OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON July 2, 2010 The Honorable Kay Bailey Hutchison Ranking Member Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation United States Senate 560 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator Hutchison: Attached please find my responses to the additional post-hearing questions from my appearance before the Committee on April 14, 2010. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. Julius Genachowski Sincerely, ~-_.---. QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SENATOR OLYMPIA SNOWE I. Broadband Tax Incenti ves The Broadband Plan makes several references to the private sector investment that has been made to broadband networks and services. The document even goes as far to state that "due in large part to private investment and market-driven innovation, broadband in America has improved considerably in the last decade." Back in the Fall, the Commission concluded that a total investment for universal broadband availability for the nation would range from $20 billion to $350 billion depending on the speed of broadband service. In the Plan, the Commission concludes that in order to achieve the National Broadband Availability Target of broadband speeds of 4 Mbps download and 1 megabit-per-sec upload, the total cost would be approximately $33 billion. Question: The Plan sets a goal of 100 million U.S. homes should have affordable access to actual download speeds of at least 100 Mbps and actual upload speeds of at least SO Mbps by 2020. Can you pinpoint or elaborate on what the Commission has estimated as the required investment to achieve that goal? RESPONSE: The Plan's goal for achieving alTordable, actual download speeds of 100 megabits per second downstream and SO megabits per second upstream to 100 million American homes by 2020 is ambitious but achievable. The 100-squared initiative will help ensure America's global competitiveness in the 21st century. A widespread level of affordable high-speed connectivity will encourage innovators to develop the next generation of cutting-edge applications in the American market, for the American people. The network deployment model developed and referenced in the Plan was aimed at estimating what areas of the country are currently "unserved" by broadband and calculating the level of investment that would be needed to serve those areas. The model was not developed with the purpose of estimating the investment that would be required to build 100 Mbps networks to 100 million households. One of the main goals of the Plan to is to "maximize inveslment" but the document seems to be light on recommendations related to financial incentives such as tax credits to bolster capital investment in infrastructure. Ouestion: Given the significant capital expenditures required to meet the Commission's ational Broadband Availability Target and 100-100 goal, why weren't there more recommendations related to tax credit-based incentives? The plan made these types of tax based proposals to Congress for Research and Experimentation (R&E) and telework practices. RESPONSE: The Plan includes a variety of recommendations to reduce costs and encourage private sector deployment in broadband networks and applications. The Plan 1 has recommendations to encourage private sector investment to realize the 100 squared goal by, among other things, fostering competition, driving demand for increased network performance and lowering the cost of deploying infrastructure. These recommendations should help inform consumers about broadband performance, expand services and infrastructure, and reform access to rights-of-way to lower barriers to entry for firms. The Plan also encourages Congress to make the Research and Experimentation (R&E) tax credit a long-term tax credit to stimulate broadband research and development, which is a cost effective way to spur private sector research and investment in broadband networks and applications. IT. National Broadband Plan Impact The Plan also establishes six long-term goals to serve as a compass over the next 10 years. The first goal is to provide at least 100 million U.S. homes with affordable Internet broadband access with actual download speeds of at least 100 megabits per second and actual upload speeds of at least SO megabits per second. Providing consumers, developcrs, and small businesses such high-speed broadband speeds will truly revolutionize the Internet as well as exponentially increase the benefits it provides-users will be able to leverage new and emerging high-bandwidth applications and services that aren't available today or accessible with lower speeds. But at the same time, the Plan acknowledges that broadband carriers are aggressively upgrading their networks to offer higher speeds and greater capacities. The Plan cites several network upgrades and expansions that are already planned or in the process of being implemented over next 2 to 3 years that will provide approximately 100 million homes with broadband