OECD Digital Economy and Society Outlook 2026

Report

5 November 2026

Chapter 2. Trends in access and connectivity

Copy link to Chapter 2. Trends in access and connectivity

Abstract

Connectivity services and infrastructures, also known as “digital infrastructure”, underpin the use of digital technologies and are the key to connecting people, places and things, today and in the future. This chapter considers digital infrastructure and connectivity across the OECD, including trends in broadband availability, quality and affordability. It focuses on submarine cable infrastructure – a critical component of the Internet’s backbone – to assess recent developments in deployment, highlight operational and regulatory challenges – and identifies recent policy actions around the OECD. It concludes with trends in communication policy and regulation, demonstrating how OECD Member countries and partner economies are adapting to the evolving connectivity ecosystem in pursuit of a future in which all have access to high-quality, reliable and affordable communication services.

Key findings

Copy link to Key findings

Developments in connectivity: Where do we stand?

Availability of high-speed broadband access is increasing across the OECD. Total fixed broadband subscriptions grew 37% in the past decade, reaching 37 fixed broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants in December 2025 across the OECD. Fibre comprised 51% of all fixed broadband subscriptions (Q4 2025), up from 31% in Q4 2020.
Investments in broadband networks have greatly improved users’ quality of experience. Between Q2 2020 and Q2 2026, median fixed broadband speeds across the OECD increased fourfold, from 54.4 Mbps in Q2 2020 to 207.5 Mbps in Q2 2026.
Download speeds over mobile networks have shown impressive growth, driven by investments in 5G. From Q1 2023 to Q2 2025, average mobile download speeds as experienced by users grew 46% – from 46 Mbps to 67.3 Mbps.
Nevertheless, spatial connectivity divides persist across and within OECD Member countries: in Q2 2026, users in cities experienced median fixed broadband download speeds that were, on average, 42% higher than in rural areas (far from metropolitan areas).
Affordability is a key driver of adoption of broadband services. Over the past decade (2015-2025), prices for mobile voice and data services dropped by more than half, while fixed broadband services decreased by 25-37%. Prices of triple-play bundles (i.e. fixed broadband, fixed voice and pay television) also saw declines over the past five years across the OECD (2020-2025), with a 36% decrease in the medium-usage bundle reaching an OECD average of 96.67 USD PPP.

Special focus: Submarine cables to support next-generation networks

Submarine cables form an integral part of the global Internet backbone, moving most of the world’s intercontinental data traffic. To meet future demand for international network capacity, investment in submarine cables is expected to surpass USD 4 billion annually over 2025-2027, double the average annual investment from 2016 to 2022.
Large technology companies now dominate submarine cable capacity, driving nearly 75% of global bandwidth demand in 2024, and owning or co-owning over 60% of new cables entering service between 2024 and 2027, up from 8% in 2010-2015.
The submarine ecosystem faces key operational and regulatory challenges. These include the relative scarcity of ships capable of install and repair, as well as the complex and lengthy licensing and permitting processes at various levels of government, for all countries with cable landing points.

Main trends in connectivity policy and regulation

Digital transformation is reshaping the connectivity ecosystem, including the prevalence of over-the-top communication services, the growing role of technology companies in networks, developments in satellite markets and emerging players in the connectivity ecosystem. In response, some countries are enacting structural changes in overarching communication legislation, as well as in the core mandate of the communication regulator. Around two-thirds of OECD Member countries and accession candidate countries reported changes in the responsibilities of the communication regulator. Several countries are overhauling legislation governing the communication sector. For example, the European Union is discussing broad shifts in legislation under the proposed Digital Networks Act (January 2026). This will affect the 22 OECD Member countries that are also part of the European Union and three accession candidate countries.
Apart from their traditional mandate, communication regulators increasingly cover a broad range of digital topics, with new ones emerging. For example, around half of regulators have full or partial responsibility for online safety. Some are also responsible for artificial intelligence governance (e.g. Ireland, Lithuania and Portugal).
Future connectivity policy priorities for OECD Member countries include expanding broadband connectivity to close spatial gaps; adapting regulation to changing market circumstances; promoting secure, resilient and future-proof networks; and supporting and protecting users in a digital environment.

Introduction

Copy link to Introduction

Digital connectivity is increasingly a necessity for daily life, requiring high-quality and affordable communication services everywhere. Connectivity services and infrastructures, also referred to as “digital infrastructure”, span from broadband access networks and submarine cables to data centres and semiconductors. Together, they power today’s transformative digital technologies, like artificial intelligence (AI). Expanding high-quality connectivity at affordable prices is key to a digital future in which all can take part and leverage these technologies. While broadband performance has greatly improved, spatial connectivity divides remain. Digital infrastructure now underpins economic growth and security. Therefore, continued efforts are needed to achieve a digital future with ubiquitous, high-quality and reliable connectivity.

This chapter comprises three sections. First, it provides an overview of developments in broadband availability, performance, coverage and the evolution of prices over the last decade. The chapter then considers key challenges related to deployment, operation and maintenance of submarine cables, and highlights recent policy discourse and action around the OECD. Finally, the chapter discusses how communication regulators and policymakers around the OECD are adapting to meet the challenges of a changing connectivity ecosystem.

Developments in connectivity: Where do we stand?

Copy link to Developments in connectivity: Where do we stand?

Connectivity has become ingrained in daily life, with disruptions to communication networks provoking shockwaves throughout the economy and society. The past five years have demonstrated the economic and societal reliance on connectivity. The COVID-19 pandemic marked an inflection point, where digital tools provided a lifeline for educational, social and professional activities to continue amid lockdown restrictions in 2020.

This trend towards digital shows no sign of slowing down. AI – especially generative AI tools, the Internet of Things (IoT) and immersive technologies – are increasing demand for networks. This requires more bandwidth, lower latencies, wider coverage and greater network resilience. Since 2020, users across the OECD have increasingly upgraded their fixed broadband subscriptions to higher speeds. In the past five years, Gigabit subscriptions showed the largest growth, growing six-fold over 2020-2025 (Figure 2.1).1

The increase in demand for bandwidth can also be seen in mobile data usage trends. Monthly data volume per subscription has more than doubled across the OECD, on average, over the last five years, rising from 7 GB in December 2020 to 17 GB in December 2025. In some OECD Member countries, monthly data usage exceeded 35 GB per month (i.e. Austria, Estonia, Finland, Latvia and Lithuania) (OECD, 2026_[1]). Commercial offers are shifting to meet users’ growing demands for data: 25 of 38 OECD Member countries2 have mobile plans featuring unlimited data usage (OECD, 2025_[2]).

Figure 2.1. Gigabit subscriptions are on the rise across the OECD
Copy link to Figure 2.1. Gigabit subscriptions are on the rise across the OECD

*Fixed broadband subscriptions, by speed tier (theoretical maximum download speed advertised by providers) in OECD Member countries*

Coupled with this move towards higher speed fixed broadband subscriptions, fibre has been the most dominant access technology in the OECD since 2021. As of December 2025, fibre accounted for 50.7% of all fixed broadband subscriptions across the OECD (OECD, 2026_[1]). This made fibre the most common access technology across the OECD, followed by cable and DSL. Despite developments in non-terrestrial networks (NTNs), satellite represented a little more than 1% of total fixed broadband subscriptions in the OECD in Q4 2025 (Figure 2.2, panel A).

While fixed wireless access (FWA) accounted for 5.8% of total fixed broadband subscriptions in Q4 2025, subscriptions increased 5-fold over the last decade (Q4 2015-Q4 2025) (Figure 2.2, panel A). The United States, Japan, Italy and Czechia reported the highest number of FWA subscriptions in Q4 2025 (OECD, 2026_[1]). However, FWA represents over a third of total fixed broadband subscriptions in Czechia (37.7%) and an important percentage in the Slovak Republic (21.6%), New Zealand (19.6%) and Estonia (18.7%) (Figure 2.2, panel B). Geography likely plays a role in the importance of FWA, as well as the level of mobile versus fixed coverage in the country (OECD, 2025_[4]).

Figure 2.2. Fibre and FWA show growth in fixed broadband subscriptions
Copy link to Figure 2.2. Fibre and FWA show growth in fixed broadband subscriptions

To meet the demands for high-quality and resilient connectivity, 5G deployments are on the rise across the OECD. All OECD Member countries have deployed 5G, with full coverage across the OECD expected in the coming years. However, most current 5G deployments are non-standalone (NSA) networks, which still rely on 4G core network infrastructure. Total 5G connections across the OECD have grown 26% in just one year (Q4 2024-Q4 2025), with 5G connections in the OECD accounting for 47% of total connections in Q4 2025 (GSMA Intelligence, 2026_[5]). Australia, Denmark, the Netherlands, Korea, Switzerland and the United States reported the highest proportions of 5G connections across the OECD, with over half of total connections in Q4 2025 (Figure 2.3).

Figure 2.3. 5G coverage reaches 90% of population on average across the OECD
Copy link to Figure 2.3. 5G coverage reaches 90% of population on average across the OECD

*5G network coverage as a percentage total population and 5G connections as a percentage of all connections, Q4 2025*

5G network population coverage reached an average of 90% in Q4 2025 across the OECD, compared to 36% at the end of 2020. However, this is only representative of countries where 5G had been deployed3 (GSMA Intelligence, 2026_[5]). In approximately half of OECD Member countries, 5G population coverage is at least 98% as of Q4 2025 (GSMA Intelligence, 2026_[5]). Meanwhile, three of eight accession candidate countries report 5G coverage of the population at or above the OECD average (Bulgaria, Croatia and Thailand) (Figure 2.3).

To date, most 5G networks rely on 4G core network infrastructure and use NSA-5G standards in the radio interface (OECD, 2024_[7]). As NSA-5G networks are built on top of existing 4G core networks, comparatively, SA-5G networks require more investment to deploy 5G infrastructure end-to-end. SA-5G networks promise several performance enhancements, such as increased speed and reduced latency. The deployment of SA-5G networks has continued at pace. As of April 2025, 73 operators4 across 39 countries have launched SA-5G networks commercially, compared to 49 operators in 29 countries as of April 2024 (GSA, 2024_[8]; 2025_[9]).

SA-5G networks serve as a critical stepping stone for 5G-Advanced and later, 6G. Among other goals, 5G-Advanced aims to integrate AI and machine learning into the network and improve energy efficiency (OECD, 2024_[10]; GSA, 2025_[11]).5 As of May 2025, 26 operators in 15 countries worldwide are investing in 5G-Advanced, mostly through trials and testing, and 6 have launched 5G-Advanced networks, including Telstra in Australia (GSA, 2025_[11]). In parallel with the evolution of 5G-Advanced, the technical standards to support NTNs are enabling integration into the terrestrial network architecture.6 While NTNs were initially an add-on to 5G, they are expected to be a native feature of 6G, enabling seamless connectivity across land, sea and air, in alignment with IMT-2030 design (OECD, forthcoming_[12]).

To meet the demands of digital transformation, OECD Member countries continue to invest in and deploy high-quality broadband networks

Networks are working to keep pace as customers demand higher quality broadband. Investment to expand and upgrade network infrastructure is critical to ensure networks are ready to meet current and future demands of customers. Total investment in communication networks (fixed and mobile) across the OECD grew 4.4% over the past five years – from 239 billion USD PPP in Q4 2020 to 250 billion USD PPP in Q4 2025. This represents a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 1% (OECD, 2026_[1]). On the fixed broadband side, operators focussed on upgrading their networks to fibre to meet increasing demands to support teleworking, and other online applications during the pandemic. On the mobile side, operators began to deploy 5G networks to support demands for higher speeds and more capacity.

