Top Wall Street analysts are bullish on these 3 dividend stocks for stable returns
Investors with concerns about the risks facing the economy may want to add some stable income to their portfolio in the form of dividend-paying stocks.
To this end, Wall Street experts' recommendations can help pick lucrative dividend stocks that have the ability to make consistent payments despite near-term pressures.
Here are three dividend-paying stocks, highlighted by Wall Street's top pros on TipRanks, a platform that ranks analysts based on their past performance.
This week's first dividend stock is telecom giant AT&T (T). The company recently reported first-quarter results, driven by strong postpaid phone and fiber net subscriber additions. The company retained its full-year guidance and stated that it plans to commence share buybacks in the second quarter, given that its net leverage target of net debt-to-adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization is in the 2.5-times range.
AT&T offers investors a quarterly dividend of $0.2775 per share. With an annualized dividend of $1.11 per share, AT&T stock offers a dividend yield of 4.0%.
In reaction to the company's Q1 print, RBC Capital analyst Jonathan Atkin raised his price target for AT&T stock to $30 from $28 and reiterated a buy rating. The analyst noted that the company exceeded estimates even after excluding $100 million of one-time EBITDA benefits.
Atkin added that AT&T's revenue surpassed expectations, thanks to the strength in both wireless and wireline businesses. Among other positives, the analyst noted that the company promptly addressed the slowdown seen in January and delivered robust postpaid phone net additions of 324,000, with gross additions growing 13% and helping to overcome higher churn.
"Management signaled confidence in its execution amidst a challenging environment by reiterating guidance and introducing a buyback program that commences in Q2," said Atkin.
Atkin ranks No. 85 among more than 9,400 analysts tracked by TipRanks. His ratings have been successful 69% of the time, delivering an average return of 11.3%. See AT&T Hedge Fund Trading Activity on TipRanks.
We move to Philip Morris International (PM), a consumer goods company that is focused on transitioning completely to smoke-free alternatives from cigarettes. The company reported solid results for the first quarter of 2025, driven by strong demand for its smoke-free products.
Philip Morris rewarded shareholders with a quarterly dividend of $1.35 per share. At an annualized dividend of $5.40 per share, PM stock offers a yield of nearly 3.2%.
Encouraged by the results, Stifel analyst Matthew Smith reaffirmed a buy rating on PM stock and increased the price target to $186 from $168, noting strong momentum across the board. The analyst said that three growth engines – smoke-free product mix, pricing and volume growth – boosted Philip Morris' Q1 performance and drove a 10% rise in organic revenue, 340 basis points of gross margin expansion and 200 basis points of increase in operating profit margin.
"Each of these engines support durable growth in 2025 and beyond as smoke-free continues to increase as a portion of PMI's portfolio, now over 40% of revenue and gross profit," said Smith.
The analyst expects 170 basis points of operating profit margin expansion in 2025, driven by smoke-free products, including Iqos and Zyn. In particular, Smith noted that Zyn's Q1 U.S. volumes benefited from robust demand and earlier-than-anticipated improvement in supply chain capacity. He now expects 824 million cans for 2025, reflecting a 42% growth. Also, Zyn's capacity is expected to reach 900 million cans this year, supporting potential upside to his estimates, especially in the second half of the year when inventories are expected to normalize.
Smith ranks No. 642 among more than 9,400 analysts tracked by TipRanks. His ratings have been successful 64% of the time, delivering an average return of 15%. See Philip Morris Ownership Structure on TipRanks.
This week's third dividend stock is Texas Instruments (TXN), a semiconductor company that designs and manufactures analog and embedded processing chips for several end markets. The company's first-quarter earnings and revenue easily surpassed Wall Street's estimates, reflecting strong demand for its analog chips despite the threat of tariffs. Also, TXN's guidance for the June quarter was better than the consensus estimate.
Meanwhile, Texas Instruments pays a quarterly dividend of $1.36 per share. At an annualized dividend of $5.44 per share, TXN stock's dividend yield stands at 3.3%.
Reacting to the strong Q1 results, Evercore analyst Mark Lipacis reiterated a buy rating on TXN stock with a price target of $248, saying, "We're buyers of TXN post a beat and raise 1Q25 print." He stated that TXN remains a top analog pick for Evercore.
Lipacis contended that while bears will argue that the upside to Texas Instruments' Q1 results and Q2 2025 outlook were due to tariff-driven order pull-ins, his analysis shows that the company's inventories have overcorrected in the supply chain. In fact, numerous checks by his firm indicate that many entities in the supply chain have now taken their inventories well below normal levels.
