BROADBAND 

PERFORMANCE

Additional Actions 

Could Help FCC 

Evaluate Its Efforts to 

Inform Consumers

Report to Congressional Requesters

April 2015

GAO-15-363

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-15-363, a report to 

congressional requesters

April 2015

BROADBAND PERFORMANCE

Additional Actions Could Help FCC Evaluate Its 

Efforts to Inform Consumers

Why GAO Did This Study

Broadband is increasingly seen as an 

essential communications service, with 

applications in education, medicine, 

public safety, and entertainment.

However, consumers can experience

broadband performance problems. 

FCC, which has primary responsibility 

for regulating broadband, has taken 

steps to measure broadband 

performance and to require that ISPs 

give consumers information about the 

performance of their services.

GAO was asked to review issues 

related to broadband performance 

information. This report examines (1) 

broadband performance information 

available to consumers and its 

limitations, if any, and (2) FCC’s 

actions to evaluate its efforts to provide 

consumers with broadband 

performance information.

To address these objectives, GAO 

reviewed FCC proceedings; conducted 

a literature review; analyzed comments 

filed with FCC regarding broadband

performance information; and 

interviewed FCC officials and various 

stakeholders from industry and public 

interest groups.

What GAO Recommends

FCC should take additional steps to

evaluate its efforts to provide 

consumers with broadband 

performance information. This should 

include: (1) conducting or 

commissioning research on the 

effectiveness of its efforts and making 

the results publicly available, and (2)

establishing performance goals and

measures that allow FCC to monitor 

and report on these efforts. FCC 

concurred with GAO’s 

recommendations.

What GAO Found

Consumers can access broadband performance information from several 

sources, including Internet service providers (ISP), online speed tests, and the 

Federal Communications Commission (FCC); however, the information has 

some limitations. For example:

• ISP information: FCC’s transparency rule requires ISPs to disclose 

broadband performance information, but ISPs’ disclosures vary, and some 

stakeholders said that the lack of standardization of disclosures can make it 

difficult for consumers to compare broadband services. Some ISPs, however,

question the need and benefit of standardized disclosures. FCC recently 

adopted enhancements to the transparency rule, such as specifying what 

information ISPs must disclose, and FCC is considering potential disclosure 

formats. 

• Speed tests: Consumers can use information from these tests to verify their

broadband speeds. However, speed tests can be affected by many factors 

and may not detect congestion affecting a specific website. Thus, it can be 

difficult for consumers to identify the cause of their broadband performance 

problems.

• FCC reports: Through the Measuring Broadband America (MBA) program, 

FCC tests ISPs’ networks and compares their actual and advertised speeds

in an annual report. However, the report is not targeted toward consumers, 

and stakeholders stated that consumers may not be aware of the report.

FCC has taken steps to evaluate its efforts to provide consumers with broadband 

performance information, such as its transparency rule and MBA program; 

however, FCC’s ability to evaluate its efforts is limited by a lack of useful 

performance information and relevant performance goals and measures. For 

instance, while FCC obtains information about the effectiveness of its efforts from 

stakeholders’ comments and consumers' complaints, FCC has not sought 

performance information from more objective sources, such as consumer 

research—as has been done by other government entities. Further, although

consumer complaints can provide FCC with valuable insights on topics of interest 

to the commission, FCC has acknowledged that complaints may not provide a 

complete picture of consumer’s information needs and some industry 

stakeholders have questioned FCC’s reliance on complaints as a basis for 

making decisions. In addition, although FCC’s strategic plan includes strategic 

objectives related to informing consumers about broadband networks, FCC lacks 

performance goals and measures to monitor the impact and effectiveness of its 

efforts to provide consumers with broadband performance information. GAO has 

previously reported that critical elements of effective performance management 

include information that is complete and consistent, with performance measures

linked to goals. Without such information and measures, FCC cannot be assured 

that its efforts to provide consumers with broadband performance information are 

effective and meeting consumers’ needs.

View GAO-15-363. For more information, 

contact Mark Goldstein at (202) 512-2834 or 

goldsteinm@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-15-363 Broadband Performance

Letter 1

Background 3

Although Consumers Can Access a Number of Sources of 

Information on Broadband Performance, the Information Is 

Limited 12

FCC Has Taken Steps to Evaluate Its Efforts to Inform 

Consumers, but Could Enhance Its Performance Information 

and Measures 21

Conclusions 28

Recommendations for Executive Action 29

Agency Comments 29

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 31

Appendix II Comments from the Federal Communications Commission 33

Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 37

Tables

Table 1: Measures of Broadband Performance 4

Table 2: Minimum Download Speeds for Different Broadband 

Activities (Assumes One Activity Is Occurring at a Time), 

as of February 2015 9

Table 3: GAO Analysis of Selected Consumer-Related Issues and 

Questions Raised in Recent Federal Communications 

Commission’s Rulemaking Proceedings 22

Figures

Figure 1: Examples of Devices Connected to In-Home Fixed 

Broadband Service 6

Figure 2: Examples of Devices Connected to Mobile Broadband 

Network 7

Figure 3: Simplified Example of Internet Content Delivery 10

Contents
Page ii GAO-15-363 Broadband Performance

Abbreviations

ACSI American Customer Satisfaction Index 

CFPB Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 

DSL digital subscriber line 

FCC Federal Communications Commission 

ISP Internet service provider 

MBA Measuring Broadband America 

Mbps megabits per second 

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

UK United Kingdom

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, 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.
Page 1 GAO-15-363 Broadband Performance

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

April 17, 2015

The Honorable Frank Pallone, Jr.

Ranking Member

Committee on Energy and Commerce

House of Representatives

The Honorable Anna G. Eshoo

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology

Committee on Energy and Commerce

House of Representatives

The Honorable Edward J. Markey

United States Senate

Broadband is increasingly seen as an essential communications service, 

with applications in education, medicine, public safety, and entertainment. 

Broadband allows people to share large amounts of information at 

increasingly faster speeds and provides access to information otherwise 

unavailable, such as online courses not offered in their local area. Press 

reports indicate that consumers spent over $100 billion on Internet access 

in 2013, and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has noted 

that the number of fixed and mobile residential broadband connections in 

the United States grew from 48 million in December 2010 to nearly 180 

million in December 2013.1 Consumers’ use of broadband has changed 

over the years as well, with more people using broadband to access 

video and data-intensive applications, and this trend is expected to 

continue. For example, Cisco (a provider of network infrastructure) 

projects that consumer Internet traffic in North America will grow at an 

average annual rate of 21.5 percent between 2013 and 2018.2

 1

Includes connections of a download speed of at least 3 megabits per second and an 

upload speed of at least 768 kilobits per second. Federal Communications Commission, 

Internet Access Services: Status as of December 31, 2013 (Washington, D.C.: October 

2014).

However, 

FCC has previously expressed concerns regarding consumers’ access to 

accurate and useful information about their broadband service 

2

Cisco, Cisco Visual Networking Index: Forecast and Methodology, 2013—2018 (June 10, 

2014).
Page 2 GAO-15-363 Broadband Performance

performance. In addition, GAO has previously identified limitations in the 

broadband performance information available to consumers, and recently 

noted the need to ensure consumers understand issues that can affect 

their use of broadband, such as usage-based pricing.3

You asked us to review issues related to broadband performance 

information available to consumers. This report examines: (1) the 

information currently available to consumers regarding broadband 

performance and the limitations of this information, if any, and (2) FCC’s 

actions to evaluate its efforts to provide consumers with broadband 

performance information. To identify the information currently available to 

consumers regarding broadband performance and any limitations of the 

information, we reviewed prior GAO reports on this issue, as well as 

relevant FCC proceedings, reports, and documents—including its 

Measuring Broadband America reports, 2010 Open Internet Order,4 and 

2014 Open Internet Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and 

subsequent 2015 Open Internet Order.5

 3

GAO, Telecommunications: Current Broadband Measures Have Limitations, and New 

Measures Are Promising but Need Improvement, 

We also reviewed broadband 

provider websites, third-party sites that provide broadband performance 

information to consumers, and studies on broadband performance 

measurement. To identify limitations, we reviewed comments filed with 

FCC regarding the effectiveness of its transparency rule and Measuring 

Broadband America effort. To select relevant comments, we performed 

key-word searches that included terms related to transparency and 

disclosure for consumers. To ensure we reviewed a broad range of 

comments, we selected comments from stakeholders that represented a 

variety of interests, including public interest groups, Internet service 

providers (ISP), content providers, trade associations, and consumer 

representatives. We also interviewed representatives from FCC and 

selected stakeholder groups, including public interest and consumer 

advocacy groups, industry associations, content or equipment providers, 

ISPs, and other industry stakeholders. We identified stakeholders to 

GAO-10-49 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 9, 

2009), and GAO, Broadband Internet: FCC Should Track the Application of Fixed Internet 

Usage-Based Pricing and Help Improve Consumer Education, GAO-15-108 (Washington, 

D.C.: Nov. 24, 2014).

