footnote 
35] to multiple businesses, which may use the fiber for their own 
business or to provide service to others. Stokab is thus a wholesaler 
to other business entities. Stokab officials told us that many 
municipalities in Sweden have adopted models similar to Stokab. 

* In Amsterdam, the Netherlands, in 2000, broadband service was widely 
available over cable and telephone lines, but there was no fiber to 
the home. Officials said they believed fiber would protect the city's 
future competitiveness, although commercial companies did not want to 
invest in fiber at that time. Accordingly, in 2006, Amsterdam formed 
Glasvezel Amsterdam (GNA) to finance a fiber network in conjunction 
with private investors to provide broadband services throughout the 
city. The city is not a majority shareholder in GNA, and it is treated 
like any other private investor. GNA has deployed infrastructure to 
multiple dwelling units comprising 43,000 apartments and began a new 
roll out to another 100,000 homes in 2009. 

Public/Private Partnerships Raise Some Concerns: 

Although public/private partnerships have provided both public and 
private benefits, they have nevertheless raised some concerns. For 
example, some providers have expressed reservations about using public 
funds to support businesses in competition with private enterprise. 
Two providers told us that they think it is unfair to use public funds 
to finance wireline broadband to compete with a company providing 
broadband over a satellite or wireless network in rural areas because 
there is not enough business in such areas to support one unsubsidized 
company. In addition, officials at companies in Japan and Canada 
questioned the sustainability of government-funded projects and 
expressed concern about who would be responsible for maintaining 
government-funded infrastructure once the government funding is gone. 
The European Commission has placed some limitations on the use of 
public funds to establish businesses in competition with private 
enterprise.[Footnote 36] 

Public officials have also expressed concern about the 
interoperability of municipal networks and have identified a need to 
provide some guidance to municipal personnel. Public officials in 
Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands have suggested that 
uniform standards or some form of guidance from the central or 
national government would be helpful when localities are forming 
public/private partnerships to deploy broadband infrastructure. The 
following are examples: 

* Officials in Sweden told us that although the national government's 
provision of funds to municipalities from 2001 through 2007 helped to 
deploy broadband to rural and remote areas, it also led to a profusion 
of incompatible networks. If they were to support future efforts, the 
officials said, they would impose more requirements and draw up 
standards applicable to all municipal systems. 

* Officials in the United Kingdom told us that the government 
recognized it would not achieve universal broadband deployment without 
the cooperation of municipalities, but that municipalities needed 
guidance on how to set up a municipal broadband network to receive 
state aid. The government has provided such guidance. 

* Officials in the Netherlands told us that the ministry is publishing 
guidelines for municipalities that contain best practices to give 
towns ideas of how to set up and manage broadband networks. 

Government Officials Say Actions to Increase Competition in Broadband 
Markets Have Helped to Increase Broadband Adoption by Increasing 
Consumer Choice and Reducing Prices: 

In all seven of our case-study countries, from 93.5 percent to 100 
percent of households have access to broadband, and those in the urban 
areas have a choice of at least two broadband providers. In some of 
the countries we visited, such as Canada and the Netherlands, the two 
main providers of broadband service for the majority of urban and 
suburban populations are the telephone company and the cable company, 
both of which provide service over their own networks. However, in 
other countries, such as France and Sweden, wireline cable service has 
not been universally deployed, and there is no cable provider that is 
competing nationwide with the telephone company. To ensure a national 
competitive market for wireline broadband services, six of seven 
countries have increased the level of competition in the provision of 
wireline broadband service through laws, regulations, or both, which 
require the incumbent telephone carrier to open its copper networks 
(the legacy infrastructure used to provide telephone service) and 
provide access to competitors at wholesale prices. This activity is 
commonly referred to as "unbundling." Unbundling has been credited 
with giving most urban residents in France, the United Kingdom, 
Sweden, the Netherlands, and Japan a choice of three or more 
providers. Government officials in some countries told us that 
requiring companies to unbundle has provided several consumer 
benefits, such as greater competition, higher speeds, more services, 
and lower prices. Examples from some of those countries are as follows: 

* Swedish authorities credit network unbundling with relatively low 
consumer prices and good service quality. 

* Officials in the Netherlands told us that unbundling the local loop 
has stimulated competition, resulting in the deployment of DSL to more 
than 99 percent of the country's households. 

* In the United Kingdom, officials of the Office of Communications 
(Ofcom), the telecommunications regulator, told us that, since 
unbundling, at least four additional operators have entered the 
British broadband market. 

* In Korea, although unbundling has not increased competition, several 
companies are competing with incumbent providers by building their own 
networks. One company official attributed the limited success of 
unbundling in South Korea to difficulties in getting access to the 
incumbent's network. Another company official said several competing 
telecommunications infrastructures had developed because competition 
for customers is based on speed. If a company is using another 
company's network, it cannot provide faster service than the company 
whose network it is leasing. Consequently, in most urban areas of 
Korea, residents have a choice of four providers, each of which offers 
service over its own infrastructure. 

