*Pages 1--45 from FCC 04-55 Final.doc* Federal Communications Commission FCC 04- 55 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington DC 20054 In the Matter of ) ) Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of ) Advanced Telecommunications ) Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable ) GN Docket No. 04- 54 and Timely Fashio n, and Possible Steps ) to Accelerate Such Deployment ) Pursuant to Section 706 of the ) Telecommunications Act of 1996 ) NOTICE OF INQUIRY Adopted: March 11, 2004 Released: March 17, 2004 Comment Date: 30 days from publication in the Fede ral Register Reply Comment Date: 45 days from publication in the Federal Register By the Commission: Chairman Powell and Commissioners Abernathy, Copps, and Adelstein issuing separate statements. I. INTRODUCTION 1. This Notice of Inquiry (Notice) begins our fourth inquiry under section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the 1996 Act) into “whether advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.” 1 We seek comment on various market, investme nt, and technological trends in order for the Commission to analyze and assess whether infrastructure capable of supporting advanced services is being made available to all Americans. 2. In section 706, Congress directed the Commission and the states to encourage the deployment of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans. 2 In conjunction with this objective, Congress instructed this Commission to conduct regular inquiries concerning the availability of advanced telecommunications capability. In so doing, Congress recognized that the availability of infrastructure capable of transmitting broadband or advanced services was 1 See § 706( b) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104- 104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996) (1996 Act), reproduced in the notes under 47 U. S. C. § 157. 2 Congress specified that the term “advanced telecommunications capability” is defined “without regard to any transmission media or technology, as high- speed, switched, broadband telecommunications capability that enables users to originate and receive high- quality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications using any technology.” See § 706( c) of the 1996 Act. 1 Federal Communications Commission FCC 04- 55 2 critical to the future of our nation. 3 Advanced services already play a vital role, and will continue to do so throughout the 21st century, in the nation’s economy and the life of its people. Many U. S. companies, both large and small, now depend on advanced services to run various facets of their businesses, including tracking inventory, monitoring consumer relations, and forecasting product sales. Moreover, advanced services have created new jobs, while enabling skilled employees to work more effectively in their current jobs. Advanced services have also created greater flexibility and opportunity in the workplace, particularly in the increased use of telecommuting by employees who remain connected to their jobs despite distance and other factors. 3. In addition to their benefits to the economy, advanced services have a dramatic impact on everyday citizens. Advanced services improve the educational opportunities of children and adults everywhere. High- speed connections to the Internet allow children in rural areas from Alaska to Florida to access the same information as schoolchildren in urban areas. Moreover, distance learning provides more choices for children and adults to access educational materials of distant learning institutions. 4. Telemedicine networks made possible by advanced services save lives and improve the standard of healthcare in sparsely- populated, rural areas. These services bring the skills and knowledge of specialized doctors and other medical professionals to people that would otherwise have to travel long distances to reach them. Advanced services also permit rural healthcare providers to utilize the la test medical information, which, in turn, improves the general provision of healthcare in areas of the country that have traditionally been underserved. 5. Applications that require advanced telecommunications capability will continue to grow exponentially. Only a few years ago, applications and services that we take for granted today were unheard of by a vast segment of the population. These developments are expected to reduce the cost of communication and to spur innovation and individualization on a previously unthinkable scale. For example, companies are developing services and applications making use of Internet Protocol (IP), including Voice over IP (VoIP), which are delivered over broadband connections. This new communications environment could provide each consumer with a highly customized, low- cost choice of services delivered in the manner of his or her choosing. Therefore, monitoring the progress of deployment of advanced telecommunications platforms and determining if steps can or should be taken to further encourage this growth is one of the Commission’s most important duties. We strongly encourage commenters to provide data and new ideas on how to conduct this and future section 706 inquiries. We also invite the Federal-State Joint Conference on Advanced Telecommunications Services (Joint Conference) to submit any information that it deems appropriate into this docket. II. BACKGROUND 6. The Commission has conducted three inquiries pursuant to section 706 to date, concluding in each proceeding that the deployment of advanced telecommunications capability was reasonable and timely on a general, nationwide basis. 4 In the initial 706 inquiry, the 3 For purposes of this inquiry, we use the terms “advanced” and “broadband” service interchangeably. 4 Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 98- 146, Report, 14 FCC Rcd 2398, 2402, 2446- 48 (1999) (First (continued....) 2 Federal Communications Commission FCC 04- 55 3 Commission presented a snapshot at the early stages of the deployment of advanced services. The Commission surveyed anecdotal evidence relating to trends in investment in broadband facilities, deployment of facilities that serve the “last mile” to consumers, and demand for broadband. 7. In its second 706 inquiry, the Commission expanded its information collection efforts to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the availability of advanced telecommunications capability. Among other things, the Commission launched a formal data collection program to gather standardized information from providers of advanced telecommunications capability through FCC Form 477. 5 The Commission also convened a Joint Conference, consisting of federal and state regulators, to provide a forum for an ongoing dialogue among the Commission, the states, and regional and local entities regarding the deployment of advanced telecommunications capability. 6 And finally, the Commission undertook a series of in- depth case studies to gain a detailed understanding of how advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed and used in different communities. 8. In its third 706 inquiry, the Commission again examined the advanced services marketplace, using the same framework for information collection and analysis as previous inquiries. 7 In reaching its conclusions, the Commission relied upon standardized information from providers of advanced telecommunications capability derived from FCC Form 477, as well as information gathered from commenters, analysts, and other sources. 8 9. Aside from its formal 706 inquiries, the Commission has published semi- annual statistical reports every year since 2000, summarizing the FCC Form 477 data relating to high-speed connections. 9 We will shortly seek comment on specific proposals to improve our current (... continued from previous page) Report); Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 98- 146, Second Report, 15 FCC Rcd 20913, 20991- 96 (2000) (Second Report); Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 98- 146, Report, 17 FCC Rcd 2844 (2002) (Third Report). 5 Local Competition and Broadband Reporting, CC Docket No. 99- 301, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 7717 (2000) (Data Gathering Order), recon. pending. 6 The Federal- State Joint Conference on Advanced Services, which is comprised of federal and state representatives, was convened by the Commission on October 8, 1999, to further the vision of section 706 of the 1996 Act. To that end, the Joint Conference has held several field hearings to gather information on the deployment of advanced services, and issued a report regarding the availability and demand for broadband services in the United States. See Broadband Services in the United States: An Analysis of Availability and Demand, Federal- State Joint Conference on Advanced Services, October 2002 (Joint Conference Report). We invite the Joint Conference to update the record with any information it has gathered since 2002. 7 Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 98- 146, Third Notice of Inquiry, 16 FCC Rcd 15515 (2001) (Third NOI). 8 Third Report at 2846- 47. 9 FCC Form 477 collects on a semi -annual basis information relating to the provision of services that deliver an information carrying capability in excess of 200 kbps in at least one direction. We have, to date, collected information nine times under this program. The most recently published report, attached as Appendix A to this (continued....) 3 Federal Communications Commission FCC 04- 55 4 FCC Form 477 data gathering program, including extending that program for five years beyond its currently scheduled sunset in March 2005. While any modifications that we may adopt in response to that Notice will not be in place within the six month time frame for this inquiry, we view that undertaking as a critical effort in our ongoing efforts to monitor the deployment of advanced telecommunications capability. III. ISSUES FOR INQUIRY 10. At the outset, we solicit information consistent with the framework utilized in past reports: (i) how should we define advanced telecommunications capability? (ii) is advanced telecommunications capability being deployed to all Americans? (iii) is the current level of deployment reasonable and timely? and (iv) what actions, if any, can be taken to accelerate deployment? We intend, however, to extend our analysis beyond the framework of our previous 706 reports to examine additional questions of potential interest to policymakers. In particular, we seek to develop a more rigorous analysis of the availability of advanced telecommunications capability in different market segments and areas of varying densities. Moreover, we seek to develop a better understanding of the economic considerations that support the deployment of advanced telecommunications capability. We hope to analyze available information relating to consumer adoption and usage of services requiring advanced telecommunications capability. We also intend to examine trends in other nations and how our deployment of advanced telecommunications capability affects our role in a global economy. We welcome any additional information that commenters believe would further public understanding and dialogue on these critical issues. A. What is “Advanced Telecommunications Capability”? 11. We seek comment on how we should define “advanced telecommunications capability” for purposes of this inquiry. Since 1999, the Commission has used the terms “advanced telecommunications capability” as “high- speed, switched, broadband telecommunications capability,” but did not specify what speed should be encompassed within these terms. 10 In the past, the Commission used the terms “advanced telecommunications capability” and “advanced services” to describe services and facilities with an upstream (customer- to- provider) and downstream (provider- to- customer) transmission speed of more than 200 kilobits per second (kbps). 11 The Commission also used the term “high- speed” to describe services and facilities with over 200 kbps capability in at least one direction. 12 Given the rapid technological changes in the marketplace, we seek comment on the need to alter the definitional framework utilized in prior inquiries. 13 Has technology or the marketplace evolved such that we (... continued from previous page) Notice of Inquiry, presents data as of June 2003. See High- Speed Services for Internet Access: Subscribership as of June 30, 2003 (Ind. An. and Tech. Div., rel. Dec. 22, 2003) (June 2003 Statistical Summary), available at . 10 See n. 2 supra. 11 See Third Report, 17 FCC Rcd at 2850- 52; Second Report, 15 FCC Rcd at 20919- 21; First Report, 14 FCC Rcd at 2406- 08. 12 Id. 13 As noted above, the Commission currently collects information about lines that are capable of providing services at 200 kbps in one direction, 200 kbps in both directions, and 2 megabits per second (Mbps) in both directions. See (continued....) 4 Federal Communications Commission FCC 04- 55 5 should redefine the term “advanced services” to be speeds higher than 200 kbps in one or both directions? Have consumer expectations with respect to bandwidth needs changed since prior reports? What sources of information currently exist regarding the deployment of advanced telecommunications capability under alternative definitions? 14 We note that we intend to seek comment in a separate proceeding on whether to amend our existing FCC Form 477 reporting program to gather more detailed information about the provision of services at speeds higher than 200 kbps. 15 Are there reasons other than the status of technological development that support modifying the definition? Are any other attributes, besides speed in which a particular quantity of information can be transmitted, relevant to the definition of advanced telecommunications capability? 