4

Preserving the Open Internet, Report and Order, 25 FCC Rcd. 17905 (2010).

5

Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 29 FCC 

Rcd. 5561 (2014). Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, Report and Order on 

Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order, FCC 14-24 (2015).
Page 3 GAO-15-363 Broadband Performance

interview based on our review of comments filed in FCC’s 2014 Open 

Internet and related proceedings, as well as based on recommendations 

from other organizations we interviewed.

To determine how FCC evaluates its efforts to provide consumers with 

broadband performance information, we reviewed relevant FCC 

documents, such as FCC’s strategic and performance plans. We also 

reviewed FCC’s requests for comment on consumers’ information needs 

and the effectiveness of FCC’s efforts to provide consumers with 

broadband performance information, as well as selected comments filed 

in response to these proceedings (as described above). We also 

reviewed prior GAO reports on FCC and results-oriented management 

and compared FCC’s use of performance information and measures to 

performance management best practices outlined in previous GAO work. 

To further inform our assessment, we interviewed representatives from 

the stakeholder groups identified above, as well as officials from the 

Federal Trade Commission and National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration regarding their efforts to inform consumers 

about broadband issues and to evaluate the effectiveness of those 

efforts. In addition, we reviewed reports and studies on consumer 

disclosures conducted by FCC’s Transparency Working Group; foreign 

telecommunications regulatory bodies, including those in the United 

Kingdom and European Union; and other federal agencies, such as the 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. See appendix I for more 

information about our scope and methodology.

We conducted this performance audit from July 2014 to April 2015 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.

The term “broadband” commonly refers to Internet access that is high 

speed and provides an “always-on” connection, so users do not have to 

reestablish a connection each time they access the Internet. Broadband 

speeds are described in download and upload capabilities, and are 

defined as the maximum rates at which data are delivered over the 

Internet. A higher speed indicates a faster information delivery rate. For 

example, a 10 megabits per second (Mbps) service should deliver ten 

times as much data as a 1 Mbps service in the same period of time. 

Background
Page 4 GAO-15-363 Broadband Performance

Internet service providers (ISP) have marketed and competed with one 

another on the speed of their various broadband plans. Advances in 

technology, such as the use of fiber (described below) and new wireless 

technologies, have allowed ISPs to offer increasingly faster speeds that 

support new services and applications, such as streaming video. FCC 

takes those advances into account as part of its required inquiry into 

whether “advanced telecommunications capability” is being deployed to 

all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.6 Pursuant to this 

inquiry, FCC recently updated the minimum speed benchmark it uses to 

measure the availability of advanced telecommunications capability.

7

Table 1: Measures of Broadband Performance

In 

addition to speed, a number of factors can be used to evaluate 

broadband performance. See table 1.

Term Description How measure relates to the end-user’s experience

Upload Speed Upload speed refers to the rate at which data are 

transferred from the consumer to the Internet. 

Measured by the number of bits of data transferred 

per second. 

Slow upload speeds can create delays when consumers are 

trying to upload content to the Internet, such as uploading 

photos to a website or using video chat. 

Download Speed Download speed refers to the rate at which data 

are transferred to the consumer. Measured by the 

number of bits of data transferred per second. 

Slow download speeds can create delays when consumers 

are accessing Internet content, which can manifest as long 

waits for the loading of webpages and problems in viewing 

video content.

Latency A measure of the time that it takes for data to 

travel from a computer to a server and back again.

Accessing Internet content requires multiple messages to 

pass between the end-user and the web server, so latency 

can have a significant impact on broadband performance. A 

high-latency network connection experiences long delay 

times. High latency can affect the performance of online 

gaming, videoconferencing, phone, and streaming media 

services.

 6

47 U.S.C. § 1302(b). Advanced telecommunications capability is defined as “high-speed, 

switched, broadband telecommunications capability that enables users to originate and 

receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications using any 

technology.” 47 U.S.C. § 1302(d).

7

In January 2015, FCC adopted a speed benchmark at download speeds of at least 25 

Mbps and upload speeds of at least 3 Mbps. Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of 

Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely 

Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of 

the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as Amended by the Broadband Data Improvement 

Act, GN Docket No. 14-126, 2015 Broadband Progress Report and Notice of Inquiry on 

Immediate Action to Accelerate Deployment, FCC 15-10 (rel. Feb. 4, 2015) (2015 

Broadband Progress Report) at paras. 3 and 45.
Page 5 GAO-15-363 Broadband Performance

Term Description How measure relates to the end-user’s experience

Jitter Jitter measures the variance in latency. Zero jitter 

means the results were exactly the same every 

time, and anything above zero is the amount by 

which they varied. A lower jitter value is better. 

High jitter can affect consumers’ ability to use real-time 

applications such as video or audio applications.

Packet Loss A measure of the amount of data lost in 

transmission from one device to another.

Packet loss can result in slower download and upload 

speeds, poor quality Internet phone services, and pauses 

with streaming media.

Availability Refers to the amount of time that the network is 

functioning, stable and able to provide connectivity 

between a computer and a desired application. 

If a network experiences an outage, a consumer will be 

unable to use their broadband service.

Source: GAO analysis of FCC, academic, private sector, and other federal sources. | GAO-15-363

Note: This list is not comprehensive, as there are many technical measures that may be used to 

evaluate specific aspects of broadband performance.

Consumers generally subscribe to broadband in two ways:

• Fixed: In-home fixed Internet plans are often sold as a monthly 

subscription by cable television or telephone companies. Service from 

cable television companies is generally provided through the same 

coaxial cables that deliver television programming. Service from 

telephone companies is generally provided through traditional copper 

telephone lines—commonly referred to as digital subscriber line (DSL) 

service—or fiber-optic lines, which convert electrical signals carrying 

data into light and send the light through glass fibers. These network 

technologies generally have higher speeds than mobile networks. 

Consumers can connect a variety of devices to in-home fixed 

networks through a wired connection or wireless Wi-Fi connection 

(see fig. 1). Consumers are increasingly using the Internet to 

supplement or replace their use of traditional services, such as 

traditional telephone and cable TV service.
Page 6 GAO-15-363 Broadband Performance

Figure 1: Examples of Devices Connected to In-Home Fixed Broadband Service

• Mobile: Traditionally, mobile providers sold access to the Internet as 

an add-on to mobile telephone service plans that may or may not 

include a multiyear contract. Mobile service is provided through cell 

tower coverage with data sharing through radio spectrum.8

 8

The radio frequency spectrum is the resource that makes possible wireless 

communications and supports a vast array of commercial and government services.

A number 

of devices may connect to mobile broadband networks, such as smart 

phones, tablets, and mobile devices that enable laptops to connect to 

mobile networks (see fig. 2).
Page 7 GAO-15-363 Broadband Performance

Figure 2: Examples of Devices Connected to Mobile Broadband Network

The 2014 American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI)9

 9

The ACSI measures the satisfaction that U.S. consumers have with the quality of a 

number of different types of services, including Internet services. American Customer 

Satisfaction Index, ACSI Telecommunications and Information Report 2014, (Ann Arbor, 

MI: May 2014).

reported that 

with respect to fixed broadband service, consumer satisfaction regarding 

data speeds and video streaming increased from 2013 to 2014. However, 

ACSI also found that during this time period, customer satisfaction related 

to service interruptions and outages, speed and service reliability, and 

peak evening-hour performance declined. With respect to mobile 

broadband providers, ACSI reported that customer satisfaction related to 

speed for downloading data and streaming content increased from 2013 
Page 8 GAO-15-363 Broadband Performance

to 2014; however, ACSI also reported that the customer satisfaction 

scores indicated that improvements were still needed in speed and 

reliability.

