OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
March 17,2011
The Honorable Fred Upton
Chairman
Committee on Energy and Commerce
U.S. House ofRepresentatives
2125 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Chairman Upton:
Thank you for your recent letter inquiring whether the Commission intends to impose
common-carrier roaming obligations on facilities-based providers ofcommercial mobile data
services. For nearly 30 years, the Commission has, on a bipartisan basis, required roaming in
one form or another to "continue to foster the development of seamless automatic roaming
services for all [ ] subscribers in the nation." I I believe data roaming arrangements are best
negotiated between mobile providers in light of commercial considerations. Accordingly, I do
not support a common-carriage mandate for data roaming.
In response to your initial letter dated November 23,2010, I described in some detail the
arguments that had been made before the Commission concerning the extension of automatic
voice roaming to the data services context. At that time, we were still reviewing the record, both
with respect to the appropriate substance ofthe rule and the legal support underlying the
inclusion ofdata services as part ofa provider's roaming obligations. Because we had yet to
determine what course to pursue, it was not possible to offer a specific analysis ofthe scope of
the Commission's legal authority.
After an extensive review ofthe record, the FCC staffhas concluded - and I agree - that
a data roaming rule is necessary to ensure vibrant competition in the mobile marketplace, to
unleash billions ofdollars of investment that is currently sidelined, to create thousands ofnew
jobs and to meet the consumer demand for seamless nationwide coverage, be it for voice or data.
The record contains abundant evidence from both national and rural businesses that a data
roaming rule is necessary to achieve these important goals because some providers have been
unwilling to negotiate either 30 or 40 data roaming agreements or have created long delays or
taken other steps to impede healthy competition and roaming for consumers. Moreover, as the
mobile world moves to LTE, the Commission's basic bipartisan voice roaming rules will be in
jeopardy, as they will no longer ensure automatic voice roaming.
I Reexamination ofRoaming Obligations ofCommercial Mobile Radio Service Providers, WT Docket No. 05-265,
Report and Order and Further Notice ofProposed Rulemaking, 22 FCC Red 15817, 15831~35 (2007).
Page 2-The Honorable Fred Upton
Based on these factors, today I am circulating to my colleagues a draft order for
consideration that requires a facilities-based provider ofcommercial mobile data services to offer
roaming arrangements to other such providers on commercially reasonable terms and conditions,
subject to various limitations designed to account for and protect the legitimate interests ofthe
companies that would be providing roaming. This requirement fulfills the Commission's duty
under Section 303(b) ofthe Communications Act to prescribe, "as public convenience, interest,
or necessity requires, ... the nature ofthe service to be rendered" by providers ofmobile services
and other authorized users ofspectrum. At the same time, the draft avoids the legal authority
concern raised in your letter oftreating mobile data service providers as "common carriers"
under the Communications Act. To the contrary, the draft order under consideration eschews a
common carriage approach and leaves mobile service providers free to negotiate and determine,
on a customer-by-customer basis, the commercially reasonable terms ofdata roaming
agreements. This is not common carriage. See National Ass 'n ofRegulatory Uti!. Comm'rs v.
FCC, 525 F.2d 630,641 (1976) (stating that "to be a common carrier one must hold oneselfout
indiscriminately to the clientele one is suited to serve" and "a carrier will not be a common
carrier where its practice is to make individualized decisions, in particular cases, whether and on
what terms to deal").
I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if I can be of any further
assistance.
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
March 17, 2011
The Honorable Joe Barton
U.S. House ofRepresentatives
2109 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Barton:
Thank you for your recent letter inquiring whether the Commission intends to impose
common-carrier roaming obligations on facilities-based providers ofcommercial mobile data
services. For nearly 30 years, the Commission has, on a bipartisan basis, required roaming in
one form or another to "continue to foster the development of seamless automatic roaming
services for all [ ] subscribers in the nation."l I believe data roaming arrangements are best
negotiated between mobile providers in light ofcommercial considerations. Accordingly, I do
not support a common-carriage mandate for data roaming.
In response to your initial letter dated November 23,2010, I described in some detail the
arguments that had been made before the Commission concerning the extension ofautomatic
voice roaming to the data services context. At that time, we were still reviewing the record, both
with respect to the appropriate substance ofthe rule and the legal support underlying the
inclusion ofdata services as part ofa provider's roaming obligations. Because we had yet to
determine what course to pursue, it was not possible to offer a specific analysis ofthe scope of
the Commission's legal authority.
After an extensive review ofthe record, the FCC staffhas concluded - and I agree - that
a data roaming rule is necessary to ensure vibrant competition in the mobile marketplace, to
unleash billions ofdollars ofinvestment that is currently sidelined, to create thousands ofnew
jobs and to meet the consumer demand for seamless nationwide coverage, be it for voice or data.
The record contains abundant evidence from both national and rural businesses that a data
roaming rule is necessary to achieve these important goals because some providers have been
unwilling to negotiate either 3G or 4G data roaming agreements or have created long delays or
taken other steps to impede healthy competition and roaming for consumers. Moreover, as the
mobile world moves to LTE, the Commission's basic bipartisan voice roaming rules will be in
jeopardy, as they will no longer ensure automatic voice roaming.