speeds of 20 to SO megabits-per-second and provide the building blocks to even faster broadband speeds in long-term. Question: How will the Commission measure the effectiveness of this Plan as a catalyst for accelerating the investment that is currently underway or broadband deployment and adoption in general? RESPONSE: The Plan includes a variety of recommendations and benchmarks to track progress of broadband deployment and adoption. Implementing the Plan requires a long term commitment to measuring progress and adjusting programs and policies to improve performance. The Plan's recommendations to monitor implementation include: a. Ensuring that the FCC quickly publisheS a timetable of proceedings to implement plan recommendations within its authority; b. Publishing an evaluation of plan progress and effectiveness as part of the annual Section 706 Advanced Services Inquiry; c. Creating a Broadband Data Depository; d. Continue to utilize Broadband.gov as a public resource for broadband information; and, e. Publishing a Broadband Performance Dashboard with metrics designed to track broadband plan goals. 2 Also, as required by the Broadband Data Improvement Act, the Commission intends to conduct periodic surveys of consumers in urban, suburban, and rural areas in the large business, small business, and residential consumer markets to evaluate the characteristics of broadband service capability and adoption. These periodic national surveys will help track adoption rates over time, which can help measure the effectiveness of the Plan's proposals. The Plan recommends that the Commission and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics collect more detailed and accurate data on actual availability, penetration, prices, churn and bundles offered by broadband service providers to consumers and businesses, and should publish analyses of these data. The Commission's Broadband Action Agenda includes a proceeding later this year to improve the data the Commission collects on broadband deployment and adoption. By collecting more granular data over an extended time period, the Commission and other agencies can analyze the impact of programs and investment on broadband deployment and adoption. In addition, the National Broadband Plan recommends Congress and federal agencies I}rOmote third-party evaluation of future broadband adoption by including specific requirements and funding for program evaluation and funding to conduct in-depth assessments and longitudinal program assessment. TIT. E-rate Reform One of the E-rate recommendations in the Plan is that the FCC should reexamine specific E-rate rules that appear to limit the flexibility of applicants to craft the most cost-effective broadband solutions based on the types of broadband infrastructure, services and providers available in their geographic areas. While more flexibility could possibly reduce the overall cost of broadband and increase bandwidth, there are concerns about maintaining the integrity of the program. The E-rate program has been very successful, well run, and established procedures for minimizing waste, fraud, and abuse. Ouestion: Can you elaborate on the FCC's plan with respect to reforming and enhancing the E-rate program but maintaining the integrity and ensuring that increasing flexibility doesn't open it up to more waste, fraud, and abuse? RESPONSE: In keeping with the National Broadband Plan's vision of improving and modernizing the universal service programs, the Commission is currently examining what is working well and what can be improved in the current E-rate program. Specifically, the Commission is considering several potential reforms that would cut red tape by eliminating rules that have not effectively served their intended purpose, while continuing to protect against waste, fraud, and abuse. For example, the Commission is considering streamlining the E-rate application process, providing greater flexibility for applicants to choose the most cost-effective and educationally useful broadband services. The Commission is also exploring ways to expand the reach of broadband to the classroom, including schools that serve populations facing unique challenges, such as tribal schools or schools for children with physical, cognitive, or behavioral disabilities. Additionally, the Commission is taking 3 steps to make the E-rate program more user-friendly and is working closely with the Universal Service Administrative Company, which administers the E-rate program under the Commission's direction. The E-rate program provides two "priorities" for discounting telecommunications services-Priority I for external telecommunications and Internet connections and Priority 2 for internal connections/wiring. The Plan recommends that the Commission develop ways that Priority 2 funding can be made available to more E-rate applicants. Given the advancements in information technology and more dynamic content and applications that teachers and students are utilizing, numerous schools are tinding that