Convergence: More Connectivity, More Competition

Over the past decade, as technology and consumer needs have evolved, the communications industry has repeatedly expanded and reshaped itself, with new competitors and new ways to compete emerging all the time. Not long ago, connectivity providers operated in distinct siloes, as wireline, mobile, and some very niche satellite offerings, such as MSS for emergency communication or enterprise IoT. Today multi-network operators with overlapping and increasingly substitutable services are spurring reciprocal competition, particularly among the three largest mobile and cable ISPs, but increasingly with LEO satellite offerings as well. With each additional competitor comes the potential for more consumer choice and, if consolidation does not negate the benefits, more accessible prices that hold some promise for closing remaining availability and access gaps.

One relatively new development is the gradual convergence of the traditionally distinct worlds of mobile and cable broadband service. In no small part thanks to the Commission’s balanced and abundant spectrum policies in recent years, both mobile and cable broadband providers have entered the other’s market, creating new choices for consumers.¹ One industry analyst predicts a rapid evolution to fixed/mobile convergence: “The market has shifted irrevocably toward a converged model where the ability to offer a single, unified bill for a household’s complete connectivity needs has transitioned from a value-added perk to a baseline competitive necessity.”²

Initially stemming from the Commission’s votes in 2020 to allocate very wide channels of unlicensed spectrum in the 5.9 and 6 GHz bands, the cable industry’s major players today each offer “Wi-Fi First” mobile service that relies primarily on Wi-Fi (for 90 percent of data traffic carried) and on a mobile virtual network operator (MVNO) relationship with Verizon for use away from home (10 percent of usage).³ Indeed, in the last several years both Comcast and Charter have separately noted that the vast majority of data on their mobile networks travels over Wi-Fi, not cellular networks.⁴ This Wi-Fi First mobile service has proven popular with consumers: The three biggest cable companies have more than 18 million mobile subscribers, with a collective gain of over 800,000 mobile subscribers in the first quarter of 2025.⁵ In July 2025, Charter and Comcast both signed an additional multiyear agreement with T-Mobile to offer wholesale mobile connectivity to business customers through an MVNO on its network.⁶

For their part, the nationwide mobile carriers are making rapid inroads into the traditional wireline market for home broadband. AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon have signed up more than 13 million households for fixed wireless access (FWA) home broadband across the country.⁷ As mobile networks gained access to wide bands of spectrum in the 2.5 and 3 GHz bands over the past five years, using surplus capacity in less densely populated areas for home broadband has proven increasingly viable. FWA’s perceived legitimacy as a home broadband offering was underscored by the recent shift in the BEAD program, whose recent guidelines mark as “served” any location with FWA, whether licensed or unlicensed spectrum. Forthcoming state BEAD plans rely heavily on FWA providers in areas where fiber is not feasible, with some states (New Mexico, Kansas) proposing to grant FWA providers as much as 40 or 50 percent of locations.⁸

Each service appears to be taking market share from the provider’s competitors—FWA from cable, and cable’s Wi-Fi First from mobile. Leichtman Research Group reported that FWA accounted for more than 100 percent of the net growth in broadband subscriptions in 2023, as the top cable companies lost approximately 65,000 broadband subscribers in that same year.⁹ And in 2024, Opensignal found that some 6 percent of urban internet customers likely reside in areas with access to a cable subscription, subscribe to a FWA connection.¹⁰ At the same time, cable’s wireless offering has been determinedly chipping away at the wireless providers’ consumer base.¹¹

New competitors are now emerging in space as well. There was a time when satellite broadband service—provided by satellites in GSO—offered a second-tier service hamstrung by high latency and lagging speeds. But the world of intermodal competition today has undergone a fundamental shift as LEO satellite providers have begun offering residential service with generally sufficient speed and reliability for consumers’ everyday needs. Although LEO satellite services are most valuable in rural and remote areas where they may be the only option for high-capacity internet access, as the constellations grow and access more spectrum, they could potentially hit performance and pricing points that allow them to compete directly with traditional fixed broadband options in at least exurban and suburban areas as well.