To further encourage competition and ensure that incumbents do not 
stifle competition by charging prohibitively high prices for access to 
their infrastructure, all seven countries also regulate the price the 
incumbent carrier can charge competitors for network access.[Footnote 
37] 

The majority of our case-study countries have benefited from requiring 
the incumbent telecommunications carrier to unbundle its copper 
telephone lines, but the benefits of fiber unbundling are less clear. 
Both the Netherlands and Japan have required fiber unbundling, and 
Great Britain has proposed virtual unbundling of fiber;[Footnote 38] 
however, officials in some case-study countries cited concerns about 
the effect of requiring unbundling, pointing out that overregulation 
too early in the fiber rollout will hamper investment. 

Furthermore, industry representatives in Japan told us that although 
the unbundling of copper lines has increased competition, the 
unbundling of fiber has had less effect, because of the high cost of 
accessing a competitor's fiber network. These industry representatives 
explained that G-Pon, the most cost-effective and most widely used 
architecture for deploying fiber, is currently cost-prohibitive to 
unbundle and technological limitations restrict the profitability of 
leasing an incumbent's fiber infrastructure. Representatives of OECD 
also voiced similar concerns and told us that they have advocated 
using a network architecture other than G-Pon in order to facilitate 
competition. Thus, the manner in which fiber is most often deployed 
could affect future efforts to foster competition over fiber networks. 

All Seven Countries Have Expanded Online Services to Increase the 
Usefulness of Broadband: 

Although from 90 percent to 100 percent of households in all seven of 
our case-study countries have access to some form of broadband, 
approximately 30 percent of households do not subscribe to wireline 
broadband service. Increasing usage is important to policymakers 
because, as OECD has stated, "Broadband not only plays a critical role 
in the workings of the economy, it connects consumers, businesses, and 
governments and facilitates social interaction."[Footnote 39] 
Governments in all seven of our case-study countries have attempted to 
increase usage through strategies for making broadband services more 
available and more useful to consumers. Examples are as follows: 

* All seven countries have provided funding to deploy broadband to 
schools, and some have made computers available to students either 
free or at low cost. Japan's Ministry of Education provides one 
computer per student at the elementary school level. Korea provided 
free Internet service to all primary, middle, and high schools 
throughout the country. In the Netherlands, the Ministry of Economic 
Affairs told us that every town was subsidized in some way, to 
encourage broadband use in schools and in new buildings. One subsidy 
was for people to buy personal computers for the home, since the 
children were learning about the Internet in the schools. 

* In all seven countries, to increase the usefulness of broadband to 
citizens, governments have made services for citizens available over 
the Internet, commonly referred to as e-government services. For 
example, in the United Kingdom, the government is planning to 
introduce a service, Tell Us Once, that will allow a person to 
register a birth or death online with just one rather than multiple 
organizations, as is done currently. In Korea, taxes can be filed 
online, and the government offers a rebate for using this method of 
filing. The Netherlands has provided all citizens access to government 
documents, including tax and social security information. 

* In the United Kingdom, Ofcom established a voluntary code of 
practice for service providers to give the public information about 
and create accountability for advertised broadband speeds. Ofcom took 
this step because consumers were choosing service providers without 
knowing the capabilities of various Internet speeds, why service 
speeds were important, or whether they were receiving the advertised 
speeds they had purchased. All the leading Internet service providers 
enrolled in the code of practice, and Ofcom is now amending the code 
so that if a customer gets below a certain estimate of speed, the 
customer can change providers with no penalty. Ofcom also supported a 
research program to identify actual broadband speeds and compare the 
different providers' speeds and services. Ofcom has published its 
research and made the results available to the public on its Web site. 

* Korea instituted a voluntary premise certification program to 
encourage building owners to upgrade their broadband access 
facilities. Once a building is certified, the owner can display one of 
four emblems indicating the speed or type of access provided or both, 
with speeds ranging from 10 Mbps (Class 3) to 1 Gbps (Special Class). 
Building owners have found that offering faster broadband speeds 
allows them to charge higher rents. 

Countries have also funded research to promote the use of broadband. 
For example, in the Netherlands, the government provided grants for 
three projects to promote high-speed broadband use to facilitate 
infrastructure deployment and service. Canada sponsors the Scientific 
Research and Experimental Development program, which provides federal 
tax incentives for Canadian businesses to conduct research and 
development in Canada that will lead to new, technologically advanced 
products or processes, including broadband technologies. 

To Increase Broadband Usage among Targeted Populations, Governments in 
Several Countries Have Provided Digital Training or Offered Subsidies 
or Both: 

Research in the United States has shown that portions of the 
population do not use and have not adopted broadband Internet for 
various reasons, including lack of knowledge, lack of interest, lack 
of access to a computer, or inability to pay for broadband service. 
Governments of several of the countries we studied determined that 
some initiatives are necessary to increase broadband usage among these 
groups. 

* In South Korea, the government has provided classes to more than 10 
million residents, including those living in rural areas, the elderly, 
and housewives, to make them more comfortable with accessing and using 
the Internet. The government has also provided Internet service at 
reduced monthly subscription rates for the economically disadvantaged 
and offers free Internet access to many rural communities through 
community access points. 

* The United Kingdom expects to spend £300 million[Footnote 40] to 
provide reduced-cost broadband access to low-income subscribers. 

* The Ministry of Economic Affairs in the Netherlands has developed a 
digital literacy program for the elderly to make them more comfortable 
with the Internet. 

* From 1998 to 2007, Sweden implemented a measure to increase the 
availability of personal computers to the home. The program offered a 
tax deduction to all persons who were gainfully employed, regardless 
of income, and resulted in purchases of some 2.1 million personal 
computers. 