Based on these factors, today I am circulating to my colleagues a draft order for
consideration that requires a facilities-based provider of commercial mobile data services to offer
roaming arrangements to other such providers on commercially reasonable terms and conditions,
I Reexamination ofRoaming Obligations ofCommercial Mobile Radio Service Providers, WT Docket No. 05-265,
Report and Order and Further Notice ofProposed Rulemaking, 22 FCC Red 15817, 15831~35 (2007).
Page 2-The Honorable Joe Barton
subject to various limitations designed to account for and protect the legitimate interests ofthe
companies that would be providing roaming. This requirement fulfills the Commission's duty
under Section 303(b) ofthe Communications Act to prescribe, "as public convenience, interest,
or necessity requires, ... the nature ofthe service to be rendered" by providers ofmobile services
and other authorized users ofspectrum. At the same time, the draft avoids the legal authority
concern raised in your letter oftreating mobile data service providers as "common carriers"
under the Communications Act. To the contrary, the draft order under consideration eschews a
common carriage approach and leaves mobile service providers free to negotiate and determine,
on a customer-by-customer basis, the commercially reasonable terms ofdata roaming
agreements. This is not common carriage. See National Ass'n ofRegulatory Uti!. Comm'rs v.
FCC, 525 F.2d 630,641 (1976) (stating that "to be a common carrier one must hold oneself out
indiscriminately to the clientele one is suited to serve" and "a carrier will not be a common
carrier where its practice is to make individualized decisions, in particular cases, whether and on
what terms to deal").
I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know ifI can be ofany further
assistance.
~~~~/7
// /
/ /1
l Jul1us Genachowski
I /
fl
I
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
March 17,2011
The Honorable Marsha Blackburn
U.S. House ofRepresentatives
217 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congresswoman Blackburn:
Thank you for your recent letter inquiring whether the Commission intends to impose
common-carrier roaming obligations on facilities-based providers ofcommercial mobile data
services. For nearly 30 years, the Commission has, on a bipartisan basis, required roaming in
one form or another to "continue to foster the development of seamless automatic roaming
services for all [ ] subscribers in the nation."l I believe data roaming arrangements are best
negotiated between mobile providers in light of commercial considerations. Accordingly, I do
not support a common-carriage mandate for data roaming.
In response to your initial letter dated November 23,2010, I described in some detail the
arguments that had been made before the Commission concerning the extension ofautomatic
voice roaming to the data services context. At that time, we were still reviewing the record, both
with respect to the appropriate substance ofthe rule and the legal support underlying the
inclusion ofdata services as part ofa provider's roaming obligations. Because we had yet to
determine what course to pursue, it was not possible to offer a specific analysis ofthe scope of
the Commission's legal authority.
After an extensive review ofthe record, the FCC staffhas concluded - and I agree - that
a data roaming rule is necessary to ensure vibrant competition in the mobile marketplace, to
unleash billions ofdollars ofinvestment that is currently sidelined, to create thousands ofnew
jobs and to meet the consumer demand for seamless nationwide coverage, be it for voice or data.
The record contains abundant evidence from both national and rural businesses that a data
roaming rule is necessary to achieve these important goals because some providers have been
unwilling to negotiate either 3G or 4G data roaming agreements or have created long delays or
taken other steps to impede healthy competition and roaming for consumers. Moreover, as the
mobile world moves to LTE, the Commission's basic bipartisan voice roaming rules will be in
jeopardy, as they will no longer ensure automatic voice roaming.
Based on these factors, today I am circulating to my colleagues a draft order for
consideration that requires a facilities-based provider ofcommercial mobile data services to offer
roaming arrangements to other such providers on commercially reasonable terms and conditions,
I Reexamination ofRoaming Obligations ofCommercial Mobile Radio Service Providers, WT Docket No. 05-265,
Report and Order and Further Notice ofProposed Rulemaking, 22 FCC Rcd 15817, 15831~35 (2007).
Page 2-The Honorable Marsha Blackburn
subject to various limitations designed to account for and protect the legitimate interests ofthe
companies that would be providing roaming. This requirement fulfills the Commission's duty
under Section 303(b) ofthe Communications Act to prescribe, "as public convenience, interest,
or necessity requires, ... the nature ofthe service to be rendered" by providers ofmobile services
and other authorized users ofspectrum. At the same time, the draft avoids the legal authority
concern raised in your letter oftreating mobile data service providers as "common carriers"
under the Communications Act. To the contrary, the draft order under consideration eschews a
common carriage approach and leaves mobile service providers free to negotiate and determine,
on a customer-by-customer basis, the commercially reasonable terms ofdata roaming
agreements. This is not common carriage. See National Ass'n ofRegulatory Uti!. Comm'rs v.
FCC, 525 F.2d 630,641 (1976) (stating that "to be a common carrier one must hold oneself out
indiscriminately to the clientele one is suited to serve" and "a carrier will not be a common
carrier where its practice is to make individualized decisions, in particular cases, whether and on
what terms to deal").
