Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-88 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of 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 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) GN Docket No. 07-45 FIFTH REPORT Adopted: March 19, 2008 Released: June 12, 2008 By the Commission: Chairman Martin and Commissioners Tate and McDowell issuing separate statements; Commissioners Copps and Adelstein dissenting and issuing separate statements. TABLE OF CONTENTS Para. I. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................... 1 II. DEFINITION OF ADVANCED TELECOMMUNICATIONS CAPABILITY............................ 2 III. DEVELOPMENTS IN LAST-MILE TECHNOLOGIES SINCE THE FOURTH REPORT..................................................................................................................................... 7 A. Cable Technologies ........................................................................................................ 8 B. Copper Technologies.................................................................................................... 12 C. Fiber Technologies....................................................................................................... 14 D. Unlicensed Wireless Technologies ............................................................................... 15 E. Licensed Wireless Technologies................................................................................... 19 F. Broadband over Power Lines Technologies .................................................................. 22 G. Satellite Technologies .................................................................................................. 24 IV. NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN SERVICES, APPLICATIONS AND DEVICES.......................... 25 V. BROADBAND IS BEING DEPLOYED TO ALL AMERICANS............................................. 30 A. Overview of Broadband Data ....................................................................................... 31 B. Commission Action Since the Fourth Report to Facilitate Broadband Deployment ................................................................................................................. 39 VI. BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT IS REASONABLE AND TIMELY....................................... 59 A. Use of Broadband......................................................................................................... 60 B. International Broadband Comparisons .......................................................................... 67 VII. THE FUTURE OF BROADBAND........................................................................................... 72 VIII. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................ 76 IX. ORDERING CLAUSE ............................................................................................................. 77 APPENDIX A – List of Commenters APPENDIX B – Commission’s Report on High-Speed Services for Internet Access: Status as of June 30, 2007 Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-88 2 I. INTRODUCTION 1. This is the Commission’s Fifth Report examining the availability of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans, as required by section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act).1 Section 706 directs the Commission to encourage the deployment of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans by using measures that “promote competition in the local telecommunications market.”2 Further, it requires the Commission to conduct a regular inquiry to determine “whether advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.”3 In this Report, we find, pursuant to the analytical framework established in prior section 706 reports, that advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion. II. DEFINITION OF ADVANCED TELECOMMUNICATIONS CAPABILITY 2. Section 706(c) of the 1996 Act describes advanced telecommunications capability 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.”4 In previous reports, the Commission defined “broadband” – and, in effect, “advanced telecommunications capability” and “advanced services” – as services and facilities with an upstream (customer-to-provider) and downstream (provider-to-customer) transmission speed of more than 200 kilobits per second (kbps).5 As in these previous reports, we use these terms interchangeably for the purposes of this Report, and we describe service speeds with greater specificity where needed.6 By contrast, the Commission has used the term “high-speed” to describe services with over 200 kbps capability in at least one direction.7 3. In the Commission’s Fourth Report in 2004, the Commission made clear that 200 kbps service was appropriately considered “first generation” broadband. Also in 2004, the Commission reexamined its Form 477 local competition and broadband data gathering program, and began requiring providers to 1 47 U.S.C. § 157 nt.; see 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, GN Docket No. 07-45, Notice of Inquiry, 22 FCC Rcd 7816 (2007) (beginning the fifth