Recommendations in the National Broadband Plan Generally Reflect 
Selected Countries' Actions to Increase Broadband Deployment, Usage, 
and Adoption: 

The National Broadband Plan includes over 200 recommendations, which 
the plan's executive summary groups into four areas--(1) designing 
policies to ensure robust competition; (2) managing government assets, 
such as rights-of-way, to encourage network upgrades; (3) using 
government funds to help subsidize both deployment in high-cost areas 
and adoption among low-income groups; and (4) maximizing the benefits 
of broadband in the sectors government influences significantly, such 
as education, health care, and government operations. These four areas 
are not identical to the five types of actions we identified in our 
case-study countries, but the areas and the types of actions overlap 
and represent similar approaches to expanding broadband deployment and 
adoption. In addition, FCC acknowledges that findings from its own 
international research, conducted in part to implement the Broadband 
Data Improvement Act, influenced aspects of the plan.[Footnote 41] 
Implementing the plan's recommendations will be challenging, requiring 
the coordination of multiple public-and private-sector entities. 

Table 4 compares the five types of actions taken in our case-study 
countries with the plan's four areas. 

Table 4: Comparison of Actions Taken by Selected Countries to Increase 
Broadband Deployment and Adoption with Actions Recommended by the 
National Broadband Plan: 

Action taken by some or all of the selected countries: Establish plans 
and policies to guide deployment and provide leadership support; 
National Broadband Plan's action area/recommendation: Adopt strategies 
and long-term goals, take actions to measure effects over time, and 
ensure leadership commitment through the establishment of an 
interagency council accountable for implementing the plan's 
recommendations. 

Action taken by some or all of the selected countries: Provide 
government funding through public/private partnerships; 
National Broadband Plan's action area/recommendation: Manage 
government assets, such as rights of way, to encourage network 
upgrades. Use Universal Service Funds as well as other government 
funds to help subsidize deployment in high-cost areas. 

Action taken by some or all of the selected countries: Promote 
competition; 
National Broadband Plan's action area/recommendation: Design policies 
to ensure robust competition. 

Action taken by some or all of the selected countries: Implement 
strategies to make broadband services more available and useful to 
consumers; 
National Broadband Plan's action area/recommendation: Maximize the 
benefits of broadband in sectors the government influences 
significantly, such as education, health care, and government 
operations. 

Action taken by some or all of the selected countries: Provide digital 
literacy training and consumer subsidies; 
National Broadband Plan's action area/recommendation: Use government 
funds to help support efforts to boost adoption and use and subsidize 
adoption among low-income groups. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of table] 

Establish Broadband Plans and Provide Leadership to Guide Deployment 
of Infrastructure: 

Just as the governments of our seven selected countries established 
plans and policies to guide their efforts to expand broadband 
deployment and adoption, the National Broadband Plan contains 
recommendations to FCC, Congress, and federal agencies designed to 
guide future federal efforts. The plan also calls for a number of 
actions to facilitate measurement of its effects over time. These 
actions include collecting more data to support benchmarking against 
goals and tasking FCC to create a Broadband Performance Dashboard on 
its Web site to display key indicators aligned with the plan's long- 
term goals. The purpose of the dashboard is to promote public 
understanding of important broadband performance metrics and to 
clearly communicate the progress and effectiveness of efforts to 
implement the plan. Specifically, the dashboard is expected to detail 
the types of metrics that FCC should collect and analyze in order to 
track progress toward the plan's goals. Table 5 illustrates the 
dashboard information for one performance goal set forth by the 
National Broadband Plan. 

Table 5: Broadband Goals and Performance Dashboard Sample: 

Broadband Performance Dashboard: 

Goal for 2020: 
At least 100 million U.S. homes should have affordable access to world-
class actual download speeds of at least 100 Mbps and actual upload 
speeds of at least 50 Mbps. 

Metric: The nationwide, and per-provider, average actual upload and 
download speeds of broadband networks; 
Sources: FCC network performance measurements and provider disclosures. 

Metric: Number of households with access to broadband networks with 
sufficient speed; 
Sources: Future revisions to Form 477 data[A]. 

Metric: The nationwide, and per-provider, minimum price for a 
broadband subscription with sufficient speed; 
Sources: Future revisions to Form 477 data[A]. 

Source: GAO analysis of FCC data. 

[A] FCC requires that broadband providers complete Form 477, which 
contains information about companies' provision of broadband by census 
tract. 

[End of table] 

In addition to plans and policies, senior governmental leadership was 
important for other countries to achieve or progress toward their 
broadband goals. Similarly, the National Broadband Plan identifies 
leadership commitment as a key to its success by recommending that the 
executive branch create a Broadband Strategy Council consisting of 
senior White House, National Economic Council, and Office of 
Management and Budget officials, as well as high-level officials from 
FCC, NTIA, and other agencies with a role in the plan's 
implementation. The recommended council would coordinate and implement 
the National Broadband Plan's recommendations across executive branch 
agencies. 