Broadband performance problems can manifest in a number of ways,

such as slow loading of content, lost connections, and pauses in 

streaming video and audio. FCC, ISPs, content providers, and 

researchers have noted that a variety of factors can affect broadband 

performance, such as accessing the Internet during peak usage times,10

outdated equipment in the home, or multiple users in the same household 

accessing the Internet simultaneously. In addition, mobile broadband 

performance will vary based on the location of the phone or device.11

Running multiple applications at once or having multiple users in a 

household may require greater speeds. Different types of Internet 

applications use varying amounts of data and require different minimum 

speeds to operate properly (see table 2). For example, email and webbrowsing use small amounts of data, while watching movies uses larger 

amounts of data. Use of data-intensive broadband applications is 

projected to grow.12 FCC has noted that consumers are increasingly 

using broadband applications that require large amounts of data, such as

streaming video content, which can require more consistency of service 

and be more visibly affected by technical problems.

 10In the context of its Measuring Broadband America program (discussed later in this 

report), FCC defines the peak usage period for residential broadband as weeknights 

between 7:00 pm to 11:00 pm local time. This is the time when delivery of Internet service 

is under highest demand.

11Mobile service is provided through cell tower coverage with data sharing through radio 

spectrum; thus, mobile connection quality will vary based on the location of the phone or 

device in reference to the tower. For example, if the device is blocked by terrain, the 

mobile broadband service will be degraded or not available. In addition, the performance 

of the broadband connection degrades over distance to the tower, so that performance at 

the edge of a tower’s coverage is not equal to performance close to the tower.

12Cisco estimates that Internet video traffic will grow in North America by 27 percent, from 

2013–2018. 
Page 9 GAO-15-363 Broadband Performance

Table 2: Minimum Download Speeds for Different Broadband Activities (Assumes 

One Activity Is Occurring at a Time), as of February 2015

Activity

Minimum download 

speed in megabits per 

second (Mbps)

Email 0.5

Web browsing

Job searching, navigating government websites 0.5

Interactive pages and short educational videos 1

Streaming radio Less than 0.5

Phone calls/Voice over Internet Protocol Less than 0.5 a

Watching video

Standard-definition streaming videos 0.7

Streaming feature movies 1.5

High-definition quality streaming movie or university lecture 5—8

Video conferencing

Basic video conferencing 1

High-definition video conference and tele-learning 1- 2

Gaming

Game console connecting to the Internet 1

Two-way online gaming in high-definition 4

Source: FCC | GAO-15-363

Note: The entire citation for the source is: Federal Communications Commission’s Broadband Speed 

Guide (http://www.fcc.gov/guides/broadband-speed-guide), last accessed February 10, 2015, and 

2015 Broadband Progress Report.

a

Voice over Internet Protocol is a technology that allows users to make voice calls using a broadband 

Internet connection instead of a regular phone line.

In addition, congestion at various points on the network can affect a 

user’s broadband performance. In order to connect their customers to the 

Internet, ISPs link with other networks, including “backbone providers”

that move Internet traffic long distances and interconnect with other 

networks. Companies may use a number of options to deliver their 

content across the Internet, such as connecting with a backbone provider 

(directly, or through an ISP), connecting directly to the consumer’s ISP, or 
Page 10 GAO-15-363 Broadband Performance

paying a content delivery network to deliver their content to ISPs.13

Figure 3: Simplified Example of Internet Content Delivery

See 

figure 3 for a simplified illustration of how content moves from websites 

and applications to consumers. Congestion occurring within the content 

provider’s network, at points of interconnection between the networks, or 

within the ISP’s network can all affect a consumer’s broadband 

performance. ISPs’ traffic management policies can also affect a 

consumer’s broadband performance. This issue is discussed later in the 

report.

FCC has primary responsibility for regulating broadband. In response to a 

requirement in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, 

FCC staff developed The National Broadband Plan, which includes a 

 13A content delivery network deploys many servers in many distributed locations to offer 

the best quality of experience to the end user. Content delivery networks may build large 

content distribution centers and connect these centers with high speed links to the ISPs, 

or they may deploy their cache servers inside the ISPs. Cheng Huang, Angela Wang, Jin 

Li, and Keith W. Ross, “Understanding Hybrid CDN-P2P: Why Limelight Needs Its Own 

Red Swoosh,” NOSSDAV ‘08: Proceedings of the 18th International Workshop on 

Network and Operating Systems Support for Digital Audio and Video (2008): 75-80, cited 

by Manuel Palacin et.al, “The Impact of Content Delivery Networks on the Internet 

Ecosystem,” Journal of Information Policy, vol. 3 (2013).
Page 11 GAO-15-363 Broadband Performance

series of recommendations aimed at ensuring all Americans have access 

to broadband.14 In addition, section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 

1996, as amended, directs FCC “to encourage the deployment on a 

reasonable and timely basis of advanced telecommunications capability 

to all Americans” through a variety of measures, including measures that 

promote competition in the local telecommunications market.15 FCC has 

repeatedly noted the connection between informed consumers and 

increased competition, noting that the latter is an important part of 

promoting broadband deployment.16

FCC adopted an Open Internet Report and Order in 201017 outlining 

certain limits on how ISPs could treat network traffic. The 2010 Open 

Internet Order imposed three requirements on broadband providers: 

transparency, anti-discrimination, and anti-blocking. After facing a court 

challenge that affirmed the transparency rule but vacated and remanded 

the antidiscrimination and anti-blocking rules, FCC initiated a new 

rulemaking to address these issues,18 which resulted in the adoption of 

the 2015 Open Internet Order.19

 14Pub. L. No. 111-5. title VI, § 6001, 123 Stat.115 (2009); FCC, Connecting America: The 

National Broadband Plan (2010)

This order, adopted in February 2015, 

addressed issues related to ISPs’ disclosure of broadband performance 

information to consumers and other parties, as well as other practices 

that may affect consumers’ broadband performance. The 2015 Open 

Internet Order also responded to concerns that ISPs may have the 

1547 U.S.C. § 1302(a). As previously noted, advanced telecommunications capability is 

defined as “high-speed, switched, broadband telecommunications capability that enables 

users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video 

telecommunications using any technology.” 47 U.S.C. § 1302(d).

16In the Matter of Consumer Information and Disclosure, Notice of Inquiry, 24 FCC Rcd. 

11380, ¶5 (2009); Preserving the Open Internet, Report and Order, 25 FCC Rcd. 17905 , 

¶53 (2010); Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan, p.44 (2010); In the 

Matter of Broadband Industry Practices, Notice of Inquiry, 22 FCC Rcd. 7894, ¶2 (2007). 

17Preserving the Open Internet, Report and Order, 25 FCC Rcd. 17905 (2010), aff’d in 

part, vacated and remanded in part sub nom, Verizon v. FCC, 740 F.3d. 623 (D.C. Cir. 

2014).

18Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 29 FCC 

Rcd. 5561 (2014).

19Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory 

Ruling, and Order, FCC 14-24 (2015).
Page 12 GAO-15-363 Broadband Performance

incentive and ability to act in ways that limit Internet openness (e.g., by 

blocking or discriminating against unaffiliated applications and services).

Consumers can access information on broadband performance from a 

number of sources, including their ISPs, third-party websites, and FCC 

reports. FCC adopted a transparency rule requiring ISPs to provide 

consumers with information on their services’ performance 

characteristics. However, the information available to consumers is not 

standardized, and some stakeholders stated that this lack of 

standardization makes it difficult for consumers to compare broadband 

services. In addition, the information available through speed tests may 

not accurately reflect the end-user’s actual experience. FCC has taken 

steps to measure and report on the extent to which ISPs are providing the 

speeds they advertise. However, the reports are not targeted toward 

consumers, and stakeholders stated that consumers might not be aware 

of the information.