inquiry under section 706) (Fifth Report Notice). The 1996 Act, Pub. L. 104-104, Feb. 8, 1996, 110 Stat. 56, amended the Communications Act of 1934, codified at 47 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. We refer to the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, as the “Communications Act.” 2 47 U.S.C. § 157 nt. 3 Id. 4 Id. 5 Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, CC Docket No. 98-146, Report, 14 FCC Rcd 2398, 2406, para. 20 (1999) (First Report); 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, 20919-21, para. 10 (2000) (Second Report); Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, CC Docket No. 98-146, Third Report, 17 FCC Rcd 2844, 2850, para. 9 (2002) (Third Report); Availability of Advanced Telecommunications Capability in the United States, GN Docket No. 04-54, Fourth Report to Congress, 19 FCC Rcd 20540, 20551-52 (2004) (Fourth Report). 6 See infra para. 33; Appendix B. We note, however, that some of the third-party studies and reports cited in this Fifth Report may use the term “broadband” differently than it has been defined in our section 706 reports. 7 See Second Report, 15 FCC Rcd at 20920, para. 11; Third Report, 17 FCC Rcd at 2850-51, para. 9; Fourth Report, 19 FCC Rcd at 20551. Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-88 3 submit further information about their broadband deployments.8 Among other things, the Commission required that filers determine the percentage of their broadband connections that are faster than 200 kbps in both directions and to categorize those connections into five “speed tiers” based on the information transfer rate in the connection’s faster direction: (1) greater than 200 kbps but less than 2.5 megabits per second (mbps); (2) greater than or equal to 2.5 mbps but less than 10 mbps; (3) greater than or equal to 10 mbps but less than 25 mbps; (4) greater than or equal to 25 mbps but less than 100 mbps; and (5) greater than or equal to 100 mbps.9 As a result of this more refined data collection, the Commission is now able to examine the deployment of broadband capable of providing service in excess of 200 kbps on the basis of speed tiers in this and subsequent reports. 4. Given the conclusion of the Fourth Report and the availability of suitable data from the Form 477 program, we find it appropriate to evaluate broadband deployment by monitoring the migration of customers and services to higher speed tiers, beginning at the 200 kbps threshold.10 By doing so, the Commission can evaluate and track broadband deployment over time against a common benchmark to determine whether it is being deployed in a reasonable and timely manner.11 Thus, in this Report we evaluate broadband deployment by speed tiers for the first time. 5. Variation in services and technologies likewise supports our evaluating broadband deployment over a range of speed tiers. As Connected Nation, the parent company of ConnectKentucky,12 points out, different broadband technologies have varying capabilities today that may meet particular needs of broadband customers.13 Further, consumers currently require different speed services depending upon the 8 See Local Telephone Competition and Broadband Reporting, WC Docket No. 04-141, Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 22340 (2004) (2004 Data Gathering Order). 9 See id. at 22347-48, para. 14. 10 See, e.g., NATOA et al. Comments at 8-9 (“We suggest one option the Commission consider be some sort of tiered approach in defining ‘advanced telecommunications capability,’ similar in approach to the manner in which the Commission currently obtains information on deployment. . . . By adopting the data collection tiers into the operational definition of ‘advanced telecommunications services,’ both quantity and quality of broadband deployment can be measured. As a result, all consumers, regardless of the speed of their selected service, will be counted.”); TIA Comments at 7 (“Included in the Commission’s January report on Internet access, is a set of ‘tiers’ of broadband divided by technologies and the transmission speeds made possible by them. . . . TIA recommends that the Commission, for purposes of assessment, use these tiers to identify what is available to the consuming public and the kinds of capabilities the tiers enable.”) (citation omitted); CTIA Comments at 10 (arguing that the baseline definition should be maintained to allow the Commission to compile a full picture of the advanced telecommunications capabilities available to American consumers); Verizon/Verizon Wireless Comments at 32 (arguing that there is no reason to stop tracking entry-level broadband speeds that continue “to provide many consumers access to the applications and services they desire”). 11 We thus disagree that we should abandon consideration of information of services at the 200 kbps level. See, e.g., APT Comments at 3 (arguing that the 200 kbps standard has outlived it usefulness); NASUCA Comments at 9 (stating its belief that the current definition of advanced services is out of date); NJ Rate Counsel Comments at 10 (arguing that the current speeds have become irrelevant). But see, e.g., TIA Comments at 5 (“Despite the Commission’s definition of broadband as 200 kbps, its deregulatory policies have spurred billions of dollars in investment and the availability of better broadband services. So, even though 200 kbps may not be an appropriate definition of broadband in today’s market, it is important to note that the definition itself has done nothing to impede innovation.”). 