Meanwhile, revenues over 2020-2025 rose 9%, from 1.4 trillion USD PPP in 2020 to 1.6 trillion USD PPP in 2025, representing a CAGR of 2% (OECD, 2026_[1]).

In several OECD Member countries, communication network operators have invested a substantial proportion of revenues over the past five years, considering the average over 2020-2025. Leaders such as France, Norway, Belgium, Iceland, the Netherlands and Germany report investment to revenue ratios of over 30% (40.2%, 38.8%, 32.5%, 31.1%, 30.4% and 30.1% respectively) (Figure 2.4). As a measure of the size of the respective economy, investment in the communication sector in all OECD Member countries averaged 0.3% of total gross domestic product. This was an average over 2020-2025, accounting for the cyclical nature of investments in communication networks (Figure 2.4).

Figure 2.4. Operators are investing a substantial proportion of revenues to expand and upgrade networks in some OECD Member countries and partner economies
Copy link to Figure 2.4. Operators are investing a substantial proportion of revenues to expand and upgrade networks in some OECD Member countries and partner economies

*Total investments as a percentage of revenues in the telecom sector and as a percentage of GDP (right axis), USD PPP, 2020-2025 average*

While revenues in the sector have grown moderately over the past five years, profit margins for the overall sector – or operational performance measured by the share of earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) over revenues – have been relatively stable. For example, during the 2008-2022 period, the sector EBITDA margin across the OECD exceeded 30% and the earnings before interest and taxes margin exceeded 14% (OECD, 2024_[14]). This trend likely shifted after 2022 with higher interest rates rendering “low-cost” capital rare.

Additionally, EBITDA margin trends for mobile operators across the OECD provide insight into the operating conditions underpinning investment (OECD, 2026_[15]).7 Between 2015 and 2025, margins increased in most “OECD regions”, albeit from different starting points and at uneven rates, reflecting structural differences in market dynamics (Figure 2.5). “OECD-North America”, including the United States and Canada, maintained the highest margins, rising from 35% in 2015 to nearly 41% by 2025. OECD Member countries in Europe (22 countries) recorded steady improvements, from just above 27% to over 33% in 2025. In contrast, OECD Member countries in the Asia-Pacific region had more volatile EBITDA margins, fluctuating between 27% and 32%, consistent with heterogeneous market conditions and staggered investment cycles. OECD Member countries in Latin America followed a distinct trajectory, with margins declining mid-decade before rebounding strongly after 2018 – from around 23% in 2016 to nearly 38% by 2025. Overall, while operating profitability has been relatively stable and improved in some cases, the capacity to generate internal cash flows, and thereby support sustained investment, continues to vary significantly across regions (OECD, 2024_[14]).

Figure 2.5. EBITDA margins in OECD Member countries
Copy link to Figure 2.5. EBITDA margins in OECD Member countries

*Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) margins for mobile communication operators in OECD Member countries, by region, 2015-2025*

The reliability and performance of broadband networks continue to improve

As operators have invested in and deployed networks, users’ quality of experience over both mobile and fixed broadband networks has increased in step. From Q2 2020 to Q2 2026, median fixed download speeds experienced across the OECD rose fourfold (281% growth rate), from 54.4 Mbps in Q2 2020 to 207.5 Mbps in Q2 2026, according to Ookla data.8 Median fixed upload speeds exhibited a five-fold increase (397%) over the same period, albeit beginning at a lower level – from 16.1 Mbps in Q2 2020 to 79.8 Mbps in Q2 2026. Latency, measuring a network’s response time (i.e. “ping” or delay rate), greatly determines a user’s quality of experience. From Q2 2020 to Q2 2026, median latency over fixed broadband markets improved by 37%, decreasing from 16.4 milliseconds (ms) to 10.3 ms, according to the same source (Figure 2.6).

Figure 2.6. Fixed broadband performance has steadily improved across speed and latency
Copy link to Figure 2.6. Fixed broadband performance has steadily improved across speed and latency

*Evolution of fixed broadband median speeds and latency experienced (right axis) in OECD Member countries*

In mobile networks, speeds have also steadily risen on average across the OECD. From Q1 2023 to Q2 2025, average mobile download speeds as experienced by users grew 46% – from 46 Mbps to 67.3 Mbps according to Opensignal data.9

Much of these improvements are likely driven by investments in next-generation technology, such as 5G. Across the OECD, 5G mobile download speeds were 3.7 times as high (266%) as 4G speeds in Q2 2025, according to Opensignal data. This shows 5G’s true progress to improve performance. Korea leads in terms of experienced 5G speeds with 459.5 Mbps followed by Brazil, Argentina, Iceland and New Zealand (Figure 2.7).

Figure 2.7. 5G download speeds are almost four times higher than 4G speeds, on average, across the OECD
Copy link to Figure 2.7. 5G download speeds are almost four times higher than 4G speeds, on average, across the OECD

*5G and 4G mobile download speeds, Q2 2025*

Status of geographic connectivity divides

Despite expanded and upgraded connectivity, disparities between rural and urban areas across the OECD persist with respect to availability and performance of mobile and fixed broadband networks (OECD, 2025_[17]). In terms of availability, for the 28 OECD Member countries for which data exist, 85.9% of total households on average reported having access to fixed broadband networks that can deliver 100 Mbps download speeds, compared to 65.8% of rural households in 2025 (Figure 2.8).10 This equates to a spatial gap of 20 percentage points. In leading countries such as Romania, Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain, France, the United States, Switzerland, Belgium and Luxembourg, rural households have a higher percentage than the OECD average for total households (i.e. above 85.9%) (Figure 2.8).

Figure 2.8. Gaps remain in access to high-quality fixed networks (capable of speeds >100 Mbps)
Copy link to Figure 2.8. Gaps remain in access to high-quality fixed networks (capable of speeds >100 Mbps)

*Percentage of total and rural households where fixed broadband capable of delivering speeds of 100 Mbps or more is available, 2025*

Since 2019, median fixed broadband download speeds across the OECD have increased across all regions, a testament to the substantial efforts made to expand and improve networks (OECD, 2025_[17]). However, the gaps in speeds (in absolute terms) for users in rural areas versus their urban counterparts also increased (OECD, 2025_[17]). In Q2 2026, users in metropolitan areas experienced median fixed broadband download speeds that were, on average, 42.0% higher than in areas far from metropolitan areas, according to Ookla data (Figure 2.9).11

The urban-rural gap in terms of median fixed broadband download speeds varies significantly between OECD Member countries. In Chile, Finland and Norway, regions far from a metropolitan area show higher speeds than metropolitan regions12. Besides, these countries, along with Estonia and Czechia also have the narrowest absolute gap in median fixed download speeds between metropolitan regions and regions far from a metropolitan area. Colombia and Canada reported the highest differences between the two regions in Q2 2026 (Figure 2.9).

Figure 2.9. Urban users experience 42% higher fixed speeds than people living in regions far from metropolitan areas
Copy link to Figure 2.9. Urban users experience 42% higher fixed speeds than people living in regions far from metropolitan areas

*Median fixed download speeds, small regions (TL3) classification, Q2 2026*

Nevertheless, the gap should not be the only factor considered, as some countries with smaller gaps may also have much lower speeds across all regions. Indeed, gaps in absolute terms tend to be greater as absolute speeds increase (OECD, 2025_[17]). Likewise, some countries have made great strides to improve and upgrade their networks, as evidenced by their high speeds (e.g. Chile, France, the United States, Switzerland, Denmark). These investments, which likely first took place in urban areas to enable the quickest recoup of costs, are a welcome development. The role of policy, therefore, is to provide incentives and support to decrease barriers to deployment, ensuring such expansion and upgrades continue beyond urban areas (OECD, 2025_[17]).

Mobile networks similarly show a spatial connectivity gap between regions, with urban users experiencing mobile download speeds 40.7% higher than rural users in Q2 2025, according to Opensignal. Korea, Denmark and Norway reported the highest mobile download speeds in Q2 2025 across all regions (Opensignal, 2026_[16]). Among accession candidate countries, Bulgaria and Croatia reported speeds higher than OECD averages across all regions (Figure 2.10).13

Figure 2.10. Users in cities across the OECD experience mobile download speeds 41% higher than those in rural areas
Copy link to Figure 2.10. Users in cities across the OECD experience mobile download speeds 41% higher than those in rural areas

*Overall mobile download speeds experienced in cities and rural areas, degree of urbanisation classification, Q2 2025*

Affordability of communication services

High costs of communication services, and relatedly communication devices, can be an important barrier to their uptake and adoption. Demand-side hurdles can pose particularly difficult challenges to truly closing connectivity divides. Several factors influence the price of communication services, including competition levels in communication markets. The OECD’s communication baskets provide detailed information on price trends for fixed, mobile and bundled communication services (OECD, 2017_[21]; OECD, 2020_[22]). Prices for fixed and mobile communication services are based on the cheapest offers in a given OECD market that meet criteria for a given user profile (e.g. low, medium and high usage). Assumptions are made regarding monthly data usage, advertised speed tiers and other plan characteristics based on the OECD “standalone” methodology (OECD, 2017_[21]). Similarly, prices for bundled communication services (e.g. dual-play, triple-play and quadruple-play bundles) show the cheapest offers available on the market that meet all criteria for low-, medium- or high-usage profiles, based on the OECD “bundle” methodology (OECD, 2020_[22]).

Over the past decade, the price of mobile voice and data plans has shown an impressive decrease across the OECD. On average, the OECD average price of low-usage basket (i.e. plans with 100 calls and 500 Megabytes [MB] of data allowance) decreased by 51% from Q2 2016 to Q2 2025, while medium-usage baskets for mobile voice and data (300 calls and 1 Gigabyte [GB]) fell by 63.1% from Q2 2015 to Q2 2025. The high-usage basket (900 calls and 2 GB) showed a similar drop of 61.2% over the same period. The average price of the highest-usage basket (900 calls and 10 GB), for which the time series is shorter, similarly decreased by over half (56.9%) from Q2 2018 to Q2 2025 (Figure 2.11, panel A).14

For fixed broadband baskets in the OECD, medium-usage profiles (i.e. 120 GB of data allowance and speeds of more than 100 Mbps) showed the largest decline, with a decrease of 36.8% between Q2 2015 and Q2 2025. Fixed broadband plans showed similar price declines for the low (20 GB, >25 Mbps) and high (900 GB, >1 Gbps) usage offers. These prices decreased by 25.5% and 29.3%, respectively, over the past decade (Figure 2.11, panel B).

Figure 2.11. Mobile voice and data, and fixed broadband prices have decreased across the OECD over the past decade
Copy link to Figure 2.11. Mobile voice and data, and fixed broadband prices have decreased across the OECD over the past decade

Bundled services (i.e. different services in one offer) have become increasingly common in the OECD. Around 70% of fixed broadband services were sold as part of a bundle across the OECD in 2025.15 The most common type of bundled service around the OECD is dual play (i.e. fixed broadband, fixed voice or television), representing around 44% of subscriptions, followed by triple play (i.e. fixed broadband, fixed voice and pay television) with 35% and quadruple play (i.e. fixed broadband, fixed voice, television, and mobile voice and data) with 21%, as of 2025.16

Prices of triple-play bundles decreased over the past five years.17 The medium usage bundle saw a 36% decrease, while the low- and high-usage bundle decreased by 12% and 24%, respectively, over H2 2020-H1 2025 (OECD, 2025_[24]). For quad-play bundles, the medium-usage bundle reported the largest decrease, falling 27% over H2 2020-H1 2025 (OECD, 2025_[24]). Over the same period, quad-play bundles decreased by 16% for low usage and 9% for high-usage bundles (OECD, 2025_[24]).