I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know ifI can be ofany further
assistance.
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
March 17,2011
The Honorable Mary Bono Mack
U.S. House ofRepresentatives
104 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congresswoman Bono Mack:
Thank you for your recent letter inquiring whether the Commission intends to impose
common-carrier roaming obligations on facilities-based providers ofcommercial mobile data
services. For nearly 30 years, the Commission has, on a bipartisan basis, required roaming in
one form or another to "continue to foster the development ofseamless automatic roaming
services for all [ ] subscribers in the nation."l I believe data roaming arrangements are best
negotiated between mobile providers in light of commercial considerations. Accordingly, I do
not support a common-carriage mandate for data roaming.
In response to your initial letter dated November 23,2010, I described in some detail the
arguments that had been made before the Commission concerning the extension ofautomatic
voice roaming to the data services context. At that time, we were still reviewing the record, both
with respect to the appropriate substance ofthe rule and the legal support underlying the
inclusion ofdata services as part ofa provider's roaming obligations. Because we had yet to
determine what course to pursue, it was not possible to offer a specific analysis ofthe scope of
the Commission's legal authority.
After an extensive review ofthe record, the FCC staff has concluded - and I agree - that
a data roaming rule is necessary to ensure vibrant competition in the mobile marketplace, to
unleash billions ofdollars ofinvestment that is currently sidelined, to create thousands ofnew
jobs and to meet the consumer demand for seamless nationwide coverage, be it for voice or data.
The record contains abundant evidence from both national and rural businesses that a data
roaming rule is necessary to achieve these important goals because some providers have been
unwilling to negotiate either 3G or 4G data roaming agreements or have created long delays or
taken other steps to impede healthy competition and roaming for consumers. Moreover, as the
mobile world moves to LTE, the Commission's basic bipartisan voice roaming rules will be in
jeopardy, as they will no longer ensure automatic voice roaming.
Based on these factors, today I am circulating to my colleagues a draft order for
consideration that requires a facilities-based provider ofcommercial mobile data services to offer
roaming arrangements to other such providers on commercially reasonable terms and conditions,
I Reexamination ofRoaming Obligations ofCommercial Mobile Radio Service Providers, WT Docket No. 05-265,
Report and Order and Further Notice ofProposed Rulemaking, 22 FCC Rcd 15817, 15831~35 (2007).
Page 2-The Honorable Mary Bono Mack
subject to various limitations designed to account for and protect the legitimate interests ofthe
companies that would be providing roaming. This requirement fulfills the Commission's duty
under Section 303(b) ofthe Communications Act to prescribe, "as public convenience, interest,
or necessity requires, ... the nature ofthe service to be rendered" by providers ofmobile services
and other authorized users ofspectrum. At the same time, the draft avoids the legal authority
concern raised in your letter oftreating mobile data service providers as "common carriers"
under the Communications Act. To the contrary, the draft order under consideration eschews a
common carriage approach and leaves mobile service providers free to negotiate and determine,
on a customer-by-customer basis, the commercially reasonable terms ofdata roaming
agreements. This is not common carriage. See National Ass 'n ofRegulatory Uti!. Comm'rs v.
FCC, 525 F.2d 630,641 (1976) (stating that "to be a common carrier one must hold oneself out
indiscriminately to the clientele one is suited to serve" and "a carrier will not be a common
carrier where its practice is to make individualized decisions, in particular cases, whether and on
what terms to deal").
I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know ifI can be ofany further
assistance.
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
March 17,2011
The Honorable Phil Gingrey
U.S. House ofRepresentatives
442 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Gingrey:
Thank you for your recent letter inquiring whether the Commission intends to impose
common-carrier roaming obligations on facilities-based providers ofcommercial mobile data
services. For nearly 30 years, the Commission has, on a bipartisan basis, required roaming in
one form or another to "continue to foster the development ofseamless automatic roaming
services for all [ ] subscribers in the nation."l I believe data roaming arrangements are best
negotiated between mobile providers in light ofcommercial considerations. Accordingly, I do
not support a common-carriage mandate for data roaming.
In response to your initial letter dated November 23,2010, I described in some detail the
arguments that had been made before the Commission concerning the extension of automatic
voice roaming to the data services context. At that time, we were still reviewing the record, both
with respect to the appropriate substance ofthe rule and the legal support underlying the
inclusion ofdata services as part ofa provider's roaming obligations. Because we had yet to
determine what course to pursue, it was not possible to offer a specific analysis ofthe scope of
the Commission's legal authority.
After an extensive review ofthe record, the FCC staff has concluded - and I agree - that
a data roaming rule is necessary to ensure vibrant competition in the mobile marketplace, to
unleash billions ofdollars ofinvestment that is currently sidelined, to create thousands ofnew
jobs and to meet the consumer demand for seamless nationwide coverage, be it for voice or data.
The record contains abundant evidence from both national and rural businesses that a data
roaming rule is necessary to achieve these important goals because some providers have been
unwilling to negotiate either 3G or 4G data roaming agreements or have created long delays or
taken other steps to impede healthy competition and roaming for consumers. Moreover, as the
mobile world moves to LTE, the Commission's basic bipartisan voice roaming rules will be in
jeopardy, as they will no longer ensure automatic voice roaming.