12 For a discussion of the ConnectKentucky project, see infra para. 37. 13 Connected Nation Comments at 2-3 (cautioning against the adoption of an inflexible definition of “advanced telecommunications capability” that might exclude particular technologies, such as the fixed wireless technologies that ConnectKentucky has found to be creative and cost effective solutions in some areas); see also, e.g., OPASTCO (continued....) Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-88 4 particular applications or services being used, which can in part be a function of other technological developments, such as advances in compression technology.14 For example, in prior section 706 reports, the Commission has noted that at 200 kbps, consumers can enjoy the most popular applications, including web browsing and email, without the delay experienced by dial-up subscribers.15 Commenters point out that other applications and services work best with higher-capacity broadband.16 By examining broadband availability across various speed tiers, we can monitor the availability of broadband associated with a full range of technologies and services. 6. For the reasons described above, in this Report we evaluate the status of broadband according to the historical Form 477 data and terminology. In light, however, of the continuing evolution in technology and consumer demand for advanced telecommunications capability, the Commission must continue to evolve its data collection. The Commission is modifying the Form 477 data collection in order to allow the Commission to gather more detailed information about availability of and subscription to broadband services, such as by adding additional broadband speed tiers.17 (...continued from previous page) Comments at 11-12 (stating that it may be appropriate for the Commission to consider various speeds of broadband services as part of its section 706 analysis “since technological advancements and marketplace demands will likely render any one speed of broadband inappropriate. In addition, a speed-based definition risks rapid obsolescence, as new applications and compression technology change the dynamics of how consumers will utilize broadband. . . . Changes in marketplace demands and technological capabilities are too unpredictable at this point to make alterations based on pre-determined conditions.”); NRTC Reply at 4 (“[T]he Commission must note the contribution of satellite and other wireless broadband providers that are delivering advanced telecommunications capabilities and take care not to exclude such providers from any benefits that might be derived from a definition that encompasses such lower speeds.”). 14 See, e.g., OPASTCO Comments at 12. 15 See First Report, 14 FCC Rcd at 2406, para. 20; Second Report, 15 FCC Rcd at 20920, para. 10; Third Report, 17 FCC Rcd at 2852, para. 11; Fourth Report, 19 FCC Rcd at 20551-52. As NATOA et al. point out, “the current speed of 200 kbps in each direction, according to the FCC’s own report, ‘permits users to play interactive games, use VoIP applications, listen to on-line music, and watch compressed video clips.’ This functionality – for some – may be sufficient and, because of availability, cost or a combination of these and other factors, these consumers will choose not to upgrade their broadband service. As a result, if the definitional speed is raised higher than 200 kbps, these consumers, even though they have access to broadband, will not be counted. Thus, if we are more interested in getting an accurate assessment of broadband deployment across the country – quantity – we must be careful in not increasing the speed to such an extent that a significant undercount occurs.” NATOA et al. Comments at 8 (citation omitted); see also TIA Comments at 6 (“While broadband continues to be offered at increasingly faster speeds and for some applications speeds as high as several megabits per second are necessary, it remains the case that in many circumstances speeds as low as 200 kbps may be appropriate.”). 16 See, e.g., FTTH Council Comments at 9-10 (citing, for example, the need for capacity ranging from 6 mbps for analog video to 20 mbps for digital, high-definition video, and up to 60 mbps for future “Super HDTV” video, depending upon the compression technology); Consumers Union et al. Comments at 15, Fig. 3 (citing different download speeds associated with different applications). 