FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
August 19,20II
JULIUS GENACHOWSKI
CHAIRMAN
The Honorable Jim DeMint
United States Senate
340 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Dear Senator DeMint:
Thank you for your letter expressing concerns about the Commission's decision to adopt
data roaming requirements for the wireless industry. On April 7,201 I, the Commission adopted
an Order requiring providers ofcommercial mobile data services to offer roaming arrangements
to other such providers on commercially reasonable terms and conditions, subject to certain
limitations.
After an extensive review ofthe record, the Commission determined that a data roaming
rule is necessary to ensure vibrant competition in the mobile marketplace, to unleash billions of
dollars of investment that is currently sidelined, to create thousands of new jobs and to meet the
consumer demand for seamless nationwide wireless 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.
Our data roan1ing rules are consistent with the Commission's authority under Section 303
ofthe Communications Act to establish operational obligations for licensees that further the
goals and requirements of the Act and to prescribe, "as public convenience, interest, or necessity
requires, the nature ofthe service to be rendered" by providers of mobile services and other
authorized users of spectrum. At the same time, the Order avoids the concern raised in your
letter regarding treating mobile data service providers as "common carriers" under the
Communications Act. To the contrary, the Order rejects a common carriage approach and leaves
mobile service providers free to negotiate and determine the commercially reasonable tems of
data roaming agreements.
Thank you for taking the time to express your views on this important matter. I am
happy to answer any further questions you may have.
,/ Julius Genachowski
445 12TH STREET S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C 20554 • 202-418-1000
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
August 19,201 J
JULIUS GENACHOWSKI
CHAIRMAN
The Honorable Patrick J. Toomey
United States Senate
711 Hart Scnate Office Building
Washington D.C. 205 J0
Dear Senator Toomey:
Thank you for your letter expressing conccrns about the Commission's decision to adopt
data roaming requirements for thc wireless industry. On April 7, 2011. the Commission adopted
an Order requiring providers ofcommercial mobile data services to offer roanling arrangements
to other such providers on commercially reasonable terms and conditions, subject to certain
limitations.
After an extensive review of the record, the Commission determined that a data roaming
rule is necessary to ensure vibrant competition in the mobile marketplace, to unleash billions of
dollars of investment that is currently sidelined, to create thousands of new jobs and to meet the
consumer demand for seamless nationwide wireless 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.
Our data roaming rules are consistent with the Commission's authority under Section 303
ofthe Communications Act to establish operational obligations for licensees that further the
goals and requirements ofthe Act and to prescribe, "as public convenience, interest, or necessity
requires, the nature of the service to be rendered" by providers of mobile services and other
authorized uscrs ofspectrum. At the same time, the Order avoids the concern raised in your
letter regarding treating mobile data service providers as "common carriers" under the
Communications Act. To the contrary, the Order rejects a common carriage approach and leaves
mobile service providers free to negotiate and determinc the commercially reasonable terms of
data roaming agrecments.
Thank you for taking the time to express your views on this important matter. I am
happy to an weI' any further questions you may have.
/
Julius Genachowski
445 12TH STREET S W WASHINGTON. D.C 20554 • 202-4 I 8-1 000