12. In a report to Congress released after our last 706 inquiry, the General Accounting Office (GAO) recommended that the Commission “should develop a strategy for periodically evaluating whether existing informal and experimental methods of data collection are providing the information needed to monitor the essential characteristics and trends of the Internet backbone market and the potential effects of the convergence of communications services.” 16 The GAO also recommended that “if a more formal data collection program is deemed appropriate, [the Commission] should exercise its authority to establish such a program.” 17 We seek comment on the GAO’s recommendations, and whether our existing methods of data collection relating to the Internet backbone are sufficient. 18 (... continued from previous page) Local Competition and Broadband Reporting, CC Docket No. 99- 301, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 7717, 7752-7753 (2000) (Data Gathering Order). 14 We recognize that any changes we may adopt in our FCC Form 477 reporting program will not be in place prior to the conclusion of this inquiry, but such modifications could assist us in future 706 inquiries. 15 In the separate proceeding, we will seek comment on whether facilities- based service providers should report service speeds within specified bandwidth service tiers in order to better quantify the state of broadband infrastructure and high speed service delivery in the United States advanced services marketplace. We will also seek specific comment on what, if any, steps should be taken to ensure accuracy and comparable measurement of high speed service amongst various facilities- based broadband service providers. 16 Report to Subcommittee on Antitrust, Business Rights and Competition, Committee on the Judiciary, U. S. Senate, Telecommunications: Characteristics and Competitiveness of the Internet Backbone Market, GAO- 02- 16, at 29 (October 2001), available at . 17 Id. 18 In the Second Report, the Commission used the term “backbone” to refer to “long haul communications transport facilities.” See Second Report, 15 FCC Rcd at 20923- 24. In the Third Report, the Commission used the term long haul communications transport facilities to refer to high- speed physical transport, that includes, but is not limited to, facilities used to support the Internet backbone. See Third Report, 17 FCC Rcd at 2853, n. 33. See also Letter from Michael K. Powell, Federal Communications Commission, to Senator Joseph Lieberman, United States Senate, dated January 11, 2002; Letter from Michael K. Powell, Federal Communications Commission, to Congressman Dan Burton, United States House of Representatives, dated January 11, 2002 (“ The Commission has directly addressed the Internet backbone market on multiple occasions including the First Section 706 Report to Congress, the MCI / WorldCom merger, the Bell Atlantic / GTE merger, and the MCI / Sprint merger. The FCC has considered the Internet backbone market in developing its ICAIS policy for international meetings (“ International Charging Arrangements for Internet Services” involving pressure to impose telecommunications accounting schemes on Internet peering). The Network Reliability and Interoperability Council, an FCC federal advisory committee, has also touched on the issue, recommending that backbones publish their peering policies and developing a white paper on interconnection between Internet backbone. The FCC Office of Plans and Policy has (continued....) 5 Federal Communications Commission FCC 04- 55 6 B. Is Advanced Telecommunications Capability Being Deployed to All Americans? 13. We seek comment on whether advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed to all Americans. In particular, we seek comment on three general areas in order to facilitate our analysis: (1) the availability of advanced telecommunications capability and whether it has changed since the Third Report; (2) the economics underlying investment in advanced infrastructure and service deployment; and (3) various advances in advanced services technology. 14. Availability. As previously noted, the Commission began gathering data about the provision of high- speed and advanced services to end users in 2000. 19 Our current data collection program requires any facilities- based provider that has at least 250 high- speed service lines or wireless channels in service in a state to report basic information about its service offerings and customers twice yearly. 20 Each filer provides data on the total number of lines or wireless channels by technology (i. e., service provided on coaxial cables, wireline telephone lines, fixed wireless, or satellite). For each “technology subtotal,” providers report additional detail concerning the percentage of lines that are connected to residential and small business users, the percentage of lines that provide service at more than 200 kbps in both directions, and the number of lines that provide speeds exceeding 2 Mbps. 15. From this data, we obtain a verifiable count of how much service within specified parameters is being delivered by those service providers that responded. Given the association between subscription and deployment, such data collection provides a means to assess the pace at which advanced telecommunications capabilities are being made available in different parts of the country and across different demographic groups. Moreover, we will shortly propose to revise our current FCC Form 477 to obtain more detailed understanding of the provision of services with greater bandwidth than 200 kbps and the availability of the broadband technologies that have achieved the greatest mass market acceptance to date, cable modems and DSL connections, which should facilitate future 706 inquiries. 16. We recognize that altering our current Form 477 reporting framework could provide additional information that would be useful in analyzing the state of deployment of advanced telecommunications capabilities. Obtaining more detailed information about services at speeds higher than 200 kbps could become a valuable tool to assist us in future section 706 inquiries. At the same time, we encourage commenters in this proceeding to provide us with (... continued from previous page) released an OPP Working Paper on the subject entitled The Digital Handshake: Connecting Internet Backbones (September 2000).”). 19 The Commission chose to collect data relating to high- speed services “because we believe that these services are an important stepping stone in the deployment of advanced telecommunications services and that these services may be priced to be particularly attractive to residential customers seeking, for example, high- speed Internet access.” Data Gathering Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 7731. 20 We have encouraged facilities- based providers that fall below the threshold in a given state to submit the Form 477 on a voluntary basis. In the Commission’s most recent data collection, about 30 entities made voluntary filings, representing 0.05 percent of total reported high- speed lines. See High- Speed Services for Internet Access: Subscribership as of June 30, 2003 (Ind. Anal. and Tech. Div. rel. Dec. 22, 2003) (June 2003 Statistical Summary), available at . 6 Federal Communications Commission FCC 04- 55 7 more detailed information about the provision of services today at speeds higher than 200 kbps. 17. We recognize that providers are not currently required to report the number or type of high- speed service subscribers in each zip code, but only to report the zip codes in which they had at least one high- speed service subscriber. As a result, we cannot determine from our data the extent to which high- speed services in a given zip code indicates that high- speed services are widely available, or whether they are restricted to certain types of customers located in limited areas. The zip code data depicts areas where at least one cus tomer receives high- speed services in the last mile to the customer premises. This data provides the Commission with one tool for our analysis of whether advanced telecommunications capability is being made available to all Americans. We also note that we will shortly propose to require providers to indicate which technologies are being used to provide connections in a given zip code, which should enable more accurate mapping in the future of where specific technologies are in use, and we will seek comment on whether to require providers to indicate the number of subscribers in a given zip code. 21 18. We now have semi- annual data about subscribership to high- speed and advanced services dating from December 1999 through June 2003. These data, contained in Appendix A to this Notice of Inquiry, represent a significant time series for analysis and discussion. Now that we have several years of data, we are particularly interested in analyzing the trends that have developed over time. These data show a continued, steady increase in both residential and small business high- speed lines since our last 706 report. 22 Cable modem and ADSL continue to be the market leading technologies, at present. We request comment on what conclusions we should draw from these data. 19. We welcome additional data from external sources that will enable us to make informed judgments about whether advanced telecommunications capability is being made available to consumers in a reasonable and timely manner. We request objective, empirical data from companies, think tanks, governments, analysts, consumer groups, and others. We especially welcome data organized in ways that will enable us to measure investment, availability, and subscription for different technologies, companies, areas, and types of consumers. Additionally, we seek information relating to the price points and actual speeds at which high- speed and advanced services are being made available to consumers, and information relating to product tiering. We also seek data that would shed additional light on the extent to which consumers have a choice of competing providers of advanced or high- speed services. In addition, we seek comment on whether there are other ways of analyzing our existing FCC Form 477 data. 20. Economics of Network Investment and Service Deployment. In the Third Report, the Commission observed that carriers continued to invest in the high- speed and advanced services sector in a substantial way, resulting in increased availability of high- speed and advanced servic es for consumers across the nation. 23 The Commission took note, however, that 21 See supra para. 15. 22 For purposes of the FCC Form 477, the term “residential” includes “small businesses.” Filers are instructed to “classify service provided to customers as residential and small business if they take broadband services normally associated with residential customers.” See Data Gathering Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 7781. 23 See Third Report, 17 FCC Rcd at 2869. 7 Federal Communications Commission FCC 04- 55 8 investment trends had generally slowed and gone through a period of transition since the Second Report. 24 Despite these trends, the Commission concluded that investment in infrastructure for most high- speed and advanced services markets remained strong, and that the market would continue to expand and availability to increase. 21. We seek comment on current investment trends and the extent to which they may reflect the availability of high- speed and advanced services. We seek comment on the relationship between the pace of investment, consumer demand, and general market expectations. We also seek comment on whether providers of high- speed and advanced services have access to sufficient levels of capital to fund infrastructure build- out and whether additional steps should be taken to accelerate deployment. 22. We seek to develop a greater understanding of the economics underlying deployment of advanced telecommunications capability and services that utilize that capability. How do the economics change over time as certain levels of deployment and/ or penetration are achieved? Do the economics of deploying advanced telecommunications capability reduce availability in some communities? What role could universal service play in ensuring that deployment is reasonable and timely for all Americans? 25 How do providers differentiate their product among different consumer groups? What strategies, tactics, plans, organization, and operational structures do firms utilize to deliver technology and related services to consumers? 23. We note that some companies offer tiered service schemes, which permit both entry level and more sophisticated, higher bandwidth services to be delivered over the same infrastructure. 26 To what extent could the availability of different product tiers affect penetration in today’s marketplace? To what extent should the existence of product tiering affect our assessment of whether advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed on a reasonable and timely basis? 24. Trends in Developing Technologies. In prior reports, the Commission looked 24 The Commission took note of several reports indicating that the slowdown in investment may have been caused by a variety of factors, including the general economic downturn, over- building by carriers, over- manufacturing by vendors, over- capitalization by financial markets, and unrealistic market expectations by vendors. See id., 17 FCC Rcd at 2870. 25 Even though advanced services are not directly supported by federal universal service, “[ Commission] policies do not impede the deployment of modern plant capable of providing access to advanced services.” See Federal- State Joint Board on Universal Service, Multi- Association Group (MAG) Plan for Regulation of Interstate Services of Non- Price Cap Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers and Interexchange Carriers, CC Docket Nos. 96- 45, 00- 256, Fourteenth Report and Order, Twenty Second Order on Reconsideration, 16 FCC Rcd 11244, 1322, paras. 