Consumers interested in purchasing broadband service can go to 

providers’ websites to get information on performance, including speed 

and latency, as well as information on availability and price. ISPs may 

also provide tools for selecting the correct package based on use and 

information on factors that affect broadband performance.20

FCC’s 2010 Open Internet Order included a transparency rule intended to 

provide consumers with more information on broadband performance. 

The rule requires that fixed and mobile providers “publicly disclose 

accurate information regarding the network management practices, 

performance, and commercial terms of its broadband Internet access 

services sufficient for consumers to make informed choices regarding use 

of such services...”

ISPs told us 

that consumers may also call and speak to a representative to determine 

the best package for their needs, and existing customers may call for help 

troubleshooting problems with their broadband service.

21

 20For example, AT&T’s performance disclosure website includes a video explaining the 

factors that can affect speed, and Cox Communications provides a tool that asks 

consumers questions about the number of users in their household and what services 

they use with each device.

In response to concerns from ISPs regarding the 

2147 C.F.R. § 8.3

Although Consumers 

Can Access a 

Number of Sources of 

Information on 

Broadband 

Performance, the 

Information Is Limited

Performance Information 

from ISPs and Third 

Parties Is Not 

Standardized and May Not 

Accurately Reflect the 

End-User’s Actual 

Experience
Page 13 GAO-15-363 Broadband Performance

burden associated with specific requirements, FCC did not require ISPs 

to disclose specific information in a standardized format. Instead, the 

2010 Open Internet Order stated that FCC expected disclosures to 

include some or all of certain types of information, such as actual speed, 

to be timely and prominently disclosed in plain language accessible to 

consumers and to, at a minimum, be provided through a publicly 

available, easily accessible website. As part of its 2014 Open Internet

NPRM, FCC proposed enhancing the transparency rule and requested 

comment on a variety of options, some of which are discussed later in this 

report. In the resulting February 2015 Open Internet Order, FCC adopted 

enhancements to the transparency rule, and stated that ISPs are required 

to disclose certain information under the transparency rule. Specifically, 

FCC now states that disclosures of network performance should include 

actual speed, latency, and packet loss, and disclosures should also 

include network management practices applied to specific users or user 

groups (for example, users in a particular service plan or geographic 

location). FCC also requires ISPs to develop a mechanism for directly 

notifying consumers if their individual use of a network will trigger a 

network practice that is likely to have a significant impact on the 

consumer’s use of the service.22

Currently, ISPs’ disclosures vary with respect to length, content, and 

where they are placed on ISPs’ websites. In addition, according to public 

interest groups we spoke with, the complexity of this information and its 

lack of standardization across ISPs can make it difficult for consumers to 

find and use the information to compare broadband products and 

services. Some groups also raised concerns that consumers have 

difficulty understanding the information. However, some of the ISP and 

trade associations we spoke with questioned the rationale for more 

specific disclosure requirements, stating that consumers have access to 

the information they need or that flexibility is important, given the 

difficulties in explaining technical performance information to consumers. 

In addition, some ISPs and a trade association argued in written 

comments filed with the FCC that a standardized disclosure requiring 

specific information from ISPs could overlook features that may be of 

greater importance to consumers (such as nationwide wireless access) or 

confuse consumers by providing highly technical information. However, 

 22FCC granted a temporary exemption from these enhancements to smaller broadband 

providers.
Page 14 GAO-15-363 Broadband Performance

other ISPs were open to adopting a standardized label (as discussed 

below), with one ISP stating in written comments that it might help 

consumers make informed choices.

FCC’s Open Internet Advisory Committee’s Transparency Working Group 

studied how ISPs’ present performance and pricing information and 

issued a report in which it recommended that FCC promote a voluntary 

labeling program to help consumers more easily compare and select 

broadband service offerings. The working group suggested the program 

be voluntary and result in a label that would include information on an 

ISP’s upload and download speed, price, and usage restrictions. 

However, the report also noted a number of complexities associated with 

implementing a standardized label program, such as accounting for 

variability in broadband speeds, as well as for factors beyond the ISP’s 

control, and the potential for consumers to purchase more expensive 

packages due to a lack of consumer education on what speeds they 

need. FCC officials told us that they have considered standardized labels, 

but developing a label that is easy to use, useful for consumers with 

differing broadband needs, and relevant in a changing environment is 

complicated. Researchers have noted that standardized performance 

information could help third parties develop tools and information that 

allow consumers to compare multiple broadband services. FCC 

requested comment on the working group’s label proposal as part of its 

2014 Open Internet NPRM. In its 2015 Open Internet Order, FCC 

established a voluntary safe harbor for the format and nature of the 

required disclosure to consumers. To take advantage of the safe harbor, 

a broadband provider must provide a consumer-focused, stand-alone 

disclosure. FCC, however, did not mandate the exact format of such 

disclosure at this time. Instead, it directed its Consumer Advisory 

Committee to develop and submit to the commission a voluntary 
Page 15 GAO-15-363 Broadband Performance

disclosure format that ISPs could use to ensure compliance with the 

transparency rule no later than October 31, 2015.

23

Online third-party speed tests allow consumers to test the performance of 

their broadband service by sending and receiving data between the 

consumer’s device (such as a laptop or smart phone) and a test server. 

For example, www.speedtest.net measures users’ broadband speed, and 

www.pingtest.net tests other parameters and provides an overall grade 

that includes information on which applications may be affected by the 

user’s broadband performance characteristics. FCC also released an 

application that allows users to test the speed, latency, and packet loss of 

their mobile broadband.24

www.netindex.com

In addition, ISPs may provide speed test tools 

to help consumers understand their broadband performance. In some 

cases, third parties have created sites that rank broadband providers 

based on the results of speed-test data. For example, OOKLA’s 

uses data from its speed test and consumer surveys 

to create country, state, and city-level rankings of fixed and mobile 

broadband providers in terms of upload and download speed, as well as 

other performance measures. This allows consumers to compare 

providers based on their performance in the consumer’s local area. 

RootMetrics.com provides similar data on mobile broadband, including 

assessments of the mobile ISPs’ speed and reliability.

However, the information from speed tests may not provide consumers 

with the information they need to understand what factors are affecting 

their broadband performance. Studies we reviewed and stakeholders we 

spoke with noted that speed tests can be affected by a variety of factors, 

which makes it difficult for consumers to identify what specific problem is 

affecting their broadband performance. For example, researchers have 

 23FCC’s Consumer Advisory Committee previously reviewed pre-sale disclosures for 

consumers interested in purchasing broadband services. The committee noted that while 

a label would help consumers compare broadband options prior to purchasing service, a 

label would be limited in empowering consumers with respect to educating them about 

which broadband services and speeds would meet their needs. The committee noted that 

this would be better addressed through a comprehensive educational program and 

expanded industry disclosure that included FCC, industry, and consumer groups. FCC 

Consumer Advisory Committee, Recommendations Regarding Pre-sale Consumer 

Disclosures, GC Docket No 09-158, CC Docket No. 98-170, WC Docket No. 04-36 (Aug. 

4, 2010).

24FCC, FCC Speed Test App Tip Sheet, accessed February 6, 2015, 

http://www.fcc.gov/guides/mobile-speed-test-tip-sheet. 
Page 16 GAO-15-363 Broadband Performance

noted that online speed tests can be affected by the home equipment and 

the number of users accessing the Internet in the home; however, these 

tests may not enable consumers to discern that these factors are 

affecting their speeds.25

Stakeholders we interviewed noted that consumers may experience 

performance problems due to disputes between ISPs and content 

providers regarding interconnection (interconnection disputes) that lead to 

network congestion when consumers are accessing specific sites, and 

these problems may not be reflected in speed tests. Congestion at 

interconnection points has been identified as a problem contributing to 

poor broadband performance, particularly with respect to streaming video 

content. Such congestion may not be adequately captured by third-party 

or ISP speed tests, since it may be limited to a specific interconnection 

point not used by the speed test server. Some content providers, such as 

Google, have provided alerts to consumers when Internet congestion is 

affecting their broadband performance. However, information regarding 

interconnection agreements can be subject to non-disclosure 

agreements, and there have been several disputes regarding who is 

responsible for addressing interconnection congestion. In June 2014, 

FCC released a statement asserting that these interconnection disputes 

can affect consumers’ broadband performance and that in the interest of 

providing consumers with more transparency, FCC was obtaining copies 

of interconnection agreements to further its understanding of 

In addition, speed tests can be limited in 

reflecting the end-user’s actual experience because speed tests vary 

methodologically, and different tests can provide differing results, 

depending on the location of the speed test server. If a speed test server 

is located outside the consumer’s ISP network, then the results could be 

affected by congestion occurring on networks outside of the ISP’s control. 