Based on these factors, today I am circulating to my colleagues a draft order for
consideration that requires a facilities-based provider ofcommercial mobile data services to offer
roaming arrangements to other such providers on commercially reasonable terms and conditions,
I Reexamination ofRoaming Obligations ofCommercial Mobile Radio Service Providers, WT Docket No. 05-265,
Report and Order and Further Notice ofProposed Rulemaking, 22 FCC Rcd 15817, 15831~35 (2007).
Page 2-The Honorable Phil Gingrey
subject to various limitations designed to account for and protect the legitimate interests ofthe
companies that would be providing roaming. This requirement fulfills the Commission's duty
under Section 303(b) ofthe Communications Act to prescribe, "as public convenience, interest,
or necessity requires, ... the nature ofthe service to be rendered" by providers ofmobile services
and other authorized users ofspectrum. At the same time, the draft avoids the legal authority
concern raised in your letter oftreating mobile data service providers as "common carriers"
under the Communications Act. To the contrary, the draft order under consideration eschews a
common carriage approach and leaves mobile service providers free to negotiate and determine,
on a customer-by-customer basis, the commercially reasonable terms ofdata roaming
agreements. This is not common carriage. See National Ass'n ofRegulatory Uti!. Comm'rs v.
FCC, 525 F.2d 630,641 (1976) (stating that "to be a common carrier one must hold oneself out
indiscriminately to the clientele one is suited to serve" and "a carrier will not be a common
carrier where its practice is to make individualized decisions, in particular cases, whether and on
what terms to deal").
I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know ifI can be of any further
assistance.
Julius Genachowski
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
March 17,2011
The Honorable Ralph M. Hall
U.S. House ofRepresentatives
2405 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Hall:
Thank you for your recent letter inquiring whether the Commission intends to impose
common-carrier roaming obligations on facilities-based providers ofcommercial mobile data
services. For nearly 30 years, the Commission has, on a bipartisan basis, required roaming in
one form or another to "continue to foster the development ofseamless automatic roaming
services for all [ ] subscribers in the nation.'" I believe data roaming arrangements are best
negotiated between mobile providers in light of commercial considerations. Accordingly, I do
not support a common-carriage mandate for data roaming.
In response to your initial letter dated November 23,2010, I described in some detail the
arguments that had been made before the Commission concerning the extension ofautomatic
voice roaming to the data services context. At that time, we were still reviewing the record, both
with respect to the appropriate substance ofthe rule and the legal support underlying the
inclusion ofdata services as part ofa provider's roaming obligations. Because we had yet to
determine what course to pursue, it was not possible to offer a specific analysis ofthe scope of
the Commission's legal authority.
After an extensive review ofthe record, the FCC staffhas concluded - and I agree - that
a data roaming rule is necessary to ensure vibrant competition in the mobile marketplace, to
unleash billions of dollars ofinvestment that is currently sidelined, to create thousands ofnew
jobs and to meet the consumer demand for seamless nationwide coverage, be it for voice or data.
The record contains abundant evidence from both national and rural businesses that a data
roaming rule is necessary to achieve these important goals because some providers have been
unwilling to negotiate either 30 or 40 data roaming agreements or have created long delays or
taken other steps to impede healthy competition and roaming for consumers. Moreover, as the
mobile world moves to LTE, the Commission's basic bipartisan voice roaming rules will be in
jeopardy, as they will no longer ensure automatic voice roaming.
Based on these factors, today I am circulating to my colleagues a draft order for
consideration that requires a facilities-based provider ofcommercial mobile data services to offer
roaming arrangements to other such providers on commercially reasonable terms and conditions,
1 Reexamination ofRoaming Obligations ofCommercial Mobile Radio Service Providers, WT Docket No. 05-265,
Report and Order and Further Notice ofProposed Rulemaking, 22 FCC Rcd 15817, 15831~35 (2007).
Page 2-The Honorable Ralph M. Hall
subject to various limitations designed to account for and protect the legitimate interests ofthe
companies that would be providing roaming. This requirement fulfills the Commission's duty
under Section 303(b) ofthe Communications Act to prescribe, "as public convenience, interest,
or necessity requires, ... the nature ofthe service to be rendered" by providers ofmobile services
and other authorized users ofspectrum. At the same time, the draft avoids the legal authority
concern raised in your letter oftreating mobile data service providers as "common carriers"
under the Communications Act. To the contrary, the draft order under consideration eschews a
common carriage approach and leaves mobile service providers free to negotiate and determine,
on a customer-by-customer basis, the commercially reasonable terms ofdata roaming
agreements. This is not common carriage. See National Ass 'n ofRegulatory Uti!. Comm'rs v.
FCC, 525 F.2d 630,641 (1976) (stating that "to be a common carrier one must hold oneself out
indiscriminately to the clientele one is suited to serve" and "a carrier will not be a common
carrier where its practice is to make individualized decisions, in particular cases, whether and on
what terms to deal").
I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if! can be ofany further
assistance.