In the first half of 2025, there is a wide range of prices of triple-play bundles across the OECD. The average price for a low-usage profile across the OECD was USD PPP 66.98, USD PPP 96.67 for medium-usage profile and USD PPP 149.54 for a high-usage profile in H1 2025 (Figure 2.12).18

Figure 2.12. Prices for triple-play bundles vary substantially across the OECD
Copy link to Figure 2.12. Prices for triple-play bundles vary substantially across the OECD

*Prices across OECD Member countries of triple-play bundled communication baskets (fixed broadband, fixed voice and pay television), low, medium-high and high usage profile, January 2025*

Special focus: Submarine cables to support next-generation networks

Copy link to Special focus: Submarine cables to support next-generation networks

Importance of submarine cables for international connectivity

Submarine fibre cables form the backbone of broadband connectivity, carrying the vast majority of intercontinental Internet Protocol traffic, often quoted as 99% of intercontinental data traffic (Mauldin, 2023_[25]).19 For instance, anytime that Internet users (via a fixed or mobile connection) in Asia view content from a website hosted on another continent, such as Europe or North America, the content has almost certainly been carried over a submarine cable. As a critical piece of international Internet backbone, submarine fibre cables are a key aspect to consider for resilient communication networks (OECD, 2025_[26]).

Given its indispensable role in providing international connectivity, submarine cables are a critical support for future-proof networks. As backbone infrastructure, submarine cables carry data over large distances – generally in and between countries – across oceans or large bodies of water. While some risks remain (Box 2.1), they are usually less prone to failure than terrestrial cables and have high network capacity (OECD, 2014_[27]). These cables can also play a role to carry domestic traffic as well. Examples include countries with large waterways, such as the sub-fluvial cables in the Amazon in northern Brazil, or with an island geography, such as Indonesia. Given their importance, ensuring diversity in the number of submarine cables and their routes is key to network resilience. When they occur, submarine cable faults can be disruptive (Box 2.1).

Box 2.1. Submarine cable disruptions can interrupt or degrade international traffic

Copy link to Box 2.1. Submarine cable disruptions can interrupt or degrade international traffic

Submarine cables are generally reliable. Although the total kilometres (km) of submarine cables have increased from approximately 1 million km in 2014 to around 1.7 million km in 2025, faults have remained relatively constant at around 150-200 per year (International Cable Protection Committee, 2025_[28]). Accidental human activities, such as damages from fishing and ship anchors, are the most common causes, with others including natural disasters and technical failures (International Cable Protection Committee, 2025_[28]). In many cases, such cuts do not affect user experience, thanks to operators’ efforts to increase network resilience and thereby reroute traffic from the affected cable.

However, in some cases, these failures can be impactful. For example, the submarine cable fault in the Red Sea in 2024 affected communications in various countries, such as the United Kingdom, South Africa and the People’s Republic of China (OECD, 2025_[26]). In September 2025, four cables in the Red Sea were reported to be affected, with Microsoft announcing possible increased latency for its cloud services for traffic passing through the Middle East (Madory, 2025_[29]). These cuts demonstrate the area’s proneness to failure, driven by factors such as its relatively shallow bed and the ship traffic to pass through the nearby Suez Canal, which often leaves ships waiting in the Red Sea (and thereby dropping anchors) (Madory, 2025_[29]).

Sources: International Cable Protection Committee (2025_[28]), Media enquiries & frequently asked questions, https://www.iscpc.org/news/media-enquiries; Madory (2025_[29]), Subsea cables parted in Red Sea again, https://www.kentik.com/blog/subsea-cables-parted-in-red-sea-again.

To meet bandwidth demands for next-generation networks, there has been substantial investment to deploy new submarine cables. According to TeleGeography, construction costs of submarine cables since 2016 averaged around USD 2 billion per year. Estimated costs of announced cables are predicted to double investment, reaching around USD 4 billion or above annually from 2025 to 2027 (Brodsky, 2025_[30]). Over the three years, the construction cost of all submarine cables announced to come into service between 2025 and 2027 is estimated at over USD 13 billion (Brodsky, 2025_[30]). By 2040, new cable deployments (1.6 million cable km) are predicted to drive a 48% net increase in total cable kilometres globally, including the expected retirement of legacy cables (TeleGeography and Infra-Analytics, 2025_[31]).

These substantial investments are driven by bandwidth demands, largely from a few large international tech companies (e.g. cloud and content providers). Over the past few years, the investment by such players in submarine cables, as well as in fibre backbone and access networks, has increased (OECD, 2024_[14]). Tech companies’ investments include new submarine cable systems, as well as backbone infrastructure connecting their global data centres (OECD, 2024_[14]). Content providers either solely own, or are part of a consortium that operates, over 60% of global cable kilometres that entered or are expected to enter into service from 2024 to 2027, up from 8% in 2010-2015 (TeleGeography and Infra-Analytics, 2025_[31]).

Tech companies also use the most bandwidth of international submarine cable network capacity. From 2016 to 2024, they have replaced Internet backbone providers as the largest users of bandwidth to account for almost 75% of all bandwidth demand in 2024 (Mauldin, 2025_[32]). Content providers made up more than half of all used international bandwidth along five of the nine major intercontinental routes in 2024, followed by Internet backbone providers (Mauldin, 2025_[32]). In particular, content providers dominated the bandwidth usage along the trans-Atlantic (92.6%), trans-Pacific (80.2%) and intra-Asian routes (77.9%) (Figure 2.13).

Figure 2.13. Content providers account for over half of used bandwidth in five of nine major routes
Copy link to Figure 2.13. Content providers account for over half of used bandwidth in five of nine major routes

*Bandwidth usage by category for major submarine cable routes, 2024*

Operational and regulatory challenges

Several challenges face the operation (including deployment, maintenance, repair and retirement) and regulation governing submarine cable systems. A few of these are highlighted below.20

Operationally, the installation, maintenance and repairs of submarine cables depend on a relatively small fleet of ships globally. By 2040, total cable kilometres are expected to increase by almost half net (48%), even considering replacement of retiring cables, which represents a substantial amount of investment (TeleGeography and Infra-Analytics, 2025_[31]). However, as total kilometres of submarine cable systems globally increase, repairs to maintain them in good working order are also expected to increase by 36% from 2025 to 2040 (TeleGeography and Infra-Analytics, 2025_[31]). Some operational bottlenecks include the scarcity of specialised ships that deploy and repair submarine cables in the seabed compared to global demand. While investment in submarine cable systems is expected to be strong until 2040, as noted above, investment in new cable maintenance ships has been sporadic due to various market factors such as high capital costs and market uncertainty (TeleGeography and Infra-Analytics, 2025_[31]). This scarcity may only grow more acute as maintenance and repair needs increase with the laying of new cable systems.

Additionally, while new submarine cables are being deployed, legacy cables are reaching retirement. Around 850 000 km of cable are expected to be retired by 2040 – approximately half of the new cable kilometres expected to be laid (i.e. 1.6 million km) (TeleGeography and Infra-Analytics, 2025_[31]). The underlying shifts in ownership and investment of submarine cable systems (from traditional Internet backbone providers to content providers) raises some questions. The services provided by each differs and requires different needs that submarine cables fulfil. While backbone providers have more of an interest to maintain secondary links to support the broad provision of communication services, content providers may be more focussed on their own networks (e.g. content delivery networks). This may mean that as legacy systems are retired, not all routes may be replaced, if current investment patterns hold.

From a regulatory perspective, a key challenge is complex and, at times unpredictable, licensing and permitting processes. These can involve multiple levels of government within a country (e.g. local, regional, national) and possibly various agencies (e.g. communication, defence, environment, fisheries). Necessary permits and licences are also required from the different countries where the cable plans to land, further complicating the process. This can also raise further operational uncertainties. For example, delays to receive permits may prevent projects from being able to use a cable-laying ship when it becomes available. In other challenges, designated cable landing zones often share the seabed with other users (e.g. wind farms, fishing), which can cause congestion at entry points.

Possible regulatory actions could address some of these challenges. Establishing clear voluntary licensing on mutually agreed terms and permitting processes could reduce administration burden (especially for ship mobilisation to deploy and repair cables). Fees could also be set at a reasonable level. In addition, harmonised regulations can greatly facilitate the permitting process across regions. More co-ordinated spatial planning may also help decrease seabed congestion. Overarching regulatory principles such as fostering competition can also be applied to submarine infrastructure, which could consider the principle of open access and the importance of maintaining network security and resilience.

Several countries across the OECD have recently enacted policy or launched some initiatives related to submarine cables (e.g. France, Greece, Japan, Spain, Portugal and the United States). Spain and Portugal have assessed certain competition aspects of submarine cables, and France and Spain are actively monitoring the evolution of this market (BEREC, 2025_[33]). Spain’s communication regulator, the National Commission on Markets and Competition (CNMC), reported on the state of submarine connectivity, including the competitive situation, in various Spanish isles (Box 2.2). In July 2024, following a market analysis, CNMC deregulated all submarine routes, given that alternative submarine cables were deployed or being deployed for most of them (BEREC, 2025_[33]).

The National Communications Authority (ANACOM) in Portugal, imposed ex ante obligations of access, non-discrimination, transparency, price control, accounting separation and financial reporting regarding capacity in its national submarine cable systems on Fibroglobal.21 In Greece, the Hellenic Telecommunications and Post Commission is still regulating submarine cables through market 14 of the 2003 European Recommendation on Relevant Markets (European Commission, 2003_[34]).

In 2025, the United States, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) undertook the first review of its submarine cable rules since 2001. Broadly, the review aimed to streamline the licensing process to support quicker cable deployment, while ensuring the security and resilience of the cable systems. The FCC recently adopted new rules that introduce measures that protect submarine cables against “foreign adversaries”. The FCC also sought public comment on additional security measures to protect cables against foreign adversary equipment and services, and encourage use of trusted submarine cable repair and maintenance ships and trusted technology abroad (FCC, 2025_[35]).

In Japan, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications has designated submarine cables as a priority area in its Comprehensive Strategy for Overseas Digital Deployment by 2030 (Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communication (Japan), 2025_[36]). As concrete measures, the strategy includes plans to strengthen Japanese companies’ capabilities in manufacturing, installation and maintenance through development of a fleet system that enables agile cable laying and maintenance, as well as the enhancement of production facilities (Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communication (Japan), 2025_[36]).

Box 2.2. Case study: Domestic submarine cables in Spain

Copy link to Box 2.2. Case study: Domestic submarine cables in Spain

In Spain, domestic submarine cables are essential for connecting non-peninsular territories without terrestrial links to the mainland. They support all communications services, including fixed and mobile broadband and business connectivity. This makes their reliability a key concern for public authorities seeking to ensure access to digital services comparable to the rest of the country.