For example, when using third-party speed tests, a consumer’s traffic 

may travel over networks that are not controlled by their ISP, and 

congestion on those networks may have an effect on the speed test. On 

the other hand, speed tests hosted by an ISP may only test the 

performance of the ISP’s network, and thus do not capture congestion 

that may be affecting a consumer’s ability to access content outside of 

their ISP’s network.

 25FCC’s 2014 Measuring Broadband America report noted that as available broadband 

speeds continue to increase, older modems incapable of supporting such speeds could be 

a growing problem for consumers’ fixed broadband performance. See, FCC, 2014 

Measuring Broadband America Fixed Broadband Report (Washington, D.C.).
Page 17 GAO-15-363 Broadband Performance

interconnection disputes. Separately, in the 2015 Open Internet Order, 

FCC stated that it would hear interconnection disputes on a case-by-case 

basis.

ISPs’ traffic management policies can also affect the results of speed 

tests, making comparisons across providers difficult. In August 2014, a 

public interest group announced it was filing a complaint against TMobile. According to the group, T-Mobile was slowing down the 

broadband speeds provided to mobile broadband subscribers that had 

reached their usage limits; 26 however, T-Mobile did not slow down traffic 

coming from speed test applications. Thus, if a T-Mobile customer whose 

broadband was being slowed down accessed a speed test to try and 

determine their broadband speed, their speed test would show a higher 

speed than the customer was actually receiving. The public interest group 

stated that this was a violation of the transparency rule, because 

consumers were not receiving accurate information regarding network 

performance. In November, FCC issued a press release stating that TMobile agreed to take several actions to ensure consumers were able to 

obtain accurate measures of their speed, including providing a link to a 

speed test that would reflect the speed reduction. There have also been 

press reports that backbone networks’ traffic management policies have 

affected speed test results, and researchers have noted that ISPs can 

design their networks to provide better speed test results.

Since 2011, FCC has published annual reports with broadband 

performance results from its Measuring Broadband America (MBA) 

effort.27

 26Some ISPs offer plans that limit how much data a consumer can use per month before 

receiving slower speeds or paying an additional fee. For example, once customers reach 

their high-speed data allowance, they may continue to access unlimited data, but at 

slower connection speeds of 128 kilobits per second or less, slower than speeds FCC 

recommends for browsing the web or downloading e-mail. See 

The MBA program compares fixed ISPs’ average delivered 

download and upload speeds against their advertised speeds (for a 24-

hour period, as well as for the peak usage time of 7 PM to 11 PM on 

weeknights), and provides additional information on measurements of 

latency and website loading time. FCC is working to expand its MBA 

GAO-15-108 for additional 

information.

27FCC, Measuring Broadband America, accessed February 6, 2015,

http://www.fcc.gov/measuring-broadband-america. 

FCC Reports on 

Broadband Performance, 

but the Reports Are Not 

Targeted toward 

Consumers
Page 18 GAO-15-363 Broadband Performance

effort to include mobile broadband providers and, as part of that process, 

has released an app for consumers to download and test their mobile 

broadband speeds.28

MBA developed out of a recommendation in the 2010 National 

Broadband Plan to improve the availability of information for consumers 

about their broadband service. At the time, there were concerns that ISPs 

were not delivering their advertised speeds, and data were not available 

to determine whether this was the case. FCC officials stated that MBA 

allowed them to verify the accuracy of ISPs’ advertising claims. FCC 

collaborated with industry and public interest stakeholders when 

designing the MBA program. The sample population is drawn from 

subscribers of 14 of the largest ISPs (which serve over 80 percent of the 

residential marketplace) and consists of about 6,000 volunteers. Unlike 

online speed tests that consumers may access from a variety of websites, 

MBA only tests elements under the direct or indirect control of a 

consumer’s ISP, from the consumer’s gateway—the modem or router 

used by the consumer to access the Internet—to a nearby major Internet 

gateway point. Thus, the results are not affected by congestion occurring 

outside of an ISP’s network.

In 2014, FCC found that the ISPs included in the report were, on average, 

delivering 101 percent of advertised download speeds during the peak 

usage hours.29 FCC, ISPs, and public interest group representatives 

stated that the transparency provided through MBA spurred competition 

among providers and led to improved speeds, which benefit consumers.30

 28FCC, Measuring Broadband America Mobile Broadband Services, accessed February 6, 

2015, 

In addition, ISPs that participate in the MBA effort can provide consumers 

with their MBA results in order to comply with the transparency rule’s 

disclosure requirements. Researchers have used raw data from MBA to 

conduct in-depth analyses of broadband performance. FCC officials also 

told us that it uses the information from the MBA report to inform its 

http://www.fcc.gov/measuring-broadband-america/mobile. 

29FCC, 2014 Measuring Broadband America Fixed Broadband Report (Washington, DC).

30Some ISPs raised concerns regarding comparisons of actual versus advertised speed 

for broadband delivered via DSL, noting that the actual speed a specific customer 

receives depends on the distance between the ISP’s central office and the customer’s 

home. One ISP we interviewed noted that is why they advertise a speed range, rather 

than a specific speed.
Page 19 GAO-15-363 Broadband Performance

rulemakings on broadband, such as raising the broadband speed for 

providers to be eligible for the Connect America Fund, which supports 

telephone and broadband service for rural residents.31

FCC is also in the process of considering next steps for the program. As 

noted above, in order to provide comparable results across ISPs, the 

MBA initially only measured the ISP’s network. Thus, delays incurred in 

the consumer’s home or in segments of the Internet outside an ISP’s 

network were excluded from the results. For example, in the 2014 MBA 

report, FCC noted that it excluded data from the report after discovering 

some testing servers (and thus, any measurements taken using these 

servers) were affected by congestion at interconnection points where 

ISPs exchange traffic with Internet backbone providers.32

 31For example, in 2014, FCC increased, to 10Mbps download/1 Mbps upload speed, the 

required minimum speed that fixed broadband providers receiving high-cost support must 

offer. The Universal Service Fund’s High Cost program subsidizes telecommunications 

carriers that provide basic telephone, broadband and wireless telephone service in 

generally rural high-cost areas.

In the report, 

FCC acknowledged that consumers accessing services and content over 

the affected paths would likely see a significant degradation in their 

service, but FCC stated that it did not include the results from these 

servers in its report because it aims to provide an analysis of average 

network performance. Two public interest groups we interviewed raised 

concerns that the MBA results were not reflecting the experience of 

consumers whose broadband performance was negatively affected by 

interconnection disputes. In the 2014 MBA report, FCC noted that while 

MBA was initially focused on measuring broadband performance from the 

consumer to the end of the service provider’s network, Internet services 

and applications rely on a complex and variable arrangement of 

interconnected networks to reach consumers. FCC stated that it is 

exploring options to leverage its MBA effort to gain more insights into the 

evolving performance of the Internet and provide better information to 

consumers. For example, FCC officials told us that it is testing an 

expansion of the MBA program to include measuring broadband 

performance when a consumer is using streaming video services.