199- 200 (2001) (“ Fourteenth Report and Order”), recon. pending (“ The public switched telephone network is not a single-use network. Modern network infrastructure can provide access not only to voice services, but also to data, graphics, video, and other services.”). See also Federal- State Joint Board on Universal Service, Order and Order on Reconsideration, CC Docket No. 96- 45, 18 FCC Rcd 15090, 15095, para. 13 (2003) (describing “no barriers” policy). 26 See “Cable Loses Broadband Ground to DSL”, Reuters (February 2004), available at http:// news. com. com/ 2100-1034- 5162225. html; “Falling DSL Prices May Herald a Broadband Sea Change,” Broadband Business Report in the HollywoodReporter. com (February 2004), available at http:// www. hollywoodreporter. com/ thr/ pwc/ feature_ display. jsp? vnu_ content_ id= 2085432; “Tiers on Time Warner’s Pillow,” The Street. Com, reported in CED Broadband direct at CEDmagazine. com (December 2003), available at http:// www. cedmagazine. com/ cedailydirect/ 1203/ cedaily031210. htm# 3. 8 Federal Communications Commission FCC 04- 55 9 closely at the various technologies currently capable of providing high- speed and advanced services as well as those technologies that are likely to emerge in the near future. 27 In particular, the Third Report described in detail several “last mile” technologies of high- speed systems: (1) cable modem service; (2) digital subscriber line (DSL, especially asymmetric DSL or ADSL); (3) other Local Exchange Carrier (LEC)- provided wireline services; 28 (4) terrestrial fixed wireless service; and (5) satellite service. 29 The Commission determined that competition among providers within certain technologies is emerging and that there is potential for several different technological options for providing high- speed and advanced services. 25. We seek comment as to any new developments in this area. Are there new technologies that are now being used to provide high- speed or advanced services, or likely to be used in the near future, such as Wi- Fi or Wi- Max, 30 or broadband over power lines? 31 If so, how widely have these new technologies been deployed and what percentage of customers utilize such services? What is the role of mobile wireless technologies? To what extent may some of these developments improve the speed and range of services offered to consumers? Are these technological developments likely to be particularly beneficial to specific groups of customers, such as rural customers or customers with disabilities? Have there been any other changes in the industry that affect the Commission’s conclusions in the Third Report? 26. We note that the Commission’s Form 477 data collection program captures the marketplace presence of broadband services that utilize new and innovative technologies once consumer up- take of the services reaches a certain level. Our data collection does not, however, directly monitor the development of new technologies with likely, or possible, application to advanced services. Nor does our data collection program directly monitor the development of innovative applications that utilize advanced telecommunications capability. We therefore invite parties to bring to our attention technologies that might be used by current or potential providers to deliver new advanced services to consumers. In addition, we are interested in technologies that might be used directly by consumers, e. g., within the consumer’s premises, to lower the cost or difficulty of installing or using advanced services. We also are interested in technologies that 27 See, e. g., Third Report, 17 FCC Rcd at 2877- 2881. For example, Verizon Wireless now appears to offer high-speed mobile data services (300- 500 kbps) in Washington, DC and San Diego, CA. See . 28 See Third Report, 17 FCC Rcd at 2920. 29 See Third Report, 17 FCC Rcd at 2913- 2927. 30 The term Wi- Fi, short for “Wireless- Fidelity,” was originally applied to unlicensed wireless devices operating in the 2.4 GHz region of the spectrum in accordance with the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.11( b) standard. More recently, the term has also been applied to unlicensed wireless devices operating in the 5 GHz region in accordance with IEEE 802.11( a). The Commission does not require devices operating in either the 2.4 GHz or 5 GHz bands to meet the IEEE standards. The term Wi- Max, short for “Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access,” refers to the two IEEE 802.16 standards developed for fixed wireless broadband access systems. The 802.16a standard is used for systems operating between 2 and 11 GHz, while the 802.16b standard is for systems operating between 10 and 66 GHz. Wi- Max systems have a maximum speed of 75 Mbps and a theoretical range of 30 miles under ideal conditions but require a clear line of sight. The specifications cover both the Media Access Control and the physical layers for fixed systems employing a point- to- multipoint architecture. 31 The Commission is examining issues relating to emerging technologies in several ongoing dockets. See, e. g., Carrier Current Systems, including Broadband over Power Line Systems, Amendment of Part 15 regarding new requirements and measurement guidelines for Access Broadband over Power Line Systems, ET Docket Nos. 03- 104, 04- 37, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 04- 29 (rel. Feb. 23, 2004). 9 Federal Communications Commission FCC 04- 55 10 might enable new broadband applications of interest to consumers. C. Is Deployment Reasonable and Timely? 27. Once we have gathered information on the deployment of advanced telecommunications capability, section 706 requires that we determine whether such capability is being deployed to all Americans “in a reasonable and timely fashion.” We generally seek comment on whether advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion and ask commenters to describe the empirical basis for their conclusions. 28. In determining whether deployment is reasonable and timely, the Commission examined in the Second and Third Reports various aspects of the deployment of, and market for, advanced services. In particular, it examined the availability of high- speed and advanced services, focusing both on how it has changed since prior reports and how it was projected to change in the future. Second, it examined investment in the infrastructure to support advanced services. Third, it reviewed trends in the alternatives available to consumers of advanced services, assessing both the number of providers offering service through a particular technology and the different technological options available to consumers. We request comment on whether to modify our analytical framework in this inquiry, and welcome suggestions of additional or alternative criteria. Are there other areas of inquiry that would be informative for the Commission to explore? 29. In the Third Report, the Commission specifically considered the availability of advanced services for several groups of consumers, including businesses, residential consumers, rural communities, elementary and secondary schools, individuals living on tribal lands, and persons with disabilities. Should we separately examine these specific categories in this inquiry? Are there other types of consumers or geographic areas, such as insular areas, that are likely to experience broadband deployment at a different pace such that we should also monitor the rate of deployment to those customers and areas? 30. We specifically seek comment on the status of deployment of high- speed and advanced services to consumers living in rural areas. Our data collection shows that subscription to advanced services in sparsely populated zip codes has grown, and the gap in reported lines in service between densely and sparsely populated zip codes has shrunk. For example, in June 2003, 68.5% of the most sparsely populated zip codes had high- speed subscribers, compared to 36.8% two years earlier. Moreover, over the last two years, the gap between the most densely populated zip codes and most sparsely populated zip codes had shrunk from 61.3 percentage points to 30.4 percentage points, largely due to increases in the number of most sparsely populated zip codes with subscribers. 32 What are some of the reasons for this reduction in the gap between the most densely populated and the most sparsely populated zip codes? To what extent is the gap in subscribership among more densely and more sparsely populated areas due to the fact that many smaller providers operating in rural areas may fall below the current reporting threshold for our Form 477 data collection program? Do consumers in rural areas enjoy choices among technologies and tiers of high- speed services comparable to those available to consumers 32 Id. In 2003, 98.9% of the most densely populated zip codes reported at least one high- speed subscriber, compared to 98.1% two years earlier. 10 Federal Communications Commission FCC 04- 55 11 in urban areas? Are high- speed services available to consumers in rural areas at rates comparable to those rates charged in urban areas? 31. We note that the National Exchange Carrier Association (NECA) recently published a study that concluded that technological advances among small, mostly rural local telephone companies between 2001 and 2003 were greater than expected. 33 In fact, the number of NECA companies currently deploying DSL services increased from 557 in 2001 to 814 in 2003. 34 According to the NECA report, 78.95% of member companies’ access lines now are equipped for DSL. 35 NECA concluded that rural telephone companies are meeting the growing consumer demand for advanced services in spite of the hurdles they must overcome, including the lack of economies of scale that large, non- rural companies are afforded. 36 What lessons can be learned from the steps taken by some NECA members to encourage deployment in less-developed areas? Are there steps that the Commission should take that would encourage further deployment in rural areas? 32. We also seek focused comment on the deployment of advanced telecommunications capability to low income individuals. We note that, as of June 2003, 98.5% of the highest income zip codes reported high- speed lines, and 78.3% of the lowest income zip codes reported high- speed lines. 37 By comparison, as of June 2001, 96.4% of the highest income zip codes reported high- speed lines, and 59.1% of the lowest income zip codes reported high-speed lines. 38 As a result, over the last two years, the gap between the highest income zip codes and the lowest income ones shrunk from 37.3 to 20.2 percentage points, primarily due to increases in the number of low- income zip codes with subscribers. Why has the gap between the highest income zip codes and the lowest income zip codes decreased over the past two years? Have any specific developments occurred that account for these changes? To what extent are firms marketing lower priced tiers of services to lower income individuals? 33. In addition, we seek comment on the availability of advanced telecommunications capability to individuals living on tribal lands and in the U. S. territories. In June 2003, high-speed services were available in 86.9% of zip codes that contain tribal territories, up from 71.3% in June 2001. 39 At this time, service providers report high- speed lines in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, but no service providers report high- speed lines in the Pacific Insular Islands. 40 Does the information from our data collection program adequately capture the availability of high- speed or advanced services in these areas? In areas where services are being made 33 NECA’s 2003 Access Market Survey – Fulfilling the Digital Dream: a Report on the Technology of Small and Rural Telephone Companies, prepared by NECA’s Technology Planning and Implementation Group (NECA Report). The NECA Report covered 5,400 switches, representing more than 1,100 local telcos and 6.8 million lines in 47 states. 34 NECA Report at 8. 35 Id. 36 Id. at 4, 10. 37 June 2003 Statistical Summary at Table 15. 38 Id. 39 See supra para. 30. 40 June 2003 Statistical Summary at 1. 11 Federal Communications Commission FCC 04- 55 12 available, are they being deployed to all consumers, or just a limited number of consumers? What types of unique challenges are there to the deployment of advanced services in tribal areas or U. S. territories? Are these challenges similar or distinguishable from those encountered by consumers living in rural areas of the nation? What types of technology are being used to provide advanced services on tribal lands? What types of technology are most widely deployed on tribal lands and why? Are there certain types of technological developments that may be especially promising for future deployment in tribal areas or the U. S. territories? 34. We also seek specific comment on the deployment of advanced telecommunications capability to elementary and secondary schools and classrooms. The U. S. Department of Education publishes on an annual basis various statistics relating to Internet access in U. S. public schools and classrooms. Among other things, the most recent study documents the steady increase in number of schools with Internet access, and the number of instructional classrooms with Internet access. 41 For instance, in 2002, 99% of public schools had access to the Internet, compared to 14% in 1996. 42 Moreover, in 2002, 92% of public school classrooms had access to the Internet, compared to 14% in 1996. In 2002, 94% of public schools reported using broadband connections for Internet access, compared to 80% in 2000 and 85% in 2001. 