In July 2025, the Spanish communication regulator, CNMC, published a report on connectivity and competition in the Balearic and Canary Islands, as well as in Ceuta and Melilla, which together account for around 7.5% of the country’s population. It analyses submarine cable network topology, stakeholders, competition among operators, network resilience and infrastructure age, alongside fibre-to-the-home availability, 5G deployment and market shares in fixed and mobile markets.

Overall, the largest islands, as well as Ceuta and Melilla, exhibit high levels of connectivity and service availability. Conversely, smaller islands show more limited coverage, broadly comparable to rural mainland areas. A previous CNMC report had identified a resilience gap in El Hierro, which relied on a single submarine cable. This gap is now being addressed through planned deployments that will provide additional redundancy (Figure 2.14).

Figure 2.14. Submarine connectivity in the Balearic and Canarian archipelagos
Copy link to Figure 2.14. Submarine connectivity in the Balearic and Canarian archipelagos

Regional and international bodies are considering operational and regulatory challenges beyond national borders. On a regional level, the European Commission issued both a recommendation and the “European Union (EU) Action Plan on Cable Security”, which aim to improve the security and resilience of submarine cable systems (European Commission, 2024_[38]; European Commission, 2025_[39]). The Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) issued reports taking stock at the European level in 2024 and 2025 (BEREC, 2024_[40]; BEREC, 2025_[33]). For its part, the Francophone Network of Telecommunications Regulators held a technical seminar with regulators from 15 jurisdictions to exchange experiences on the regulatory challenges of international connectivity, including submarine cables. The discussions highlighted the need for greater international co-ordination on governance, operational resilience and harmonised frameworks to support secure, competitive and sustainable cross-border infrastructure deployment (FRATEL, 2025_[41]).

Internationally, the International Telecommunication Union, together with the International Cable Protection Committee, established the “International advisory body for submarine cable resilience” to improve resilience and facilitate international dialogue and collaboration (ITU, 2024_[42]). On the occasion of the 79th annual United Nations General Assembly, several countries including Australia, Canada, Finland, France, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States, issued a Joint Statement on the Security and Resilience of Undersea Cables in a Globally Digitalized World. They endorsed several principles that recognise the importance of advancing co-operation to promote the reliability, integrity, security and availability of infrastructure that supports the global community (Department of State, 2024_[43]).

Main trends in connectivity policy and regulation

Copy link to Main trends in connectivity policy and regulation

The demands on networks stemming from the challenges of digital transformation underline the importance of communication policy and regulation. Communication regulators continue to report key aims such as closing connectivity divides, easing network deployment, promoting competition, protecting and empowering consumers, and enhancing the security and resilience of communication networks. These priorities also acknowledge the need for policy and regulation to respond to changes in the communication ecosystem (Figure 2.15). Some of these priorities, such as competition concerns and the need for regulation to adapt to technological advancements from terrestrial and non-terrestrial networks, will be addressed more fully in future reports (OECD, forthcoming_[12]; OECD, forthcoming_[44]).

Figure 2.15. Top challenges facing communication regulation and policy in the next three to five years
Copy link to Figure 2.15. Top challenges facing communication regulation and policy in the next three to five years

Communication policy and regulation are shifting to face a new connectivity landscape

Several elements of the connectivity landscape are changing, in terms of players, business models, services and technologies. Apart from communication operators, emerging players – such as large technology companies, financial assets managers and tower companies – are taking a prominent role. They have become important investors in communication infrastructure, along with the public sector (OECD, 2024_[14]). Shifts in user behaviour towards greater use of over-the-top (OTT) voice and messaging services have, in turn, tailored service offers and shaped how operators monetise value. Satellite technology has evolved to enable new capacities and services, such as direct-to-device communications and greater interoperability between terrestrial and non-terrestrial networks (OECD, forthcoming_[12]). Communication networks are building on technological advances in cloud, virtualisation and AI, changing how networks are managed and operated. Meanwhile, technical standards are developing towards 5G-Advanced and 6G.

Regulatory regimes are adapting to meet the demands of the evolving connectivity landscape. Some OECD Member countries are reforming regulatory frameworks and legislation governing the communication sector. Others have enacted structural changes in agencies responsible for communication topics. These changes are discussed in detail below.

Some OECD Members have enacted structural changes in communication legislation

Broad shifts in legislation governing the communication sector are under discussion in the European Union. These include the review of the EU Electronic Communications Code (EECC) and the proposed legislative initiative, the Digital Networks Act (DNA) published by the European Commission in January 2026 (European Commission, 2026_[45]). In June 2025, the European Commission launched a “Call for Evidence” to inform the design and drafting of the DNA (European Commission, 2026_[45]). The proposal outlines five core topics for the DNA: regulatory simplification, spectrum, a “level playing field”, access regulation and governance (European Commission, 2026_[45]). Under the objective of simplification, one policy option is to merge related legal instruments, such as the EECC, into the DNA (European Commission, 2026_[45]). While the DNA still needs approval by Parliament and the European Union Council, it will undoubtedly spark changes in communication legislation for the 22 OECD Member countries that are also members of the European Union. Indeed, the topics within the proposal, like regulatory simplification, competition and spectrum, resonate around the OECD as communication regulators grapple with changes in technology and the market.

Other OECD Member countries are similarly enacting changes to ensure broader communication legislation is better suited to market realities. For example, Chile is discussing modernisation of its National Telecommunication Law to provide a regulatory framework that can adapt quickly to the fast-changing communication sector. In the United States, the FCC’s “Delete, Delete, Delete” proceeding aims to reduce or repeal outdated or obsolete regulation (FCC, 2025_[46]). Indeed, the FCC has already taken swift action in this regard (FCC, 2025_[47]; FCC, 2025_[48]).

Market structure changes have motivated some countries to discuss revisions related to digital platforms and OTT regulation, in response to their prevalence in the connectivity ecosystem. The widespread adoption of OTT services places them among the most used digital services and applications by end users around the OECD. The OTT ecosystem encompasses a wide range of services: instant messaging applications, video-on-demand platforms, live and on-demand streaming services, social networks and audio, such as voice-over-Internet Protocol (VoIP) and music streaming offerings. Importantly, popular OTT services drive demand for high-quality connectivity capable of supporting them.

Approximately half of respondent countries have regulations for OTT services, with some countries focusing only on VoIP or audio-visual content/services, and others having regulations covering both. Brazil is considering revisions to both OTT services and the competition framework, which may lead to changes in network interconnection, wholesale access and OTT regulation. Türkiye has amended its Electronic Communications Law No. 5 809 to authorise “OTT-1 type providers” and is defining the criteria for which providers would fall into the category. In Italy, AGCOM recently completed a market analysis of existing ex ante regulation on mobile termination services. The authority had concluded that OTT-VoIP services have been significantly increased and exert increasing competitive pressure on traditional voice calls (without declaring full substitutability). This analysis contributed to the withdrawal of ex ante regulation on mobile voice termination services in Italy.

Some countries are changing their licensing frameworks to make them more flexible and adaptive to the market. For example, Israel is transitioning to a more flexible notification and general authorisation regime. For its part, Chile is considering a general authorisation framework for telecommunication services in its Telecommunication Law.

Other OECD Member countries have restructured how communication topics are handled within the government. In Denmark, communication policy is now hosted at the Agency for Digital Government, while Hungary has transferred these topics to the Ministry of Energy. Germany established a new Federal Ministry for Digital Transformation and Government Modernisation which, among other responsibilities, manages digital policy and digital infrastructures. The Swedish government is seeking to merge two bodies into one by the end of 2027: the Swedish Post and Telecom Authority and the Swedish Agency for Digital Government (Government of Sweden, 2024_[49]).

Perhaps the greatest change in regulatory structure among OECD Member countries since 2023 occurred in Mexico. A Constitutional amendment dissolved the independent communication regulator, the Federal Telecommunications Institute. Its functions were transferred to the Telecommunications Regulatory Commission (CRT), under the federal executive branch. The Mexican President will appoint members to the CRT, upon Senate confirmation by simple majority. This move rolls back the creation of an independent regulator in 2013 as part of reforms that implemented 28 of 31 OECD recommendations to enhance competition in Mexico’s communication market (OECD, 2012_[50]; OECD, 2017_[51]). The independence of the regulatory authority with an arm’s length from policy formulation is part of the best practices outlined in the Recommendation of the Council on Broadband Connectivity (OECD, 2021_[52]).

The mandate of communication regulators is evolving

Around two-thirds of OECD Member countries and accession countries reported changes in the responsibilities of the national communication regulatory authority since 2023. Many reported changes due to the transposition of EU regulation and directives into national legislation, which affects 22 OECD Member countries. In many cases, the communication regulator in EU countries was designated (or is expected) to enforce European legislation. These may include the Digital Services Act [Regulation (EU) 2022/2065], the Digital Markets Act [Regulation (EU) 2022/1925], the P2B Regulation [Regulation (EU) 2019/1150], the Data Governance Act [Regulation (EU) 2022/868], the Data Act [Regulation (EU) 2023/2854], the Terrorist Content Online Act [Regulation (EU) 2021/784], the AI Act [Regulation (EU) 2024/1689], the Accessibility Act [Directive (EU) 2019/882], the NIS2 Directive [Directive (EU) 2022/2555] and the Directive on the resilience of critical entities (CER Directive) [Directive (EU) 2022/2557].

Eighteen countries reported changes, or expected forthcoming changes, in the role of the communication regulator, stemming from implementation of EU regulation:

Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Romania and Sweden under the Digital Services Act;
Ireland, Lithuania, Norway, Portugal and the Slovak Republic from implementation of the AI Act;
France, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Portugal and Sweden from the Data Governance Act and/or the Data Act;
Czechia, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands and Portugal under the P2B Regulation;
Ireland and Croatia under the NIS2 Directive and/or CER Directive; and
Ireland, Hungary and Sweden for the Accessibility Act.

Overall, communication regulators around the OECD and select accession candidate countries22 often have a mandate that extends to broader digital issues. The most common mandate reported was on end-user devices (74.4%), followed closely by OTT services (69.8%), IoT and AI (67.4%) and digital security (62.8%) (Figure 2.16).23

Figure 2.16. More than half of regulators have at least a partial mandate on six of ten digital issues
Copy link to Figure 2.16. More than half of regulators have at least a partial mandate on six of ten digital issues

*Mandate of communication regulators by topic in OECD Member countries and selected partner economies, 2025*

Over half of respondents reported having at least a partial mandate on online safety. Among these, many competences were linked to new responsibilities to enforce the EU Digital Services Act (DSA) as a digital service co-ordinator (as noted above), while some noted certain responsibilities under the Terrorist Content Online Act. Several communication regulators outside of Europe are also considering online safety, including Brazil, Chile, Japan, Korea, Israel, Türkiye and the United Kingdom. This shows the growing importance of the topic for communication regulation.

Other changes since 2023 include a widening of responsibilities on digital security for Costa Rica and Croatia. However, Türkiye and the Slovak Republic reported these activities were transferred from the communication regulator’s responsibility to other bodies. In Canada and the United Kingdom, communication regulators gained new competences on online streaming services. In Italy, the communication regulator’s scope expanded to include powers to counter online piracy during live events.24 France gained certain competences related to cloud services, through a national law implementing the DSA, the Digital Markets Act and the Data Governance Act (Government of France, 2024_[53]).