17 See Deployment of Nationwide Broadband Data to Evaluate Reasonable and Timely Deployment of Advanced Services to All Americans, Improvement of Wireless Broadband Subscribership Data, and Development of Data on Interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) Subscribership, WC Docket No. 07-38, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 22 FCC Rcd 7760 (2007) (2007 Data Gathering Notice); Deployment of Nationwide Broadband Data to Evaluate Reasonable and Timely Deployment of Advanced Services to All Americans, Improvement of Wireless Broadband Subscribership Data, and Development of Data on Interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) Subscribership, WC Docket No. 07-38, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 08-89 (rel. Jun. 12, 2008) (2008 Data Gathering Order). Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-88 5 III. DEVELOPMENTS IN LAST-MILE TECHNOLOGIES SINCE THE FOURTH REPORT 7. There have been considerable changes and advances in the delivery of broadband since the Fourth Report. Here, we highlight a few of these advances for different broadband deployment technologies. A. Cable Technologies 8. Cable modem technologies continue to provide high-speed data services over cable systems, and in many cases, voice services over the Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification (DOCSIS) platform using PacketCable or other voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) standards. Since the Fourth Report, cable operators have continued to upgrade their hybrid fiber coaxial (HFC) networks and are working to deliver new or improved services to residential and, increasingly, business customers through bandwidth increases and savings. The Commission estimates that high-speed cable modem service is available to 96 percent of the households to which cable system operators could provide cable TV service.18 9. Further, cable companies have continued to upgrade the equipment used to deliver broadband services, including a throughput improvement that allows cable operators to deliver additional and more complex services, including VoIP.19 On August 7, 2006, CableLabs announced the adoption of the new DOCSIS 3.0 specifications that enable cable operators to offer significantly higher data rates to their broadband customers.20 Specifically, the DOCSIS 3.0 specifications enable downstream data rates of 160 mbps or higher and upstream data rates of 120 mbps or higher.21 DOCSIS 3.0 also incorporates support for the Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6), which is the next generation of the Internet Protocol (IP), and greatly expands the number of Internet addresses that operators may use, allowing them to provide consumers with more IP-based services.22 This new specification promises secure delivery of advanced interactive video that would otherwise require complex engineering in the networks and substantial upgrades to the plant. 10. The transition to DOCSIS 3.0 will take place in two phases. First, the operators must replace the Cable Modem Termination System (CMTS) equipment in the network before offering the service. 18 See Appendix B, Table 14. 19 “Throughput” is the actual amount of useful and non-redundant information which is transmitted or processed. See Harry Newton, Newton’s Telecom Dictionary at 832 (20th ed. 2004). 20 CableLab’s DOCSIS continues to be the dominant standard used to provide high-speed Internet service for cable operators. Cable operators previously have deployed DOCSIS 1.0, 1.1, and 2.0 throughout their systems, allowing capacities of up to 30 mbps. DOCSIS 3.0 has fully replaced the cancelled 2.0b specification, which was identified only as an interim solution. 21 See Press Release, CableLabs, CableLabs Issues DOCSIS 3.0 Specification Enabling 160 Mbps (Aug. 7, 2006), available at http://www.cablelabs.com/news/pr/2006/06_pr_docsis30_080706.html. To achieve these higher data rates, DOCSIS 3.0 specifies a methodology called channel bonding – a load-sharing technique for logically combining multiple DOCSIS channels – in both the upstream and downstream directions. Downstream channel bonding is possible for a minimum of four channels, approximately 38 mbps each, for a total of more than 140 mbps shared throughput. Upstream channel bonding is possible for a minimum of four channels, 10 to 30 mbps each, for a total of 40 to 120 mbps of shared throughput. See John T. Chapman and Shalabh Goel, The Road to DOCSIS 3.0 (Dec. 1, 2006), available at http://www.cable360.net/ct/sections/features/20942.html. 22 See Press Release, CableLabs, CableLabs Issues DOCSIS 3.0 Specification Enabling 160 Mbps (Aug. 7, 2006), available at http://www.cablelabs.com/news/pr/2006/06_pr_docsis30_080706.html. Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-88 6 Second, partly by a process of natural replacement over time, the cable modems and set-top boxes in consumers’ homes will be replaced with DOCSIS 3.0-compatible equipment.23 Some cable multiple system operators (MSOs) soon will begin to deploy DOCSIS set-top gateways (DSGs), which support more bandwidth intensive interactive video services and provide easier integration of multi-vendor solutions, in addition to supporting the upcoming OpenCable Application Platform (OCAP).24 11. The cable industry is also continuing work on its Next Generation Network Architecture (NGNA) project to advance cable operators’ transition to all-digital networks and to provide an alternative software-based conditional access system that supports cable operators’ existing security. The