Provide Government Funding through Public/Private Partnerships: 

In all seven selected countries, governments have provided funding 
through various mechanisms, such as grants and loans, to help pay for 
the deployment of infrastructure in areas private enterprise deems 
unprofitable. Similarly, the National Broadband Plan proposes various 
national funding strategies and mechanisms that are consistent with a 
federal role in ensuring equal access to broadband services. For 
example, to help accelerate the rate of broadband deployment to 
unserved areas, the plan recommends that Congress consider providing 
funding to areas where no business case exists for private-sector 
investment. 

In all seven of our selected countries, public/private partnerships 
have helped fund the deployment of broadband infrastructure. These 
partnerships often help maximize government resources and minimize 
risk for the private investors. Although the National Broadband Plan 
recognizes the value of public/private partnerships in efforts to 
increase adoption, it does not explicitly recommend their use to help 
fund broadband deployment. However, it does recommend that Congress 
make clear that tribal, state, regional, and local governments can 
build broadband networks. Specifically, the plan says that when all 
other options for meeting residents' broadband needs are exhausted, it 
should be clear that local authorities can build broadband networks. 
Stakeholders from some of our selected countries, as well as in the 
United States, commented on the advisability of providing some 
guidance to aid municipalities in forming such partnerships and 
building broadband networks, although we did not assess the need for 
such guidance. 

Promote Competition: 

Each of our case-study countries found that competition had been a key 
component of increasing innovation and, for several of the countries, 
reducing prices. Six of our seven case-study countries found that 
promoting competition by unbundling the telephone networks allowed 
competitors to provide broadband service using existing DSL 
technology, often avoiding the need for repeated and costly deployment 
of additional telephone infrastructure. The National Broadband Plan 
has also identified competition as a key component, noting that 
"Competition is crucial for promoting consumer welfare and spurring 
innovation and investment in broadband access networks. Competition 
provides consumers the benefits of choice, better service and lower 
prices."[Footnote 42] However, according to FCC, it is unclear whether 
the broadband "ecosystem" in the United States is competitive, so the 
government needs to continue to study the current competitive 
environment and the future implications of the current competition 
structure in America.[Footnote 43] To promote competition in the 
wholesale market, the plan calls for FCC to "comprehensively review 
its current policies and develop a cohesive and effective approach to 
advancing competition through its wholesale access policies."[Footnote 
44] One specific recommendation is for FCC to establish an analytical 
approach to resolving disputes to ensure that the rates, terms and 
conditions that incumbent local exchange carriers charge to 
competitors for special access services are just and reasonable, since 
the plan recognizes that the adequacy of the existing regulatory 
regime has been subject to much debate.[Footnote 45] However, the plan 
does not recommend that FCC oversee the prices incumbent carriers 
charge competitors to make certain they are cost-based, as is done by 
several countries, including the United Kingdom and France. 

In addition, the plan finds that expanding wireless broadband 
infrastructure by increasing the availability of wireless spectrum 
would help spur competition in the United States. Currently, consumers 
who value high download and upload speeds would not consider wireless 
broadband to be a substitute for wireline service. However, additional 
spectrum would make faster download speeds possible, allowing 
companies to offer wireless services that would compete more 
effectively with the capabilities of wireline broadband services. 

Implement Strategies to Increase the Usefulness of the Internet to the 
Public: 

All seven of our selected countries have taken actions to increase the 
number of government services available to the public on the Internet, 
as has the United States. According to the United Nations (UN), e- 
government is a powerful tool and essential to the achievement of 
internationally agreed-upon development goals, including the 
Millennium Development Goals.[Footnote 46] In 2010, the United States 
ranks second, behind South Korea, in advanced e-service delivery, up 
from fourth place in 2008. In fact, according to the UN, the United 
States has been a leader in the provision of e-government services. 
The National Broadband Plan would continue to strengthen this 
leadership by enhancing the availability and capability of e-
government services across the federal government. Specifically, the 
plan calls for the Office of Science and Technology Policy within the 
Executive Office of the President to develop a 5-year strategic plan 
for online service delivery. 

In addition, to advance the provision of e-government services, the 
plan includes more than a dozen recommendations aimed at making a 
wider array of citizen-based services available online to promote the 
use of digital media content across government. For example, one 
recommendation calls for executive branch and independent agencies to 
make all responses to Freedom of Information Act requests available 
online. Currently, there are no guidelines on the format to be used in 
responding to such requests. 

Provide Digital Literacy Training and Consumer Subsidies: 

Finally, several of our case-study countries have provided digital 
literacy training or consumer subsidies or both to increase broadband 
usage, some targeting certain subgroups, such as the elderly and the 
poor. Digital literacy generally refers to a variety of skills 
associated with using information and communications technology (ICT) 
to find, evaluate, create, and communicate information. It also 
includes the ability to communicate and collaborate using the 
Internet--through blogs, self-published documents and presentations, 
and collaborative social networking platforms. The National Broadband 
Plan recommends digital literacy training as a means of expanding 
broadband adoption, pointing out that, according to an FCC survey 
conducted in 2009, 22 percent of nonadopters in the United States 
identified lack of digital literacy as a main barrier to adoption, 
second only to cost. Describing digital literacy as a necessary life 
skill, much like the ability to read and write, the plan recommends 
that the federal government create a Digital Literacy Corps to conduct 
training and outreach. According to the plan, the corps would help 
nonadopters overcome discomfort with technology and fears of getting 
online while also helping people become more comfortable with the 
content and applications relevant to them. 