Some of these new mandates have spurred organisational changes within the regulator. For example, in Germany, the European regulation (e.g. Digital Markets Act, DSA, the Data Act, the AI Act) have spurred the creation of a new department within the communication regulator, Bundesnetzagentur (BNetzA). The department has several units for technological developments such as AI, and new digital business models and services, and their supervision, as well as digitalisation from the perspective of small and medium-sized enterprises and sustainability. In Portugal, the Secretary of State for Digitalisation announced on 19 September 2025 that the country’s communication regulator, ANACOM, will supervise the European AI regulation (i.e. the “AI Act”). In Austria, the Regulatory Authority for Broadcasting and Telecommunications set up a Service Desk for AI, which serves as an information hub for the public and supports implementation of the AI Act. In Switzerland, the communications regulator, OFCOM, has created two new organisational units related to digital security. The first unit deals with the security of communication networks and services, while the second one considers the security of terminal devices.

Some OECD Member countries have rolled back wholesale access and network interconnection regulation

With the fast-paced changes in the connectivity ecosystem affecting market structures in the communication sector, regulators are facing new questions on how best to approach ex ante regulation, including the possible deregulation of certain markets. This has provoked several changes related to competition, with implications on wholesale access regulation and network interconnection. Current regulatory frameworks across the OECD aim to progressively shift from ex ante regulatory obligations to ex post competition law. This can be seen in some recent decisions from OECD Member countries and accession candidate countries that are also EU members. Of the respondent countries, 21 reported changes since 2023, or ongoing market analyses in wholesale access regulation, with 13 reporting updates related to network interconnection.

In recent years, several OECD Member countries have deregulated wholesale access in certain markets or in certain geographical areas or have adopted a lighter approach. Examples include Czechia, France, Italy, Korea, Latvia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Bulgaria and Croatia. This is primarily in wholesale access provided at a fixed location, which includes deregulation of wholesale broadband access for copper and FTTN local loops.25

Updates on network interconnection similarly reported cases of deregulation of certain markets, such as wholesale call termination on mobile networks, or at fixed locations, affecting countries such as Czechia, Germany, Italy, Spain and Croatia. More broadly, through a 2023 revision of Korea’s Telecommunications Business Act, the regulation on wholesale access fees has shifted from an ex ante to an ex post regulatory regime, intervening only in cases where wholesale agreements are deemed unfair or unreasonable.

As competition progresses – a main objective for communication regulators – ex ante asymmetric regulation applied to players with significant market power (SMP) tends to relax, shifting to ex post supervision and enforcement. Improved competitive dynamics in the communication sector in some countries leads to deregulation. Decades ago in the European Union, for example, 18 communication markets were regulated ex ante under the SMP regime. Today, only two wholesale markets remain: i) wholesale local access provided at a fixed location (e.g. copper, cable or fibre loops in the last mile) and ii) wholesale dedicated capacity (e.g. leased lines, dark fibre, etc.) (European Commission, 2020_[54]).

The European Commission, alongside development of the DNA, launched a consultation in June 2025 to review the Recommendation on relevant markets [Recommendation (EU) 2020/2245] in the electronic communications sector (European Commission, 2025_[55]).26 BEREC has also provided input in September 2025 to inform the European Commission’s review (BEREC, 2025_[56]). As ex ante asymmetric regulation applied to SMP players tends to relax in certain cases as detailed above, the DNA proposal preserves the ability of national regulators to impose wholesale access obligations, which is key in some countries (European Commission, 2026_[57]).

However, OECD communication markets are at different stages of development with varying levels of competitions. As such, other OECD Member countries have maintained or applied wholesale access regulation. For example, Portugal imposed several wholesale access obligations on the companies of Altice Portugal to promote competition, specifically to its fibre network (ANACOM, 2024_[58]). In Canada, the largest telephone companies must provide competitors with workable wholesale access to their fibre networks. Israel applied wholesale obligations over very high-speed networks. Even in mature markets with high deployment rates of future-proof networks (e.g. France and Spain), while the ex ante asymmetric regulation applied to incumbent operators is shifting, wholesale access regulation applied in a symmetric way (e.g. access to passive infrastructure, in-building wiring regulation) may continue to be necessary to ensure effective competition (Arcep, 2025_[59]; Plum Consulting, 2025_[60]).

Communication regulators are supporting users in the digital age

As users spend more time online, a continuing priority for communication regulators is consumer protection. Indeed, several countries indicated protecting consumers as a key challenge in the coming three to five years. For example, preventing digital fraud is highlighted as a key tenet of Denmark’s June 2025 political agreement on communication topics (DIGST, 2025_[61]). Strengthening consumer protection is also highlighted under one of the key pillars of Colombia’s Regulatory Agenda for 2025-26 (CRC, 2024_[62]). To this end, many OECD Member countries have taken action against fraudulent calls and text messages, identity theft, and other scams, spoofing and telemarketing calls (Austria, Italy, Japan, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States).

Some countries are seeking to empower users when contracting broadband services through more transparent information, such as in Canada, Luxembourg, the Slovak Republic, Türkiye and the United Kingdom. Further, Türkiye and the United Kingdom established measures to protect consumers during periods of high or uncertain inflation. BTK, Türkiye’s communication regulator, investigated contracts with defined commitment periods and found some to be unfair with respect to the terms for inflation-linked price increases. Further, BTK required any future price increases to be explicitly stated in the contract. Similarly, Ofcom in the United Kingdom established rules requiring communication service providers to clearly state when any increase in price will occur, and the exact amount, at the point of sale (Ofcom, 2025_[63]). Portugal put in place measures to avoid automatic activation of additional communication services without prior consent of the end user (ANACOM, 2024_[64]).

Other countries are aiming to improve accessibility. Hungary, Ireland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic and Sweden have put in place or have planned measures to ensure the accessibility of digital services. Colombia issued regulation modifying provisions for hearing-impaired individuals to content transmitted through public television service (e.g. closed captioning, Colombian Sign Language interpretation and subtitling) (Comisión de Regulación de Comunicaciones (CRC), 2023_[65]). For OECD Member countries also part of the European Union, some of these examples relate to national transposition of requirements laid out in the EU Accessibility Directive (EU) 2019/882 (European Union, 2019_[66]). Broadly, protecting users may fall under online safety mandates; Poland enacted the Act on Combatting Abuse in Electronic Communications, which obliges electronic communication companies to protect end users against abuse (Government of Poland, 2023_[67]).

Some countries have also pointed to emerging issues related to the evolution of mobile networks, notably the introduction of 5G network slicing. To date, slicing has generally been considered a form of specialised service and therefore compatible with existing net-neutrality frameworks. However, concerns may arise if such slices, particularly those serving industrial applications, come to account for a significant share of overall traffic (OECD, 2019_[68]). In this context, countries such as Italy have highlighted the need to monitor potential implications for competition and net neutrality. For its part, BEREC recently launched a consultation on the issue to provide further guidance to European communication regulators (BEREC, 2026_[69]).

Policies to bridge connectivity divides and transition to future-proof networks

For policy action to bridge connectivity divides, a sound institutional and regulatory framework that promotes competition and investment is a critical foundation (OECD, 2025_[17]). Other important overarching policies include reducing entry barriers, facilitating infrastructure deployment and managing spectrum efficiently (OECD, 2025_[17]). Public-private partnerships, community-led approaches and direct public funding programmes can also help bridge connectivity divides (OECD, 2025_[17]). For example, public funding, or “state aid” granted to support fixed broadband deployment in rural and remote areas where it is commercially challenging to expand infrastructure, has gained prominence across OECD Member countries, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic.27

Ensuring that all in society are connected “well” remains a central goal for communication regulators around the OECD, as well as for accession candidate countries, that are included in the questionnaire. Of these, 90% of respondent OECD Member countries and partner economies have national goals to improve the quality and coverage of fixed and mobile broadband.

Common mobile broadband targets include 100% 5G network coverage of the population. Brazil has further specified a target to increase population coverage of SA-5G networks to 57.67% by 2027 (Anatel, 2022_[70]). On the fixed side, targets are more likely to include speed (e.g. full household coverage with 1 Gbps download speeds by 2030 or interim goals of 100 Mbps by 2027).

Several plans include fibre-specific goals. Japan has a goal of 99.9% households having access to fibre by 2027, while countries like Iceland are focusing on fibre deployment to underserved areas. Other plans align with the high-level targets of the EU Digital Decade to cover all populated areas with 5G and ensure full household coverage of a Gigabit network by 2030 (European Commission, 2024_[71]). The EU Gigabit Infrastructure Act seeks to support these goals by addressing hurdles for network deployment for quicker rollout of Gigabit networks, at a lower cost (European Union, 2024_[72]).

The United States is considering changes to its broadband goals. The FCC launched its annual Notice of Inquiry that seeks public comment on the state of broadband deployment and availability in the country. The Notice of Inquiry also sought comment on whether the FCC should continue using 100/20 Mbps as its benchmark in defining advanced telecommunications capability for fixed broadband and “abolish the long-term goal of 1 000/500 Mbps” with the aim of promoting technological neutrality (FCC, 2025_[73]).

Universal service to promote network coverage and deployment

To support overarching broadband goals, roughly 80% of OECD Member countries and accession candidate countries have policies to promote high-capacity broadband deployment or programmes to reduce spatial connectivity divides, or usage or skills gaps. Around half consider Internet as a basic right, with most (35 of 41) including broadband as part of the universal service framework. Of those 35, 29 respondent countries have set a minimum speed for “basic” broadband services. However, these basic services vary widely – from under 5 Mbps to 50 Mbps download speeds as the speed set in Canada for a basic service objective.

Within the context of the universal service framework, 15 respondent countries reported having a Universal Service Fund (USF) to help extend communication services throughout the country. Over two-thirds of USFs are funded through an industry levy. Some USFs, such as in Canada, New Zealand and Spain, set a revenue threshold over which operators must contribute to the fund. Other funds are financed through a combination of industry levies and government funds (e.g. Australia and Colombia).

Some countries have considered changes to their universal service frameworks to ensure they are fit for purpose. Chile recently passed a law classifying Internet services as a “public telecommunication service”, thereby increasing coverage and quality-of-service obligations of ISPs (Government of Chile, 2024_[74]). It also amends the Telecommunication Development Fund to allow provision of both demand-side and supply-side subsidies (Government of Chile, 2024_[74]). For its part, Japan, is considering amendments to the Telecommunications Business Act. These include possible revisions to oblige operators to co-operate to ensure telephone and broadband services are available throughout the country and to introduce certain privileges to telecommunication infrastructure-sharing companies.

Given changes in industry structure, customer demand and technology, some OECD Member countries are debating the modernisation of their universal service frameworks. Australia’s Ministry of Communications has consulted on options for delivery and funding of the USF and will consider possible regulatory and policy changes in the next few years (Australian Government, 2024_[75]). Members of the United States’ Congress recently reinstated a working group, originally formed in 2023, to evaluate possible reforms to the USF (Fischer, 2025_[76]). This coincided with recent Supreme Court rulings that preserved the universal service contribution programme (Supreme Court of the United States, 2025_[77]). This upheld the FCC’s authority to set the fees that fund USF and delegate authority to the Universal Service Administrative Company to administer the USF. Canada is reviewing its Broadband Fund in three phases with the first phase focussed on streamlining the process to fund capital projects. Future phases will consider projects that improve network resiliency and evaluate funding gaps, including for operational costs (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), 2024_[78]).