The analyst expects TXN to be early into the upward revision cycle, given that it was the first large-cap analog company to enter the inventory correction phase. He expects the company to deliver upside surprises through 2025 and into 2026. Additionally, he expects TXN stock to sustain a premium price-earnings multiple as it is exiting its capital expenditure cycle, which will drive its free cash flow per share higher from a trailing 12 months' trough of $1 to $10.30 by 2027.
Lipacis ranks No. 69 among more than 9,400 analysts tracked by TipRanks. His ratings have been profitable 58% of the time, delivering an average return of 20.4%. See Texas Instruments Technical Analysis on TipRanks.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
42 minutes ago
- Yahoo
David Zaslav Finally Cuts the Cord
David Zaslav, movie mogul at last. Zaslav's vision board, which includes him sitting behind Jack Warner's old desk and living in Robert Evans' former home, is complete. On Monday, we finally got the news we were waiting for: Warner Bros. Discovery, formed just three years earlier via the merger of Zaslav's Discovery, Inc. and AT&T's WarnerMedia, is being split back up. Zaslav keeps the goods: HBO, HBO Max and the Warner Bros. studios (including TV and DC). His righthand man, WBD CFO Gunnar Wiedenfels, gets the leftovers — the cable channels, basically. Oh yeah, and Gunnar also gets the 'majority' of WBD's $37 billion debt load. That makes Wiedenfels the Mark Lazarus in this Versant copycat situation — if Versant was buried in debt. More from The Hollywood Reporter "Majority" of Warner Bros. Discovery's $37 Billion in Debt Will Be Spun Off With TV Networks, Its CEO Says Ted Sarandos' 'Studio' Appearance Is a Wink - And a Flex 'Care Bears' Movie in the Works From Josh Greenbaum at Warner Bros. Hollywood couldn't have scripted it better — for Zaslav. (Ironic considering his unfavorable positioning during the writers guild strike.) Zaslav, a former attorney, started his True Hollywood Story in the late 1980s as president of NBC's cable, domestic TV and new media distribution divisions. At the time, even he couldn't see how the latter department would basically cannibalize the former three decades later. At what point that became clear to Zaslav, we'll never truly know — not through his (ongoing) public comments, at least. At NBC, Zaslav launched MSNBC and oversaw the Olympics on cable — two properties that would inform future interests. In 2006, Zaslav jumped to Discovery and to his first CEO title; two years later, he took the company public. He always liked the stage. The existing Discovery portfolio wasn't enough for his big ambitions, so Zaslav launched some new networks — like OWN and ID — and bought others (like HGTV and Food Network via an acquisition of Scripps). He got the Olympics back — internationally — in 2015. For 15 years, Zaslav was Mr. Cable (being coached all the way by his mentor: 'Cable Cowboy' John Malone). Zaslav defended the delivery system and the bundle for as long as he could — and then for a few years longer than that. How synonymous with cable was Zaslav? In 2017, he was inducted into the Cable Hall of Fame. Zaslav is a member of the Cable TV Pioneers Class of 2018. Satirically, that was the same year that Zaslav waved the white flag via the launch of Discovery+. Even Zaslav had to say it: streaming was in and cable was out. But there was no way that Discovery+ could compete in the streaming wars, which at the time were all about subscriber growth. A man with mogul ambitions — and a mogul paycheck — wanted more. Also in 2018, AT&T finally closed its wildly dragged out and misguided (and expensive: it was north of $100 billion) acquisition of Time Warner. It took two years for that deal to go through; it only took three years for AT&T to reverse course and sell off the repackaged WarnerMedia, taking a major 'L' in the process. Something about all of this sounds so familiar… In 2022, the $43 billion deal that formed Warner Bros. Discovery — with Zaslav at the helm — was finalized. The creation of WBD came with a mountain of debt, but there were perks. Zaslav, an Old Hollywood head, got his legacy movie studio (WB is 102 years old this year) and a bonafide film lot. He got CNN (and his daughter got a job as a congressional producer there), an upgrade from his old left-leaning cable news channel MSNBC. He also inherited the prestige of prestige-TV through HBO, and for a while there it looked like HBO Max/Max/HBO Max-again just might compete with Disney+ and Netflix. Hell, the New York Knicks fan even got the NBA through Turner. Life was good. The pay wasn't so bad either. Zaslav's 2024 compensation package was valued at nearly $52 million; his 2023 pay was about $50 million. Even in his Discovery-only days Zaslav was among the highest-paid CEOs in media. Patagonia vests aren't cheap. You know who wasn't making money? WBD shareholders. The newly formed company's stock opened April 9, 2022 at $42 per share. Today, shares are teetering around $10. What went wrong? Well, the whole plan, basically. Though direct-to-consumer would become profitable for WBD, it was too little, too late. The film business had its ups and downs. There were the strikes. Cable, the very thing Zaslav is escaping via today's split-and-spin announcement, has only had downs — for Warner Bros. Discovery that included the loss of the NBA and the subsequent implosion of its sports-centric joint venture (with Disney and Fox) Venu, which was dead before arrival. CNN languished under a short-lived Chris Licht regime; CNN+ made it about a month. Even Zaslav's PR was a nightmare: he became the name and the face of Hollywood corporate greed by killing off completed and near-completed projects in the name of tax write offs. A certain panic sets in when you have $50 billion in debt to pay down in a struggling marketplace. So Zaslav jumped ship. He will soon be rid of the 'Also Ran' that is cable TV — and he'll be rid of most of WBD's existing debt as well. If all goes according to plan, Zaslav will have effectively traded in a dying basic-cable bundle for the most influential brand in television and a top-2 or 3 film studio. And he got paid hundreds of millions of dollars to do it. The Zaslav Prophecy will be completed in mid-2026. Best of The Hollywood Reporter How the Warner Brothers Got Their Film Business Started Meet the World Builders: Hollywood's Top Physical Production Executives of 2023 Men in Blazers, Hollywood's Favorite Soccer Podcast, Aims for a Global Empire Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Atlantic