To further increase broadband adoption, the National Broadband Plan 
identifies several options available to the government. For example, 
to encourage adoption among low-income groups, the plan recommends 
that FCC expand the Lifeline Assistance (Lifeline) and Link-Up America 
(Link-Up) programs to make broadband more affordable for low-income 
households. Currently, Lifeline lowers the cost of monthly service for 
eligible consumer households by providing support directly to service 
providers on behalf of those households, and Link-Up provides a one- 
time discount on the initial installation fee for telephone service 
but not for broadband. The plan also recommends that FCC consider 
providing free or very-low-cost wireless broadband service as a means 
to address or reduce the cost barrier to adoption by offering a band 
of wireless spectrum dedicated to free or low-cost broadband service 
as a complement to Lifeline. 

Implementing the National Broadband Plan Will Be Challenging: 

While the United States plans to take actions similar to those of 
other leading countries to achieve the National Broadband Plan's goals 
of universal access and increased usage and adoption, implementing the 
plan will be challenging. Action will be required by governments at 
all levels and the private sector to deploy broadband infrastructure 
to the last 5 percent of households at a reasonable cost and to 
promote broadband usage and adoption by increasing digital literacy 
and making broadband services more affordable for certain populations, 
especially the elderly and the economically disadvantaged. 
Furthermore, as the Chairman, FCC, has acknowledged, implementing the 
plan will require obtaining sufficient funding and coordinating the 
work of multiple federal, state, local, and private entities, among 
other actions. It remains to be seen whether and how effectively 
federal agencies will be able address these challenges and implement 
the plan's recommendations, as well as what the private sector will do 
to further deployment and adoption. 

Agency Comments: 

We provided a draft of this report to FCC for review and comment. FCC 
provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. 

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents 
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days 
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report 
to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of 
Commerce, the Secretary of Agriculture and the Chairman of the Federal 
Communications Commission. The report will also be available at no 
charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, 
please contact me at (202) 512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov. Contact 
points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs 
may be found on the last page of this report. Contact information and 
major contributors to this report are listed in appendix II. 

Signed by: 

Mark L. Goldstein: 
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

To determine the status of broadband deployment and adoption in 
developed countries, we reviewed data collected by the Organisation for 
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) for the 30 countries that 
were members of OECD as of January 1, 2010. Chile has since become a 
member, but relevant data were not available for our review. 
Specifically, we considered broadband wireline infrastructure coverage 
by country, total subscriptions by country, and subscriptions per 100 
inhabitants. To understand demographic and socioeconomic factors 
associated with broadband deployment and adoption, we considered 
information obtained from several sources, including the World Bank for 
income levels by country and numbers of personal computers per 100 
inhabitants; the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) World Factbook for 
population and land mass statistics; and the Federal Communications 
Commission (FCC) for demographic information on current broadband 
adoption levels in the United States. For analysis of broadband speeds, 
we obtained and reviewed data from Akamai Technologies, Inc. For 
analysis of average broadband prices, we obtained and reviewed data 
from OECD. 

We assessed the reliability of OECD and Akamai Technologies, Inc., data 
by (1) reviewing existing information about the data and the systems 
that produced them; (2) interviewing agency and company officials 
knowledgeable about the data; and (3) performing manual testing for 
missing data, outliers, and obvious errors in required data elements. 
We determined that these data were sufficiently reliable for the 
purposes of this report. We assessed the reliability of the World Bank, 
CIA, and FCC data by (1) reviewing existing information about the data 
and the systems that produced them and (2) performing manual testing 
for missing data, outliers, and obvious errors in required data 
elements. We determined that these data were sufficiently reliable for 
the purposes of this report. 

To better understand the status of broadband deployment in the United 
States, we interviewed relevant federal government officials at FCC, 
the Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and 
Information Administration (NTIA), and the Department of Agriculture's 
Rural Utilities Service (RUS). We also interviewed officials of 
companies that provide broadband service in multiple states--Verizon, 
AT&T, Comcast, and Windstream--and representatives of a national 
consumer welfare organization, Consumers Union. To help inform our 
analysis of public/private partnerships, we interviewed officials of a 
public/private partnership in Bristol, Virginia, which was highlighted 
in the National Broadband Plan, as well as representatives of other 
public/private partnerships recommended to us. These included a 
consortium of public/private partnerships in Utah, an official of 
ECFiber in Burlington, Vermont, and a former Motorola executive working 
on a public/private partnership in Massachusetts. To better inform our 
understanding of the deployment of fiber infrastructure, we interviewed 
representatives of the Fiber-to-the-Home Council. 

To determine the actions stakeholders in selected countries have taken 
to increase broadband deployment and adoption in the last decade, we 
first chose 7 countries for case-study analysis. We limited our 
potential field of countries to those that were members of OECD and 
were ranked among the top 20 in broadband subscriptions per 100 
inhabitants as of the first quarter of 2009. We used OECD's list of 
country rankings as our basis for selecting countries because it is the 
only annually updated report that offers a comprehensive analysis of 
data provided by governments. 