32According to FCC, this congestion was caused by business disputes between ISPs and 

a backbone provider. FCC did collect results from the affected servers and released the 

data for use by academics and others examining such congestion issues. 
Page 20 GAO-15-363 Broadband Performance

Although the program initially was developed to provide consumers 

access to broadband performance information, many of the various 

stakeholders we interviewed, as well as FCC, generally agreed that most 

consumers are unaware of the MBA report and do not rely on it to obtain 

broadband performance information. MBA reports are highly technical 

and include detailed appendices and raw data. FCC and some of the 

ISPs and public interest groups we interviewed noted that information 

collected through the MBA program may reach consumers through 

secondary sources, such as ISPs’ advertising and transparency rule 

disclosures, news reports, and tech blogs. In addition, as noted above, 

FCC and many of the ISPs and public interest groups stated that the 

program has spurred competition among providers and led to improved 

speeds. However, ISPs’ offerings and performance can vary 

geographically, and in the Open Internet comments we reviewed, two 

stakeholders raised concerns that the MBA reports do not provide 

consumers with information about broadband performance at the local 

level. The National Broadband Plan recommended that FCC’s broadband 

performance reporting effort should include “detailed information about 

the actual performance of the country’s top broadband service providers 

in different geographic markets (e.g., by county, city or [Metropolitan 

Statistical Area]).” In the 2014 MBA report, FCC stated that the data are 

not collected in a way that permits meaningful conclusions about 

broadband performance at the local level and that this limitation was a 

result of cost issues and the finite number of measurement devices that 

could be deployed over the course of the project. A report on the MBA 

effort that was commissioned by FCC and conducted by the North 

Carolina State University’s Institute for Advanced Analytics primarily 

reviewed MBA’s methodology, but also made some suggestions for 

making the data more consumer-friendly, including the use of a tool 

developed by the group to help consumers compare ISPs’ performance in 

their states (when enough data were available to allow for statistically 

valid comparisons).
Page 21 GAO-15-363 Broadband Performance

FCC has taken steps to determine whether its efforts to provide 

consumers with broadband performance information—such as the 

transparency rule and MBA program—are effective and meeting 

consumers’ needs. Specifically, FCC has reviewed consumer complaints 

and requested stakeholder comments on this issue in several recent 

rulemaking proceedings. However, FCC’s ability to evaluate its efforts is 

limited by a lack of useful performance information. In addition, FCC 

established strategic objectives related to informing consumers in its 

strategic plan, but lacks performance goals and measures to monitor the 

effectiveness of its efforts to provide consumers with broadband 

performance information. Additional actions—such as conducting or 

commissioning objective consumer research and establishing 

performance goals and measures—could help FCC evaluate whether its 

efforts to provide consumers with broadband performance information are 

effective and meeting consumers’ needs.

FCC has requested stakeholder comments in rulemaking proceedings 

and reviewed consumer complaints filed with the commission to 

determine whether its efforts to provide consumers with broadband 

performance information—such as its transparency rule and MBA 

program—are effective and meeting consumers’ needs. According to 

FCC officials, FCC relies heavily on stakeholder comments to inform and 

explain decisions underlying the commission’s orders; however, FCC may 

also request stakeholders’ comments to develop a body of knowledge on 

issues of interest to the commission. In several recent rulemaking 

proceedings, FCC has requested comments from stakeholders on (1) 

consumers’ broadband performance information needs, (2) best practices 

for presenting and displaying performance information to consumers, and 

(3) potential improvements to FCC’s efforts to provide consumers with 

broadband performance information, among other things. For instance, 

FCC officials told us that stakeholder comments were used as part of 

FCC’s determination to enhance its transparency rule. Table 3 

summarizes some of the consumer-related issues and questions FCC 

has raised and requested stakeholder comments on in recent years.

FCC Has Taken 

Steps to Evaluate Its 

Efforts to Inform 

Consumers, but 

Could Enhance Its 

Performance 

Information and 

Measures

FCC Has Requested 

Stakeholder Comments in 

Several Recent 

Rulemakings and 

Reviewed Consumer 

Complaints
Page 22 GAO-15-363 Broadband Performance

Table 3: GAO Analysis of Selected Consumer-Related Issues and Questions Raised in Recent Federal Communications

Commission’s Rulemaking Proceedings

Date

Federal Communications 

Commission’s (FCC) 

Rulemaking Action Summary of selected consumer-related issues and questions raised

August 2009 Notice of Inquiry • What information do consumers need when selecting a service provider 

and plan, managing their service plan, and deciding whether and when to 

switch providers or plans?

a

• What information do consumers need to assess service quality?

• What are best practices related to formatting and displaying information to 

consumers and measuring the effectiveness of consumer disclosures?

• What additional steps could FCC take to improve its consumer education 

efforts?

June 2010 Public Notice b • How should FCC measure performance of mobile broadband?

• How should FCC convey mobile-broadband performance information to 

consumers—are there best practices FCC should follow?

• What are the existing sources of mobile-broadband performance 

information available to consumers and how they could be improved?

April 2011 Public Noticec • What types of broadband performance information are most useful to 

consumers assessing service options?

,

• What is the most effective way to present the information and ensure 

Internet service providers (ISP) are providing this information to 

consumers?

May 2014 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking • Should FCC revise the transparency rule to require ISPs to disclose 

specific network practices, performance characteristics (e.g., effective 

download speeds, upload speeds, latency, and packet loss), and/or terms 

and conditions of service to end users (e.g., data caps)?

d

• Are there best practices for displaying and formatting ISP disclosures for 

end users, such as the use of a standardized label, as suggested by the 

Transparency Working Group?

• Are there areas of the Measuring Broadband America (MBA) program that 

could be improved to provide more useful information to consumers?

Source: GAO Analysis of Selected Federal Communications Commission Rulemaking Proceedings. | GAO-15-363

a

In the Matter of Consumer Information and Disclosure, Notice of Inquiry, 24 FCC Rcd. 11380 (2009).

b

Comment Sought on Measurement of Mobile Broadband Performance and Coverage, Public Notice, 

25 FCC Rcd. 7069 (2010).

c

Consumer and Government Affair Bureau Seeks Comment on “Need for Speed” Information for 

Consumers of Broadband Services, Public Notice, 26 FCC Rcd. 5847(2011). FCC noted that 

although the transparency rule adopted in its 2010 Open Internet Order requires broadband providers 

to disclose information regarding network management practices, performance, and commercial 

terms of broadband services, the Notice represented a step further in the commission’s ongoing effort 

to ensure that consumers have access to the information they need to make informed decisions.

d

Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 29 FCC Rcd. 5561 

(2014).

According to FCC officials, FCC also relies on consumer complaints filed 

with the commission to determine whether its efforts to provide 

consumers with broadband performance information are effective and 
Page 23 GAO-15-363 Broadband Performance

meeting consumers’ needs. For example, in the 2014 Open Internet

NPRM, FCC stated that it had received and analyzed hundreds of 

consumer complaints related to ISPs’ disclosures under the transparency 

rule and that these complaints were part of the agency’s rationale for 

tentatively concluding the rule should be strengthened. In addition, 

officials told us that consumer complaints have indicated that service 

reliability is now as important to consumers as speed due to the 

popularity of video-streaming services, such as Netflix, and that as a 

result, they are exploring ways to further incorporate service reliability 

information into the MBA program. They also told us that based on 

consumer complaints, they knew that consumers could not easily 

access—and in some cases were not provided—certain performance 

information (e.g., ISPs’ network management practices, data limits, etc.), 

and FCC tried to address this issue through the transparency rule.

We have previously found that leading organizations that have 

progressed toward results-oriented management use performance 

information as a basis for decision-making33 and that the usefulness of 

performance information can be affected by its completeness, accuracy, 

consistency, validity, and credibility, among other things.34

 33GAO, Managing for Results: Enhancing Agency Use of Performance Information for 

Management Decision Making, 

For example, 

performance information can focus on various dimensions of 

performance, such as outcomes, outputs, quality, or customer 

satisfaction, and can help agencies monitor their progress in meeting 

programmatic and operational goals. Although stakeholder comments 

and consumer complaints can provide FCC with valuable insights on 

topics of interest to the commission, the information FCC obtains from 

GAO-05-927 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 9, 2005).

34GAO, Results-Oriented Management: Strengthening Key Practices at FEMA and Interior 

Could Promote Greater Use of Performance Information, GAO-09-676 (Washington, D.C.: 

Aug. 17, 2009).

FCC’s Ability to Evaluate 

Its Efforts Is Limited by a 

Lack of Useful 

Performance Information 

and Relevant Performance 

Goals and Measures

FCC Obtains Inconsistent and 

Incomplete Performance 

Information from Stakeholder 

Comments and Consumer 

Complaints
Page 24 GAO-15-363 Broadband Performance

these sources lacks some of the characteristics of useful performance 

information, such as consistency and completeness.