44 minutes ago
- Atlantic
Red Tape Isn't the Only Reason America Can't Build
The buzziest idea in Democratic politics right now is the 'abundance agenda,' which criticizes liberals for saddling government programs with bureaucratic red tape that delays those programs to the point of never delivering. Few examples seem to illustrate the point better than rural broadband. As part of the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law, Congress allocated $42.5 billion in subsidies to a new Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) program. Its required 14 procedural steps to actually get this funding to internet service providers, or ISPs—companies such as AT&T, Verizon, Charter, and Frontier—along with significant labor, environmental, and domestic-production requirements, seem to fit the pattern of a well-intentioned program that has been stuffed with too many bells and whistles. (One of us, Asad Ramzanali, worked on broadband issues including BEAD in both the House of Representatives and the White House.) Thus, three and a half years after the law passed, shovels have still not broken ground on any project funded by this program, as the New York Times columnist Ezra Klein recently explained to an incredulous Jon Stewart, who lamented the 'incredibly frustrating, overcomplicated Rube Goldberg machine that keeps people from getting broadband.' Figuring out how to provide high-speed internet to all Americans has been an important public-policy goal for decades. As the coronavirus pandemic made painfully clear, broadband is crucial to full participation in society. And multiple empirical studies have shown that increased broadband access is correlated with stronger economic growth. Yet more than 7 million homes and businesses still do not have access. But the current political debate misunderstands the nature of the problem at almost every level. When it comes to broadband, procedural simplicity on its own hasn't worked in the past and won't work in the future. The deeper issue is that the United States government has abandoned the full range of policy tools that would actually get the job done. Any effort to achieve 'abundance' must start by recognizing that red tape isn't the only reason America can't seem to build anymore. The BEAD program does seem overcomplicated. It requires the Federal Communications Commission to complete a national map of where broadband is currently missing, the Commerce Department to distribute funding to states, state-level broadband offices to allocate subgrants to internet service providers, and the ISPs to deploy cables to connect homes to the internet. The numerous intermediate steps—initial planning grants, five-year action plans, map challenges, final plans, and more—sound like the kind of red tape that blocks progress and generates distrust in government. The solution seems glaringly obvious: simplify the steps. Cut out all the middlemen and empower the FCC to provide money directly to ISPs as efficiently and quickly as possible. Any reasonable person would reach that conclusion. The first Trump administration had the same thought. In 2020, the FCC rolled out a multibillion-dollar program called the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF). To allocate the money, the FCC quickly identified areas that had insufficient service. It then held a reverse auction of small geographic plots, awarding the subsidy to whichever ISP submitted the lowest bid for each plot. There was no notice of funding opportunity. No planning grants. No five-year action plans. No subgranting process. No state broadband offices. And no labor, environmental, small-business, or diversity requirements. ISPs quickly bid a cumulative $9.2 billion to serve high-speed broadband to 5.2 million homes and businesses. Jerusalem Demsas: Not everyone should have a say In many ways, RDOF was a neoliberal economist's dream—an efficient allocation of scarce public resources distributed through a competitive process. But removing bureaucratic steps turned out not to result in a better outcome. Without accurate mapping data to understand where need existed, RDOF allowed ISPs to bid on serving such locations as an empty patch of grass, industrial-park storage tanks, and a luxury resort that already had broadband. Without proper due diligence, other providers committed to projects that were not technically or financially feasible. As a result, the RDOF program still hasn't delivered much broadband to Americans. More than one-third of the bids have already been deemed in default, according to the FCC. In other words, nearly 2 million of the 5.2 million promised locations will never get service under the program, and that number is likely to keep growing. Worse, many of these locations may not get service from BEAD, either, because RDOF was assumed to cover them. Within that context, Congress's approach to the BEAD program—making sure that broadband maps are accurate; that state governments, who know their residents and needs best, develop thorough plans that will ensure long-lasting service; and that communities have opportunities to provide input—is less baffling. With the benefit of hindsight, the process should have been simpler. But Congress was clearly responding to the