We analyzed the demographic profile of each of these countries, 
including its land area, population and population density, gross 
national income (GNI), and actions its government had taken to increase 
broadband deployment and adoption. Actions taken included, but were not 
limited to, national broadband plans, broadband deployment plans, 
specific adoption strategies, and e-government services. We chose 
countries that were in some way similar to the United States and 
recognized as being particularly successful in increasing broadband 
deployment or adoption. To determine if a country's government had 
taken action to increase the deployment of broadband infrastructure to 
rural or underserved areas, we performed a literature search of 
publicly available government documents, as well as of international 
documents that provided country-specific information about broadband 
deployment, including reports from OECD, the European Union, the 
International Telecommunication Union (ITU), and the World Bank. 
Furthermore, to understand each country's broadband adoption 
strategies, we conducted literature reviews and reports from government 
agencies and OECD. We also reviewed the United Nations' (UN) E-
Government Survey 2010 to understand and compare OECD countries' 
efforts to deliver citizen-based services over the Internet. We 
assessed the reliability of the UN data by (1) reviewing existing 
information about the data and the system that produced them and (2) 
performing manual testing for missing data, outliers, and obvious 
errors of required data elements. We determined that these data were 
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. 

The seven countries we selected for case-study analysis were Canada, 
France, Japan, the Netherlands, South Korea, Sweden, and the United 
Kingdom. Before visiting these seven countries, we identified key 
contacts though research and agency contacts. To learn what actions 
governments and broadband providers have taken to increase broadband 
deployment and consumer adoption, and how those actions are viewed by 
various stakeholders, we visited each of the seven countries, conducted 
other in-person research, and collected documents. Using a 
semistructured interview instrument, we obtained information from key 
contacts in each country (see figure 6), including government 
officials, representatives of broadband service providers (both 
incumbents and competitors), officials of localities involved in 
providing broadband services through public/private partnerships, and 
representatives of groups dedicated to protecting consumers. Following 
our visits to these seven countries, we reviewed and analyzed the 
information collected, including current policies, plans, and guidance 
issued by responsible government agencies, regulatory authorities, and 
broadband providers. 

Figure 6: List of Contacts by Country: 

[Refer to PDF for image: table] 

Country: Canada; 
National government: 
* Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC); 
* Industry Canada; 
* Communications Research Centre Canada (CRC); 
Local government: 
* City of Ottawa; 
Broadband providers: 
* Bell Canada; 
* Rogers Cable; 
* North Frontenac Telephone Company; 
Consumer/provider groups: 
* Public Interest Advocacy Center; 
Other: None. 

Country: France; 
National government: 
* Office of the Digital Development Minister; 
* Autorité de Régulation des Communications Électroniques et des 
Postes (ARCEP); 
Local government: 
* Conseil Général des Hauts de Seine; 
Broadband providers: 
* France Telecom; 
* Numéricable; 
Consumer/provider groups: 
* Fédération Française des Telecoms; 
* Renaissance Numérique. 
Other: 
* Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations (CDC); 
* OECD. 

Country: Japan; 
National government: 
* • Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry (METI); 
* Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (MIC); 
* Cabinet Secretariat for Information Technology; 
Local government: None; 
Broadband providers: 
* Softbank; 
* KDDI; 
Consumer/provider groups: None; 
Other: 
* Professor Jiro Kokuryo; 
* Center for Global Communications (GLOCOM). 

Country: Netherlands; 
National government: 
* Ministry of Economic Affairs; 
* Independent Post and Telecommunications Authority (OPTA); 
* The Netherlands Competition Authority (NMa); 
Local government: 
* City of Amsterdam; 
Broadband providers: 
* KPN; 
* NLKable; 
Consumer/provider groups: 
* Consumentenbond; 
Other: None. 

Country: South Korea; 
National government: 
* National Information Society Agency (NIA); 
* Korea Communications Commission (KCC); 
* Ministry of Knowledge and Economy (MKE); 
Local government: None; 
Broadband providers: 
* Korea Telecom (KT); 
* SK Broadband; 
Consumer/provider groups: 
* Korea Consumer Agency; 
* Fiber-to-the-Home (FTTH) Council (Asia); 
Other: 
* Korea Information Society Development Institute (KISDI). 

Country: Sweden; 
National government: 
* Ministry of Enterprise, Energy and Communications; 
* Swedish Post and Telecom Agency (PTS); 
Local government: 
* City of Stockholm (Stokab); 
Broadband providers: 
* Telia Sonera; 
* Bredbandsbolaget; 
Consumer/provider groups: 
* Swedish Urban Netwok Association; 
* Konsumenternas; 
Other: 
* Ericsson; 
* U.S. Ambassador to Sweden Matt Barzun. 

Country: United Kingdom; 
National government: 
* Department of Business, Innovation, and Skills (BIS/BERR); 
* Ofcom; 
Local government: None; 
Broadband providers: 
* BT; 
Consumer/provider groups: 
* Community Broadband Network; 
* Communications Consumer Panel; 
* Internet Service Providers Association (ISPA); 
Other: None. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

To determine how recommendations outlined in the National Broadband 
Plan reflect the actions of selected countries to increase broadband 
deployment and adoption, we analyzed the results of our case studies 
and placed the actions of the 7 countries in five categories. We placed 
the actions to increase deployment in two categories--(1) instituting 
plans and policies and (2) providing government funding through public/
private partnerships--and the actions to increase adoption in three 
categories--(3) increasing competition, (4) implementing strategies to 
increase the usefulness of the Internet to citizens, and (5) providing 
digital literacy training and consumer subsidies. We then analyzed 
relevant recommendations outlined in the National Broadband Plan and 
interviewed relevant individuals at FCC to determine how actions 
recommended in the plan align with the five identified categories. 
However, we did not evaluate the potential impact or effectiveness of 
the recommendations made in the plan. 