Our review of selected stakeholders’ Open Internet comments found that 

they generally provided inconsistent views regarding the effectiveness of 

FCC’s efforts to provide consumers with broadband performance 

information. For instance, some public interest groups and content 

providers argued that FCC’s transparency rule was not providing 

consumers the information they need to make informed decisions 

regarding broadband services. In their view, FCC should have required

ISPs to provide additional technical information—such as detailed 

information on network congestion—under the transparency rule. 

However, ISPs countered that this level of technical detail would be 

confusing to consumers and that the transparency rule had been effective 

in providing consumers with the information they need. For example, Cox 

Communications, an ISP, stated that, “most of the expanded disclosure 

proposals included in the NPRM would impose burdensome obligations 

that are highly unlikely to prove useful to consumers and would only 

degrade the overall effectiveness of the transparency rule.” FCC has 

acknowledged that it has not received consistent information in response 

to its requests for comments. For instance, in its 2010 Open Internet

Order, FCC states that despite broad agreement that broadband 

providers should disclose information sufficient to enable end users and 

content providers to understand the capabilities of broadband services, 

commenters disagree about the appropriate level of detail required to 

achieve this goal. As a result, FCC decided to continue to allow ISPs 

flexibility in the implementation of the transparency rule while providing 

guidance regarding acceptable disclosure methods. Similarly, in its 2015 

Open Internet Order, FCC noted that despite its efforts to seek comment 

on this issue, the record was lacking with respect to specific details on 

how such a disclosure should be formatted. Thus, as previously 

mentioned, FCC asked its Consumer Advisory Committee to propose a 

disclosure format.

As noted above, in the 2014 Open Internet NPRM, FCC cited consumer 

complaints as a basis for tentatively concluding that the transparency rule 

should be strengthened. However, in the NPRM FCC also acknowledged

that its analysis of consumer complaints provided limited insight into the 

issues that consumers were experiencing. Specifically, FCC stated that 

since the transparency rule took effect, it had received a “significant 

number” of consumer complaints about provider speeds, charges, and 

other practices that the rule was designed to disclose. However, FCC 

also stated that in some cases, it is difficult to discern from the complaints 
Page 25 GAO-15-363 Broadband Performance

“whether the consumer’s frustration is with slow speeds or high prices 

generally, or instead with how the service as actually provided differs from 

what the provider has advertised.” Moreover, because consumer 

complaints reflect the perspective of a non-representative sample of 

consumers—i.e., those who have experienced broadband issues and 

have chosen to report those issues to the FCC—they do not fully capture 

the effectiveness of FCC’s efforts for a broader range of consumers. 

Consequently, several Open Internet comments we reviewed filed by 

ISPs and industry associations questioned FCC’s reliance on complaints 

as a basis for decision-making.

In addition, we have previously noted concerns with FCC’s complaint 

process.35

Without consistent and complete information regarding the effectiveness 

of its efforts to provide consumers with broadband performance 

information, FCC’s ability to evaluate its efforts and make performancebased decisions about these efforts is limited. In addition, FCC may find it 

difficult to convince stakeholders that enhancements to its transparency 

In 2009, we found that many wireless phone service 

consumers were not aware that they could file complaints with FCC when 

they encountered problems. We also found that FCC did not complete indepth analyses of consumer complaints and lacked goals and measures 

that clearly identified the intended outcomes of its complaint-processing 

efforts. As a result, we noted that FCC may not be aware (1) of emerging 

trends in consumer problems, (2) if specific rules are being violated, or (3) 

if additional rules are needed to protect consumers. We made a number 

of recommendations to help address these issues, and FCC has 

indicated that it is in the process of reforming the agency’s complaint 

process. For example, in January 2015, FCC launched a new online 

consumer-help center. According to FCC, the online center will make it 

easier for consumers to file complaints with FCC, improve 

communications between consumers and FCC representatives, and help 

streamline FCC’s process for synthesizing and analyzing trends in 

consumer complaints. While these steps may enhance FCC’s ability to 

assess the effectiveness of its efforts among the subset of consumers 

who file complaints, they will not provide FCC information regarding the 

effectiveness of its efforts for a broader range of consumers.

 35GAO, Telecommunications: FCC Needs to Improve Oversight of Wireless Phone 

Service, GAO-10-34 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 10, 2009).
Page 26 GAO-15-363 Broadband Performance

rule and MBA program are warranted. As we reviewed industry groups’

Open Internet comments, we found many stating that FCC did not provide

adequate evidence that ISPs’ disclosures under the transparency rule 

were ineffective and that enhancements or changes to the rule were

needed. For example, Cisco, an equipment provider, stated that FCC’s 

concerns regarding the accuracy of information some consumers 

received under the transparency rule do not imply that additional 

disclosures are called for, but rather that the commission may need to 

enforce the requirements instead.

In contrast to the approaches FCC typically relies on to evaluate the 

effectiveness of its efforts to provide consumers with broadband 

performance information, other government entities have undertaken 

extensive, qualitative, and quantitative consumer research to evaluate the 

effectiveness of their efforts to inform consumers and ensure that 

consumers’ information needs are being met. For example:

• Ofcom—the United Kingdom’s (UK) communications regulatory 

agency—has conducted qualitative and quantitative research to 

determine consumers’ use and understanding of ISPs’ traffic 

management information and the effectiveness of a standardized form 

that all major UK ISPs voluntarily use to publish their traffic 

management information. For instance, in 2013, Ofcom 

commissioned a study that involved qualitative workshops with 135 

participants and a representative survey of UK broadband consumers. 

The study found that consumers had problems understanding some 

aspects of the standardized form and suggested several potential 

improvements that could make the information more understandable 

to consumers, such as adding a summary to the form explaining the 

relevance of traffic management policies to broadband products.

• The U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) conducted 

qualitative and quantitative consumer research when revamping 

mortgage disclosure forms. The CFPB tested the prototype of the 

revised disclosure form through 10 rounds of qualitative testing in nine 

cities. After issuing the revised forms the CFPB also conducted a 

large-scale quantitative validation test—that included 858 consumers 

in 20 locations—to compare the revised forms with the disclosures 

that were currently in use.

Some stakeholders we spoke with and whose comments we reviewed 

also suggested that FCC should undertake consumer research to inform 

and evaluate its efforts to provide consumers with broadband 

performance information. In 2009, the Federal Trade Commission filed 

comments with FCC stating that research has shown that well-designed 
Page 27 GAO-15-363 Broadband Performance

standardized disclosures can improve consumer understanding and 

facilitate competition; however, to be most effective, these disclosures 

should be developed and revised based on controlled, quantitative, 

objective tests of consumer understanding. In addition, representatives 

from one industry association we spoke with stated that FCC’s analytical 

framework, which largely consists of requesting and reviewing 

stakeholder comments, is not consumer-centric and may not be the most 

productive process for obtaining an accurate representation of 

consumers’ information needs. These representatives noted that given 

the time, effort, and money ISPs expend to collect broadband 

performance data for FCC’s MBA program, it is important to make sure 

that the data are presented in a way that is meaningful to consumers. In 

their view, FCC should also be conducting consumer research, such as 

focus groups, to make sure that its MBA effort produces a report that 

consumers can understand. According to FCC officials, FCC’s goal is to 

improve the accessibility, accuracy, and relevance of the broadband 

performance information available to consumers. Because consumers’

decision-making processes are complex and can vary, FCC has not 

attempted to formally evaluate whether its efforts to provide consumers 

with broadband performance information are meeting consumers’ needs. 

Officials also told us that they do not believe this type of research has 

been conducted outside of FCC.