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
March 17,2011
The Honorable Tim Murphy
U.S. House ofRepresentatives
322 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Murphy:
Thank you for your recent letter inquiring whether the Commission intends to impose
common-carrier roaming obligations on facilities-based providers ofcommercial mobile data
services. For nearly 30 years, the Commission has, on a bipartisan basis, required roaming in
one form or another to "continue to foster the development ofseamless automatic roaming
services for all [ ] subscribers in the nation.") I believe data roaming arrangements are best
negotiated between mobile providers in light of commercial considerations. Accordingly, I do
not support a common-carriage mandate for data roaming.
In response to your initial letter dated November 23, 2010, I described in some detail the
arguments that had been made before the Commission concerning the extension ofautomatic
voice roaming to the data services context. At that time, we were still reviewing the record, both
with respect to the appropriate substance ofthe rule and the legal support underlying the
inclusion ofdata services as part ofa provider's roaming obligations. Because we had yet to
determine what course to pursue, it was not possible to offer a specific analysis ofthe scope of
the Commission's legal authority.
After an extensive review ofthe record, the FCC staffhas concluded - and I agree - that
a data roaming rule is necessary to ensure vibrant competition in the mobile marketplace, to
unleash billions of dollars ofinvestment that is currently sidelined, to create thousands ofnew
jobs and to meet the consumer demand for seamless nationwide coverage, be it for voice or data.
The record contains abundant evidence from both national and rural businesses that a data
roaming rule is necessary to achieve these important goals because some providers have been
unwilling to negotiate either 3G or 4G data roaming agreements or have created long delays or
taken other steps to impede healthy competition and roaming for consumers. Moreover, as the
mobile world moves to LTE, the Commission's basic bipartisan voice roaming rules will be in
jeopardy, as they will no longer ensure automatic voice roaming.
Based on these factors, today I am circulating to my colleagues a draft order for
consideration that requires a facilities-based provider of commercial mobile data services to offer
roaming arrangements to other such providers on commercially reasonable terms and conditions,
I Reexamination ofRoaming Obligations ofCommercial Mobile Radio Service Providers, WT Docket No. 05-265,
Report and Order and Further Notice ofProposed Rulemaking, 22 FCC Rcd 15817, 15831~35 (2007).
Page 2-The Honorable Tim Murphy
subject to various limitations designed to account for and protect the legitimate interests ofthe
companies that would be providing roaming. This requirement fulfills the Commission's duty
under Section 303(b) ofthe Communications Act to prescribe, "as public convenience, interest,
or necessity requires, ... the nature ofthe service to be rendered" by providers ofmobile services
and other authorized users ofspectrum. At the same time, the draft avoids the legal authority
concern raised in your letter oftreating mobile data service providers as "common carriers"
under the Communications Act. To the contrary, the draft order under consideration eschews a
common carriage approach and leaves mobile service providers free to negotiate and determine,
on a customer-by-customer basis, the commercially reasonable terms ofdata roaming
agreements. This is not common carriage. See National Ass'n ofRegulatory Uti!. Comm'rs v.
FCC, 525 F.2d 630, 641 (1976) (stating that "to be a common carrier one must hold oneself out
indiscriminately to the clientele one is suited to serve" and "a carrier will not be a common
carrier where its practice is to make individualized decisions, in particular cases, whether and on
what terms to deal").
I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if! can be ofany further
assistance.
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
March 17,2011
The Honorable Steve Scalise
U.S. House ofRepresentatives
429 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Scalise:
Thank you for your recent letter inquiring whether the Commission intends to impose
common-carrier roaming obligations on facilities-based providers ofcommercial mobile data
services. For nearly 30 years, the Commission has, on a bipartisan basis, required roaming in
one form or another to "continue to foster the development ofseamless automatic roaming
services for all [ ] subscribers in the nation."l I believe data roaming arrangements are best
negotiated between mobile providers in light of commercial considerations. Accordingly, I do
not support a common-carriage mandate for data roaming.
In response to your initial letter dated November 23,2010, I described in some detail the
arguments that had been made before the Commission concerning the extension ofautomatic
voice roaming to the data services context. At that time, we were still reviewing the record, both
with respect to the appropriate substance ofthe rule and the legal support underlying the
inclusion of data services as part ofa provider's roaming obligations. Because we had yet to
determine what course to pursue, it was not possible to offer a specific analysis ofthe scope of
the Commission's legal authority.
After an extensive review ofthe record, the FCC staffhas concluded - and I agree - that
a data roaming rule is necessary to ensure vibrant competition in the mobile marketplace, to
unleash billions ofdollars ofinvestment that is currently sidelined, to create thousands ofnew
jobs and to meet the consumer demand for seamless nationwide coverage, be it for voice or data.
The record contains abundant evidence from both national and rural businesses that a data
roaming rule is necessary to achieve these important goals because some providers have been
unwilling to negotiate either 3G or 4G data roaming agreements or have created long delays or
taken other steps to impede healthy competition and roaming for consumers. Moreover, as the
mobile world moves to LTE, the Commission's basic bipartisan voice roaming rules will be in
jeopardy, as they will no longer ensure automatic voice roaming.