We conducted this performance audit from June 2009 to September 2010, 
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 
conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Mark Goldstein, 202 512-2834, or goldsteinm@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the individual named above, Dave Sausville, Assistant 
Director; Pedro Almoguera; Elizabeth Curda; Bess Eisenstadt; Muriel 
Forster; Dave Hooper; Hannah Laufe; SaraAnn Moessbauer; Josh Ormond; 
Madhav Panwar; Sandra Sokol; Spencer Tacktill; and Nancy Zearfoss made 
key contributions to this report. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115 (2009). 

[2] For the purposes of this report, we define deployment as the 
number of households to which broadband infrastructure and service 
have been made available and adoption as the number of 
inhabitants/households that subscribe to broadband service. 

[3] See GAO, Telecommunications: Current Broadband Measures Have 
Limitations, and New Measures Are Promising but Need Improvement, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-49] (Washington, D.C.: 
Oct. 9, 2009). 

[4] The Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University, 
Next Generation Connectivity: A review of broadband Internet 
transitions and policy from around the world, (Boston, MA: 2010), 
Yongsoo Kim, Tim Kelly and Siddhartha Raja, Building Broadband: 
Strategies and Policies for the Developing World, (Washington, D.C.: 
World Bank, 2010), Robert D. Atkinson, Daniel K. Corea and Julie A. 
Hedlund, Explaining International Broadband Leadership (Washington, 
D.C.: The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, 2008). 

[5] Chile has since become a member, but relevant data were not 
available for our review. 

[6] OECD calculates broadband subscribers per 100 inhabitants to 
include connections to residences and businesses. OECD collects, from 
telecommunications regulators in each country, the number of “
subscriber lines” that operators have in their network(s) in that 
country. The data give a very good measure of the physical lines in a 
country. The subscriber data do not, however, provide any information 
on how the lines are used. Often OECD member governments conduct 
surveys to find out how broadband is used, particularly by businesses 
and households. However, these surveys are relatively infrequent, and 
the dates may not correspond well across countries, so OECD uses the 
subscriber line data that are available for all OECD countries rather 
than household survey data that may not be available for all OECD 
countries. 

[7] In digital telecommunication, the bit rate is the number of bits 
(a bit is the smallest unit of data a computer can process, 
representing either a 1 or a 0) that passes a given point in a 
telecommunication network in a given amount of time, usually a second. 
Thus, a bit rate is usually measured in some multiple of bits per 
second—for example, kilobits, or thousands of bits per second. 

[8] There also are low earth orbit satellite providers, such as 
GlobalStar and Iridium,that provide some level of broadband service. 
These satellite systems are in non-stationery orbits that range 
between 450 and 800 miles above the earth. From these orbits, 
transmission lags are minimal and less than the lag from fixed-
position satellites. 

[9] A gigabit is one billion bits or one thousand million bits. 

[10] FCC relies on Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, 
which authorizes it “to perform any and all acts, make such rules and 
regulations, and such orders…as may be necessary in the execution of 
its functions” for its ancillary jurisdiction. See 47 U.S.C. §154(i). 

[11] Comcast Corp. v. FCC, F. 3d 642 (D.C. Cir. 2010). 

[12] Framework for Broadband Internet Service, FCC 10-114, Notice of 
Inquiry, GN Docket No. 10-127 (rel. June 17, 2010). 

[13] Under section 10 of the Communications Act, FCC has authority to 
forbear from applying provisions of the Communications Act to 
telecommunications carriers or services if certain criteria are met. 
47 U.S.C. §160. 

[14] Pub. L. No.111-5, 123 Stat. 115 (2009). 

[15] While this amount is substantial, it is small relative to the 
amount private industry invests. According to a major 
telecommunications association, broadband service providers invest 
approximately $60 billion a year in broadband. 

[16] On July 8, 2009, NTIA published a Notice of Funds Availability 
(NOFA) and solicitation of applications to announce the availability 
of funds for the State Broadband Data and Development Grant Program 
pursuant to the authority provided in the Recovery Act and the 
Broadband Data Improvement Act, Title I, Pub. L. No. 110-385, 122 
Stat. 4096 (2008). 74 Fed. Reg. 32545 July 8, 2009. 

[17] GAO, Telecommunications: Broadband Deployment Plan Should Include 
Performance Goals and Measures to Guide Federal Investment, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-494] (Washington, D.C.: 
May 12, 2009). 

[18] The plan was not released until March of the following year. 

[19] The speeds that countries define as broadband vary. For example, 
NTIA defines broadband access in the United States for the purposes of 
mapping broadband deployment as at least 768 kbps, meaning that 95 
percent of households have access to at least 768 kbps, whereas Canada 
defines broadband deployment as 1.5 Mbps (1,500 kbps). Thus, 
infrastructure has been deployed that provides 93.5 percent of 
Canadians with at least 1.5 Mbps. 

[20] Population density and land area figures are based on GAO 
analyses of Central Intelligence Agency data. Broadband availability 
was calculated by OECD. 

[21] See footnote 20. 