This shift has been characterized by widespread, if somewhat tentative, acceptance of LEO satellite as a broadband solution in at least rural and remote areas. Most of the revised state broadband plans under the federal BEAD program include a significant share of satellite provider subgrantees (either Starlink or Amazon Leo) for the hardest-to-reach households. Indeed, although state plans are still pending approval by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), some show what may be overly optimistic reliance on satellite providers due to the last-minute shift in the program’s rules. Colorado, for example, is planning to entrust close to 60 percent of BEAD locations to LEO satellite providers.¹² Montana is putting over a quarter of its BEAD funds into Starlink’s LEO satellite. Starlink’s and Amazon Leo’s ability to serve those locations at scale while meeting broadband benchmarks is unclear; but if nothing else, the industry is about to undergo a stress test like no other.

As a still emerging industry, LEO satellite service faces some significant growing pains such as the lack of competition, pricing and capacity constraints described above. But Starlink’s next generation of satellites, still pending FCC approval, promise speeds comparable to fiber,¹³ and the provider offers a low-cost (though lower-quality) service option for households unable to afford the full price. Moreover, despite minimal industry competition, the impact on intermodal competition with the introduction of a new, near-ubiquitous home broadband service has been considerable. And since LEO satellite service relies on only minimal ground infrastructure, it provides a level of resilience that renders it able to provide backup service in the face of natural disasters.¹⁴

D2D applications are creating additional competitive inroads. Satellite operators use both MSS and FSS spectrum to offer maritime, aviation, and other vehicle-in-motion connectivity, and to power industrial IoT functions including remote asset tracking, agribusiness, sensing networks, and emergency services using satellite phones. Starlink’s mini kit is intended to be taken on the go and can provide broadband connectivity to moving vehicles such as trucks, RVs, and boats.¹⁵

Using the FCC’s new SCS framework and mobile carrier spectrum, multiple satellite providers have partnered with mobile carriers—T-Mobile with SpaceX, Verizon with AST SpaceMobile—to offer limited D2D mobile connectivity (initially texting, supported by satellite connectivity in dead zones or areas where no other connection is available).¹⁶ Starlink’s universal direct-to-cell service officially launched in July 2025, available to customers of multiple major wireless carriers.¹⁷ These SCS-dependent services prioritize seamless satellite integration with existing mobile wireless networks and consumer devices.

The evolving D2D market may spur far more innovation and competition if the FCC provides additional MSS spectrum as an alternative to reliance on mobile carrier spectrum. While SCS adds LEO satellite connectivity in areas without a sufficient mobile signal, the service is contingent on an agreement with the mobile carrier that licenses the frequency band on an exclusive basis. In contrast, Globalstar uses its own allocation of MSS spectrum in the “Big LEO” band, in partnership with Apple, to allow owners of new-model iPhones to text from any location regardless of what operator they use for their mobile service. SpaceX, Kepler, and other LEO operators are currently seeking additional MSS spectrum access, a development that could lead to direct competition between the mobile and satellite industries for at least portions of the consumer and enterprise mobile handset connectivity market. A strong indication of this is the SpaceX agreement, announced in September 2025, to pay EchoStar $17 billion to purchase 40 megahertz of MSS spectrum (and 10 megahertz of additional low-band spectrum).

In the last decade, the communications industry has seen cable leveraging its fixed capacity to compete for mobile subscribers, mobile carriers using a surplus of mid-band spectrum to add millions of fixed home broadband customers, and LEO satellites offering both competing and complementary services for both. This industry convergence seems likely to become more and more widespread. Consumers now face more choices in basic and some more-than-basic forms of connectivity. Yet the true potential of all of this connectivity can only be unlocked with policies and technologies that promote interoperability, seamless communication, and data sharing across multiple networks and devices in any geographic location.