Since the inception of broadband at the turn of the millennium, fast and dependable connectivity has been a crucial component for innovation.

However, the rise of remote and hybrid work, along with a growing dependence on cloud-based technologies like generative AI, has made the need for substantial bandwidth and low latency more critical than ever.

To meet these growing connectivity requirements, the deployment of fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) has become increasingly important.

Despite this demand, one nation is accused of falling significantly behind its international counterparts in terms of fiber availability – the United States of America.

According to data from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), three countries exceed the 85 percent threshold for fiber’s share of total fixed broadband connections: Iceland (91 percent), Korea (90 percent), and Spain (88 percent). What’s more, Ofcom, the UK’s telecoms regulator, projects that full-fiber broadband could reach 96 percent of homes and businesses within the next two years, and is aiming for near-universal coverage by 2027.

Meanwhile, the fiber penetration rate in the US is lagging – the OECD found that just 26.5 percent of citizens access their broadband via this connection. This places America in the lower quadrant of OECD nations for FTTH adoption; only the Czech Republic, Germany, Austria, Greece, and Belgium were ranked lower among member countries.

The US connectivity landscape

Although at first glance these figures may appear concerning, the assertion that US fiber is falling behind other countries is an oversimplification. It overlooks the essential realities of the American Internet connectivity environment. Geographically, the extensive size and diverse terrain of the US – it is essentially a continent rather than a country – pose major logistical challenges and create regional disparities in the deployment of fiber optic Internet infrastructure.

The US spans an area of almost 10 million square kilometers. Comparatively, Iceland is roughly the size of the state of Kentucky, while the UK is slightly smaller than Wyoming. This makes nationwide fiber optic deployment in those smaller countries significantly more manageable.

It’s also important to consider the stark divide between urban and rural areas when assessing fiber availability in America. The reality of broadband deployment is a tale of two distinct sides of the US.

Urban centers boast higher fiber deployment as they often benefit from dense fiber networks and competitive markets, which in turn, lower FTTH costs for businesses and households.

In contrast to this, rural and remote areas face higher deployment costs, longer distances between homes, and sometimes spotty mobile coverage, meaning that neither traditional fiber nor Fixed Wireless Access (FWA) is always a viable solution. This creates a complex set of needs that demands a more nuanced, multi-technology strategy.

While the rollout of fiber is undoubtedly a key part of the solution, the idea that it alone can bridge the digital divide for every community in the US overlooks the unique economic and logistical hurdles present across the nation.

Alternatives to fiber

To address the complex realities of digital connectivity across the United States, solutions beyond fiber must be considered. To fill rural connection gaps, low Earth orbit (LEO) satellite Internet services such as Starlink and Amazon’s Project Kuiper are emerging as viable alternatives for bringing reliable Internet access to remote communities.

For example, Starlink currently has over two million active customers in the US – its largest market for Internet access globally – with states that have large rural populations like Vermont, Maine, and West Virginia exhibiting notably high Starlink adoption. By 2028, Starlink is expected to serve four to five million American households.

If you examine the areas where Starlink has successfully established connections with households, FWA is also targeting those regions, provided they have strong 5G coverage. FWA leverages 5G to deliver high-speed Internet, not only in rural areas, but also in suburban areas on the outskirts of major cities such as Dallas and Atlanta – where fiber optic Internet hasn’t arrived, but 5G coverage is strong. Additionally, FWA is being utilized to address the digital equity gaps in parts of Detroit, Cleveland, and Baltimore, where it offers a more cost-effective solution than FTTH.

For FWA to function, it requires robust 5G cellular coverage. For example, T-Mobile subscribers in downtown Dallas can enjoy economic package deals that bundle mobile, FWA, and streaming perks, rather than having to rely on mobile connectivity from one provider and FTTH from another. There are also rural and underserved areas that are FWA targeted due to the lack of FTTH or cable, but have excellent 5G coverage. Laying a fiber line to a few 5G gNodeB’s that cover hundreds of households is far more cost-effective than dedicated fiber to each home.

However, in rural areas where mobile coverage is spotty, FWA does not solve the connectivity issue. This is because it relies on nearby cell towers to deliver service, leaving the most remote communities with limited or no access to reliable Internet. Carriers don’t see the value in putting up large numbers of towers in these areas, given the cost is so high per subscriber.

The need for a multi-technology strategy

Providing broadband Internet access within the United States presents a complex challenge for a multitude of reasons: the variations in geography, population density, infrastructure, and economic conditions.

Urban centers often benefit from dense fiber networks and competitive markets, while rural and remote areas frequently rely on fixed wireless, satellite, or cooperative-led fiber initiatives. This patchwork of needs necessitates a multi-technology strategy, combining FTTH, FWA, LEO satellites, and community broadband, tailored to local conditions. Moreover, success hinges not only on infrastructure but also on affordability, digital literacy, and policy coordination at the federal, state, and local levels.

Ultimately, a one-size-fits-all approach to US broadband is not the answer – achieving connectivity across the country requires a multi-technology approach, rather than solely relying on fiber.