[22] Akamai Technologies, Inc., The State of the Internet Report, Q4 
2009 (Boston, Mass.: 2010). Four OECD countries were not included in 
the report (Hungary, Poland, Slovak Republic, and Turkey). Akamai 
defines “broadband” connections as download speeds of greater than 2 
Mbps, and “high broadband” as connections of 5 Mbps or greater. In 
contrast, the “narrowband” data included below are for connections 
slower than 256 Kbps. 

[23] Darrell West, An International Look at High Speed Broadband, 
Brookings Institution (Washington, D.C.: February 2010). 

[24] OECD’s calculated average includes the broadband adoption per 100 
inhabitants for Chile (9.6). 

[25] OECD, December 2009. 

[26] 1-Unit refers to one additional subscriber line per 100 
inhabitants. 

[27] John Horrigan, Broadband Adoption and Use in America (Washington, 
D.C.: FCC, Feb. 23, 2010). As part of its data collection efforts to 
inform the National Broadband Plan, in October and November 2009, FCC 
sponsored a telephone survey of a nationally representative sample, 
beginning with over 100,000 telephone numbers, resulting in 5,005 
responses from adults living in the United States. The survey data 
were collected from two samples: landline telephone numbers and 
cellular telephone numbers. The response rate for the landline sample 
was 22 percent, and the response rate for the cellular sample was 19 
percent. The data were weighted to correct for known demographic 
discrepancies. At the 95 percent confidence level, the sampling error 
does not exceed +1.6 percent for estimates based on the entire sample, 
and the sampling error does not exceed +2.4 percent for estimates 
based on nonadopters. The results of this study are similar to results 
published by NTIA in February 2010 based on data collected from 54,000 
households in October 2009 through a special Internet Use Supplement 
to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey, Digital Nation: 
21st Century America’s Progress toward Universal Broadband Internet 
Access. U.S. Department of Commerce, NTIA (Washington, D.C.: February 
2010). 

[28] Berkman Report and OECD. 

[29] “Speed Tier” refers to ranges of speed such as “low” (256 kbps to 
1.9 Mbps), “medium” (2 Mbps to 11.9 Mbps), “high” (12 Mbps to 32 
Mbps), and “very high” (greater than 35 Mbps). Berkman Report. 

[30] John Horrigan, Home Broadband Adoption 2009, 2009. 

[31] GNI is defined as the total value produced within a country 
(i.e., its gross domestic product), together with its income received 
from other countries (notably interest and dividends), less similar 
payments made to other countries, divided by the country’s population. 

[32] Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285 (1993). 

[33] The term public/private partnership generally refers to any 
enterprise in which both government and private enterprise have a 
financial interest. Such a partnership can be any arrangement from one 
of shared risk and reward to a contractual arrangement in which the 
public entity makes the investment and hires the private company to 
operate the enterprise for a specified fee. An unserved area is one in 
which at least 90 percent of households cannot subscribe to the 
minimum broadband speed and service. An underserved area is one in 
which (1) 50 percent or less of households have access to the minimum 
broadband speed, (2) no provider offers service speeds of at least 3 
Mbps, or (3) 40 percent or less of the households choose to subscribe 
to a broadband service. The availability of, or adoption rates for, 
satellite broadband service is not considered in determining whether 
an area is unserved or underserved. The definitions of unserved and 
underserved were part of a Notice of Funds Availability announced by 
NTIA and designed to implement grant programs under the American 
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 75 Fed. Reg. 3792, January 22, 
2010. 

[34] Although 100 percent of rural areas can receive broadband through 
satellite service, for 2 percent of rural residents, satellite service 
is the only provider of broadband. 

[35] Dark fiber is fiber not yet used but available for future use. 

[36] European Commission, “Community Guidelines for the Application of 
State Aid Rules in Relation to Rapid Deployment of Broadband Networks,”
communication from the European Commission, Official Journal of the 
European Union C 235 (Sept. 30, 2009), 7. 

[37] In the United Kingdom, access to the infrastructure of BT 
(formerly British Telecommunications) is required to be provided at 
cost-based rates nationally. A formal price control is imposed for the 
most frequently used services. 

[38] Ofcom has defined virtual unbundling as a process that will allow 
rival operators to access the incumbent’s new fiber optic network via 
a dedicated virtual link over new lines. 

[39] Taylor Reynolds and Sacha Wunsch-Vincent, Broadband Growth and 
Policies in OECD Countries (Paris, France: Organisation for Economic 
Cooperation and Development, 2008), 3. 

[40] Around $454,500,000 as of July 9, 2010. 

[41] The Broadband Data Improvement Act mandated FCC to conduct a 
review of international broadband policies and actions. (Pub L. No. 
110-385, title I, §103(b), 122 Stat. 4096, 4097 (2008)). 

[42] National Broadband Plan, p. 36. 

[43] National Broadband Plan defines the broadband ecosystem as 
networks, devices, content, and applications. 

[44] National Broadband Plan, p 48. 

[45] Special access is a dedicated line from a customer to a long-
distance company provided by a local phone company. 

[46] Adopted by world leaders in 2000 for achievement by 2015, the 
Millennium Development Goals are specific goals that provide a 
framework for the entire international community to work together 
toward a common end—making sure that human development reaches 
everyone, everywhere. 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates." 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: