Main lines: 667,300 lines in use (2012), 89th in the world; 819,147 lines (2004).
Mobile cellular: 5 million lines, 110th in the world (2012).
Telephone system: adequate, but is being modernized to provide an improved international capability and better residential access (2010).
Domestic: national fiber-optic cable interurban trunk system; rapid expansion of mobile-cellular services has resulted in a steady decline in the number of fixed-line connections; mobile-cellular teledensity stands at about 140 per 100 persons (2010).
International: major international connections to Denmark, Sweden, and Norway by submarine cable for further transmission by satellite; landline connections to Latvia and Poland (2010).
IPv4: 2.2 million, 0.1% of the world total, 635 per 1000 people (2012).
Internet users: 2.4 million users, 85th in the world; 68.0% of the population, 50th in the world (2012). 2.1 million users, 59.2% of the population (2008).
Fixed broadband: 688,475 subscribers, 62nd in the world; 19.5% of the population, 49th in the world (2012).
Mobile broadband: 301,488 subscribers, 106th in the world; 8.6% of the population, 97th in the world (2012).
Lithuania has the highest FTTH (Fiber to the home) penetration rate in Europe (18% in late 2009) according to FTTH Council Europe.
ADSL services in Lithuania are provided by the monopoly carrier Teo LT. In the future this service might be used by other ISPs for their retail services.
According to a study by Ookla Net Metrics, Lithuania had the second fastest Internet download and the fastest upload speed in the world in June 2013.
In 2013 at least two ISPs in Lithuania offered download speeds of up to 300 Mbit/s in their standard packages for home users.
In 2014 fastest internet for home users in Lithuania was offered by "SkyNet" internet provider. Maximum internet speed was up to 1Gbit/s. In the second place is Teo LT with maximum internet speed up to 500Mbit/s.
There are no government restrictions on access to the Internet or credible reports that the government monitors e-mail or Internet chat rooms without appropriate legal authority. Individuals and groups generally engage in the free expression of views via the Internet, including by e-mail, but authorities prosecute people for openly posting material on the Internet that authorities considered to be inciting hatred.
The constitution provides for freedom of speech and press, and the government generally respects these rights in practice. An independent press, an effective judiciary, and a functioning democratic political system combine to promote these freedoms. However, the constitutional definition of freedom of expression does not protect certain acts, such as incitement to national, racial, religious, or social hatred, violence and discrimination, or slander, and disinformation. It is a crime to deny or "grossly trivialize" Soviet or Nazi German crimes against Lithuania or its citizens, or to deny genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes. In the first 11 months of 2012 authorities initiated investigations into 259 allegations of incitement of hatred and six of incitement of discrimination, most of them over the Internet. Authorities forwarded 69 of those allegations to the courts for trial, closed 68, and suspended 113 for lack of evidence; the others remained under investigation. Most allegations of incitement of hatred involved racist or anti-Semitic expression, or hostility based on sexual orientation, gender identity, or nationality.
It is a crime to disseminate information that is both untrue and damaging to an individual’s honor and dignity. Libel is punishable by a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or up to two years for libelous material disseminated through the mass media. While it is illegal to publish material "detrimental to minors’ bodies" or thought processes, information promoting the sexual abuse and harassment of minors, promoting sexual relations among minors, or "sexual relations", the law is not often invoked and there are no indications that it adversely affects freedom of the media.
The constitution prohibits arbitrary interference in an individual’s personal correspondence or private and family life, but there were reports that the government did not respect these prohibitions in practice. The law requires authorities to obtain a judge’s authorization before searching an individual’s premises and prohibits the indiscriminate monitoring by government or other parties of citizens’ correspondence or communications. However, domestic human rights groups allege that the government does not properly enforce the law.