Based on these factors, today I am circulating to my colleagues a draft order for
consideration that requires a facilities-based provider of commercial mobile data services to offer
roaming arrangements to other such providers on commercially reasonable terms and conditions,
I Reexamination ofRoaming Obligations ofCommercial Mobile Radio Service Providers, WT Docket No. 05-265,
Report and Order and Further Notice ofProposed Rulemaking, 22 FCC Rcd 15817, 15831~35 (2007).
Page 2-The Honorable Steve Scalise
subject to various limitations designed to account for and protect the legitimate interests ofthe
companies that would be providing roaming. This requirement fulfills the Commission's duty
under Section 303(b) ofthe Communications Act to prescribe, "as public convenience, interest,
or necessity requires, ... the nature ofthe service to be rendered" by providers ofmobile services
and other authorized users ofspectrum. At the same time, the draft avoids the legal authority
concern raised in your letter oftreating mobile data service providers as "common carriers"
under the Communications Act. To the contrary, the draft order under consideration eschews a
common carriage approach and leaves mobile service providers free to negotiate and determine,
on a customer-by-customer basis, the commercially reasonable terms ofdata roaming
agreements. This is not common carriage. See National Ass 'n ofRegulatory Uti!. Comm 'rs v.
FCC, 525 F.2d 630,641 (1976) (stating that "to be a common carrier one must hold oneselfout
indiscriminately to the clientele one is suited to serve" and "a carrier will not be a common
carrier where its practice is to make individualized decisions, in particular cases, whether and on
what terms to deal").
I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if! can be ofany further
assistance.
Julius Genachowski
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
March 17,2011
The Honorable John M. Shimkus
U.S. House ofRepresentatives
2452 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Shimkus:
Thank you for your recent letter inquiring whether the Commission intends to impose
common-carrier roaming obligations on facilities-based providers ofcommercial mobile data
services. For nearly 30 years, the Commission has, on a bipartisan basis, required roaming in
one form or another to "continue to foster the development ofseamless automatic roaming
services for all [ ] subscribers in the nation."l I believe data roaming arrangements are best
negotiated between mobile providers in light of commercial considerations. Accordingly, I do
not support a common-carriage mandate for data roaming.
In response to your initial letter dated November 23, 2010, I described in some detail the
arguments that had been made before the Commission concerning the extension ofautomatic
voice roaming to the data services context. At that time, we were still reviewing the record, both
with respect to the appropriate substance ofthe rule and the legal support underlying the
inclusion ofdata services as part ofa provider's roaming obligations. Because we had yet to
determine what course to pursue, it was not possible to offer a specific analysis ofthe scope of
the Commission's legal authority.
After an extensive review ofthe record, the FCC staffhas concluded - and I agree - that
a data roaming rule is necessary to ensure vibrant competition in the mobile marketplace, to
unleash billions ofdollars ofinvestment that is currently sidelined, to create thousands ofnew
jobs and to meet the consumer demand for seamless nationwide coverage, be it for voice or data.
The record contains abundant evidence from both national and rural businesses that a data
roaming rule is necessary to achieve these important goals because some providers have been
unwilling to negotiate either 3G or 4G data roaming agreements or have created long delays or
taken other steps to impede healthy competition and roaming for consumers. Moreover, as the
mobile world moves to LTE, the Commission's basic bipartisan voice roaming rules will be in
jeopardy, as they will no longer ensure automatic voice roaming.
Based on these factors, today I am circulating to my colleagues a draft order for
consideration that requires a facilities-based provider of commercial mobile data services to offer
roaming arrangements to other such providers on commercially reasonable terms and conditions,
I Reexamination ofRoaming Obligations ofCommercial Mobile Radio Service Providers, WT Docket No. 05-265,
Report and Order and Further Notice ofProposed Rulemaking, 22 FCC Rcd 15817, 15831~35 (2007).
Page 2-The Honorable John M. Shimkus
subject to various limitations designed to account for and protect the legitimate interests ofthe
companies that would be providing roaming. This requirement fulfills the Commission's duty
under Section 303(b) ofthe Communications Act to prescribe, "as public convenience, interest,
or necessity requires, ... the nature ofthe service to be rendered" by providers ofmobile services
and other authorized users ofspectrum. At the same time, the draft avoids the legal authority
concern raised in your letter oftreating mobile data service providers as "common carriers"
under the Communications Act. To the contrary, the draft order under consideration eschews a
common carriage approach and leaves mobile service providers free to negotiate and determine,
on a customer-by-customer basis, the commercially reasonable terms ofdata roaming
agreements. This is not common carriage. See National Ass'n ofRegulatory Uti!. Comm'rs v.
FCC, 525 F.2d 630,641 (1976) (stating that "to be a common carrier one must hold oneself out
indiscriminately to the clientele one is suited to serve" and "a carrier will not be a common
carrier where its practice is to make individualized decisions, in particular cases, whether and on
what terms to deal").
I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know ifI can be ofany further
assistance.