Transitioning from legacy communication networks

Retiring legacy networks such as 2G and 3G (mobile) and copper-based (fixed) infrastructures can help the transition to high-capacity technologies like fibre and 5G. This transition can benefit users by improving the quality and experience of services. It can also benefit operators by improving profitability and reducing operational costs. While the operators undertake the main initiatives themselves, regulators play a critical role in ensuring this transition is widespread, competitive and user friendly (OECD, 2024_[7]).

Most respondent countries (37 of 41) reported plans to close legacy networks, with some noting milestones for 2025 or 2030 and others mentioning completed shutdowns. In 30 of 37 countries with reported plans, the plans concerned the closing down of mobile networks (e.g. 2G or 3G networks). In 19 countries, the plans related to the transition from copper fixed networks to future-proof technologies, such as fibre, or the switch-off of public switched telephone networks. In many countries, operators lead and determine the timeline based on business and technical considerations, with no specific regulatory timeline mandated to switch off legacy networks.

Approaches vary across countries, but the objectives can be categorised into safeguarding service continuation, keeping users well informed and maintaining competition during the transition. Some countries require operators to notify customers of plans to shut down legacy networks (e.g. Costa Rica, France, Japan and Spain). Others only allow migration in areas where alternative technologies exist (e.g. New Zealand and Slovenia). Still others put in place certain migration timelines to ensure a smooth transition (e.g. Czechia, Finland, France and Norway).

With respect to the shutdown of legacy mobile networks, many respondent countries noted the full or partial shutdown of 3G networks, which often occurs before 2G. In many countries, 2G serves as a fall-back network for voice if 4G/5G is unavailable and provides connectivity for some IoT devices. However, some countries noted plans to close 2G networks in the coming years, with a few noting completed switch-offs (Belgium, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Korea, Norway, the Slovak Republic, Sweden and Switzerland). Given 2G networks’ importance for service continuity, Czechia, Finland and Norway put in place timelines for the transition. For its part, Italy requires 2G phase-out plans to be authorised to comply with consumer protection regulation. To encourage the move towards 4G and 5G, Brazil requires that only devices supporting 4G or higher standards can be certified for use in mobile networks.

Around half of respondent countries noted plans to close legacy fixed networks, including fixed copper networks and public switched telephone networks. For example, Spain’s copper network was completely phased out in May 2025. As legacy networks have been fundamental in providing communication services, some OECD Member countries and partner economies have put in place regulatory measures to plan the transition. For instance, New Zealand’s Copper Withdrawal Code and Slovenia’s framework require that copper only be withdrawn where fibre is already available. France imposed measures on the incumbent to uphold competition, including transparency measures regarding its copper network shutoff plans. Ireland requires that the incumbent network’s switch-off plan receive regulatory approval, whereas Luxembourg oversees the phase-out process and works with operators on their plans to close fixed copper networks.

Spectrum management

Spectrum is a scarce resource that expands overall economic and social welfare. Its efficient use is therefore essential, and its management is crucial to balance the demands of a wide variety of actors to support various wireless use cases. Spectrum management is a key policy tool for promoting investment and fair market competition, and bridging connectivity gaps (OECD, 2022_[79]).

Since 2023, 31 spectrum assignments were concluded for mobile services across multiple bands, of which over 77% were conducted via auctions in 18 OECD Member countries and accession candidate countries. Mid-band spectrum (i.e. above 1 GHz and below the 6 GHz band) was the most commonly assigned frequency range, representing 60.5% of assignments. Eight countries assigned spectrum in low bands (below 1 GHz), mostly by auction. Another three countries assigned high-band spectrum (i.e. millimetre wave spectrum), two out of the three by auction (Figure 2.17).

Figure 2.17. Mid-band spectrum has been the most commonly assigned spectrum since 2023
Copy link to Figure 2.17. Mid-band spectrum has been the most commonly assigned spectrum since 2023

*Spectrum assignments for mobile services assigned since 2023 in OECD Member countries and partner economies*

To foster competition and address connectivity gaps, some regulatory authorities design auctions to reserve spectrum for new entrants, apply spectrum caps or impose coverage obligations on winning bidders (OECD, 2022_[79]). Of the 24 assignments auctioned since 2023, none had blocks reserved for entrants, and both spectrum caps and coverage obligations were commonly used in 87.5% of auctions. Coverage obligations were included in all auctions of low-band spectrum. These obligations may focus on rural areas, schools or main transport ways, such as in Colombia (Ministry of Information Technologies and Communications (Colombia), 2023_[80]). Conversely, they may establish broad coverage targets of the territory, along with targeted requirements for transport links, such as in Poland (Office of Electronic Communications, 2023_[81]).

Such obligations can greatly stimulate deployment. Brazil’s 5G auction, held in 2021, included several coverage obligations, which have contributed to increase 5G deployment and coverage (Anatel, 2021_[82]). Since the auction, Brazil has reported impressive 5G mobile speeds. In Q2 2025, Brazil’s 5G download speeds were second only to Korea at 345.0 Mbps, according to Opensignal data (see Figure 2.7). And at the end of 2025, its 5G coverage of the population was 77.9% (below the OECD average of 89.8%) according to GSMA Intelligence data (see Figure 2.3).

Some countries have amended their licensing regimes to make spectrum management frameworks more flexible and promote more efficient use of spectrum. For example, Spain’s General Telecommunications Act, approved in 2022, allows for the extension of spectrum licences granted by up to 10 years, if the total licence duration does not exceed 40 years. To promote spectrum trading, Chile is drafting a bill to establish a regulated secondary spectrum market under planned revisions to the National Telecommunication Law.

Looking forward, roughly two-thirds of respondent countries reported plans to assign spectrum in the next few years, often in a multi-band process, with mid-band spectrum being the most common spectrum range. In October 2025, Türkiye completed the auction for 400 MHz in the 700 MHz and 3.5 GHz bands (Government of Türkiye, 2025_[83]; Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure (Türkiye), 2025_[84]). The auction in Türkiye marks an important milestone for the country to support 5G deployment, with expected commercial launch in Q2 2026. Nine countries reported possible mmWave band assignments, including Japan, which is considering an auction of mmWave spectrum for high-density areas in 2026, marking a shift from its historical practice assigning spectrum through administrative selection procedures (i.e. “beauty contests”). Some planned assignments for mid- and high-band spectrum are intended to support local and regional licences (Australia, Canada, Slovenia and the United Kingdom).

Other countries are adapting spectrum management frameworks to meet the changing circumstances of the market, especially spectrum for satellite services. More details on spectrum management for satellite services can be found in OECD (forthcoming_[12]). Canada published a framework for supplemental mobile coverage by satellite providers in February 2025, which considered direct-to-device supplemental coverage to terrestrial networks (Government of Canada, 2025_[85]). Australia launched a consultation in July 2025 to replan the 2 GHz band for mobile satellite service (MSS). This aimed to support supplemental mobile satellite coverage and narrowband MSS, such as to support messaging and low-data services (e.g. satellite IoT) (ACMA, 2025_[86]).

References

[92] 3GPP (2025), “Release 18”, https://www.3gpp.org/specifications-technologies/releases/release-18 (accessed on 16 September 2025).

[93] 3GPP (2025), “Release 19”, https://www.3gpp.org/specifications-technologies/releases/release-19 (accessed on 16 September 2025).

[94] 3GPP (2025), “Release 20”, https://www.3gpp.org/specifications-technologies/releases/release-20 (accessed on 16 September 2025).

[91] 3GPP (2024), “Non-terrestrial networks (NTN)”, https://www.3gpp.org/technologies/ntn-overview (accessed on 16 September 2025).

[86] ACMA (2025), “Allocation design and technical matters for the 2 GHz MSS band”, https://www.acma.gov.au/consultations/2025-07/allocation-design-and-technical-matters-2-ghz-mss-band (accessed on September 22 2025).

[89] AGCOM (2025), “AgCom Resolution no. 207/25/CONS”, https://www.agcom.it/provvedimenti/delibera-207-25-cons (accessed on 9 January 2026).

[64] ANACOM (2024), “Approval of the determination to cease or adapt the practice of automatically activating additional communications allowances without the prior request or consent of the end-user”, https://www.anacom.pt/render.jsp?contentId=1792871 (accessed on 20 August 2025).

[58] ANACOM (2024), “European Commission validates ANACOM’s decision to impose access to MEO’s fibre network and to the operator’s ducts and posts”, https://www.anacom.pt/render.jsp?contentId=1771490 (accessed on 19 August 2025).

[70] Anatel (2022), Plano estrategico 2023-27 [Strategic Plan 2023-27], National Telecommunications Agency, Brasilia, https://sistemas.anatel.gov.br/anexar-api/publico/anexos/download/e3241ae37bc6426b6042e1baef5b6259.

[82] Anatel (2021), “5G data dashboards track and control”, National Telecommunications Agency, Brasilia, https://informacoes.anatel.gov.br/paineis/acompanhamento-e-controle/5g (accessed on 24 September 2025).

[59] Arcep (2025), “L’Arcep publie une étude analysant les effets du cadre français de régulation de la fibre optique : bilan positif confirmé”, Regulatory Authority for Electronic Communications, Postal Services and Press Distribution, Paris, https://www.arcep.fr/actualites/actualites-et-communiques/detail/n/deploiement-de-la-fibre-en-france-281025.html (accessed on 23 April 2026).

[75] Australian Government (2024), “Modernising universal telecommunications services”, Canberra, https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/media-communications-arts/modernising-universal-telecommunications-services (accessed on 25 August 2025).

[69] BEREC (2026), “Call for input for further guidance on 5G network slicing”, https://www.berec.europa.eu/en/public-consultations-calls-for-inputs/call-for-input-for-further-guidance-on-5g-network-slicing?language_content_entity=en (accessed on 23 April 2026).

[33] BEREC (2025), BEREC Report on Domestic Submarine Cables Connectivity in Europe, Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications, Riga, https://www.berec.europa.eu/system/files/2025-12/BoR%20%2825%29%20171_BEREC%20Report%20on%20domestic%20submarine%20cables%20connectivity%20in%20Europe_1.pdf.

[56] BEREC (2025), Input to the European Commission’s consultation on the revision of the Recommendation on relevant markets susceptible to ex ante regulation, Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications, Riga, https://www.berec.europa.eu/en/all-documents/berec/opinions/berec-input-to-the-european-commissions-consultation-on-the-revision-of-the-recommendation-on-relevant-markets-susceptible-to-ex-ante-regulation?language_content_entity=en.

[40] BEREC (2024), BEREC Report on the General Authorisation and Related Frameworks for International Submarine Connectivity, Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications, Riga, https://www.berec.europa.eu/system/files/2024-06/BoR%20%2824%29%2085_BEREC%20Report%20on%20the%20general%20authorisation%20and%20related%20frameworks%20for%20international%20submarine%20connectivity.pdf.

[30] Brodsky, P. (2025), “Building tomorrow’s Internet: A 2025 update on cable investment”, Telegeography, https://blog.telegeography.com/building-tomorrows-internet-an-update-on-new-cable-investment (accessed on 22 August 2025).

[78] Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) (2024), “Telecom regulatory policy CRTC 2024-328”, https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2024/2024-328.htm (accessed on 18 April 2025).

[37] CNMC (2025), “La CNMC analiza la situación competitiva y la conectividad por cables submarinos en los territorios extrapeninsulares [The CNMC analyzes the competitive situation and submarine cable connectivity in non-peninsular territories.]”, https://www.cnmc.es/prensa/conectividad-cables-submarinos-20250811 (accessed on 23 August 2025).