traditional Priority I connections (typically TlfBs) are not enough for the growing demand and usage-that higher bandwidth connections are needed. Libraries have also conveyed the need for greater capacity due to increased patronage. The Broadband Plan makes numerous proposals related to the Uni versal Service Fund, in general. As you know, the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) is the independent, not-for-profit corporation designated as the administrator of the federal Universal Service Fund by the FCC. Ouestion: Can you elaborate on how involved the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) was in assisting the FCC's development of these recommendations? Were USAC official active participants in discussions? RESPONSE: As the National Broadband Plan Team developed its recommendations, it obtained information and data from USAC, as necessary, regarding the operation of the existing universal service programs. The E-rale program provides two "priorities" for discounting telecommunications services-Priority 1 for external telecommunications and Internet connections and Priority 2 for internal connections/wiring. The Plan recommends the Commission develop ways that Priority 2 funding can be made available to more E-rate applicants. Given the advancements in information technology and more dynamic contenl and applications that teachers and students are utilizing, numerous schools are expressing that traditional Priority 1 connections (typically T IfT3s) are not enough for the growing demand and usage-that higher bandwidth connections are needed. Libralies have also conveyed the need for greater capacity due to increase patronage. Ouestion: How will the Commission balance the recommendation for increasing Priority 2 funding with accommodating for greater priority I funding to meet the growing bandwidth needs of schools and libraries? RESPONSE: Funding under the E-rate program is essential to enable schools and libraries to maintain current levels of Internet connectivity and to provide access to improved telecommunications and information services as technology advances. High speed services are needed to handle the applications available today, including online 4 distance learning and videoconferencing. Schools will need E-rate funding for both the initial implementation of high-speed broadband access and for ongoing costs to maintain and continuously improve their networks. Although the E-rate program has always been able to fund all Priority 1 requests in the past, the demand for internal connections has exceeded the E-rate program's $2.25 billion cap in every year but one since the program's existence. The Commission is currently considering ways to ensure that schools and libraries receive funding for Priority 2 services, with two goals in mind: (1) providing funding for internal connections to more schools and libraries than in the past; and (2) ensuring that a predictable amount of funding is available to schools and libraries for internal connections each year. IV. Comprehensive Spectrum Policy Reform One of the main focal points of the Plan is radio spectrum and finding more of it for wireless. While I strongly agree that comprehensive spectrum policy reform is long overdue and paramount to achieving the long-term telecommunications needs of this nation, I am concerned about what seems to be a heavy emphasis on reallocation instead of a more multi-faceted solution that includes fostering technological advancement and more robust spectrum management. Case in point, there are extensive and detailed recommendations in the Plan to reallocate 120 megahertz of spectrum currently being used by broadcasters as well as the voluntary mobile auction fund, but only general recommendations to en.courage technical innovation and spectrum sharing/reuse opportunities that would improve spectrum efficiency. For example, a technology known as femtocell, that can increase capacity by offloading wireless traffic onto broadband wireline networks, wasn't mentioned once in the Plan. This plan is suppose to be forward thinking but seems to be somewhat stuck in the past by presenting a roadmap that excessively relies on reallocation, which is a zero sum game, instead of a greater emphasis on technological innovation and robust management to increase spectrum efficiency and wireless capacity. Question: Do you agree that more robust spectrum management policy and technical innovation advancement are just as important, if not more so than reallocation? Can you explain in more detail how the Plan will implement a comprehensive solution to ensure that spectrum is available to meet the future needs of all users-not just wireless broadband? RESI'ONSE: I certainly agree that an effective spectrum policy involves much more than allocation decisions. The Plan includes a number of recommendations for spectrum policy initiatives. For instance, the Plan calls for ensuring greater transparency concerning existing spectrum allocation and utilization. The