failures of RDOF, which meant more checks in the system. Why is internet service a problem that the government needs to solve, anyway? The answer is that private-sector companies seek to maximize profits, but in many rural areas, building networks is unprofitable. There might not be enough customers to offset the onetime costs of construction or even the ongoing costs of repairs, customer service, and overhead. To date, the federal government's approach to promote service in unprofitable areas has almost exclusively been to subsidize private companies. The first federal broadband subsidies go back to at least 1995. Since then, the U.S. has put more than $100 billion into broadband expansion, primarily into rural areas, across more than 100 federal programs. Like RDOF, many of these programs have severely underperformed. This is what happens when government loses the ability, or the will, to undertake more direct interventions in the market and to challenge, not merely subsidize, corporations. A century ago, America faced a problem almost identical to the broadband shortage: rural electrification. Well into the 20th century, life in much of rural America was little changed from the 19th. Without electric appliances—refrigerators, washing machines, even lamps—running a farm was backbreaking, round-the-clock work. By 1935, private providers had electrified more than 80 percent of nonfarm households but only 11 percent of farm households. That year, as part of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, Congress created the Rural Electrification Administration to address this problem. At first, REA Administrator Morris Cooke hoped to partner with private electricity companies, not unlike our current subsidy-heavy approach for broadband. However, those companies argued that rural electrification would not be financially self-sustaining. Even with government support, they proposed building out to only 351,000 new customers, which would leave millions unconnected. The New Dealers recognized that subsidies to private firms could only go so far. So they turned to three other strategies. First, when the private sector was unable to serve all Americans, the REA organized communities across the country to develop their own, cooperatively owned electricity-distribution networks, funded by the federal government. The REA encouraged state laws to charter these cooperatives, provided engineering support to build infrastructure, and assisted cooperatives in negotiating for sources of electrical power. Second, the New Deal created public options. Federal government–owned providers, most famously the Tennessee Valley Authority, were established to generate electricity at affordable rates. These public options functioned as an important 'yardstick,' in Roosevelt's words, to evaluate the performance of the private sector. If the private sector refused to offer electricity at affordable rates, the TVA could step in to sell electricity directly to cooperatives instead. Third, private-sector electricity providers were classified as public utilities subject to strict regulation. The government couldn't build public plants to generate power across the entire country or successfully organize every community. So it required electric companies to expand services to cover everyone in their existing and adjacent service areas, even households that were unprofitable to serve. These utilities were required to set prices that allowed them to turn reasonable but not excessive profits. George Packer: How Virginia took on Dominion Energy The REA was a success. By 1940, a quarter of farm households were electrified, and by 1953, that figure had risen to 90 percent. That same year, retail rural electricity rates approximated rates found in urban areas. A similar approach could be applied to rural broadband today. Local governments could offer public broadband—as happened in Chattanooga, Tennessee, which has one of the fastest broadband networks in the world, run by the municipally owned electric company, a public option that competes with Xfinity and AT&T. Cooperatives could purchase internet service in the same way as they buy electricity. And public-utility regulations could require broadband providers to cover areas adjacent to their service areas at a reasonable price in exchange for rate regulation. So why has the federal government focused on subsidizing for-profit ISPs rather than using the mixed approach that worked during the New Deal era? Consider what happened in Chattanooga. After its municipal model proved successful, ISPs saw a threat and mobilized. They successfully lobbied lawmakers to pass laws restricting public options in broadband. Twenty-five states, including Tennessee, had such laws on the books in 2019, according to a report by BroadbandNow. In Congress, Democrats have repeatedly proposed federal legislation to preempt such state laws, but those proposals have languished. And although some of the state limits on public options have been repealed, 16 states still restrict municipal broadband. Lobbying from ISPs might likewise explain why the FCC has never used its existing legal authority to require ISPs to expand service at mandated affordable prices. (A conservative appeals court foreclosed that option for the FCC only recently.) The lesson of rural broadband is that some government failures are due not to procedural excess, but to giving up on regulatory tools that might antagonize Big Business. Unfortunately, learning this lesson again may now cost us $42.5 billion. Last week, the Department of Commerce rolled back many procedural hoops of the BEAD program—ostensibly with the same goals as RDOF. It's tempting to think that America can learn how to build again without having to wage difficult battles against powerful corporate interests, simply by eliminating bureaucratic red tape. But if efficient building were really so easy, we'd already be doing it.