non-profit company Polycipher intends to continue the work NGNA had begun on the downloadable conditional access system (DCAS) software-based security platform.25 Further, NGNA intends to unify cable’s IP and moving pictures expert group (MPEG) video infrastructures in an effort to drive down equipment costs, reclaim valuable HFC spectrum, and enable high-value digital services. Fulfilling the NGNA vision requires a new class of Digital IP Cable Edge devices that integrate the functionality of a high-density edge quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM) modulator platform, DOCSIS CMTS, and video processing. Ultimately, IP traffic (data, voice, and video) and MPEG traffic (broadcast and on-demand standard and high-definition video) will flow over a common Gigabit Ethernet backbone to the cable network edge. There, the NGNA edge platform will dynamically route the service to the appropriate customer premises device, whether MPEG set-top, IP set-top, cable modem, or PacketCable electronic message transfer agent (E-MTA).26 B. Copper Technologies 12. Local telephone carriers primarily use digital subscriber line (DSL) service offerings to provide consumers with broadband services where they have not deployed fiber technologies. As of June 2007, there were over 23.3 million broadband DSL connections.27 The variety and speed of DSL service offered continues to increase as carriers more fully realize the potential of copper-based technologies. Next generation network facilities, such as asymmetric DSL 2+ (ADSL2+), are capable of offering customers broadband connections of up to 25 mbps, while very high-speed asymmetrical DSL (VDSL2) can achieve speeds of 100 mbps at distances of a few hundred feet and 25 mbps at around 2,500 feet.28 23 Press Release, ABI Research, DOCSIS 3.0 Penetration to Reach 60% by 2011 (Aug. 23, 2006), available at http://www.abiresearch.com/abiprdisplay.jsp?pressid=710. Many major cable modem vendors, including BigBand Networks, Arris, and Cisco, participated in a weeklong interoperability event in July 2006, and all companies’ downstream channel bonding products were able to interoperate with each other. In addition, the vendors successfully performed limited IPv6 testing. 24 See CableLabs OpenCable Website (visited June 25, 2007), available at http://www.opencable.com/. The DSGs have embedded DOCSIS modems for the purpose of migrating traditional cable Out of Band (OOB) messaging from a proprietary to standards-based transport. OOB signals typically include conditional access, system information, electronic programming guide (EPG), and emergency alert system (EAS) data. 25 See Jeff Baumgartner, Polycipher Key to Cable’s Downloadable Conditional Access Effort, CED Magazine (Aug. 17, 2006), available at http://www.cedmagazine.com/article.aspx?id=120534. 26 See Light Reading’s Cable Digital News, Next-Generation Network Architecture (NGNA) (Oct. 30, 2006), available at http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=109381&site=cdn. 27 See Appendix B, Table 2. 28 See Covad Comments at 3; NuVox/XO Comments at 5; Telecommunications Industry Association, 2007 Technology & Policy Primer at 32 (visited July 30, 2007), available at http://www.tiaonline.org/policy/publications/white%5Fpapers/documents/TIA2007Primer.pdf. Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-88 7 13. In addition to DSL, carriers are using copper-based technologies to provide other services. For instance, copper loops can provide Ethernet services at speeds approximating 50 mbps on loops of up to 12,000 feet.29 Advanced services, like Internet Protocol television (IPTV) and high-definition television (HDTV), are also now available over copper-based networks.30 C. Fiber Technologies 14. Fiber technology deployments have increased dramatically since the Fourth Report. Specifically, at the time of the Fourth Report, fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) was just beginning to impact the market for advanced telecommunications services, but has since experienced marked growth. For example, Verizon’s FiOS FTTH network offers speeds of up to 30 mbps downstream and up to 5 mbps upstream (and even up to 50 mpbs downstream and up to 10 mbps upstream in select locations) and is now available to 6.8 million homes and businesses.31 Carriers have also deployed other fiber technology offerings such as fiber-to-the-curb (FTTC) and fiber-to-the-node (FTTN), where fiber is deployed from the central office to a location near – but not all the way to – the customer’s premises. The fiber is connected to an optical network unit (ONU) or similar electronics at that location, from which copper and, often, coaxial cable are connected to each customer premises.32 For example, AT&T is in the process of deploying its “U-Verse” offering, which will include IP-based video, broadband, and VoIP services, to 18 million households through a combination of FTTN and FTTH by the end of 2008.33 In addition, many small providers are deploying FTTH networks.34 D. Unlicensed Wireless Technologies 1. Wi-Fi 15. Since the Fourth Report, Wireless Fidelity (Wi-Fi) access to the Internet has continued to grow with an ever-increasing number of hotspots, i.e., a place where the public can access Wi-Fi service, either for free or for a fee.35 Also, a number of cities have joined the Wi-Fi expansion with municipal 29 See, e.g., Covad Comments at 4-7; NuVox/XO Comments at 4-5. 