FCC has already launched, concurrent with release of the Plan, the "spectrum dashboard," which enables user-friendly access to information regarding spectrum bands and licenses. The dashboard will also assist in spectrum policy planning and decision-making, and help promote a robust secondary market in spectrum so that companies can access spectrum to serve a variety of different needs. The Plan also recommends that the Commission move forward with creating methods for ongoing 5 measurement of spectrum utilization. This too, will help provide a fact base that can inform policymaking so that we can take needed actions to make better use of spectrum. In addition, the Plan calls for a triennial assessment of spectrum allocations to ensure that existing allocations serve the public interest. I also believe that the FCC should expand incentives and mechanisms for incumbent licensees to yield their spectrum to more productive uses. The Plan sets forth several different mechanisms, including the use of incentive auctions and expansion of tools to facilitate relocation of government users. V. 500 MHz of New Spectrum Goal One of the recommendations within the National Broadband Plan is that the FCC should make 500 megahertz newly available for broadband use within the next 10 years. of which 300 megahertz between 225 MHz and 3.7 GHz should be made newly available for mobile use within five years. While the Plan briefly notes general estimates between 40 to 150 megahertz of spectrum are required for each operator. it wasn't clear as to how the 500 MHz would ultimately be parceled out-spectrum license sizes for new competitors and additional spectrum bandwidth to increase capacity for incumbent spectrum licensees. Question 1: Can you elaborate on how that 500 MHz will be distributed? RESPQNSE: As the Plan notes, the forecast of the need to make 300 megahertz of spectrum between 225 MHz and 3.7 GHz available by 2015 reflects a set of reasonable assumptions about the evolution of supply and demand for mobile bandwidth. Determinations about whether spectrum is licensed or unlicensed, as well as service rules, will need to be developed. By adopting flexible use policies for this spectrum, and facilitating secondary markets, the Commission will help ensure that spectrum can be put to its highest and best usc. Question 2: How will the Commission balance providing more spectrum to incumbents in order to increase capacity and bandwidth with providing spectrum to new entrants to foster more competition so consumers can have more choices available to them? RESPO SE: The first priority is to make available additional spectrum. Both incumbents and new entrants will need access to spectrum. VI. Consumer Broadband Test The FCC recently launched a free broadband speed test for consumers to check the download and upload speeds of their Internet broadband connection. The premise is that the test will allow consumers to compare the FCC test results with the speeds promised by the broadband provider and allow the FCC to use data collected from the test to analyze broadband quality and availability across the United States. 6 However, some users have expressed concern about widely varying results. There is actually a disclaimer on the FCC test site stating that the test may not be an accurate representation of connection quality provided by one's broadband provider. An FCC official recently stated that "software-based tools can provide individuals with inconsistent performance results, some of which are out of the control of the ISP." Given the test transfers a small amount of generic data back and forth between a user's computer and a testing server, the path that the data takes could contain numerous hops or links owned and operated by multiple carriers that the consumer is not aware of--even for local end points. In addition, the old adage "you're only as fast as your slowest link" seems to apply. So one could easily see a possible misrepresentation the test would have and the consumer confusion that could result. Question: Is the FCC concerned about consumer confusion that the Commission's Consumer Broadband Test could create? With varying test results and lack of detailed information presented, it could lead to consumers wrongly accusing their broadband provider of not providing what they are advertising even though, as the FCC official noted, some performance characteristics are out of the ISP's control, correct? RESPONSE: The Commission recognizes that there are limitations to the online, software based, speed tests, as you rightly point out. However, these speed tests are not designed primarily to test the performance that a consumer's broadband provider is delivering (and solely responsible for), but rather to provide insight into the actual performance that the consumer experiences on his or her device. In that respect, the software-based tests are extremely valuable. Beyond performance experienced by the consumer though, we are also interested in performance delivered