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
March 17,2011
The Honorable Cliff Steams
Chairman
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
Committee on Energy and Commerce
U.S. House ofRepresentatives
2125 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Chairman Stearns:
Thank you for your recent letter inquiring whether the Commission intends to impose
common-carrier roaming obligations on facilities-based providers ofcommercial mobile data
services. For nearly 30 years, the Commission has, on a bipartisan basis, required roaming in
one form or another to "continue to foster the development of seamless automatic roaming
services for all [ ] subscribers in the nation."l I believe data roaming arrangements are best
negotiated between mobile providers in light of commercial considerations. Accordingly, I do
not support a common-carriage mandate for data roaming.
In response to your initial letter dated November 23, 20 I0, I described in some detail the
arguments that had been made before the Commission concerning the extension ofautomatic
voice roaming to the data services context. At that time, we were still reviewing the record, both
with respect to the appropriate substance ofthe rule and the legal support underlying the
inclusion ofdata services as part ofa provider's roaming obligations. Because we had yet to
determine what course to pursue, it was not possible to offer a specific analysis ofthe scope of
the Commission's legal authority.
After an extensive review ofthe record, the FCC staffhas concluded - and I agree - that
a data roaming rule is necessary to ensure vibrant competition in the mobile marketplace, to
unleash billions ofdollars of investment that is currently sidelined, to create thousands ofnew
jobs and to meet the consumer demand for seamless nationwide coverage, be it for voice or data.
The record contains abundant evidence from both national and rural businesses that a data
roaming rule is necessary to achieve these important goals because some providers have been
unwilling to negotiate either 3G or 4G data roaming agreements or have created long delays or
taken other steps to impede healthy competition and roaming for consumers. Moreover, as the
mobile world moves to LTE, the Commission's basic bipartisan voice roaming rules will be in
jeopardy, as they will no longer ensure automatic voice roaming.
I Reexamination ofRoaming Obligations ofCommercial Mobile Radio Service Providers, WT Docket No. 05-265,
Report and Order and Further Notice ofProposed Rulemaking, 22 FCC Red 15817, 15831~35 (2007).
Page 2-The Honorable Cliff Stearns
Based on these factors, today I am circulating to my colleagues a draft order for
consideration that requires a facilities-based provider ofcommercial mobile data services to offer
roaming arrangements to other such providers on commercially reasonable terms and conditions,
subject to various limitations designed to account for and protect the legitimate interests ofthe
companies that would be providing roaming. This requirement fulfills the Commission's duty
under Section 303(b) ofthe Communications Act to prescribe, "as public convenience, interest,
or necessity requires, ... the nature ofthe service to be rendered" by providers ofmobile services
and other authorized users ofspectrum. At the same time, the draft avoids the legal authority
concern raised in your letter oftreating mobile data service providers as "common carriers"
under the Communications Act. To the contrary, the draft order under consideration eschews a
common carriage approach and leaves mobile service providers free to negotiate and determine,
on a customer-by-customer basis, the commercially reasonable terms ofdata roaming
agreements. This is not common carriage. See National Ass 'n ofRegulatory Uti!. Comm'rs v.
FCC, 525 F.2d 630,641 (1976) (stating that "to be a common carrier one must hold oneself out
indiscriminately to the clientele one is suited to serve" and "a carrier will not be a common
carrier where its practice is to make individualized decisions, in particular cases, whether and on
what terms to deal").
I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if! can be ofany further
assistance.
Genachowski
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
March 17,2011
The Honorable Lee Terry
Vice Chairman
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology
Committee on Energy and Commerce
U.S. House ofRepresentatives
2125 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Vice Chairman Terry:
Thank you for your recent letter inquiring whether the Commission intends to impose
common-carrier roaming obligations on facilities-based providers ofcommercial mobile data
services. For nearly 30 years, the Commission has, on a bipartisan basis, required roaming in
one form or another to "continue to foster the development ofseamless automatic roaming
services for all [ ] subscribers in the nation."l I believe data roaming arrangements are best
negotiated between mobile providers in light of commercial considerations. Accordingly, I do
not support a common-carriage mandate for data roaming.
In response to your initial letter dated November 23,2010, I described in some detail the
arguments that had been made before the Commission concerning the extension ofautomatic
voice roaming to the data services context. At that time, we were still reviewing the record, both
with respect to the appropriate substance ofthe rule and the legal support underlying the
inclusion ofdata services as part ofa provider's roaming obligations. Because we had yet to
determine what course to pursue, it was not possible to offer a specific analysis ofthe scope of
the Commission's legal authority.
After an extensive review ofthe record, the FCC staffhas concluded - and I agree - that
a data roaming rule is necessary to ensure vibrant competition in the mobile marketplace, to
unleash billions ofdollars ofinvestment that is currently sidelined, to create thousands ofnew
jobs and to meet the consumer demand for seamless nationwide coverage, be it for voice or data.
The record contains abundant evidence from both national and rural businesses that a data
roaming rule is necessary to achieve these important goals because some providers have been
unwilling to negotiate either 3G or 4G data roaming agreements or have created long delays or
taken other steps to impede healthy competition and roaming for consumers. Moreover, as the
mobile world moves to LTE, the Commission's basic bipartisan voice roaming rules will be in
jeopardy, as they will no longer ensure automatic voice roaming.