30 See NuVox/XO Comments at 5. 31 See FTTH Council Comments at 4; Verizon/Verizon Wireless Comments at 1; News Release, Verizon Communications Inc., Innovation and Telecom Companies’ Advanced Networks Power Telecom Future, Seidenberg Tells NXTcomm; Broadband, IP and Mobility are Key for Customers; Verizon FiOS All-Fiber Network Now Connected to More Than 1 Million Internet and Nearly 500,000 TV Customers, Seidenberg Say (June 20, 2007), available at http://newscenter.verizon.com/press-releases/verizon/2007/innovation-and-telecom.html. 32 See, e.g., Letter from Glenn Reynolds, Vice President – Federal Regulatory, BellSouth, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, CC Docket No. 01-338, Att. at 6 (filed Sept. 17, 2003). 33 See AT&T, Media Kits (visited July 30, 2007), available at http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=5838. 34 See FTTH Council and TIA, FTTH/FTTP UPDATE at 11-12 (Apr. 1, 2007), available at http://www.ftthcouncil.org/documents/800832.pdf (noting that 341 small providers have deployed FTTH). 35 Wi-Fi refers to any device using the 802.11 family of standards developed by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) for wireless local area networking. The IEEE 802.11 family of standards for Wi-Fi include 802.11a for networking devices using the 5 GHz frequency band at speeds up to 54 mbps; 802.11b for networking devices using the 2.4 GHz frequency band at speeds up to 11 mbps; 802.11g for networking devices using the 2.4 GHz frequency band at speeds up to 54 mbps; and the latest draft standard 802.11n, scheduled to be ratified in 2008, for networking devices using either the 2.4 GHz or 5 GHz frequency band with promises of maximum speeds up to 600 mbps. Although 802.11n is still in draft form, the Wi-Fi Alliance has begun certifying products to this draft standard, which has promoted market availability of pre-802.11n certified products. See (continued....) Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-88 8 wireless networks.36 As of August 2007, MuniWireless’s website estimates that there are 415 cities and counties in the United States deploying, planning, or running Wi-Fi networks.37 Wi-Fi computer chips are also becoming ubiquitous and are appearing in devices such as memory cards for digital cameras, allowing the camera to send digital photos directly to a Wi-Fi-enabled printer or to any Internet photo processing website.38 16. Where communication between Wi-Fi-enabled devices has generally consisted of data communication from devices such as computers and personal digital assistant devices, Wi-Fi-enabled telephones now allow voice communication over the Internet using VoIP at any Wi-Fi hotspot.39 As more companies, cities, and households develop Wi-Fi networks, Wi-Fi phones are becoming more useful. For example, some wireless carriers are providing or planning to provide dual-mode hybrid mobile phones that use both Wi-Fi and mobile networks.40 In addition, some VoIP service providers have partnered with hardware manufacturers to release cell-like mobile phones that can use their services via Wi-Fi (...continued from previous page) Marguerite Reardon, Wi-Fi Alliance to Begin Certifying 802.11n Gear, News.com (May 16, 2007), available at http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1035_22-6184282.html. Wi-Fi networks operate on an unlicensed basis under Part 15 of the Commission’s rules, in the 2.4 and 5 GHz frequency bands. With the latest 802.11n draft standard, Wi-Fi networks can provide multiple data rates over 200 mbps. See Eric Bangeman, 802.11n Specs Moves Closer to Completion, Ars Technica (Jan. 19, 2007), available at http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070119-8662.html; see also Broadcom White Paper, 802.11n: Next Generation Wireless LAN Technology (April 2006), available at http://www.broadcom.com/docs/WLAN/802_11n-WP100-R.pdf. A Wi-Fi network is comprised of one or more base stations or Access Points (AP) that enable communication between any Wi-Fi equipped wireless device, such as a personal computer or a mobile telephone, that comes within 300 feet (100 m) of an AP. The range of an 802.11x (a, b, or g) Wi-Fi device is approximately 300 feet (100 m), whereas an 802.11n Wi-Fi device typically can deliver more than twice the range. See David Naskin, FAQ: 802.11n Wireless Networking, Computerworld (May 16, 2007), available at http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9019472. Wi-Fi networks often rely on another type of broadband connection for access to the Internet. See Appropriate Regulatory Treatment for Broadband Access to the Internet Over Wireless Networks, WT Docket No. 07-53, Declaratory Ruling, 22 FCC Rcd 5901, 5907, para. 15 (2007) (Wireless Broadband Internet Access Services Order). 