by an individuallSP, as part of the broader transparency initiative. For that reason, we are also launching a hardware-based speed testing project in partnership with a third-party contractor, SamKnows. o The goal of the project is to provide consumers with accurate and complete information about what speeds are delivered to their homes by ISPs. o While measuring performance experienced on an end-user device is valuable as well, ISPs cannot be reasonably held accountable for factors inside of the home that may degrade service. Therefore, this project will rely on scientific, hardware-based testing that will test performance at the point of the user's router. o The initial test will rely on a panel of 10,000 volunteers across ISPs, service tiers and geographies, all of which will be given a customized router that can be easily integrated into their existing home network. o The FCC will make results of this study available later this year on both a publicly accessible website and in the form of a report. 7 o This is the first step in an iterative process to design a specific testing methodology for broadband services and create more transparency and accountability in the broadband marketplace. Transparency with broadband performance is a key issue within the Plan but there isn't any real mention of the multitude of factors that affect broadband speeds-the multiple links that exist between consumer and the Internet content they're accessing, equipment performance, the type of data being transmitted, existence of viruses/malware, etc. Question: What are the FCC's plans to properly address this? Household fixed modem/receiver: CPE (customer premise equipment) typically managed by a broadband provider as the last connection point to the managed network (e.g. fixed wireless modem) Consumer device: Consumer mobile device (phone, laptop, PDA, etc.) wlrelessly connected to provider network RESPONSE: Many factors affect broadband performance, so, as described above, the Commission intends to employ a two-part strategy to provide improved measurement and reporting of broadband speeds and performance. The first part, tackled by online speed tests at the end-user's device, will provide information on performance experienced by consumers. The second part, tackled by hardware-based testing that sits behind a customer's modem, will provide information on performance delivered by ISPs. As the diagram below illustrates, there are a number of points where performance can be affected: 011.<.101 Provided 40 Rodio « I) DEFINITIONS 11' Public Internet content: public internet content that Is hosted by multiple service providers, content providers and other \..:J entities in a geographically diverse (worldwide) manner @ Internet gateway: closest peering point between broadband provider and public internet for a given consumer connection ® Link between 2 nd Mile and Middle mile: broadband provider managed Interconnection between middle and last mile (!) Aggregation node: First aggregation point for broadband provider (e.g. DSLAM, cable node, satellite, etc,) G e 1'6' Consumer device: consumer device connected to modem through Internal wire or Wlfi (home networking), including \.21 hardware and software used to access the Intemet and process content (customer managed) Software-based testing covers performance for the entire range from point 1 to point 6. However, to isolate just the performance delivered by ISPs, it is important to focus just on point 2 to point 5. The Commission staff is working with a third-party contractor, SamKnows, as well as the ISP community to accomplish this. By placing test devices at the 8 Customer I'remise Equipment (CPE) point, we can remove performance degradation that occurs between points 5 and 6 from factors such as in-home wiring, multiple computers in use, viruses or malware on a device, and other issues. By working with ISPs and independent testing locations to place testing servers on ISP networks and at commonly used peering exchanges, we can remove performance degradation that occurs between points 1 and 2 from factors such as off-network or public Internet traffic that an ISP cannot control. Although there are a multitude of factors affecting broadband speeds, by performing both of these tests, the Commission hopes to isolate just those factors that ISPs are responsible for. That way, consumers are informed as to whether, when they experience sub-standard performance, the issue is what is delivered by the ISP, or whether the issue is on their device or in their home network. This will lessen the burden on ISPs to deal with customer complaints about performance that they cannot correct, and lessen the burden on consumers that may erroneously purchase higher speed service packages when that may not be the true problem. VII. Broadband Competition - Current State The Broadband Plan indicates that approximately 4 percent of housing units are in areas with three wireline providers (either DSL or fiber, the cable incumbent and a cable over-builder), and 78 percent are in areas with two wireline providers. Thirteen percent are in areas with a single wireline provider and 5 percent have no wireline provider. However, this data seems to conflict with the FCC's most recent semi-annual broadband report, which was released earlier this year in February. Table 13, which details the percentage of Census Tracts with Residential Fixed High-Speed Connections related to the number of providers, indicates that 26 percent of census tracts have three broadband providers and only 1.1 percent of census tracts have no broadband provider. htHil1) Pefe.nlage 01 C.n.... Tract••1lh R..identlel flud Hlgh.Sll'"d COftnedtonl by T.etlnology .. 