[65] Comisión de Regulación de Comunicaciones (CRC) (2023), “Resolución 7276 [Resolution 7276]”, https://www.crcom.gov.co/es/normatividad/resolucion-7276 (accessed on 19 August 2025).

[62] CRC (2024), Agenda Regulatoria CRC – 2025-2026 [Regulatory Agenda 2025-2026], Comisión de Regulación de Comunicaciones, Bogotá, https://www.crcom.gov.co/sites/default/files/agenda/agenda-regulatoria-2025-2026.pdf.

[18] CRTC (2026), Communications Market Reports (dataset), https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/publications/reports/PolicyMonitoring/ban.htm (accessed on 21 August 2025).

[43] Department of State (2024), “Joint statement on the security and resilience of undersea cables in a globally digitalized world”, https://2021-2025.state.gov/joint-statement-on-the-security-and-resilience-of-undersea-cables-in-a-globally-digitalized-world (accessed on 9 January 2026).

[61] DIGST (2025), Teleaftale 2025 [Telecom agreement 2025], Digitaliserings Ministeriet, Copenhagen, https://digst.dk/media/jmdpegra/teleaftalen-2025-aftaletekst.pdf.

[19] European Commission (2026), Digital Decade 2026: Broadband Coverage in Europe 2025, European Commission, Brussels, https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/digital-decade-2026-connectivity-coverage-europe-2025-report.

[45] European Commission (2026), Digital Networks Act, European Commission, Brussels, https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14709-Digital-Networks-Act_en.

[57] European Commission (2026), “Proposal for a regulation for the Digital Networks Act (DNA)”, European Commission, Brussels, https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/proposal-regulation-digital-networks-act-dna (accessed on 23 April 2026).

[55] European Commission (2025), “Commission launches consultation on the revision of the Recommendation on relevant markets”, European Commission, Brussels, https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/commission-launches-consultation-revision-recommendation-relevant-markets (accessed on 17 June 2025).

[39] European Commission (2025), “Joint communication to strengthen the security and resilience of submarine cables”, European Commission, Brussels, https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/joint-communication-strengthen-security-and-resilience-submarine-cables (accessed on 9 August 2025).

[71] European Commission (2024), “Europe’s 5G strategy in the digital decade”, European Commission, Brussels, https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/5g-digital-decade (accessed on 24 August 2025).

[38] European Commission (2024), “Recommendation on the security and resilience of submarine cable infrastructures”, European Commission, Brussels, https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/recommendation-security-and-resilience-submarine-cable-infrastructures (accessed on 19 March 2026).

[54] European Commission (2020), “Commission Recommendation (EU) 2020/2245 of 18 December 2020”, European Commission, Brussels, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reco/2020/2245/oj/eng.

[34] European Commission (2003), “Commission Recommendation of 11 February 2003 on relevant product and service markets within the electronic communications sector susceptible to ex ante regulation in accordance with Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council”, European Commission, Brussels, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reco/2003/311/oj/eng.

[72] European Union (2024), “Regulation (EU) 2024/1309 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2024 on measures to reduce the cost of deploying gigabit electronic communications networks, amending Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 and repealing Directive 2014/61/EU Gigabit”, European Union, Brussels, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32024R1309.

[66] European Union (2019), “Directive (EU) 2019/882 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on the accessibility requirements for products and services”, European Union, Brussels, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2019/882/oj/eng.

[20] FCC (2026), FCC National Broadband Map - Area summary (dataset), https://broadbandmap.fcc.gov/area-summary (accessed on 21 August 2025).

[48] FCC (2025), Delete, delete, delete; Removal of obsolete regulations, Rule by FCC on 26 August 2025, Federal Register, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/08/26/2025-16351/delete-delete-delete-removal-of-obsolete-regulations.

[47] FCC (2025), Delete, delete, delete; Removal of obsolete regulations, Rule by FCC on 4 August 2025, Federal Register, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/08/04/2025-14704/delete-delete-delete-removal-of-obsolete-regulations.

[46] FCC (2025), FCC opens ’In Re: Delete, delete, delete’ docket, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC, https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-opens-re-delete-delete-delete-docket (accessed on 20 August 2025).

[73] FCC (2025), Nineteenth Section 706 Report Notice of Inquiry, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC, https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-25-46A1.pdf.

[35] FCC (2025), Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Review of submarine cable landing license rules; Rules and procedures to assess evolving national security, law enforcement, foreign policy and trade policy risks), Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC, https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-25-49A1.pdf.

[76] Fischer, D. (2025), “Fischer, Luján announce bipartisan, bicameral universal service fund working group”, https://www.fischer.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/news?ID=D8ACC418-4EDB-46BB-AA04-50692166BD2B (accessed on 25 August 2025).

[41] FRATEL (2025), “Séminaire technique sur le thème: Connectivité internationale état des lieux et perspectives”, 22e séminaire du Réseau francophone de la régulation des télécommunications.

[85] Government of Canada (2025), “Decision on a policy, licensing and technical framework for supplemental mobile coverage by satellite”, Ottawa, https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/spectrum-management-telecommunications/en/learn-more/key-documents/consultations/decision-policy-licensing-and-technical-framework-supplemental-mobile-coverage-satellite (accessed on 18 March 2026).

[74] Government of Chile (2024), “Ley 21678: Establece el acceso a Internet como servicio público de telecomunicaciones [Establishes Internet access as a public telecommunications service]”, Santiago, https://www.bcn.cl/leychile/navegar?idNorma=1204651 (accessed on 19 March 2026).

[53] Government of France (2024), “Loi n° 2024-449 du 21 mai 2024 visant à sécuriser et à réguler l’espace numérique [Law No. 2024-449 of 21 May 2024 on securing and regulating the digital space]”, Paris, https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/dossierlegislatif/JORFDOLE000047533100/?detailType=EXPOSE_MOTIFS&detailId.

[67] Government of Poland (2023), “USTAWA z dnia 28 lipca 2023 r. o zwalczaniu nadużyć w komunikacji elektronicznej [ACT from 28 July 2023 on combatting abuse in electronic communications]”, Warsaw, https://www.dziennikustaw.gov.pl/D2024000180301.pdf.

[49] Government of Sweden (2024), “Uppdrag att lämna förslag på organisationsförändring [Assignment to submit proposals for organisational change]”, Stockholm, https://www.regeringen.se/regeringsuppdrag/2024/12/uppdrag-att-lamna-forslag-pa-organisationsforandring (accessed on 24 August 2025).

[83] Government of Türkiye (2025), Resmî Gazete: Karar Sayısı: 10208 [Official Gazette: Decision Number 10208], Ankara, https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2025/08/20250816-14.pdf.

[11] GSA (2025), “5G Advanced – May 2025 Summary”, Global mobile Suppliers Association, https://gsacom.com/paper/5g-advanced-may-2025 (accessed on 19 August 2025).

[9] GSA (2025), “5G Standalone: Global Status Update, April 2025”, Global mobile Suppliers Association, https://gsacom.com/paper/5g-standalone-april-2025 (accessed on 19 August 2025).

[8] GSA (2024), “5G Standalone April 2024 Summary”, Global mobile Suppliers Association, https://gsacom.com/paper/5g-standalone-april-2024-summary (accessed on 19 August 2025).

[6] GSMA (2025), Trends in Mobile Internet Connectivity: The State of Mobile Internet Connectivity Report 2025, Global System for Mobile Communications Association, London, https://www.gsma.com/somic/trends-in-mobile-internet-connectivity.

[5] GSMA Intelligence (2026), GSMA Intelligence database, http://www.gsmaintelligence.com/data (accessed on 30 June 2026).

[28] International Cable Protection Committee (2025), “Media enquiries & frequently asked questions”, https://www.iscpc.org/news/media-enquiries (accessed on 17 September 2025).

[42] ITU (2024), “International Advisory Body for Submarine Cable Resilience”, https://www.itu.int/digital-resilience/submarine-cables/advisory-body (accessed on 23 August 2025).

[29] Madory, D. (2025), “Subsea cables parted in Red Sea again”, Kentik, https://www.kentik.com/blog/subsea-cables-parted-in-red-sea-again (accessed on 17 September 2025).

[32] Mauldin, A. (2025), “International bandwidth demand surpasses 6.4 Pbps”, https://blog.telegeography.com/used-international-bandwidth-reaches-new-heights (accessed on 23 August 2025).

[25] Mauldin, A. (2023), “Do submarine cables account for over 99% of intercontinental data traffic?”, TeleGeography, https://blog.telegeography.com/2023-mythbusting-part-3 (accessed on 24 September 2025).

[80] Ministry of Information Technologies and Communications (Colombia) (2023), “Resolución 4185 de 2023 MTIC”, https://normograma.mintic.gov.co/mintic/compilacion/docs/resolucion_mintic_4185_2023.htm (accessed on 17 September 2025).

[36] Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communication (Japan) (2025), “Comprehensive strategy for overseas digital deployment by 2030”, https://www.soumu.go.jp/main_sosiki/joho_tsusin/eng/pressrelease/2025/6/11_3.html (accessed on 9 January 2026).

[84] Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure (Türkiye) (2025), “5G’den hazineye dev katkı [5G’s Huge Contribution to the Treasury]”, https://www.uab.gov.tr/haberler/5gden-hazineye-dev-katki (accessed on 24 August 2025).

[3] OECD (2026), OECD Data Kitchen (database), https://oe.cd/broadband-statistics (accessed on 13 October 2026).

[1] OECD (2026), OECD Broadband Statistics (database), http://www.oecd.org/en/topics/sub-issues/broadband-statistics.html (accessed on 13 October 2026).

[15] OECD (2026), OECD Digital Connectivity Review of Colombia, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/bff5d25a-en.

[13] OECD (2026), OECD Productivity Database, https://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/2l2 (accessed on 16 July 2025).

[17] OECD (2025), Closing Broadband Connectivity Divides for All: From Evidence to Practice, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d5ea99b2-en.

[26] OECD (2025), “Enhancing the resilience of communication networks”, OECD Digital Economy Papers, No. 374, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d6920477-en.

[4] OECD (2025), “Fibre and 5G drive OECD digital transformation as broadband markets mature”, https://www.oecd.org/en/data/insights/statistical-releases/2025/10/fibre-and-5g-drive-oecd-digital-transformation-as-broadband-markets-mature.html (accessed on 13 August 2025).

[23] OECD (2025), OECD Communication Price Basket Benchmarking systems, “Fixed broadband price benchmarking tool Q2 2013-Q2 2025” (dataset).

[2] OECD (2025), OECD Communication Price Basket Benchmarking systems, “Mobile Voice and Data price benchmarking tool Q2 2013-Q2 2025” (dataset).

[24] OECD (2025), OECD Communication Price Basket Benchmarking systems, “OECD Bundled Communication Price Benchmarking tool H1 2020-H2 2025” (dataset).

[14] OECD (2024), “Financing broadband networks of the future”, OECD Digital Economy Papers, No. 365, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/eafc728b-en.

[7] OECD (2024), OECD Digital Economy Outlook 2024 (Volume 2): Strengthening Connectivity, Innovation and Trust, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3adf705b-en.

[10] OECD (2024), “Spotlight: Next generation wireless networks and the connectivity ecosystem”, in OECD Digital Economy Outlook 2024 (Volume 1): Embracing the Technology Frontier, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a1689dc5-en.