36 According to JiWire, Inc., there are 58,197 hotspots in the United States. See JiWire, Inc. Website (visited Aug. 20, 2007), available at http://www.jiwire.com/hot-spot-directory-browse-by- state.htm?country_id=1&provider_id=0. Further, Wi-Fi networks are demonstrating their importance in homeland security measures as well. See Carol Wilson, Wi-Fi Fills Cracks, Telephony Online (Aug. 20, 2007), available at http://telephonyonline.com/home/news/telecom_wifi_fills_cracks/ (noting that the Minneapolis Wi-Fi network aided rescue workers following the collapse of the I-35 bridge). 37 A list of municipal Wi-Fi networks is available at http://www.muniwireless.com/article/articleview/13/1/24/ (visited Aug. 20, 2007); see also Microsoft, MetroFi team, Light Reading (Nov. 15, 2006), available at http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=110669&print=true. 38 See Michael Kanellos, Wi-Fi Memory Cards Coming to Cameras, CNET News.com (June 10, 2007), available at http://news.com.com/Wi-Fi+memory+cards+coming+to+cameras/2100-1041_3-6189671.html. 39 Several manufacturers are offering Wi-Fi mobile phones. See Peter Jacobson, Wi-Fi Phones Buyer’s Guide, Information Week (Feb. 1, 2007), available at http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=196901394. 40 See, e.g., Amol Sharma, How Wi-Fi Can Extend T-Mobile Range, Wall St. J., May 3, 2007, at B3, available at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117815938377190497.html; see also infra para. 26 (discussing these dual-mode hybrid mobile phones). These handsets allow the consumer to take advantage of Wi-Fi networks when they are available, and use the mobile networks the rest of the time. Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-88 9 networks.41 According to Infonetics Research, Wi-Fi phone sales reached $535 million in 2006, a 327 percent growth from 2005.42 2. WiMAX 17. Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access (WiMAX)43 has made large strides in part due to the adoption of the IEEE 802.16e-2005 standard.44 Activities on WiMAX deployments in terms of products shipped have accelerated since the end of 2006. Intel Corp. released its WiMAX system-on- chip, the WiMAX Connection 2250, in late 2006, and companies such as Motorola, Alcatel, and Proxim are planning to integrate the Intel chip into their WiMAX system designs.45 To date, carrier use of the WiMAX technology has largely come in two areas: as a backhaul service for cellular, operating as an alternative to T1 lines or point-to-point fiber links; or in conjunction with Wi-Fi meshes to provide tiered mesh services in larger metropolitan areas.46 However, as mobile WiMAX devices become available,47 41 See supra note 39. 42 See Wi-Fi, Mobile Phone Sales Soar in 2006 - Dual-mode Wi-Fi/Cellular VoIP Phones Ramping Up, Government Technology (Jan. 25 2007), available at http://www.govtech.com/dc/articles/103532. 43 WiMAX refers to any device using the IEEE 802.16 standard for wireless metropolitan area networking and operates on the same general principles as Wi-Fi by allowing communication between WiMAX enabled devices and providing them with a gateway to the Internet. A WiMAX system consists of two parts: (1) a WiMAX tower, similar to a cell-phone tower that connects to the Internet using a high-bandwidth wired connection, such as a T3 line; and (2) WiMAX-enabled receivers in mobile devices such as laptop computers or dual mode hybrid mobile phones. A WiMAX tower can connect to another WiMAX tower using a line-of-sight, microwave link, thereby creating a backhaul connection. With its wide range coverage and tower-to-tower connection, WiMAX is capable of delivering last-mile broadband to remote rural areas. Providers tout WiMAX delivery of broadband at 75 mbps, under ideal circumstances, and reach up to 30 miles. See Fifth Report Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 7823, n.30. In contrast, the Wi-Fi/802.11 wireless local area network standard is limited in most cases to only 100-300 feet. WiMAX operates on both licensed and unlicensed frequencies. The 802.16 standard specifies a range of operating frequencies from 2 to 66 GHz. Initial WiMAX products operate in the internationally available 2.3 GHz, 2.5 GHz, 3.3 GHz and 3.4-3.8 GHz licensed bands, and WiMAX computer chips for use in the 5.8 GHz unlicensed bands are becoming available. See WiMAX Forum, Mobile WiMAX – Part I: A Technical Overview and Performance Evaluation at 49 (Feb. 21 2006), available at http://www.wimaxforum.org/technology/downloads/Mobile_WiMAX_Part1_Overview_and_Performance.pdf. In the U.S., service providers use the 2.3 GHz (Horizon Wi-Com) and 2.5 GHz (Clearwire Corp. and Sprint Nextel) licensed bands. See WiMAX Forum, Wavesat Announces Availability of World’s First 5.8 GHz WiMAX Mini-PCI Design (May 30, 2007), available at http://www.wimaxforum.org/news/pr/view?item_key=7e567f8255fcd06753d7129a63ef2dc3e9e4162f. To promote interoperability and compliance with the 802.16 standard among equipment from various manufacturers, trade associations such as the WiMAX Forum provide a certification program, which allows vendors to display a “WiMAX Forum Certified” designation on their products. The WiMAX Forum maintains a product registry of all WiMAX certified products at http://www.wimaxforum.org/kshowcase/view/catalog_search (visited June 24, 2007). To date, there are over two dozens of WiMAX Forum-Certified base stations and subscriber stations. 