01 o.cemblr Jt,~OO. ~_ltt""",lIlatlHot_clitMIiooftI _d_ .....~ '- Z~ "" TOo "'" "'"' ,- SO -. 0051. .., '" ".' '" V " •., •• - "D ,.• D.Z DD D.D DD DO DD -- ." " DD DD D.D DD DO DD e-_ .. 7U '" D' D.D •• DD DD '"" ..., ". •., DD •• •• DD DD ...... <5, ". '" .. D' DD DO DD Ficed~&1.3 ", 'D •• " DD DO DD -"'" .... .., DD •• •• DD D.' D' .o"".A. fItW1Igr c-.Woden>~FTTP " .. '" ,.., ", " " " ""T_ n ,.• 15.1 '57 '" ,., " .. a ...-___• __....... _rcc,...l?_.......e--. Ouestion: Can you clarify the dilIerences in the data sets? Which is more accurate in detailing the number of broadband providers consumers have available to them? RESPONSE: Table 13 displays data that broadband providers submit to the FCC on Form 477. This data collection requires providers to show the number of customers by 9 technology and speed tier for each census tract in which they olTer service. The table then shows the percent of tracts with a given number of providers for each of these technologies. The NBP highlights a shortcoming of this approach (Ch 4, endnote 6). It states that"...the new 477 data are not ideal for analyzing competition because the data identify providers that operate anywhere in a Census tract and not whether their service areas overlap geographically." So while over half of the census tracts have four or more providers their service territories have an unknown but likely limited overlap. The NBP (Exhibit 4·A) depicts share of housing units in tracts with 0-3 providers. In partial explanation of how the NBP derived these numbers the endnote states "First, we do not count providers with less than one percent of broadband subscriptions in a given Census tract under the assumption that a provider with such a small number of subscribers is probably not available to a large part of the tract. Second, we identify cable overbuilders (such as RCN) in the data, which allows us to make reasonable assumptions about where cable companies actually provide service to the same geographic areas. Specifically, we assume that any given area is served by a maximum of one facilities·based DSL provider and one cable provider unless a cable overbuilder is present, in which case we count both cable providers. We also count fiber-specific competitors, but do not double count telco providers that offer both DSL and fiber in the same tract {such as Verizon DSL and FiOS)." Another table (Table 10) in the report shows that the number of broadband providers has increased from 1.270 in June 2005 to 1.554 in December 2008-a 22 percent increase over 3 and a half years. Table 10 Nationwide Number of Providers of Hlgh·SPMd Connections by Technology 2005·200' (Conoeclkln. 0...., 200 Ilbp. In ... INt, OM Ohct»n.lfllhOUund$) '''''' """ """ """ '«- .... 0« ... Do< .... 0« .... 0« >0" PA ". m .58 '" ". '" '" oDS' '" '" >SO m '" m 238 ,., 0IlIl' ......... "" ,41 2-tCiZ~oE '" "'" ~:... '" ~- m ,., :0. m ,., ~;>]':~,<1 FTTP '38 ,m '" '" ..." '" ... ". ...... " • , , , , • ~llleo:lW""'"m "" '" "" ... '" W~m _w.... " " " " " 22 ,. .. PM-. LIM ant 0lhI!I0I " , • • b , • • '''''' I no 1}4~1)]7 "., lU. "" Il'f'5 US4 _ ........"-.n~_.~-.,____~ 5o.Ra. fCC~.n. PIn l. Question: From the FCC's point of view is the broadband industry becoming more competitive and do consumers have more options for broadband providers available to them? RESPONSE: The Plan recognizes that competition is crucial for promoting consumer welfare and spurring innovation and investment in broadband access networks. Competition provides consumers the benefits of choice, better service and lower prices. The Plan analyzed available data to assess the current state of competition among wireline 10 broadband services and mobile wireless broadband services, and the competitive dynamics across different broadband technologies. However, the Plan does not analyze the market power of specific companies or reach definitive conclusions about the current state of competition for residential broadband services. Rather, the Plan includes a variety of recommendations designed to spur competition and innovation across the three elements of the broadband ecosystem-networks, devices and applications With regard to broadband networks, the Plan makes recommendations intended to ensure that consumers have the information they need to make decisions that maximize benefits from these