CNET
2 hours ago
- CNET
I Tried AT&T Fiber: Here's Why I Won't Be Upgrading From the Slowest Plan Any Time Soon
When I moved to a house that was serviceable for fiber internet, I jumped at the chance to ditch cable for fiber. My roommates and I had spent the past three years with Spectrum, often frustrated by the occasional price increases and internet outages in our area. Switching to fiber internet meant symmetrical download and upload speeds and better reliability for roughly the same price I'd been paying Spectrum. I'll level with you: $55 for 300 megabits per second download speed is not the best internet deal in the industry. There are plenty of better internet deals, like Frontier Fiber's 500Mbps for $30 monthly or even Spectrum's 500Mbps for $50 monthly. But if you want to switch to fiber internet and have limited internet options like me, AT&T's lowest tier is worth a try. Although I work 100% remotely, I'd consider my internet usage below average. According to the latest data from OpenVault, the average household uses around 564Mbps in download speed. There are a maximum of two smart devices in my house, and usually only one or two devices are online at a time, making 300Mbps plenty of speed to go around. However, if you and the members of your household have higher-than-average internet usage habits, 300Mbps will likely not be enough. If you have gamers, more than one remote worker and a decent line-up of smart devices, 300Mbps simply won't get you very far. But if you're trying to stick to a budget and your internet use is on the lighter end, AT&T's FIber 300 plan might just work for you. Here's everything you need to know. How does AT&T Fiber 300 stack up to similar options cost-wise? Before signing up for AT&T, I knew I wanted to keep my monthly internet costs below $60 monthly. The average monthly cost of internet is around $63, not including hidden fees or equipment costs, and I didn't want to exceed that amount. Locating local internet providers The cheapest internet plan from any provider typically offers the lowest available speeds for the highest cost per Mbps, making it one of the least cost-efficient options despite the low monthly fees. AT&T's Fiber 300 plan is no exception. Even though it's the provider's cheapest internet plan, it has a cost per Mbps of around 18 cents. That's the highest speed/price ratio of any AT&T Fiber plan. It is also higher than entry-level plans from other leading internet service providers, including Spectrum and Quantum Fiber, which both offer speeds up to 500Mbps starting at $50 a month. Those plans are $5 cheaper than AT&T Fiber 300 and offer almost double the speed. Still, the AT&T Fiber 300 plan is a solid choice for home internet, especially if you're limited on high-speed internet options and trying to stick to a budget. In my case, I wanted to avoid paying $80 monthly for AT&T's 1-gig plan -- a speed I was sure would go to waste in my house. The next speed tier up, AT&T Fiber 500, was also a viable option at $65 monthly, but I had a feeling 500Mbps would be too much speed for my internet usage, too. Smart devices can be sneaky bandwidth hogs. Take stock of your home's connected devices to determine how much internet speed you really need. Getty Images While AT&T Fiber 300 is not as cheap or fast as entry plans from some providers, AT&T adds value in other ways. Let's take a closer look at the plan's terms of service. AT&T Fiber 300: No data caps, contracts or equipment fees The speed and reliability of a fiber internet connection outpace offerings from cable internet, and I've definitely noticed the difference. Although Spectrum offers 500Mbps in download speed, upload speeds max out at 20Mbps. As a remote worker, I rely on fast upload speeds for video calls, sharing/uploading documents and doing research. Since making the switch to fiber internet, my video call quality has increased and I'm not experiencing any of the usual network congestion during peak usage times. I've stressed the cost and speed value of the AT&T Fiber 300 plan so far, and for a good reason, but what else is there to the plan and AT&T service, in general? AT&T Fiber plans come with unlimited data, meaning I don't have to monitor my monthly data usage to avoid throttled speeds or overage fees. There are also no contract requirements and no added