Broadband speed: Shocking 12-country-style signals in 2 hard-hitting data cuts on internet price vs speed (2015–2025)

“Internet price” can mean a posted monthly fee, a bundled contract, or the cost of the minimum plan that qualifies as broadband. “Broadband speed” can mean advertised speeds or measured median speeds. Those are not the same thing.

For cross-country comparisons, affordability metrics help because they normalize for income. The ITU fixed-broadband basket is designed to track the cheapest fixed Internet subscription that meets a minimum usage threshold (commonly framed around a minimum monthly data allowance and minimum advertised speed), then expresses that price relative to income to assess whether typical households can realistically buy it.

This matters for everyday outcomes: remote work stability, online learning, small business tools, telehealth, and even access to government services. If broadband speed improves but entry-level plans still eat a large share of income, adoption lags—and the divide persists.

Because consistently comparable, country-by-country price-and-income microdata is not always available for the exact same year across all economies, I’m using the ITU’s standardized affordability benchmark for the fixed broadband (5GB) basket as a share of GNI per capita and presenting the latest benchmark cut that is clearly documented across regions and income groups.

(See the interactive chart block above to toggle between the Regional cut and the Income Group cut.)

How to read it: Lower is better. The Broadband Commission affordability target often referenced in ITU materials is 2% of monthly GNI per capita. On this benchmark, Europe sits well below that threshold, while Africa remains far above it.

Optional alternative cut (income groups, 2024): This is often closer to what readers mean by “country differences” because income level captures the structural affordability constraint.

Two people can both pay “$20 a month” and have completely different affordability outcomes. The reason is simple: household income and local cost structures differ, and broadband is not a pure commodity. Backhaul costs, last-mile build complexity, energy costs, and market competition all shape pricing.

That’s why the ITU uses a basket approach and reports it as a share of income. It does not tell you everything about plan quality, but it does answer a core question: Is entry-level fixed broadband priced within reach?

• Income effect: The same nominal price is far heavier in lower-income contexts.
• Coverage effect: Where fixed networks are sparse, the “cheapest qualifying plan” can still be relatively expensive.
• Market effect: In markets with limited competition or poor wholesale access, prices often stay sticky even when technology improves.

Broadband speed tends to improve with fiber rollouts, DOCSIS upgrades, better peering, and smarter congestion management. But speed gains often show up first in urban cores and on premium tiers.

So the speed side of the story can look great in national averages while many households remain on slower plans. In my view, this is why “speed-only” rankings can be misleading: they reward the top end of the market and can hide affordability constraints that keep adoption lower.

If you want a clean operational definition for readers, use this rule: speed gains matter most when the median household can afford the tier that delivers them. Otherwise, the divide shifts from “connected vs not” to “fast vs barely usable.”

Affordability is strongly shaped by the cost and risk of building networks. Fiber-to-the-home is capital intensive but can deliver better performance and lower operating costs over time. In difficult terrain or low-density areas, per-household costs climb fast.

Common structural drivers include:

• Backbone and backhaul: Limited national backbone capacity or expensive international transit increases ISP costs.
• Right-of-way and permitting: Slow or inconsistent permitting can raise build cost and delay competition.
• Electricity reliability: Unstable power increases operating cost and can degrade service quality.
• Device and in-home costs: Even if service is “affordable,” router/device costs can be a real barrier.

From what I see across telecom markets, affordability improves fastest when policy reduces barriers to entry and encourages real competition—not just nominal provider counts.

Levers that frequently matter:

• Wholesale access: If incumbents must provide fair wholesale access, new ISPs can enter without duplicating every asset.
• Infrastructure sharing: Poles, ducts, and towers shared under clear rules can reduce cost.
• Transparent consumer rules: Clear disclosure around speeds, fees, and contract terms reduces “gotcha” pricing.
• Targeted subsidies: Well-designed vouchers or network subsidies can connect hard-to-serve areas without distorting the whole market.

For background context and definitions, the ITU statistics and affordability materials are a solid starting point: ITU ICT prices and ITU global ICT statistics.

Across the 2015–2025 window, two things can be true at once: networks get better, and the affordability barrier remains. The ITU’s global affordability benchmarks suggest gradual improvement, but not enough to eliminate the gap—especially in low-income economies.

Practically, this is why the digital divide conversation has shifted toward “meaningful connectivity.” It’s not only about being online, but being online with enough speed, enough reliability, and enough data at a price that does not crowd out essentials.