43 Do these figures support a conclusion that advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed to elementary and secondary schools and classrooms on a reasonable and timely basis? Are there any other sources of information that would provide insight into whether the deployment of advanced telecommunications services to elementary and secondary schools and classrooms is occurring on a reasonable and timely basis? 35. To what extent do persons with disabilities have access to advanced telecommunications? Have there been recent developments in adaptive technologies that improve the capacity of persons with disabilities to access advanced telecommunications? Does the availability of video relay services through the Telecommunications Relay Service Fund play a role in promoting demand for and access to high- speed services among persons with disabilities? To what extent does income, employment, or other factors among persons with disabilities influence their ability to access advanced or high- speed services? How should the Commission evaluate the “availability” of advanced telecommunications services for persons with disabilities, given the unique challenges that persons with disabilities may encounter in accessing advanced services? Are advanced services being made available to medically underserved rural communities? D. What Actions Can Accelerate Deployment? 36. Pursuant to the 1996 Act, “the Commission and each State commission …shall encourage the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans… by utilizing… price cap regulation, regulatory forbearance, 41 U. S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, Pub. No. 2004- 001, Internet Access in U. S. Public Schools and Classrooms: 1994 – 2002 (October 2003). 42 Id. at Figure 1 and page 5. 43 Id. at 22, Table 3. For the 2001 and 2002 surveys, broadband connections were defined as including T3/ D3, fractional T3, T1/ D1, fractional T1, cable modem, and DSL connections. DSL connections were not listed on the 2000 questionnaire. 45 See § 706( a) of the 1996 Act. 12 Federal Communications Commission FCC 04- 55 13 measures that promote competition in the local telecommunications market, or other regulating methods that remove barriers to infrastructure investment.” 45 The Third Report described several examples of these and other activities that the Commission, other governmental entities, private groups and individuals have undertaken to promote competition and speed the deployment of advanced services. These included Commission proceedings to establish a regulatory framework for broadband services, 46 promote investment through increased opportunities for broadband competition, 47 reform our universal service system, 48 and encourage the efficient use of spectrum. 49 We note that the Congressional Budget Office recently published a report that analyzed the development of the residential broadband market to assess whether structural features or regulatory obstacles impede its further rapid growth, and concluded that federal intervention was not warranted at this time. 50 To the extent commenters advocate that we should undertake additional actions to encourage the deployment of advanced telecommunications capability, they should set forth those proposals with specificity. 37. We also note that if we find that advanced telecommunications capability is not being deployed in a reasonable and timely manner, we are to “take immediate action to accelerate deployment of such capability by removing barriers to infrastructure investment and promoting competition in the telecommunications market.” 51 Are there groups of Americans for whom the pace of deployment justifies action under section 706 to remove barriers to infrastructure investment or to promote competition? If so, what would those specific actions entail, and what would the costs and benefits of those actions be? 38. In the Third Report, the Commission expressed concern about the difficulty some companies have faced in securing access to the rights- of- way necessary to deploy advanced telecommunications infrastructure in a timely manner. 52 Based on its commitment to ensuring 46 Third Report, 17 FCC Rcd at 2904- 2905. 47 Id., 17 FCC Rcd at 2899, 2905. 48 Id., 17 FCC Rcd at 2900, 2906. 49 Id., 17 FCC Rcd at 2901, 2906. 50 Congressional Budget Office, Does the Residential Broadband Market Need Fixing? (December 2003) (“ The number of broadband customers is growing at a rapid pace, and current providers face the prospect of new broadband market entrants and other competitive pressures from converging telecommunications markets. Many of the problems that remain, such as uneven distribution and availability of broadband, are a function of the market’s immaturity and not necessarily permanent features.”) 51 See § 706( a) of the 1996 Act. 52 See Third Report, 17 FCC Rcd at 2906- 7, para. 166. Currently, there are several pending proceedings relating to rights- of- way issues at the Commission. See Promotion of Competitive Networks in Local Telecommunication Markets, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry in WT Docket No. 99- 217 and Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 96- 98, 14 FCC Rcd 12673 (1999); Comments Sought on City Signal Communications, Inc. Petition for Declaratory Ruling Concerning Use of Public Rights of Way for Access to Poles in Cleveland Heights, Ohio Pursuant to Section 253, CS Docket No. 00- 255, Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 1415 (2000); Comments Sought on City Signal Communications, Inc. Petition for Declaratory Ruling Concerning Use of Public Rights of Way for Access to Poles in Pepper Pike, Ohio Pursuant to Section 253, CS Docket No. 00- 255, Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 1419 (2000); Pleading Cycle Established for Comments on Petition of ASCENT for Preemption of Montgomery, Alabama Taxation Policy, CC Docket No. 01- 40, Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 3653 (2001); Pleading Cycle Established for Comments on Fiber Technologies Networks, L. L. C. Petition for Preemption Pursuant to Section 253, WC Docket No. 03- 37, Public Notice, 18 FCC Rcd 1683 (2003). 13 Federal Communications Commission FCC 04- 55 14 that rights- of- way issues are resolved in a fair and expeditious manner, the Commission announced that it intended to explore solutions through a dialogue with industry and state and local colleagues, in order to remove barriers that may hinder investment in infrastructure for advanced or high- speed services. On October 16, 2002, the Commission hosted a public Rights-of- Way Forum. 53 The Rights- of- Way Forum focused on exploring the Commission’s role in facilitating discussion, identifying model principles and practices, and developing consensus positions among local authorities, state regulators, and the industry. We invite comment regarding the record developed at the Commission’s Rights- of- Way Forum. 39. We note that several other organizatio ns, such as the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) have also initiated discussions regarding rights- of- way issues. For example, during the July 2002 NARUC conference, a study committee released a white paper that urged the Commission to include a section in the 706 report that discusses barriers to “deployment of broadband networks associated with abusive rights- of- way practices of federal, state and local units of government and steps that need to be taken to abate those practices.” 54 The NARUC study committee on rights- of- way issues also recommended the development of a set of national broadband principles and put forth model rights- of- way access rules. 55 In addition, the NTIA launched a States and Local Rights- of- Way Resources Website, which is designed to foster an exchange of ideas to improve the management and use of rights-of- way. 56 Further, the Commission’s Intergovernmental Advisory Committee, formerly known as the Local State Government Advisory Committee (LSGAC), provides guidance to the Commission on issues of importance to state, local and tribal governments, including public rights- of- way matters. 57 40. We seek comment on the types of best practices that could help create reliable and reasonable expectations regarding management of the public rights- of- way that may help remove barriers to investment in advanced telecommunications services. We also seek comment on methods of facilitating resolutio n of rights- of- way disputes. Are the Commission’s current rules effective in resolving rights- of- way disputes and promoting competition? We also ask commenters to discuss the distinction between federal and state responsibilities regarding the use of the public rights- of- way. We note that several states have adopted specific rules and regulations concerning the administration of the public rights- of- way. 58 We request commenters to discuss their experiences in states where rights- of- way rules have been enacted. In addition, we seek comment on the types of practices used by municipalities or communities to encourage 53 Commission Releases Agenda for Public Forum on Rights- of- Way Issues, Public Notice, 17 FCC Rcd 19678 (2002). 54 Promoting Broadband Access Through Public Rights- of- Way and Public Lands, 2002 NARUC Summer Meetings in Portland, Oregon (rel. July 31, 2002) at 38. 55 Id. at 18- 24. 56 See National Telecommunications and Information Administration Website, State and Local Rights- of- Way, at . 57 See FCC Requests Nominations for Membership on Intergovernmental Advisory Committee, formerly known as the Local and State Government Advisory Committee, Public Notice, 18 FCC Rcd 18071 (2003). 58 See, e. g., Wash. Rev. Code § 35.99.010( 3), (8); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 12- 2001( h); Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 9- 582, Subsec. B; Fla. Stat. § 337.401( 3)( g); N. D. Cent Code § 49- 21- 01, para. 16; Minn. R. 7819,4000,4100. 14 Federal Communications Commission FCC 04- 55 15 the deployment of advanced telecommunications capabilities. For example, we ask commenters to discuss efforts by municipalities or communities to provide advanced telecommunications capabilities to end- user customers or to aggregate demand to encourage private sector deployment. E. What are Patterns of Consumer Adoption and Usage of Services Utilizing Advanced Telecommunications Capability? 41. We seek information about how and why consumers, both individuals and businesses, adopt and use services utilizing advanced telecommunications capability. We seek to develop a better understanding of the specific applications and services that utilize adva nced platforms. If the application or service existed prior to the advent of advanced infrastructure capable of transmitting information at higher speeds, how has it benefited by the deployment of such infrastructure? To what degree, if any, could these applications and services be improved if advanced infrastructure was more ubiquitous? Are there certain economies of scale that could be achieved if broadband was used by more individuals or businesses? Would the same be true if advanced telecommunicatio ns capability was deployed in more places? 42. We also seek information about consumers of advanced services. What types of entities, e. g., businesses or individuals, purchase advanced services? How integral have advanced services become to these consumers? To what degree do businesses and individuals rely on advanced services to conduct business, sell products, or accomplish specific tasks? We also hope to examine how other individuals or businesses that interact with the consumers of advanced services are indirectly affected by the use of advanced services. For example, do customers of businesses that utilize advanced services enjoy lower prices, greater choices, or faster service? Moreover, what applications and services used by such individuals require access to advanced services themselves? We request that commenters not only discuss specific, current services and applications, but possible future ones as well. F. Does Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability in the United States Impact Our Role in the International Arena? 43. The United States was recently ranked 11th worldwide in broadband use in a recent report by the International Telecommunications Union. 59 According to another study, the number of broadband subscribers per inhabitant is said to be higher in South Korea, Canada, Japan, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, and the Netherlands than in the U. S. 60 We ask parties to comment on the potential reasons for relatively high broadband penetration rates in some foreign nations. To the extent that these factors are different for different countries, we ask that parties identify specific actions (or inactions) taken to promote broadband deployment. It has been reported that several foreign governments provide direct investment in the deployment of advanced services. 61 We note that the European Union is seeking widespread broadband 59 ITU Internet Reports: Birth of Broadband, International Telecommunications Union, Geneva, September 2003, p. 1, Figure 1.1, “Broadband penetration rates around the world.” 60 See Broadband and Telephony Services Over Cable Television Networks, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Working Party on Telecommunications and Information Services Policies, rel. Nov. 7, 2003. 