monthly equipment fees. Overall, I pay a flat rate of $55 monthly: there are no extra costs for renting a router (unlike Spectrum's $10 router charge for its 500Mbps plan) or charges for going over a data limit. That's a good deal, considering the speeds I get. Speaking of which, let's take a look at what 300Mbps looks like in my house. Is 300Mbps a good speed? I used Speedtest by Ookla to gauge my internet connectivity at different hours of the day. Screenshot by Cierra Noffke/CNET When you sign up for an internet plan, your internet provider only guarantees speeds "up to" the value of the plan. So, although I'm paying for 300Mbps, I don't always get that speed consistently. My speeds have dipped as low as 273Mbps, but I've also seen them as high as 350Mbps. Still, the speeds I see overall are much more consistent than what I got with a cable internet connection.. According to the Federal Communications Commission, 300Mbps should be more than enough speed to game online, stream in HD or 4K and simultaneously take Zoom calls on multiple devices. The official recommendation from the FCC is a minimum speed of 4Mbps for online multiplayer games, 25Mbps for streaming in 4K and 6Mbps for HD videoconferencing, all well below 300Mbps. Additionally, while speeds of 300Mbps can support numerous devices at once (10 or more depending on the activity on each), each connected device will consume its share of bandwidth. The more devices you connect, the slower your actual speeds will likely be on each. Since I work remotely and my partner doesn't, typically, throughout the day, there are as few as two devices working at a time. Neither of us games online, and we only have one smart TV; 300Mbps is plenty to go around for our internet usage. I tried a few easy steps to optimize that 300Mbps, like placing my router in a central, raised location in my office and taking a few speed tests to gauge the connection in different rooms. Since my router is in my office, a room near the back of the house, I initially worried that my smart TV wouldn't get consistent speeds. AT&T does offer smart Wi-Fi extenders, which I briefly considered, but for the cost of $10 monthly, it would be more efficient to upgrade to the next tier and pay $65 monthly for 500Mbps. I don't foresee myself making that upgrade yet. Surprisingly, when I tested my internet connection speed with Ookla's Speedtest, I found that the speeds in my living room (315Mbps) were slightly faster than those in my office (298Mbps). (Disclosure: Ookla is owned by the same parent company as CNET, Ziff Davis.) Although my smart TV does see the occasional lag, it doesn't happen often, and my work days are uninterrupted with a smooth Wi-Fi connection. Speedtest will record download and upload speeds so you can track your internet speed fluctuation. Screenshot by Cierra Noffke/CNET Larger households with bandwidth-hungry devices like smart TVs, video game consoles, smartphones and tablets may require more speed to accommodate everyone's needs, especially if more than one user is online at a time. If that's the case, and you want to stick with AT&T, consider upgrading to the AT&T Fiber 500 plan for an additional $10 per month or to AT&T Fiber 1000, which starts at $80 per month. So is AT&T Fiber 300 fast enough? It should be for most households. According to the average tested residential download speed in the US for November 2024 was 262Mbps, so you'll potentially get speeds higher than the national average with AT&T Fiber 300. Again, a constant speed of 300Mbps is unlikely with AT&T Fiber 300, especially when using a Wi-Fi connection but I've seen consistent speeds since signing up for the service. Still, the plan is likely to offer plenty of speed for the average user or handful of users and most, if not all, of their devices. AT&T Fiber 300 FAQs Where is AT&T Fiber available? AT&T Fiber internet service is available to around 11% of US households. Serviceability is highest in the South and Midwest and parts of California and Nevada. Fiber service, including that of AT&T Fiber, is often only available in cities or suburban areas with a high population density. How much is AT&T Fiber 300? AT&T Fiber 300 starts at $55 per month, plus taxes and fees. This price includes a $5 discount for enrolling in autopay, so be sure to do so when signing up.