If you’re building a country-specific angle later, the clean approach is to pair (a) ITU affordability basket values with (b) measured speed snapshots (median download speeds) for the same year. When the years don’t align, disclose the mismatch and interpret cautiously.

To keep the time-series clean and sourced, I’m using ITU’s reported global median fixed-broadband basket affordability (as % of GNI per capita) across recent years. This does not capture every country nuance, but it is one of the most defensible “global trend lines” for affordability.

(Use the interactive chart toggle above to view the time series for 2022–2025.)

What it implies: The world moved closer to the 2% affordability target, but the regional and income-group splits show that progress is uneven. The median can improve while the hardest-to-serve places remain far above “affordable.”

I believe the simplest way to make sense of the connectivity divide is to stop treating broadband speed and internet price as separate debates. The data points in one direction: affordability is improving globally, but not fast enough where income is low and infrastructure is weak. When the fixed-broadband basket is still a double-digit share of income in some regions, speed gains alone won’t translate into universal, meaningful connectivity.

Our analysis suggests a practical decision lens for readers is to ask two questions when you compare countries: (1) does entry-level fixed broadband clear the 2% affordability target, and (2) is there enough competition and build momentum for speeds to improve without prices creeping up? If the answer to either is “no,” the divide is likely to persist even if headline speeds rise for top-tier users.

One caveat: these basket metrics are designed for comparability, not for capturing every local nuance (bundles, promotional pricing, data caps beyond the minimum, and quality-of-service). They also don’t, by themselves, prove causality. For causality, you’d need deeper country-level regulatory and market structure evidence alongside the price and speed series.

If you’re a consumer, policymaker, or researcher trying to interpret broadband speed and internet price across countries, I’d use this checklist:

• Affordability first: Is entry-level fixed broadband under ~2% of monthly GNI per capita?
• Performance next: Are measured median speeds improving year over year (not just advertised claims)?
• Market structure: Are there multiple competing infrastructure options (fiber/cable/fixed wireless), or only one dominant network?
• Build frictions: Are permitting, rights-of-way, and backhaul constraints improving?
• Targeted support: Are subsidies or vouchers aimed at the last-mile affordability gap?

Internal reading suggestions (placeholders): Digital divide explainers, Infrastructure policy primers, Network economics guides.
External references worth bookmarking: ITU ICT prices and the World Bank Data portal.

• What is the ITU fixed-broadband basket?
  A standardized benchmark for the cheapest qualifying fixed Internet plan, used to compare affordability across economies.
• Why compare prices as a share of income?
  Because sticker prices don’t reflect local purchasing power; share-of-income is closer to “can households afford it?”
• What does the 2% affordability target mean?
  It’s a commonly cited benchmark that entry-level broadband should cost less than 2% of monthly GNI per capita.
• Does faster broadband always reduce the digital divide?
  No. If the tiers delivering high speeds stay unaffordable, adoption and meaningful use can lag.
• Why is fixed broadband often less affordable in low-income economies?
  Lower incomes, higher build costs per user, and weaker backbone/backhaul networks can keep prices high.
• Are regional medians the same as country rankings?
  No. They summarize typical affordability within a group; country-by-country comparisons can vary widely inside each region.
• What policies most often improve affordability?
  Wholesale access, infrastructure sharing, streamlined permitting, and well-targeted subsidies tend to help.
• How should I treat “advertised speed” claims?
  Use measured medians where possible; advertised speeds can overstate typical user experience.
• Can mobile broadband substitute for fixed broadband?
  Sometimes, but fixed often offers better capacity and consistency; outcomes depend on coverage, pricing, and data caps.
• What’s one quick way to compare countries fairly?
  Pair a share-of-income affordability metric with a measured median speed snapshot for the same year, then disclose limitations.

• ITU Facts and Figures 2024 (affordability charts, fixed broadband basket % of GNI per capita)
• ITU Facts and Figures 2025: Affordability of ICT services (2025 global median fixed broadband basket)
• ITU Facts and Figures 2024: Affordability of ICT services (2024 global median fixed broadband basket)
• ITU Facts and Figures 2023: Affordability of ICT services (2023 global median fixed broadband basket)
• ITU ICT prices portal (definitions and price-basket context)
• World Bank Open Data (portal for cross-country development indicators)