61 “Other Nations Zip by USA in High Speed Net Race,” Jim Hopkins, USA Today, January 19, 2004, at 2B. 15 Federal Communications Commission FCC 04- 55 16 access in all of its fifteen member nations by next year. 62 What other factors have contributed to the higher utilization of advanced services in other countries? Are there lessons that we could learn from the experiences of other countries? Based on these experiences, are there actions that the Commission should take to accelerate the deployment of advanced telecommunications capability? Are higher levels of penetration in other nations indicative of broader availability of advanced telecommunications capability? Given that usage of advanced services may be more ubiquitous throughout the populations in a number of countries than in the United States, we wish to understand the factors that have contributed to this apparent discrepancy, including methodological or design flaws in existing studies that may have over- or under- estimated the extent of broadband use in particular countries. 44. How does our deployment of advanced infrastructure vis- à- vis other nations affect the ability of our citizens to participate in a global economy? Are domestic jobs and industries more likely to move to other countries where the advanced services deployment and/ or penetration is higher? What effect, if any, do any trends in this area have on international trade and the U. S. economic position in the global economy? Commenters should not only focus on the present impact but also on what the effect will be for the foreseeable future. IV. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 45. We invite comment on the issues and questions set forth in the Notice contained herein. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission’s rules, 63 interested parties may file comments on or before 30 days after publication in the Federal Register of this Notice, and reply comments on or before 45 days after publication in the Federal Register of this Notice. All filings should refer to GN Docket No. 04-54. Comments may be filed using the Commission’s Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies. 64 46. Comments filed through ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet to . Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should include their full name, Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket number, which in this instance is GN Docket No. 04- 54. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e- mail. To receive filing instructions for e- mail comments, commenters should send an e- mail to ecfs@ fcc. gov, and should include the following words in the body of the message: get form . A sample form and directions will be sent in reply. 47. Parties that choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first- class or overnight U. S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U. S. Postal Service mail). The Commission’s contractor, Natek, Inc., will receive hand- delivered or messenger- delivered paper filings for the Commission’s Secretary at a new location in downtown Washington, DC. The address is 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE, Suite 62 See “eEurope 2005: An Information Society for All,” Commission of the European Communities, June 2002, p. 2, available at . 63 47 C. F. R. §§ 1.415, 1.419. 64 See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 Fed. Reg. 24121 (1998). 16 Federal Communications Commission FCC 04- 55 17 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location will be 8: 00 a. m. to 7: 00 p. m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building. 48. Commercial overnight mail (other than U. S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U. S. Postal Service first- class mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, D. C. 20554. All filings must be addressed to the Commission’s Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. If you are sending this type of document or using this delivery method… It should be addressed for delivery to… Hand- delivered or messenger- delivered paper filings for the Commission’s Secretary 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE, Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002 (8: 00 to 7: 00 p. m.) Other messenger- delivered documents, including documents sent by overnight mail (other than United States Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743 (8: 00 a. m. to 5: 30 p. m.) United States Postal Service first- class mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail 445 12 th Street, SW Washington, DC 20554 49. Parties who choose to file by paper should also submit their comments on diskette. These diskettes, plus one paper copy, should be submitted to: Sheryl Todd, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, Federal Communications, at the filing window at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, N. E., Suite 110, Washington, D. C. 20002. Such a submission should be on a 3.5- inch diskette formatted in an IBM compatible format using Word or compatible software. The diskette should be accompanied by a cover letter and should be submitted in “read only” mode. The diskette should be clearly labeled with the commenter’s name, proceeding (including the docket number, in this case GN Docket No. 04- 54, type of pleading (comment or reply comment), date of submission, and the name of the electronic file on the diskette. The label should also include the following phrase “Disk Copy - Not an Original.” Each diskette should contain only one party’s pleadings, preferably in a single electronic file. In addition, commenters must send diskette copies to the Commission’s copy contractor, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12st Street, S. W., Room CYB402, Washington, D. C. 20554 (see alternative addresses above for delivery by hand or messenger). 50. Regardless of whether parties choose to file electronically or by paper, parties should also file one copy of any documents filed in this docket with the Commission’s copy contractor, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street S. W., CY- B402, Washington, D. C. 20554 (see alternative addresses above for delivery by hand or messenger) (telephone 202- 863- 2893; facsimile 202- 863- 2898) or via e- mail at qualexint@ aol. com. 51. The full text of this document is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12 th Street, SW, Room CY- A257, Washington, DC, 20554. This document may also be purchased from the Commission’s duplicating contractor, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12 th Street, 17 Federal Communications Commission FCC 04- 55 18 SW, Room CY- B402, Washington, DC, 20554, telephone (202) 863- 2893, facsimile (202) 863-2898, or via e- mail qualexint@ aol. com. 52. Comments and reply comments must include a short and concise summary of the substantive arguments raised in the pleading. Comments and reply comments must also comply with section 1.49 and all other applicable sections of the Commission’s rules. 65 We direct all interested parties to include the name of the filing party and the date of the filing on each page of their comments and reply comments. All parties are encouraged to utilize a table of contents, regardless of the length of their submission. We also strongly encourage parties to track the organization set forth in the Notice in order to facilitate our internal review process. 53. We note that there are many other proceedings now underway at the Commission that include issues that could affect a company’s, or class of companies’ incentive and ability to deploy advanced telecommunications capability. If commenters wish to refer to their filing in another proceeding, they must provide in their comments in this proceeding a complete recitation of the pertinent information and also attach a copy of the filing to which they refer. 54. Subject to the provisions of 47 C. F. R. § 1.1203 concerning “Sunshine Period” prohibitions, this proceeding is exempt from ex parte restraints and disclosure requirements, pursuant to 47 C. F. R. § 1.1204( b)( 1). Because many of the matters on which we request comment in this Notice may call on parties to disclose proprietary information such as market research and business plans, we suggest that parties consult 47 C. F. R. § 0.459 about the submission of confidential information. V. FURTHER INFORMATION 55. Alternative formats (computer diskette, large print, audio recording, and Braille) are available to persons with disabilities by contacting Brian Millin at (202) 418- 7426 voice, (202) 418- 7365 TTY, or bmillin@ fcc. gov. This Notice can also be downloaded in Microsoft Word and ASCII formats at http:// www. fcc. gov/ ccb/ universal_ service/ highcost. 56. For further information, contact Regina M. Brown at (202) 418- 7400 in the Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau. 65 See 47 C. F. R. § 1.49. 18 Federal Communications Commission FCC 04- 55 19 VI. ORDERING CLAUSES 57. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, this Notice of Inquiry IS ADOPTED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary 19 Federal Communications Commission FCC 04- 55 APPENDIX A HIGH- SPEED SERVICES FOR INTERNET ACCESS: STATUS AS OF JUNE 30, 2003 20 High- Speed Services for Internet Access: Status as of June 30, 2003 Industry Analysis and Technology Division Wireline Competition Bureau December 2003 This report is available for reference in the FCC’s Reference Information Center, Courtyard Level, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC. Copies may be purchased by contacting Qualex International, 445 12th Street, SW, Room CY- B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202- 863- 2893, facsimile 202- 863- 2898, or via e-mail qualexint@ aol. com. The report can also be downloaded from the FCC- State Link Internet site at www. fcc. gov/ wcb/ stats. 21 1 High- Speed Services for Internet Access: Status as of June 30, 2003 Congress directed the Commission and the states, in section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, to encourage deployment of advanced telecommunications capability in the United States on a reasonable and timely basis. 1 To assist in its evaluation of such deployment, the Commission instituted a formal data collection program to gather standardized information about subscribership to high- speed services, including advanced services, from wireline telephone companies, cable providers, terrestrial wireless providers, satellite providers, and any other facilities- based providers of advanced telecommunications capability. 2 We summarize here information from the eighth data collection, thereby presenting a snapshot of subscribership as of June 30, 2003. 3 Subscribership to high- speed services for Internet access increased by 18% during the first half of 2003, to a total of 23.5 million lines in service. The presence of high- speed service subscribers was reported in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, and in 91% of the zip codes in the United States. Before presenting the most recent information in some detail, a brief description of the Commission’s data collection program is in order to enable the reader to better understand how the nationwide information presented here may compare to similar information derived from other sources. First, a facilities- based provider of high- speed connections to end users in a given state reports to the Commission basic information about its service offerings and customers if the provider has at least 250 high- speed lines (or wireless channels) in service in that state. 4 While 1 See §706, Pub. L. 104- 104, Title VII, Feb. 8, 1996, 110 Stat. 153, reproduced in the notes under 47 U. S. C. §157. We use the term “high- speed” to describe services that provide the subscriber with transmissions at a speed in excess of 200 kilobits per second (kbps) in at least one direction. “Advanced services,” which provide the subscriber with transmission speeds in excess of 200 kbps in each direction, are a subset of high- speed services. 2 Local Competition and Broadband Reporting, CC Docket No. 99- 301, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 7717 (2000) (Data Gathering Order). During this data gathering program, qualifying providers file FCC Form 477 each year on March 1 (reporting data for the preceding December 31) and September 1 (reporting data for June 30 of the same year). An updated FCC Form 477, and Instructions for that particular form, for each specific round of the data collection may be downloaded from the FCC Forms website at www. fcc. gov/ formpage. html. Previously, the Common Carrier Bureau collected information on a voluntary basis. See Local Competition and Broadband Reporting, CC Docket No. 99- 301, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 18106 (1999). 3 Statistical summaries of the earlier Form 477 data collections appeared in Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, CC Docket No. 98- 146, Second Report, 15 FCC Rcd 20913 (2000) (Second 706 Report), available at www. fcc. gov/ broadband/ 706. html, and in previous releases of the High- Speed Services for Internet Access report, available at www. fcc. gov/ wcb/ stats. 4 The reporting threshold of 250 high- speed lines (or wireless channels) is calculated based collectively on all commonly- owned and commonly- controlled affiliates operating in a given state, with a 10% equity interest as indicia of ownership. For reporting purposes, an entity is a facilities- based provider of high- speed service if it provides the service over its own “local loop” facilities connecting to end users, or over unbundled network elements (UNEs), special access lines, and other leased lines and wireless channels that it obtains from unaffiliated entities and equips to provide high- speed service. Non- facilities- based Internet Service Providers (ISPs), as such, have no reporting obligation. End- user lines equipped as high- speed service by, for example, an incumbent LEC (continued….) 