services. Increased transparency will likely drive service providers to deliver better value to consumers through better services. The Plan also focuses on ways to increase competition in the wholesale broadband market-including issues associated with high-capacity circuits, copper retirement, interconnection and data roaming. As the Commission considers rulemakings to implement these recommendations, the Commission looks forward to participation from the public and interested parties to ensure that the goals of increased competition are realized. VTII. Broadband Classification Broadband Internet access services are currently classified as infonnation service, which is defined as "the offering of a capability for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available information via telecommunications, and includes electronic publishing." Some have suggested reclassifying broadband as a telecommunications service, which is defined as "the transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of infonnation of the user's choosing, without change in the form or content of the infonnation as sent and received." Without question, there has been a significant evolution in the telecommunications industry and the networks-from the legacy tip & ring circuit-switched PSTN voice network to the high-bandwidth, dynamic routing, IP packet-based networks of today, where there is a convergence of various data types. Today's broadband networks employ numerous protocols, various caching and queuing technologies, DNS/IP addressing, as well as encoding and decoding (codecs) technologies that allow consumers to utilize countless services and applications online. Very simply, there is an extensive amount of processing, storing, and converting activities on a broadband network than the legacy phone network with regards to the User Network Interface (UNI) connection. Question 1: In your opinion and from a pure definitional standpoint, which definition is more appropriate for broadband access services? Do you believe a new definition or classification (such as "Internet Service" or "Broadband Service") may be required to better reflect broadband Internet access services? RESPONSE: In the Bralld X decision, 454 U.S. 967 (2005), the Supreme Court held that it is ambiguous whether cable modem service, one form of broadband Internet access service, is an integrated information service or includes a telecommunications service component. II A majority of six Justices are on record as saying that classification of cable modem service is a call for the FCC to make and that "the Commission is free within the limits of reasoned interpretation to change course if it adequately justifies the change" (Uf. at 1001); one of the six "just barely" accepted the FCC's information service approach; and the three remaining Justices expressed the view that the agency //lust classify a separable telecommunications service within cable modem offerings. In light of that decision, I believe the FCC has discretion in deciding whether broadband Internet access service includes a telecommunications service component. As you know, Chairmen Rockefeller, Waxman, Kerry, and Boucher have announced they will start a process to develop proposals to update the Communications Act. A limited update of the Communications Act could lock in an effective broadband framework to promote investment and innovation, foster competition, and empower consumers. I have committed all available Commission resources to assisting Congress in its consideration of how to improve and clarify our communications laws. Question 2: Would reclassification of broadband Internet access service as a telecommunications service change the ability of service providers to deal with online copyright theft? What should be done to maximize security for copyright holders from a technology standpoint? RESPONSE: I do not believe that classification of the transmission component of broadband Internet access service as a telecommunications service would have any effect on the ability of service providers to deal with online copyright theft. The National Broadband Plan recognizes (at page 58) that "[t]he Internet must be a safe, trusted platform for the lawful distribution of content." The Plan acknowledges (at page 17) that digital piracy is an ongoing problem. The Plan notes promising developments in technology to prevent piracy, such as content finger-printing, and lauds industry-led initiatives to develop guidelines for dealing with piracy. I am hopeful that continuing advances in technology, development of industry guidelines, and enforcement of copyright laws will curb piracy without stilling innovation or overburdening lawful uses of copyrighted works. Question 3: Additionally, would reclassification have any implications for the ability of service providers to deal with computer viruses or spam, or even to implement cyber security measures? As a member of the Intelligence Committee, I am very interested in enhancing-and not impeding---