[79] OECD (2022), “Developments in spectrum management for communication services”, OECD Digital Economy Papers, No. 332, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/175e7ce5-en.

[52] OECD (2021), Recommendation of the Council on Broadband Connectivity, OECD, Paris, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0322.

[22] OECD (2020), “OECD bundled communication price baskets”, OECD Digital Economy Papers, No. 300, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/64e4c18a-en.

[68] OECD (2019), “The road to 5G networks: Experience to date and future developments”, OECD Digital Economy Papers, No. 284, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/2f880843-en.

[51] OECD (2017), OECD Telecommunication and Broadcasting Review of Mexico 2017, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264278011-en.

[21] OECD (2017), Revised OECD Telecommunication Price Baskets, OECD, Paris, https://one.oecd.org/official-document/DSTI/CDEP/CISP(2017)4/FINAL/en.

[27] OECD (2014), “International Cables, Gateways, Backhaul and International Exchange Points”, OECD Digital Economy Papers, No. 232, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5jz8m9jf3wkl-en.

[50] OECD (2012), OECD Review of Telecommunication Policy and Regulation in Mexico, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264060111-en.

[44] OECD (forthcoming), Competition dynamics in communication markets and the evolving connectivity ecosystem, OECD Publishing, Paris.

[12] OECD (forthcoming), “Future of connectivity: Developments in terrestrial and non-terrestrial connectivity and their interoperability”, OECD Digital Economy Papers, OECD Publishing, Paris.

[63] Ofcom (2025), “Protecting consumers from uncertain and volatile inflation”, https://www.ofcom.org.uk/phones-and-broadband/bills-and-charges/protecting-consumers-from-uncertain-and-volatile-inflation (accessed on 18 September 2025).

[81] Office of Electronic Communications (2023), “Announcement of an auction for four frequency reservations from the 3.6 GHz band”, https://bip.uke.gov.pl/przetargi-aukcje-i-konkursy/ogloszenie-o-aukcji-na-cztery-rezerwacje-czestotliwosci-z-pasma-3-6-ghz,13.html (accessed on 17 September 2025).

[95] Ookla (2025), Speedtest by Ookla Global Fixed and Mobile Network Performance Maps (database), https://registry.opendata.aws/speedtest-global-performance (accessed on 26 August 2025).

[16] Opensignal (2026), “Insights”, http://www.opensignal.com (accessed on 9 January 2026).

[90] Opensignal (2025), “Insights built on real-world network experiences”, https://www.opensignal.com/our-approach (accessed on 21 September 2025).

[60] Plum Consulting (2025), Stock-take of the French Symmetrical Regulatory Model for FTTH, Plum Consulting, Paris, https://www.arcep.fr/uploads/tx_gspublication/stock-french-symmetrical-regulatory-model-FTTH_plum-study_oct2025.pdf.

[77] Supreme Court of the United States (2025), Federal Communications Commission et al. v. Comsumers’ Research et al., Supreme Court of the United States, https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-354_0861.pdf.

[31] TeleGeography and Infra-Analytics (2025), The Future of Submarine Cable Maintenance: Trends, Challenges and Strategies, TeleGeography, Washington, DC, https://www2.telegeography.com/future-submarine-cable-maintenance-report.

Notes

Copy link to Notes

← 1. Data are not available for the following countries: Australia and Israel (for years before 2024), New Zealand, Türkiye and the United Kingdom.

← 2. This comprises mobile voice and data plans that include unlimited data from Q2 2025. The OECD Member countries with such plans are Austria, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czechia, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States (OECD, 2025_[2]).

← 3. In Q4 2019, 14 OECD Member countries reported 5G coverage on GSMA Intelligence database.

← 4. Of the 73 operators, two have only “soft-launched” their 5G SA networks as of Q1 2025 (GSA, 2025_[9]).

← 5. 5G-Advanced is based on 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Releases 18, 19 and 20 (3GPP, 2025_[92]; 3GPP, 2025_[93]; 3GPP, 2025_[94]).

← 6. 3GPP Release 17 was the first to introduce normative specifications for Non-Terrestrial Networks (3GPP, 2024_[91]).

← 7. Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) is an indicator of a company’s financial performance in operations. However, it does not consider the cost of debt and depreciation, which are substantial for capital-intensive operators. EBITDA as a proportion of revenues or sales is referred to as the EBITDA margin. This measure can give a sense of how a business’s operations are performing.

← 8. Ookla leverages data from its consumer-initiated Speedtest quality of service (QoS) tests and its consumer quality of experience (QoE) data, based on samples from a range of applications. As described in OECD (2025_[17]): “The consumer-initiated tests are directed to Ookla’s ‘dedicated test servers’, which are distributed all over the world and hosted in numerous different Internet points. This is a multi-server QoS test designed to run in the foreground (via applications of websites), maximising the full bandwidth of four test servers. As such, it is a QoS test measuring the sustained peak throughput achievable on the access network by users. The consumer QoE datasets are focussed on coverage, video capabilities and file transfer to content delivery networks and cloud hosting servers. These are more representative of a user’s day-to-day network experience.” See Box 2.1 of OECD (2025_[17]) for more information.

← 9. Opensignal data measure the consumer’s complete experience on the network, as explained in OECD (2025_[17]): “Opensignal tests are conducted from the device to common Internet endpoints, such as CDNs like Google, Akamai and Amazon. This mimics the way connections are made each day to typical websites and content, providing a view on end-to-end network experience. Opensignal’s measurements provide insights on how consumers are using their digital devices (e.g. time using applications like video and games) to support network improvements. The measurements are designed to prevent operators from optimising test traffic; they are not allowed to treat the tested traffic differently, which would affect results without improving their networks (Opensignal, 2025_[90]). See Box 2.1 of OECD (2025_[17]) for more information.

← 10. For Canada, data refer to 2024. Fixed broadband coverage: For EU countries, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and the United Kingdom, coverage of Very-High-Bit-Rate Digital Subscriber Line, fibre to the premises and DOCSIS 3.0 capable of delivering at least 100 Mbps was used. For the United States, coverage of fixed terrestrial broadband capable of delivering 100 Mbps download and 20 Mbps upload speeds was used (i.e. to match the fixed broadband definition used in the European Union, satellite offers are excluded). The United States uses the population coverage approach rather than percentage of households covered. Rural areas: For EU countries, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and the United Kingdom, rural areas are those with a population density of less than 100 inhabitants per square kilometre. For Canada, rural areas are those with a population density of less than 400 per square kilometre. For the United States, rural areas are those with a population density of less than 1 000 per square mile or 386 people per square kilometre (United States Census Bureau).

← 11. This figure uses OECD territorial classifications based on administrative units (e.g. small region [TL3]). Within small regions (TL3 classification), the OECD has three main classifications: “Metropolitan regions”, “Regions near a metropolitan area”, and “Regions far from a metropolitan area” (see https://doi.org/10.1787/20737009). See Box 2.2 of OECD (2025_[17]) for more information.

← 12. The analysis is based on a snapshot for the second quarter of 2026. While higher median fixed broadband download speeds in regions far from metropolitan areas compared to metropolitan areas are possible, they do not represent the overall trend observed throughout the OECD. For more information, see OECD (2025_[17]).

← 13. This figure uses a territorial classification based on grids, or unit of the same size and shape, called the “degree of urbanisation” or DEGURBA classification. The grid size is uniform across countries and is 1 km², which includes population density thresholds (OECD, 2025_[17]). See Box 2.2 of OECD (2025_[17]) for more information.

← 14. The basket methodology consists of selecting, for every OECD Member country, the cheapest offer in the market meeting all criteria for a given user profile (i.e. low, medium, high and highest usage profiles) (OECD, 2017_[21]).

← 15. 24 of 38 OECD Member countries provided complete answers to this question.

← 16. 27 of 38 OECD Member countries provided complete answers to this question.

← 17. There is a shorter time series available for prices of bundled communication services, compared to standalone prices, as the bundled methodology was agreed in 2020 (OECD, 2020_[22]).

← 18. The basket methodology consists of selecting, for every OECD Member country, the cheapest offer in the market meeting all criteria for a given usage profile (i.e. low, medium, high and highest usage) (OECD, 2020_[22]).

← 19. Definitive metrics on intercontinental satellite traffic (which is an alternative to submarine cables) are not readily available, making it difficult to fully confirm the accuracy of the figure.

← 20. This section draws from the outcomes of an OECD workshop held in November 2024.

← 21. Regarding Portugal, the imposition of regulatory obligations represents an extension of the remedies previously applied to MEO, now covering its group-affiliated firm Fibroglobal. Moreover, regulation is not limited to Fibroglobal’s branches; other domestic submarine cables owned by the MEO group are also subject to these obligations.

← 22. Of the eight accession candidate countries to the OECD (Argentina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Croatia, Indonesia, Peru, Romania and Thailand), five were sent the CSI regulatory questionnaire, to which all responded (Brazil, Bulgaria, Croatia, Peru and Romania). Argentina, Indonesia and Thailand were not sent the questionnaire, due to their advanced position in the accession roadmap and to avoid additional burden on national administrations.

← 23. Some countries did not reply to this question (or to certain sub-questions) and are marked as N/A. Countries answered the following question (question 10): “Does your national regulatory authority, with responsibility for communication/telecommunication/broadcasting services have the mandate for the following areas?: Digital security, privacy, OTT services, online safety, issues related to cloud computing and data centres, issues related to end-user devices, issues in the area of the IoT and AI, issues related to the digital aspects of transportation, issues related to health, issues related to the sustainability of networks or digital technologies in general, or any other area?”

← 24. In Italy, an investigation in 2025 found that the general authorisation regime in Italy has to be applied to all Content Distribution Networks (CDN) providers and Content Application Providers that own, operate or control a CDN in the national territory (AGCOM, 2025_[89]).

← 25. The Commission Recommendation (EU) 2020/2245 identified two markets in which ex ante regulation may still be justified, including whole local access provided at a fixed location and wholesale dedicated capacity (European Commission, 2020_[54]).

← 26. The DNA proposal removes the requirement for the European Commission to adopt a recommendation on relevant markets.

← 27. For a full list of public funding to expand broadband deployment, see Annex A of OECD (2025_[17]).

Featured topics

Agriculture and fisheries

Climate change

Development

Digital

Economy

Education and skills

Employment

Environment

Finance and investment

Governance

Health

Industry, business and entrepreneurship

Regional, rural and urban development

Science, technology and innovation

Society

Taxation

Trade

Energy

Nuclear energy

Transport

Featured topics

Agriculture and fisheries

Climate change

Development

Digital

Economy

Education and skills

Employment

Environment

Finance and investment

Governance

Health

Industry, business and entrepreneurship

Regional, rural and urban development

Science, technology and innovation

Society

Taxation

Trade

Energy

Nuclear energy

Transport

Countries A - C

Countries D - I

Countries J - M

Countries N - R

Countries S - T

Countries U - Z

Regional and global engagement

Countries

Countries A - C

Countries D - I

Countries J - M

Countries N - R

Countries S - T

Countries U - Z

Regional and global engagement

Publications

Publications

Featured publications

Data

Data

Featured data

News & events

News & events

Featured events

About OECD

About

Engage with us

Work with us

Featured topics

Agriculture and fisheries

Climate change

Development

Digital

Economy

Education and skills

Employment

Environment

Finance and investment