22 Types of Technology 2 Dec Jun Dec Jun Dec Jun Dec Jun 1999 2000 2000 2001 2001 2002 2002 2003 ADSL 369,792 951,583 1,977,101 2,693,834 3,947,808 5,101,493 6,471,716 7,675,114 27 % 19 % Other Wireline 609,909 758,594 1,021,291 1,088,066 1,078,597 1,186,680 1,216,208 1,215,713 2 0 Coaxial Cable 1,411,977 2,284,491 3,582,874 5,184,141 7,059,598 9,172,895 11,369,087 13,684,225 24 20 Fiber 312,204 307,151 376,203 455,593 494,199 520,884 548,471 575,613 5 5 Satellite or Fixed Wireless 50,404 65,615 112,405 194,707 212,610 220,588 276,067 309,006 25 12 Total Lines 2,754,286 4,367,434 7,069,874 9,616,341 12,792,812 16,202,540 19,881,549 23,459,671 23 % 18 % Types of Technology 2 Dec Jun Dec Jun Dec Jun Dec Jun 1999 2000 2000 2001 2001 2002 2002 2003 ADSL 185,950 326,816 675,366 998,883 1,369,143 1,852,879 2,178,394 2,536,368 18 % 16 % Other Wireline 609,909 758,594 1,021,291 1,088,066 1,078,597 1,186,680 1,216,208 1,215,713 2 0 Coaxial Cable 877,465 1,469,130 2,193,609 3,329,976 4,394,778 6,819,395 8,342,234 11,935,866 22 43 Fiber 307,315 301,143 376,197 455,549 486,483 518,908 548,123 575,057 6 5 Satellite or Fixed Wireless 7,816 3,649 26,906 73,476 75,341 66,073 65,929 64,393 0 -2 Total Lines 1,988,455 2,859,332 4,293,369 5,945,950 7,404,343 10,443,935 12,350,888 16,327,396 18 % 32 % Note: Some previously published data for December 2002 have been revised. 2 The mutually exclusive types of technology are, respectively: Asymmetric digital subscriber line (ADSL) technologies, which provide speeds in one direction greater than speeds in the other direction; wireline technologies "other" than ADSL, including traditional telephone company high- speed services and symmetric DSL services that provide equivalent functionality; coaxial cable, including the typical hybrid fiber- coax (HFC) architecture of upgraded cable TV systems; optical fiber to the subscriber's premises (e. g., Fiber- to- the- Home, or FTTH); and satellite and (terrestrial) fixed wireless systems, which use radio spectrum to communicate with a radio transmitter at the subscriber's premises. 1 A high- speed line is a connection to an end- user customer that is faster than 200 kbps in at least one direction. Advanced services lines, which are a subset of high- speed lines, are connections to end- user customers that are faster than 200 kbps in both directions. The speed of the purchased service varies among end- user customers. For example, a high- speed service delivered to the end- user customer over other traditional wireline technology, such as DS1 or DS3 service, or over optical fiber to the end user's premises may be much faster than the ADSL or cable modem service purchased by a different, or by the same, end user. Numbers of lines reported here are not adjusted for the speed of the service delivered over the line or the number of end users able to utilize the lines. High- Speed Lines 1 Dec 2002 -June 2002 - Dec 2002 - Dec 2002 Jun 2003 Dec 2002 Table 1 Jun 2003 Percent Change (Over 200 kbps in Both Directions) Advanced Services Lines 1 Table 2 (Over 200 kbps in at Least One Direction) Percent Change June 2002 - 27 Types of Technology 2 Dec Jun Dec Jun Dec Jun Dec Jun 1999 2000 2000 2001 2001 2002 2002 2003 ADSL 291,757 772,272 1,594,879 2,490,740 3,615,989 4,395,033 5,529,241 6,429,938 26 % 16 % Other Wireline 46,856 111,490 176,520 138,307 139,660 223,599 213,489 250,372 -5 17 Coaxial Cable 1,402,394 2,215,259 3,294,546 4,998,540 7,050,709 9,157,285 11,342,512 13,660,541 24 20 Fiber 1,023 325 1,994 2,623 4,139 6,120 14,692 16,132 NM NM Satellite or Fixed Wireless 50,189 64,320 102,432 182,165 194,897 202,251 256,978 288,786 27 12 Total Lines 1,792,219 3,163,666 5,170,371 7,812,375 11,005,396 13,984,287 17,356,912 20,645,769 24 % 19 % Types of Technology 2 Dec Jun Dec Jun Dec Jun Dec Jun 1999 2000 2000 2001 2001 2002 2002 2003 ADSL 116,994 195,324 393,246 916,364 1,243,996 1,580,575 1,827,547 2,071,779 16 % 13 % Other Wireline 46,856 111,490 176,520 138,307 139,660 223,599 213,489 250,372 -5 17 Coaxial Cable 872,024 1,401,434 2,177,328 3,146,953 4,388,967 6,809,170 8,322,157 11,920,207 22 43 Fiber 138 325 1,992 2,617 3,523 5,118 14,408 15,751 NM NM Satellite or Fixed Wireless 7,682 2,916 17,043 60,988 58,113 47,787 47,903 46,407 0 -3 Total Lines 1,043,694 1,711,488 2,766,130 4,265,229 5,834,258 8,666,249 10,425,505 14,304,515 20 % 37 % NM - Not meaningful due to small number of lines. 1 A high- speed line is a connection to an end- user customer that is faster than 200 kbps in at least one direction. Advanced services lines, which are a subset of high- speed lines, are connections to end- user customers that are faster than 200 kbps in both directions. The speed of the purchased service varies among end- user customers. For example, a high- speed service delivered to the end- user customer over other traditional wireline technology, such as DS1 or DS3 service, or over optical fiber to the end user's premises may be much faster than the ADSL or cable modem service purchased by a different, or by the same, end user. Numbers of lines reported here are not adjusted for the speed of the service delivered over the line or the number of end users able to utilize the lines. 2 The mutually exclusive types of technology are, respectively: Asymmetric digital subscriber line (ADSL) technologies, which provide speeds in one direction greater than speeds in the other direction; wireline technologies "other" than ADSL, including traditional telephone company high-speed services and symmetric DSL services that provide equivalent functionality; coaxial cable, including the typical hybrid fiber- coax (HFC) architecture of upgraded cable TV systems; optical fiber to the subscriber's premises (e. g., Fiber- to- the- Home, or FTTH); and satellite and (terrestrial) fixed wireless systems, which use radio spectrum to communicate with a radio transmitter at the subscriber's premises. Table 4 Residential and Small Business Advanced Services Lines 1 (Over 200 kbps in Both Directions) Notes: Some previously published data for December 2002 have been revised. Residential and small business advanced services l ines are estimated based on data from FCC Form 477. Percent Change Dec 2001 - Jun 2002 -Jun 2002 Dec 2002 Residential and Small Business High- Speed Lines 1 Table 3 Percent Change (Over 200 kbps in at Least One Direction) June 2002 -Dec 2002 Dec 2002 -Jun 2003 28 RBOC 2 Other Non- Total ILEC ILEC 3 ADSL 6,490,190 774,223 410,701 7,675,114 84.6 % 10.1 % 5.4 % Other Wireline 710,451 153,590 351,672 1,215,713 58.4 12.6 28.9 Coaxial Cable * * 13,661,872 13,684,225 * * 99.6 Other * * 819,833 884,619 * * 92.7 Total Lines 7,266,765 948,828 15,244,078 23,459,671 31.0 % 4.0 % 65.0 % RBOC 2 High- Speed Lines by Type of Provider as of June 30, 2003 Table 5 (Over 200 kbps in at Least One Direction) Lines Percent of Lines 3 High- speed lines reported by competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC) or cable TV operations that are affiliated with a loca l exchange carrier are included in "Non- ILEC" lines, except for any such lines that are included in "RBOC" lines. 1 The mutually exclusive types of technology are, respectively: Asymmetric digital subscriber line (ADSL) technologies, which provide speeds in one direction greater than speeds in the other direction; wireline technologies "other" than ADSL, including traditional telephone company high- speed services and symmetric DSL services that provide equivalent functionality; coaxial cable, including the typical hybrid fiber- coax (HFC) architecture of upgraded cable TV systems; optical fiber to the subscriber's premises (e. g., Fiber- to- the- Home, or FTTH); and satellite and (terrestrial) fixed wireless systems, which use radio spectrum to communicate with a radio transmitter at the subscriber's premises. ILEC 3 2 "RBOC" lines include all high- speed lines reported by BellSouth, SBC, and Verizon, and all high- speed lines reported by Qwest in states in which Qwest has ILEC operations. * Data withheld to maintain firm confidentiality . ILEC Types of Technology 1 Other Non- 29 ADSL Coaxial Cable Other 1 Total (Unduplicated) Alabama 7 10 13 22 Alaska 6 * 5 9 Arizona 7 5 14 21 Arkansas 7 * 8 14 California 16 10 24 37 Colorado 6 4 13 18 Connecticut 5 5 12 17 Delaware * * 4 7 District of Columbia 5 * 8 9 Florida 11 9 25 33 Georgi a 14 8 28 35 Hawaii * * * * Idaho 6 * 6 11 Illinoi s 17 4 22 32 Indiana 12 8 17 26 Iow a 18 13 24 36 Kansas 14 14 22 34 Kentuck y 9 6 11 21 Louisiana 8 4 12 18 Maine 4 * 7 12 Marylan d 6 9 10 20 Massachusett s 7 7 15 22 Michiga n 14 8 20 32 Minnesot a 20 11 25 41 Mississipp i 5 6 8 16 Missour i 11 9 15 25 Montan a 9 * 7 17 Nebraska 10 6 13 20 Nevada 7 * 9 13 New Hampshire 5 4 9 14 New Jerse y 5 5 13 17 New Mexic o 6 4 7 13 New Yor k 16 8 22 33 North Carolina 16 7 18 29 North Dakota 16 4 16 22 Ohio 16 12 23 32 Oklahoma 9 * 15 20 Oregon 13 5 15 24 Pennsylvani a 16 9 19 32 Puerto Rico * * * 4 Rhode Islan d * * 7 7 South Carolina 13 9 14 23 South Dakota 11 4 9 19 Tennessee 16 8 18 33 Texas 27 9 32 47 Utah 9 * 14 18 Vermont 6 * 8 11 Virgin Island s * 0 * * Virginia 9 5 16 22 Washington 12 6 18 24 West Virginia * 5 5 11 Wisconsin 13 5 16 25 Wyoming 5 * 5 8 Nationwide (Unduplicated) Jun 2003 235 98 217 378 Nationwide (Unduplicated) Dec 200 2 178 87 169 299 Nationwide (Unduplicated) Jun 200 2 142 68 138 237 Nationwide (Unduplicated) Dec 2001 117 59 122 203 Nationwide (Unduplicated) Jun 2001 86 47 98 160 Nationwide (Unduplicated) Dec 200 0 68 39 87 136 Nationwide (Unduplicated) Jun 200 0 47 36 75 116 Nationwide (Unduplicated) Dec 199 9 28 43 65 105 1 Other includes wireline technologies other than asymmetric digital subscriber line (ADSL), optical fiber to the subscriber's premises, satellite, and (terrestrial) fixed wireless systems. * Data withheld to maintain firm confidentiality. In this table, an asterisk also indicates 1- 3 providers reporting. Table 6 Providers of High- Speed Lines by Technology as of June 30, 2003 (Over 200 kbps in at Least One Direction) 30 ADSL Coaxial Cable Other 1 Total Alabama 70,639 181,338 31,969 283,946 Alaska 14,013 * * 61,121 Arizona 77,368 319,272 48,539 445,179 Arkansas 44,801 * * 128,311 California 1,715,998 1,395,435 345,248 3,456,681 Colorado 126,189 181,766 36,199 344,154 Connecticut 124,742 227,658 15,786 368,186 Delaware * * 3,386 55,030 District. of Columbia 39,471 * * 70,715 Florida 644,621 867,513 141,403 1,653,537 Georgia 368,372 289,922 109,766 768,060 Hawaii * * * * Idaho 19,382 * * 64,353 Illinois 363,733 383,069 124,667 871,469 Indiana 85,968 122,338 28,724 237,030 Iowa 39,386 111,748 11,123 162,257 Kansas 50,839 181,437 16,520 248,796 Kentucky 75,316 23,672 22,606 121,594 Louisiana 100,919 189,920 24,851 315,690 Maine 11,052 * * 85,615 Maryland 126,873 306,442 36,511 469,826 Massachusetts 207,344 564,961 48,830 821,135 Michigan 135,360 543,336 58,059 736,755 Minnesota 115,244 255,988 29,138 400,370 Mississippi 33,650 50,234 12,227 96,111 Missouri 138,046 191,658 37,274 366,978 Montana 13,119 * * 28,023 Nebraska 18,285 111,903 10,984 141,172 Nevada 47,934 * * 209,732 New Hampshire 17,823 95,612 5,444 118,879 New Jersey 211,540 690,620 65,680 967,840 New Mexico 26,948 38,004 7,017 71,969 New York 438,241 1,401,322 157,777 1,997,340 North Carolina 161,642 454,272 65,390 681,304 North Dakota 11,593 10,066 3,815 25,474 Ohio 243,689 508,458 69,788 821,935 Oklahoma 78,248 * * 234,823 Oregon 95,654 197,794 25,012 318,460 Pennsylvania 230,322 482,471 59,483 772,276 Puerto Rico * * * 32,063 Rhode Island * * 4,391 105,610 South Carolina 52,667 185,083 25,118 262,868 South Dakota 8,637 9,156 4,223 22,016 Tennessee 92,777 277,579 44,357 414,713 Texas 597,447 888,595 124,893 1,610,935 Utah 65,648 * * 135,007 Vermont 15,072 * * 39,773 Virgin Islands * 0 * * Virginia 114,797 404,616 48,100 567,513 Washington 225,377 313,915 38,086 577,378 West Virginia * 73,263 * 90,173 Wisconsin 84,100 287,519 30,376 401,995 Wyoming 5,503 * * 17,507 Nationwide 7,675,114 13,684,225 2,100,332 23,459,671 Table 7 High- Speed Lines by Technology as of June 30, 2003 1 Other includes wireline technologies other than asymmetric digital subscriber line (ADSL), optical fiber to the subscriber's premises, satellite, and (terrestrial) fixed wireless systems. * Data withheld to maintain firm confidentiality. (Over 200 kbps in at Least One Direction) 31 Dec 1999 Jun 2000 Dec 2000 Jun 2001 Dec 2001 Jun 2002 Dec 2002 Jun 2003 Alabama 19,796 32,756 63,334 86,234 138,979 172,365 227,888 283,946 Alaska * * 934 20,906 50,277 46,791 55,975 61,121 Arizona 58,825 111,678 153,500 158,122 251,709 308,621 370,939 445,179 Arkansas 8,155 15,539 28,968 40,803 66,537 84,235 100,280 128,311 California 547,179 910,006 1,386,625 1,705,814 2,041,276 2,598,491 3,035,756 3,456,681 Colorado 36,726 64,033 104,534 147,220 177,419 243,810 298,265 344,154 Connecticut 36,488 63,772 111,792 149,057 191,257 236,490 307,860 368,186 Delaware 1,558 3,660 7,492 12,771 26,601 36,619 51,100 55,030 District of Columbia 13,288 16,926 27,757 39,101 43,278 55,197 64,310 70,715 Florida 190,700 244,678 460,795 651,167 911,261 1,119,693 1,405,976 1,653,537 Georgia 75,870 130,292 203,855 302,598 420,206 512,135 654,833 768,060 Hawaii * * * * * * * * Idaho * 8,070 15,908 20,233 18,445 43,119 54,963 64,353 Illinois 77,672 166,933 242,239 350,241 422,706 553,442 734,171 871,469 Indiana 20,059 49,702 60,494 80,364 123,704 159,392 205,946 237,030 Iowa 19,258 49,159 58,199 72,583 82,024 102,932 121,053 162,257 Kansas 26,179 42,679 68,743 101,734 125,963 149,733 193,568 248,796 Kentucky 23,570 24,237 32,731 39,297 67,870 90,284 99,265 121,594 Louisiana 28,133 43,294 74,950 121,685 164,760 207,257 262,093 315,690 Maine 19,878 17,864 26,266 38,149 49,523 61,406 73,061 85,615 Maryland 52,749 71,005 124,465 181,021 260,634 316,666 391,397 469,826 Massachusetts 114,116 185,365 289,447 357,256 505,819 583,627 679,084 821,135 Michigan 