I Reexamination ofRoaming Obligations ofCommercial Mobile Radio Service Providers, WT Docket No. 05-265,
Report and Order and Further Notice ofProposed Rulemaking, 22 FCC Rcd 15817, 15831~35 (2007).
Page 2-The Honorable Lee Terry
Based on these factors, today I am circulating to my colleagues a draft order for
consideration that requires a facilities-based provider ofcommercial mobile data services to offer
roaming arrangements to other such providers on commercially reasonable terms and conditions,
subject to various limitations designed to account for and protect the legitimate interests ofthe
companies that would be providing roaming. This requirement fulfills the Commission's duty
under Section 303(b) ofthe Communications Act to prescribe, "as public convenience, interest,
or necessity requires, '" the nature ofthe service to be rendered" by providers ofmobile services
and other authorized users ofspectrum. At the same time, the draft avoids the legal authority
concern raised in your letter oftreating mobile data service providers as "common carriers"
under the Communications Act. To the contrary, the draft order under consideration eschews a
common carriage approach and leaves mobile service providers free to negotiate and determine,
on a customer-by-customer basis, the commercially reasonable terms ofdata roaming
agreements. This is not common carriage. See National Ass 'n ofRegulatory Uti!. Comm'rs v.
FCC, 525 F.2d 630,641 (1976) (stating that "to be a common carrier one must hold oneselfout
indiscriminately to the clientele one is suited to serve" and "a carrier will not be a common
carrier where its practice is to make individualized decisions, in particular cases, whether and on
what terms to deal").
I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know ifI can be of any further
assistance.
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
March 17,2011
The Honorable Ed Whitfield
U.S. House ofRepresentatives
2368 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Whitfield:
Thank: you for your recent letter inquiring whether the Commission intends to impose
common-carrier roaming obligations on facilities-based providers ofcommercial mobile data
services. For nearly 30 years, the Commission has, on a bipartisan basis, required roaming in
one form or another to "continue to foster the development ofseamless automatic roaming
services for all [ ] subscribers in the nation."t I believe data roaming arrangements are best
negotiated between mobile providers in light of commercial considerations. Accordingly, I do
not support a common-carriage mandate for data roaming.
In response to your initial letter dated November 23,2010, I described in some detail the
arguments that had been made before the Commission concerning the extension ofautomatic
voice roaming to the data services context. At that time, we were still reviewing the record, both
with respect to the appropriate substance ofthe rule and the legal support underlying the
inclusion ofdata services as part ofa provider's roaming obligations. Because we had yet to
determine what course to pursue, it was not possible to offer a specific analysis ofthe scope of
the Commission's legal authority.
After an extensive review ofthe record, the FCC staffhas concluded - and I agree - that
a data roaming rule is necessary to ensure vibrant competition in the mobile marketplace, to
unleash billions ofdollars ofinvestment that is currently sidelined, to create thousands ofnew
jobs and to meet the consumer demand for seamless nationwide coverage, be it for voice or data.
The record contains abundant evidence from both national and rural businesses that a data
roaming rule is necessary to achieve these important goals because some providers have been
unwilling to negotiate either 3G or 4G data roaming agreements or have created long delays or
taken other steps to impede healthy competition and roaming for consumers. Moreover, as the
mobile world moves to LTE, the Commission's basic bipartisan voice roaming rules will be in
jeopardy, as they will no longer ensure automatic voice roaming.
Based on these factors, today I am circulating to my colleagues a draft order for
consideration that requires a facilities-based provider ofcommercial mobile data services to offer
roaming arrangements to other such providers on commercially reasonable terms and conditions,
I Reexamination ofRoaming Obligations ofCommercial Mobile Radio Service Providers, WT Docket No. 05-265,
Report and Order and Further Notice ofProposed Ru!emaking, 22 FCC Rcd 15817, 15831~35 (2007).
Page 2-The Honorable Ed Whitfield
subject to various limitations designed to account for and protect the legitimate interests ofthe
companies that would be providing roaming. This requirement fulfills the Commission's duty
under Section 303(b) ofthe Communications Act to prescribe, "as public convenience, interest,
or necessity requires, ... the nature ofthe service to be rendered" by providers ofmobile services
and other authorized users ofspectrum. At the same time, the draft avoids the legal authority
concern raised in your letter oftreating mobile data service providers as "common carriers"
under the Communications Act. To the contrary, the draft order under consideration eschews a
common carriage approach and leaves mobile service providers free to negotiate and determine,
on a customer-by-customer basis, the commercially reasonable terms ofdata roaming
agreements. This is not common carriage. See National Ass 'n ofRegulatory Uti!. Comm'rs v.
FCC, 525 Fold 630,641 (1976) (stating that "to be a common carrier one must hold oneself out
indiscriminately to the clientele one is suited to serve" and "a carrier will not be a common
carrier where its practice is to make individualized decisions, in particular cases, whether and on
what terms to deal").
I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know ifI can be ofany further
assistance.