FCC’s current strategic plan includes strategic objectives related to 

informing consumers about broadband networks—reflecting its position 

that informed consumers help facilitate competition in the broadband 

market. Specifically, FCC includes “ensure effective policies are in place 

to promote and protect competition” and “take action where competition is 

not sufficient to protect the public interest, including ensuring that 

consumers remain informed” as two of its 17 strategic objectives and 

states that it will continue to engage consumers though its outreach and 

education initiatives to facilitate informed choice in the competitive 

communications marketplace. However, FCC does not include any 

performance goals under these strategic objectives that define desired 

outcomes for its efforts to provide consumers with broadband 

performance information, such as its transparency rule and MBA 

program. Consequently, FCC also lacks relevant performance measures 

under these strategic objectives that would allow it to monitor the impact 

and effectiveness of its efforts. We have previously reported that effective 

performance goals and measures possess certain characteristics. These 

include the following: 1) performance goals should clearly define the 

organization’s desired outcomes, and 2) each performance goal should 

have a few performance measures that clearly tie back to the goal, cover 

FCC Lacks Performance Goals 

and Measures to Monitor Its 

Efforts to Inform Consumers
Page 28 GAO-15-363 Broadband Performance

key performance dimensions, and take different priorities into account.

36

Without performance goals and measures that allow FCC to monitor its 

progress on its goals related to providing consumers with broadband 

performance information, FCC has limited assurance that its efforts to 

provide consumers with broadband performance information are effective 

and meeting consumers’ needs. In addition, FCC cannot demonstrate

that it is achieving its objectives to ensure consumers are informed as 

envisioned in its strategic plan.

In recent years, the broadband market has undergone significant 

changes. More Americans are accessing broadband and relying on their 

broadband service for an increasingly diverse range of uses, including 

education, medicine, public safety, and entertainment. As broadband 

traffic grows, consumers’ broadband performance issues—such as 

slower than expected speeds and disruptions to video-streaming 

services—may simultaneously become more prevalent and more critical 

to resolve. However, broadband performance can be affected by a 

number of complicated, technical factors that are not readily apparent to 

most consumers.

FCC has maintained that informed consumers play an important role in 

facilitating competition in the broadband market and has undertaken 

efforts to provide consumers with broadband performance information, 

such as the transparency rule and the MBA program. However, FCC 

lacks useful performance information and relevant performance goals and 

measures to evaluate the effectiveness of these efforts and monitor their 

impact. As a result, FCC cannot be assured that its efforts to provide 

consumers with broadband performance information are effective and 

meeting consumers’ needs, and its ability to make performance-based 

decisions will remain limited. Moreover, FCC may find it difficult to 

convince stakeholders that its enhancements to the transparency rule are 

warranted and address their concerns that FCC has not provided 

adequate evidence to support these enhancements.

 36GAO, Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance and 

Results Act, GAO/GGD-96-118 (Washington, D.C.: June 1, 1996).

Conclusions
Page 29 GAO-15-363 Broadband Performance

To help FCC determine whether its efforts to provide consumers with 

broadband performance information are effective and meeting 

consumers’ needs, and whether additional efforts—such as a 

standardized label suggested by FCC’s transparency working group—

could benefit consumers, FCC should take the following two actions:

1. conduct or commission research on the effectiveness of FCC’s efforts 

to provide consumers with broadband performance information and 

make the results of this research publicly available, and

2. establish performance goals and measures under the agency’s 

relevant strategic objectives that allow it to monitor and report on the 

impact and effectiveness of its efforts.

We provided a draft of this report to FCC for review and comment. In its 

written comments, reproduced in appendix II, FCC generally concurred 

with our recommendations. FCC described its various consumer outreach 

and education efforts and agreed that extensive research would be 

helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of its efforts to inform consumers. 

FCC stated that it will evaluate consumer research on broadband 

performance and move expeditiously to take action. FCC also stated that 

it would use consumer research, consumer comments, and in-person 

feedback at consumer-related events to establish performance measures 

that will allow it to monitor and report on its progress. FCC also provided 

an appendix with details about its outreach efforts as well as technical 

comments that were 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 to the Chairman of the 

Federal Communications Commission and the appropriate congressional 

committees. In addition, this report will be available at no charge on 

GAO’s website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff has 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 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments
Page 30 GAO-15-363 Broadband Performance

page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report 

are listed in appendix III.

Mark Goldstein

Director, Physical Infrastructure
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 31 GAO-15-363 Broadband Performance

The objectives of this report were to examine (1) what information is 

currently available to consumers regarding broadband performance and 

the limitations of this information, if any, and (2) how does the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC) evaluate its efforts to provide 

consumers with broadband performance information?

To assess what information is currently available to consumers regarding 

broadband performance and any limitations of this information, we 

reviewed prior GAO reports on this issue, relevant FCC rulemaking 

proceedings, including its 2014 Open Internet proceeding, FCC’s 

transparency rule and Measuring Broadband America reports, Internet 

service providers’ (ISP) websites, information provided by companies, 

including Netflix and Google, and third-party sites that provide broadband 

performance information to consumers. We also conducted a literature 

review to identify articles and studies relevant to broadband performance 

measurement and disclosure of broadband performance information to 

consumers. We used key-word searches to identify peer-reviewed articles 

and other work in relevant databases and reviewed the websites of 

researchers identified by FCC as conducting work relevant to our review. 

We also interviewed representatives from FCC, public-interest and 

consumer-advocacy groups, industry associations, content or equipment 

providers, and broadband providers. We identified stakeholders to 

interview based on our review of comments filed in FCC’s 2014 Open 

Internet and related proceedings, as well as based on recommendations 

from other organizations we interviewed. Finally, we reviewed a 

judgmental sample of comments filed in FCC’s 2014 Open Internet

proceeding. In this proceeding, FCC requested comment on the 

effectiveness of its efforts to provide broadband performance information 

to consumers, including its transparency rule and its Measuring 

Broadband America program, and its proposed enhancements to these 

efforts. We ran key-word searches that included terms related to 

transparency and disclosure for consumers to identify relevant comments, 

and selected comments from a variety of stakeholders, including public 

interest groups, ISPs, content providers, trade associations, and 

consumer representatives. We reviewed these comments to identify 

statements regarding the effectiveness of FCC’s efforts to provide 

broadband performance information to consumers, including comments 

supporting and opposing FCC’s proposed enhancements to these efforts.

To determine how FCC evaluates its efforts to provide consumers with 

broadband performance information, we interviewed FCC officials 

regarding their efforts to provide consumers with broadband performance 

information and evaluate and monitor the effectiveness of these efforts 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 32 GAO-15-363 Broadband Performance

and reviewed relevant FCC documents, including its strategic and 

performance plans, consumer surveys, and resources available to 

consumers on FCC’s website. We also reviewed FCC’s requests for 

comment on consumers’ information needs and the effectiveness of 

FCC’s efforts to provide consumers with broadband performance 

information, as well as selected comments filed in response to these 

proceedings (as described above). To determine what additional actions, 

if any, FCC could take to evaluate its efforts to provide consumers with 

broadband performance information, we interviewed representatives from 

the stakeholder groups identified above, as well as officials from the 

Federal Trade Commission and National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration regarding their efforts to inform consumers 

about broadband issues and to evaluate the effectiveness of those 

efforts. In addition, we reviewed reports and studies on consumer 

disclosures conducted by FCC’s Transparency Working Group; foreign 

telecommunications-regulatory bodies, including those in the United 

Kingdom and European Union; and other federal agencies, such as the 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. We also reviewed prior GAO 

reports on FCC and results-oriented management and compared FCC’s 

use of performance information and measures to performance 

management best practices outlined in previous GAO work.

We conducted this performance audit from July 2014 to April 2015 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.
Appendix II: Comments from the Federal 

Communications Commission

Page 33 GAO-15-363 Broadband Performance

Appendix II: Comments from the Federal 

Communications Commission 
Appendix II: Comments from the Federal 

Communications Commission

Page 34 GAO-15-363 Broadband Performance
Appendix II: Comments from the Federal 

Communications Commission

Page 35 GAO-15-363 Broadband Performance
Appendix II: Comments from the Federal 

Communications Commission

Page 36 GAO-15-363 Broadband Performance
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 37 GAO-15-363 Broadband Performance

Mark L. Goldstein, (202) 512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov.

In addition to the contact named above, Teresa Anderson, Assistant 

Director; Steve Brown; Crystal Huggins; Bert Japikse; Sara Ann 

Moessbauer; Jaclyn Nidoh; Josh Ormond; Cheryl Peterson; Amy 

Rosewarne; and Hai Tran made key contributions to this report.

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(543346)
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.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

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 website, 

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.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.