81,223 135,318 198,230 395,583 433,858 538,416 640,766 736,755 Minnesota 38,268 65,272 117,283 148,012 199,856 273,907 335,562 400,370 Mississippi * 6,514 12,305 21,517 35,586 57,595 80,922 96,111 Missouri 23,347 46,903 100,403 123,915 181,794 224,282 260,752 366,978 Montana * * 7,378 10,446 13,037 17,969 20,090 28,023 Nebraska 36,748 44,188 54,085 55,188 71,451 92,849 117,219 141,172 Nevada 23,514 40,582 59,879 78,535 109,850 138,042 159,179 209,732 New Hampshire 22,807 33,045 42,364 55,658 71,200 86,200 102,590 118,879 New Jersey 101,832 144,203 285,311 428,514 590,192 693,036 839,095 967,840 New Mexico * 2,929 28,497 20,482 31,940 44,942 57,956 71,969 New York 186,504 342,743 603,487 893,032 1,199,159 1,460,894 1,725,296 1,997,340 North Carolina 57,881 81,998 136,703 205,616 357,906 461,736 594,039 681,304 North Dakota * 2,437 4,227 6,277 6,082 14,164 20,024 25,474 Ohio 160,792 156,980 230,525 358,965 436,766 580,078 710,355 821,935 Oklahoma 96,730 163,703 95,138 92,947 114,931 151,213 196,556 234,823 Oregon 27,062 44,186 76,839 93,242 158,048 199,549 275,449 318,460 Pennsylvania 71,926 79,892 176,670 263,236 376,439 516,488 631,717 772,276 Puerto Rico * * * * * * 22,732 32,063 Rhode Island * 20,628 30,919 49,215 64,293 72,553 89,821 105,610 South Carolina 25,229 32,824 63,914 96,839 135,165 175,088 222,980 262,868 South Dakota * 3,516 2,839 5,448 9,585 12,555 18,060 22,016 Tennessee 66,307 87,317 122,391 152,510 237,401 294,573 369,370 414,713 Texas 152,518 276,087 522,538 646,839 840,665 1,050,511 1,349,628 1,610,935 Utah 11,635 19,612 35,970 55,103 72,977 93,928 121,744 135,007 Vermont * 1,551 7,773 16,230 21,795 29,990 32,814 39,773 Virgin Islands 0 * * * * * * * Virginia 51,305 72,436 139,915 212,808 292,772 360,722 463,455 567,513 Washington 71,930 118,723 195,628 227,066 335,667 422,348 485,063 577,378 West Virginia * 1,835 6,498 16,697 32,848 58,209 78,980 90,173 Wisconsin 18,599 34,262 76,257 127,755 182,395 257,099 335,991 401,995 Wyoming * * * * 7,856 10,990 14,696 17,507 Nationwide 2,754,286 4,367,434 7,069,874 9,616,341 12,792,812 16,202,540 19,881,549 23,459,671 (Over 200 kbps in at Least One Direction) Table 8 High- Speed Lines by State * Data withheld to maintain firm confidentiality. 32 Dec 1999 Jun 2000 Dec 2000 Jun 2001 Dec 2001 Jun 2002 Dec 2002 Jun 2003 Alabama * * 12,320 * 34,785 45,350 56,860 70,639 Alaska 0 0 0 * 7,975 11,337 14,295 14,013 Arizona * * 32,395 39,828 53,489 68,280 72,324 77,368 Arkansas * * * * 22,240 28,477 35,594 44,801 California 122,855 373,574 622,894 735,677 928,345 1,214,543 1,485,309 1,715,998 Colorado * * 42,810 52,617 70,615 100,197 113,040 126,189 Connecticut * * 22,348 30,142 41,261 61,093 100,722 124,742 Delaware * * * * * * * * District of Columbia * * * 16,313 * 28,723 35,466 39,471 Florida * 37,806 115,133 170,702 306,015 391,188 521,623 644,621 Georgia * * 56,588 106,649 172,556 237,922 305,004 368,372 Hawaii * * * * * * * * Idaho * * * * 13,643 16,108 17,930 19,382 Illinois 3,150 12,812 48,278 89,080 110,448 195,560 300,497 363,733 Indiana * * 6,442 2,375 22,385 36,685 63,463 85,968 Iowa * * * 9,532 13,193 18,751 29,161 39,386 Kansas 0 * 14,281 * 23,564 28,713 39,315 50,839 Kentucky 5,690 * 16,327 20,256 43,191 55,454 55,254 75,316 Louisiana * * 22,788 37,444 58,019 73,120 86,359 100,919 Maine 0 * * 6,877 * * 8,432 11,052 Maryland * * * 51,051 79,997 95,439 115,687 126,873 Massachusetts * 15,802 53,700 82,699 125,630 147,139 181,426 207,344 Michigan 786 * 25,482 41,428 52,505 80,588 111,182 135,360 Minnesota * 25,975 40,870 51,640 67,527 86,184 98,316 115,244 Mississippi * * * * * * * 33,650 Missouri * * 38,759 53,250 68,186 84,642 114,861 138,046 Montana * * 1,760 2,842 4,272 7,108 6,549 13,119 Nebraska * * * 9,293 13,637 11,547 16,117 18,285 Nevada * * 10,023 * 17,598 24,073 36,662 47,934 New Hampshire * * 3,339 5,651 9,618 11,781 14,630 17,823 New Jersey * * 59,332 102,430 151,829 172,472 197,615 211,540 New Mexico * * * 7,578 * 18,224 22,607 26,948 New York 9,307 41,656 124,146 197,135 285,814 338,229 391,686 438,241 North Carolina * 8,662 23,815 41,332 65,582 89,680 124,031 161,642 North Dakota * * * * 4,849 6,575 8,826 11,593 Ohio * 33,603 55,046 87,567 112,527 151,612 205,140 243,689 Oklahoma * * * 31,321 39,978 50,617 65,378 78,248 Oregon * 19,989 31,644 25,877 57,899 68,747 82,555 95,654 Pennsylvania 7,377 18,313 60,083 89,595 136,829 162,258 200,501 230,322 Puerto Rico 0 0 0 * * * * * Rhode Island 0 * * * * * * * South Carolina * * 5,168 9,704 18,686 26,184 38,293 52,667 South Dakota * * * 1,652 2,869 4,389 6,308 8,637 Tennessee * * 13,705 22,902 42,571 57,984 74,034 92,777 Texas * 73,117 158,513 197,668 300,752 368,796 486,833 597,447 Utah * * 17,352 23,476 33,306 47,637 57,025 65,648 Vermont 0 * * * * 9,409 12,062 15,072 Virgin Islands 0 0 0 * * * * * Virginia 7,425 9,510 26,750 39,114 65,298 75,524 96,805 114,797 Washington * 52,345 79,130 64,812 140,273 172,652 200,189 225,377 West Virginia 0 * * * * * * * Wisconsin * 1,063 8,623 17,800 28,233 42,052 64,521 84,100 Wyoming * * * * * * * 5,503 Nationwide 369,792 951,583 1,977,101 2,693,834 3,947,808 5,101,493 6,471,716 7,675,114 , * Data withheld to maintain firm confidentiality. ADSL High- Speed Lines by State (Over 200 kbps in at Least One Direction) Table 9 33 Dec 1999 Jun 2000 Dec 2000 Jun 2001 Dec 2001 June 2002 Dec 2002 Jun 2003 Alabama 8,415 17,164 36,432 47,325 83,933 104,990 144,259 181,338 Alaska 0 0 0 0 * * * * Arizona * * * * 151,916 194,431 251,373 319,272 Arkansas * * * * * * * * California 221,472 297,415 476,544 609,174 786,789 1,013,503 1,179,204 1,395,435 Colorado * * * * * * * 181,766 Connecticut 28,702 47,127 78,234 106,019 137,003 160,913 192,155 227,658 Delaware * * * * * * * * District of Columbia * * * * * * * * Florida 110,000 129,830 255,978 372,190 486,977 595,806 741,426 867,513 Georgia 18,114 48,947 75,474 109,922 156,142 183,886 243,142 289,922 Hawaii * * * * 0 * * * Idaho 0 * * * * * * * Illinois *83,737 126,490 144,872 204,202 242,394 316,169 383,069 Indiana 7,412 33,431 37,052 56,441 78,837 98,414 114,237 122,338 Iowa 14,027 42,081 48,008 59,253 63,788 77,592 83,994 111,748 Kansas * * 48,541 74,337 94,047 111,615 142,563 181,437 Kentucky * * * * * 12,867 22,113 23,672 Louisiana * * * 64,219 88,851 115,198 * 189,920 Maine * * * * * * * * Maryland * 42,412 65,668 97,466 143,174 181,864 241,264 306,442 Massachusetts * 148,233 210,019 243,670 339,244 391,391 453,473 564,961 Michigan 51,111 94,586 130,296 301,842 329,697 402,642 472,405 543,336 Minnesota 14,346 30,485 64,215 80,259 113,900 166,323 212,126 255,988 Mississippi * * * * 12,998 27,872 40,276 50,234 Missouri * 16,482 42,255 51,733 89,370 110,026 117,403 191,658 Montana 0 * * * * * * * Nebraska * * * 37,168 49,939 73,306 92,261 111,903 Nevada * * * * * * * * New Hampshire * * * * * * * 95,612 New Jersey * * * * 375,362 454,750 578,337 690,620 New Mexico 0 0 * * * * * 38,004 New York 110,382 * 377,521 564,423 780,473 967,949 1,185,233 1,401,322 North Carolina 24,200 42,713 73,092 115,949 239,107 313,884 406,024 454,272 North Dakota 0 * * * * * * 10,066 Ohio * * 127,692 213,606 264,031 363,675 435,404 508,458 Oklahoma * * * * * * * * Oregon * * * * * * 165,343 197,794 Pennsylvania 34,878 38,340 85,104 131,119 190,915 300,840 376,611 482,471 Puerto Rico 0 0 0 0 0 0 * * Rhode Island * * * * * * * * South Carolina 15,176 20,190 44,812 68,487 96,559 126,598 159,944 185,083 South Dakota 0 * * * * * 7,916 9,156 Tennessee * * 77,760 96,119 158,120 199,121 252,596 277,579 Texas 76,520 137,670 227,070 328,900 427,324 577,233 740,469 888,595 Utah * * * * * * * * Vermont * * * * * * * * Virgin Islands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Virginia 23,140 40,337 78,585 131,553 182,591 238,300 320,154 404,616 Washington * * * * * 217,644 246,627 313,915 West Virginia * * * * * 48,858 65,542 73,263 Wisconsin * * * * * 189,585 243,043 287,519 Wyoming 0 0 * * * * * * Nationwide 1,411,977 2,284,491 3,582,874 5,184,141 7,059,598 9,172,895 11,369,087 13,684,225 , (Over 200 kbps in at Least One Direction) Table 10 Coaxial Cable High- Speed Lines by State * Data withheld to maintain firm confidentiality. 34 Residential & Small Business Other 1 Total Alabama 246,373 37,573 283,946 Alaska 56,018 5,103 61,121 Arizona 427,448 17,731 445,179 Arkansas 123,138 5,173 128,311 California 2,994,812 461,869 3,456,681 Colorado 316,730 27,424 344,154 Connecticut 350,622 17,564 368,186 Delaware 47,712 7,318 55,030 District of Columbia 44,865 25,850 70,715 Florida 1,387,008 266,529 1,653,537 Georgia 601,791 166,269 768,060 Hawaii * * * Idaho 61,076 3,277 64,353 Illinois 758,891 112,578 871,469 Indiana 194,239 42,791 237,030 Iowa 154,371 7,886 162,257 Kansas 236,543 12,253 248,796 Kentucky 93,951 27,643 121,594 Louisiana 277,481 38,209 315,690 Maine 76,964 8,651 85,615 Maryland 401,976 67,850 469,826 Massachusetts 725,018 96,117 821,135 Michigan 683,706 53,049 736,755 Minnesota 377,701 22,669 400,370 Mississippi 80,297 15,814 96,111 Missouri 331,679 35,299 366,978 Montana 26,128 1,895 28,023 Nebraska 137,508 3,664 141,172 Nevada 189,378 20,354 209,732 New Hampshire 107,244 11,635 118,879 New Jersey 838,225 129,615 967,840 New Mexico 66,540 5,429 71,969 New York 1,728,124 269,216 1,997,340 North Carolina 596,289 85,015 681,304 North Dakota 24,411 1,063 25,474 Ohio 742,970 78,965 821,935 Oklahoma 220,584 14,239 234,823 Oregon 290,128 28,332 318,460 Pennsylvania 652,903 119,373 772,276 Puerto Rico 20,495 11,568 32,063 Rhode Island 95,900 9,710 105,610 South Carolina 233,556 29,312 262,868 South Dakota 20,985 1,031 22,016 Tennessee 361,510 53,203 414,713 Texas 1,464,934 146,001 1,610,935 Utah 125,890 9,117 135,007 Vermont 35,118 4,655 39,773 Virgin Islands * * * Virginia 492,714 74,799 567,513 Washington 509,981 67,397 577,378 West Virginia 82,005 8,168 90,173 Wisconsin 373,205 28,790 401,995 Wyoming 16,435 1,072 17,507 Nationwide 20,645,769 2,813,902 23,459,671 ,, * Data witheld to maintain firm confidentiality. High- Speed Lines by Type of User as of June 30, 2003 Table 11 (Over 200 kbps in at Least One Direction) 1 Other includes medium and large business, institutional, and government customers. 35 Number of Providers Zero 40.3 % 33.0 % 26.8 % 22.2 % 20.6 % 16.1 % 12.0 % 9.0 % One 26.0 25.9 22.7 20.3 19.3 18.4 17.3 16.4 Two 15.5 17.8 18.4 16.7 15.7 16.2 16.8 16.9 Three 8.2 9.2 10.9 13.2 13.1 13.3 14.4 14.0 Four 4.3 4.9 6.1 8.2 9.1 9.6 10.3 10.6 Five 2.7 3.4 4.0 4.9 6.1 6.9 7.3 7.7 Six 1.7 2.5 3.0 3.6 4.2 4.6 5.0 5.3 Seven 0.8 1.7 2.3 2.8 3.2 3.2 3.9 4.0 Eight 0.3 0.8 2.0 2.2 2.5 2.8 2.7 3.1 Nine 0.2 0.4 1.6 1.9 2.0 2.4 2.2 2.5 Ten or More 0.0 0.4 2.4 3.9 4.0 6.4 8.0 10.5 Jun 2003 Dec 2001 Jun 2002 Dec 2002 Table 12 Percentage of Zip Codes with High- Speed Lines in Service Dec 1999 Jun 2000 Dec 2000 Jun 2001 36 Number of Reporting Providers* 7 or more 4 to 6 1 to 3 High- Speed Providers by Zip Code (As of June 30, 2003) * Provider has at least one customer in a Zip code. Service may use ADSL, other wireline, coaxial cable, fiber, satelllite or fixed wireless technology. 37 Alabama 10 % 15 % 20 % 21 % 17 % 9 % 4 % 3 % 1 % 0 % 0 % Alaska 17 60 16 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Arizona 2 6 13 18 7 8 6 5 3 625 Arkansas 20 27 23 13 7 4 3 2 0 0 0 California 3 6 11 11 8 6 5 5 5 536 Colorado 4 14 18 15 10 5 5 3 3 319 Connecticut 0 3 12 14 10 8 10 6 5 723 Delaware 0 0 4 18 32 33 14 0 0 0 0 District of Columbia 4 0 11 4 0 7 7 415480 Florida 1 2 6 10 12 11 9 8 5 628 Georgia 5 9 11 14 18 1 3 6 5 2 117 Hawaii 13 44 27 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Idaho 14 30 20 17 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Illinois 10 19 20 1 2 7 5 4 3 2 217 Indiana 7 20 19 16 1 1 8 7 4 2 1 5 Iowa 24 24 20 1 1 9 7 3 1 0 0 0 Kansas 10 22 23 15 1 0 6 4 4 4 1 1 Kentucky 22 26 18 13 1 0 6 4 1 0 0 0 Louisiana 8 17 20 17 12 12 7 4 2 0 0 Maine 14 23 30 16 1 1 3 2 0 0 0 0 Maryland 2 7 12 12 1 3 9 7 5 4 325 Massachusetts 0 2 8 10 15 1 1 9 6 7 427 Michigan 2 10 16 18 1 2 8 8 4 4 315 Minnesota 17 21 14 12 1 0 5 3 3 2 210 Mississippi 7 23 22 20 1 6 6 4 1 1 0 0 Missouri 16 22 20 1 3 7 5 2 4 4 4 3 Montana 25 30 20 1 3 5 5 2 0 0 0 0 Nebraska 22 29 22 11 9 4 3 0 0 0 0 Nevada 7 29 15 9 22 4 9 5 0 0 0 New Hampshire 2 12 14 19 18 14 7 5 8 0 1 New Jersey 0 3 5 10 12 15 10 12 13 11 10 New Mexico 19 26 24 8 1 1 3 4 5 0 0 0 New York 2 10 12 13 13 1 0 7 6 6 416 North Carolina 2 11 14 19 18 13 7 4 3 2 8 North Dakota 20 54 21 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Ohio 3 10 16 18 14 13 8 4 3 4 8 Oklahoma 9 21 20 16 9 6 6 7 5 1 0 Oregon 6 11 20 15 14 7 7 4 3 5 7 Pennsylvania 10 15 15 13 1 0 8 6 5 3 313 Puerto Rico 0 8 62 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rhode Island 0 6 6 15 15 15 24 1 9 0 0 0 South Carolina 7 15 16 18 15 15 8 4 2 0 0 South Dakota 32 30 24 10 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 Tennessee 3 12 19 16 15 12 5 5 4 2 6 Texas 6 12 15 12 9 8 7 5 5 417 Utah 10 18 15 1 3 9 5 1 3 2 321 Vermont 7 25 28 19 9 7 4 0 0 0 0 Virginia 10 17 19 18 9 6 4 2 3 212 Washington 5 10 16 16 8 6 7 6 6 416 West Virginia 23 32 18 14 8 4 1 0 0 0 0 Wisconsin 5 14 21 19 13 8 7 8 4 1 0 Wyoming 13 28 25 20 5 8 1 0 0 0 0 Nationwide 9 % 16 % 17 % 14 % 11 % 8 % 5 % 4 % 3 % 3 % 11 % Percentage of Zip Codes with High- Speed Lines in Service as of June 30, 2003 (Over 200 kbps in at Least One Direction) Table 13 More Number of Providers Zero One Four Five Six Ten or Seven Two Three Eight Nine 38 Jun 2003 More Than 3,147 97.3 % 98.1 % 98.7 % 98.9 % 99.7 % 99.9 % 99.8 % 100.0 % 947- 3,147 95.8 97.1 98.2 98.2 99.4 99.8 99.9 99.9 268- 947 93.4 95.6 97.5 98.4 98.4 99.5 99.9 99.9 118- 268 86.7 92.3 95.2 96.9 95.9 98.8 99.5 99.7 67- 118 77.9 87.5 93.0 96.4 90.2 96.8 98.5 99.4 41- 67 65.4 80.9 88.0 93.8 81.2 93.0 96.3 98.5 25- 41 54.5 72.8 81.0 90.4 71.4 87.3 92.2 96.9 15- 25 39.2 58.9 70.0 83.3 59.9 78.4 86.5 93.3 6- 15 31.3 51.1 60.9 77.3 56.6 74.6 81.9 90.3 Fewer Than 6 23.0 36.8 49.6 68.5 43.9 60.7 72.6 85.7 Jun 2000 $53,494 to $291,938 94.9 % 96.4 % 97.9 % 98.5 % 99.5 % 99.8 % 99.9 % 99.9 % $43,617 to $53,478 85.0 90.7 93.5 96.2 98.1 99.3 99.7 99.8 $38,396 to $43,614 74.1 83.8 89.0 94.0 96.4 98.5 99.0 99.6 $34,744 to $38,395 68.1 80.0 85.0 91.5 94.8 97.9 98.7 99.3 $32,122 to $34,743 64.3 77.3 83.3 90.2 93.5 97.4 98.4 99.2 $29,893 to $32,121 61.3 73.4 80.4 89.9 92.2 96.3 97.7 99.1 $27,542 to $29,892 58.7 73.5 79.7 89.2 90.5 95.9 97.5 98.9 $24,855 to $27,541 56.8 69.6 77.2 87.1 89.8 95.2 97.0 98.5 $21,645 to $24,855 53.3 67.4 76.9 87.4 87.5 93.9 96.5 98.5 $0 to $21,644 47.9 59.1 69.2 78.3 88.7 94.1 96.3 98.1 2 The percent of population residing in Zip Codes with more than 3,147 person per square mile and with High- speed Service is 99. 7% which rounds to 100%. Jun 2003 2 Percent of Zip Codes with at Least One High- Speed Subscriber 1 Persons per square mile and median household income are in decile groups. Each groups contains 10% of the zip codes. Jun 2003 Jun 2002 Jun 2003 Jun 2000 Jun 2001 Jun 2002 High- Speed Subscribership Ranked by Household Income Jun 2001 Percent of Population that Resides in Zip Codes with High-Speed Service Median Household Income 1 Table 14 High- Speed Subscribership Ranked by Population Density Percent of Population that Resides in Zip Codes with High-Speed Service Table 15 Percent of Zip Codes with at Least One High- Speed Subscriber Jun 2002 Jun 2001 Jun 2002 Jun 2000 Persons per Square Mile 1 Jun 2001 Jun 2000 39 Customer Response Publication: High- Speed Services for Internet Access: Status as of June 30, 2003. You can help us provide the best possible information to the public by completing this form and returning it to the Industry Analysis and Technology Division of the FCC's Wireline Competition Bureau. 1. Please check the category that best describes you: ____ press ____ current telecommunications carrier ____ potential telecommunications carrier ____ business customer evaluating vendors/ service options ____ consultant, law firm, lobbyist ____ other business customer ____ academic/ student ____ residential customer ____ FCC employee ____ other federal government employee ____ state or local government employee ____ Other (please specify) 2. Please rate the report: Excellent Good Satisfactory Poor No opinion Data accuracy (_) (_) (_) (_) (_) Data presentation (_) (_) (_) (_) (_) Timeliness of data (_) (_) (_) (_) (_) Completeness of data (_) (_) (_) (_) (_) Text clarity (_) (_) (_) (_) (_) Completeness of text (_) (_) (_) (_) (_) 3. Overall, how do you Excellent Good Satisfactory Poor No opinion rate this report? (_) (_) (_) (_) (_) 4. How can this report be improved? 5. May we contact you to discuss possible improvements? Name: Telephone #: To discuss the information in this report, contact: 202- 418- 0940 or for users of TTY equipment, call 202- 418- 0484 Fax this response to or Mail this response to 202- 418- 0520 FCC/ WCB/ IATD Mail Stop 1600 F Washington, DC 20554 40 Federal Communications Commission FCC 04- 55 STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MICHAEL K. POWELL Re: Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Fourth Notice of Inquiry Today’s action is a re- chartering of our efforts to monitor progress in the advanced services market. Every day American entrepreneurs and innovators roll- out new broadband applications. Those applications can work to stimulate demand for advanced telecommunications capabilities and broadband connections. As these applications evolve, so too should our 706 proceeding. When we issued our last report under section 706 of the Telecommunications Act, I said that we should strive for more specific data that will allow us to better analyze precisely where operators are deploying broadband services. In this NOI and related data gathering improvement proceedings, we seek comment on how we can improve upon our current zip- code- based approach without swamping innovative new service providers in paperwork. While everyone wants more detailed reports, we should stop short of any measures that would force operators to move dollars from real- world facilities- based investment into dollars for regulatory paperwork. I believe my colleagues and I can work together to strike the right cost- benefit balance. At the very least, asking the right questions now will help us improve our reporting process and, ultimately, improve Americans’ access to increasingly important advanced- communications capabilities. 41 Federal Communications Commission FCC 04- 55 STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER KATHLEEN Q. ABERNATHY Re: Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Fourth Notice of Inquiry I am pleased that the Commission is initiating this fourth inquiry on the deployment of broadband infrastructure. As I have often stated, this Commission has no higher priority than facilitating the deployment of broadband networks. In the past few years, we have taken important strides in furtherance of this goal. And we are seeing concrete results, as broadband build- out continues at a rapid pace and subscription rates continue their brisk ascent. In the wireline sector, for example, our decision to refrain from mandating the unbundling of broadband loops is helping spur increased investment in fiber networks. Our preservation of a pro- investment framework for cable broadband has been another success story. Our efforts in the wireless arena also have been significant. In particular, our identification of additional spectrum for 3G applications and Wi- Fi, our promotion of flexible uses of spectrum in existing bands, and our development of secondary markets to facilitate spectrum leasing will help deliver broadband services to more Americans. Moreover, our improvements to the satellite licensing process and our efforts to promote nascent technologies such as ultra wideband and broadband over powerline will further this core statutory objective. This inquiry regarding the timeliness of broadband deployment will help identify whether there are further steps we can take. In particular, we need to assess the extent to which rural areas are benefiting from broadband deployment and what actions would further accelerate investment. I am pleased that we are seeking comment on whether other areas and groups, such as tribal lands and persons with disabilities, are underserved. I also support our focus on ways to improve our data collection so that we can perform a more refined analysis. At the same time, we will need to weigh the benefits of obtaining more granular data against potential regulatory burdens imposed on the entities that file the reports. I look forward to examining the record in this proceeding and working with my colleagues on ways to remove any remaining barriers to broadband deployment. 42 Federal Communications Commission FCC 04- 55 STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS Re: Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Fourth Notice of Inquiry I will spare you another iteration of my broadband thoughts because most of you have heard me talk about how I believe broadband is the central infrastructure challenge facing this generation. High capacity networks are to the Twenty- first century what the roads and canals and railroads were to the Nineteenth and highways and telecommunications were to the Twentieth. Our future will be driven by how quickly and how well we build out broadband connectivity to all our people. Our role here needs to be as proactive as possible and I believe Section 706 gives us wide- ranging authority to both study and act on broadband deployment. People all around the country are waking up to the economic opportunity that broadband availability provides. A few months ago, I spent time in Cleveland with a coalition devoted to reducing the digital opportunity gap for city residents. They are working with schools and local officials in a project known as OneCleveland. Together they are developing a backbone infrastructure to enhance economic opportunity and education in city neighborhoods. They know that access to broadband is critical to the future of their community and the future of the country and they are doing something about it. I am pleased that we are beginning our next Section 706 inquiry today. I have been advocating this for some time. Good data is a prerequisite for good policy choices. So I hope our questions here will generate the serious and substantive analysis that the subject merits. I have had problems— methodological and otherwise— with the approach the Commission took in the past with this inquiry. I thought our questions were not sufficiently probing and our conclusions were not supported by the facts. We all applaud the build out of broadband, but being number 11 in the world doesn’t indicate to me that our deployment is either reasonable or timely. Other countries are getting a lot more capacity to a lot more people at a lot lower cost than we are. If this isn’t a call to action, I don’t know what is. So, for starters, we need to engage stakeholders of all stripes— from community organizations like the ones I met with in Cleveland to carriers large and small; from equipment manufacturers to state and local governments; from entrepreneurs with innovative ideas to experts on the economics of network development. We need to dig deep, beyond cursory zip code data and outdated 200 kilobit standards for advanced service. We have to figure out who is being left behind and why and then articulate a plan to fill in the deployment gaps we identify. This task is not small. But I am optimistic that today’s inquiry is a first step in what must be a broad and substantial effort. I want to thank the Bureau for accommodating some of the concerns I have expressed in the past and for broadening and deepening the inquiry. I look forward to our putting the record to good and productive use to ensure that no American is left behind in the broadband revolution. 43 Federal Communications Commission FCC 04- 55 STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN Re: Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Fourth Notice of Inquiry I am pleased to support this Notice opening an inquiry into the status of broadband deployment. Congress directed this Commission to ensure that all Americans have reasonable and timely access to advanced telecommunications capability, such as broadband services, and this effort is of critical importance to the health of our economy and our quality of life. Given the universally acknowledged significance of broadband services, I wish that we had started this inquiry sooner. Section 706 directs this Commission to conduct regular inquiries concerning the availability of broadband services. It’s been over two years since we completed our last inquiry and the market for broadband service is evolving rapidly and dynamically. Parties may differ about the need for and shape of a national broadband policy, but given the global economy, we must face up to what is happening in the real world. While we have delayed our own report card, there are warning signs being raised from other sources. The U. S. was recently ranked 11th worldwide in broadband penetration in a report by the International Telecommunications Union. I am glad that this Notice explores what lessons we can learn from those nations that may be deploying broadband more quickly. This Notice also asks fundamental questions about broadband deployment to consumers in rural areas, persons with disabilities, and Native Americans. The record we develop in this proceeding should improve our understanding of the challenges of providing broadband to these consumers, and on the unique opportunities that broadband services can bring. As the first person from South Dakota to serve as a Commissioner at the FCC, I know firsthand how important broadband services are to rural communities. Ensuring access to hard-to- serve areas of America is vital to their economic viability. Broadband gives businesses in these areas the tools they need to compete across the globe. By giving rural consumers access to telemedicine and distance learning, not to mention the vast array and ever growing resources available through the Internet, we give rural residents and their children the same opportunities that others enjoy. There are many success stories in providing broadband to these consumers, and I encourage commenters to help us understand the secrets to their success. I am also pleased that this item asks questions about our definition of “advanced telecommunications capability.” In past reports, we have considered services that deliver transmission speeds of at 200 kbps as broadband, a definition we adopted in 1999. Five years later, it appears that many of the most promising applications require considerably greater capacity. It is important that we look closely at the capabilities that are currently available to consumers. We also acknowledge in this Notice our intention to revise our formal broadband data gathering program, but concede that we have not started this effort in time for us to use any more comprehensive data collected for this report. In the past, the Commission has 44 Federal Communications Commission FCC 04- 55 2 acknowledged limitations to its data collection effort, and I wish that we had addressed those issues in time for us to benefit from more granular and detailed data. Finally, I believe that federal policies, such as universal service or video relay service, can play a vital role by increasing access to and encouraging demand for broadband services. Many of these programs are at issue in other proceedings before this Commission, so I encourage commenters to discuss the role of these programs in promoting the availability and use of broadband. 45