44 IEEE 802.16-2004 standard defines the air interface for fixed WiMAX stations. Mobile WiMAX implementations follow IEEE 802.16e-2005 standard. 45 See Colleen Taylor, Intel Debuts WiMAX Chip, Electronic News (Oct. 12, 2006), available at http://www.edn.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA6380414. 46 See Loring Werbel, Pushing Past Trials, WiMAX Footprint Grows, EETimes (July 17, 2006), available at http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=190400387. Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-88 10 consumer services and applications as well as enterprise network solutions are accelerating WiMAX growth.48 Commercial WiMAX deployments are expected to begin by the end of 2007.49 3. Wireless Personal Area Network 18. Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) are growing with the advent of wireless USB,50 a wireless type of networking using ultra-wideband (UWB) radio technology.51 Wireless USB uses the unlicensed 3.4-10.6 GHz frequency band for UWB communication devices and aims at eliminating cables to allow computer peripherals and multi-media devices to interconnect.52 Wireless USB offers speeds up to 480 mbps over a range of 30-45 feet. In-Stat estimates that by late 2007, computers and high-end multi-media devices will have certified wireless USB devices built into them, replacing the traditional wired USB connection port.53 E. Licensed Wireless Technologies 19. Wireless broadband technologies operating on licensed spectrum allow consumers to access the Internet at high speeds on a mobile, portable, or fixed basis using a mobile phone or a laptop computer with a wireless modem. Since the Fourth Report, wireless operators have greatly expanded and upgraded their broadband networks to allow subscribers access to the Internet while mobile via a laptop computer (...continued from previous page) 47 See W. David Gardner, WiMAX Modems Expected in Late 2007, Information Week (June 15, 2007), available at http://www.informationweek.com/shared/printableArticle.jhtml?articleID=199904800; see also Stephen Lawson, Mobile WiMAX Gear Lifts Off, IDG News Service (Apr. 10, 2007), available at http://wireless.itworld.com/4273/070410wimax/page_1.html. 48 See Stephen Lawson, Samsung to Aim WiMAX at SMB Networking, Wash. Post (May 23, 2007), available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/23/AR2007052300054.html. 49 See W. David Gardner, Mobile WiMAX Commercial Launch Planned for Northeast Region in August, Information Week (June 29, 2007), available at http://www.informationweek.com/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=KRCV4F3J5HTSSQSNDLPCKH0CJUNN2JVN?a rticleID=200001684&queryText=wimax; Peter Svensson, Sprint Sees Growth Beyond Cell Phones, Associated Press (Aug. 31, 2007), available at http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070831/market_spotlight_sprint.html?.v=1. We note that WiMAX technology can be deployed in both licensed and unlicensed spectrum bands, depending on the particular standard and network architecture employed. See infra para. 19. 50 Universal Serial Bus (USB) refers to the common plug-and-play, high-speed computer bus used to connect peripheral devices to a computer. There are two versions of USB. USB 1.0, the older version, transfers data at speeds up to 12 mbps. USB 2.0 can achieve data transfer rates up to 480 mbps. 51 See Cameron Wilmot, Intel Demonstrates fast new Ultra-Wideband WPAN at IDF Fall Taiwan 2006, Tweaktown.com (Oct. 17, 2006), available at http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/968/. A WPAN is a computer network used for communication among personal devices close to the same person such as between a headset and a personal audio CD or MP3 player, or between a digital camera and a laptop computer. WPAN can be used for communication between the personal devices themselves, or for connecting to a higher-level network, such as a home network between two or more computers, and to the Internet. WPAN uses point-to-point or peer-to-peer technology without the need for a wireless router, thus reducing infrastructure costs. Because the UWB part of WPAN allows for very fast maximum throughput rates of up to 480 mbps at a range of 30 feet or less (the same as Bluetooth), which matches that of wired USB 2.0 (480 mbps), Intel is promoting WPAN as USB without wires. See id. UWB operates on an unlicensed basis under Part 15 of the Commission’s rules. 52 See 47 C.F.R. § 15.517. 53 See Wireless USB to Soar in 2007, Test & Measurement World (May 10, 2007), available at http://www.tmworld.com/article/CA6440967.html. Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-88 11 or Personal Digital Assistant (PDA) with a wireless modem card, or to download a range of multimedia content and advanced applications on certain mobile handset models. Some Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) carriers have deployed 1xEV-DO (EV-DO) and EV-DO Revision A (Rev A) network technologies across their networks.54 With EV-DO, typical users experience download speeds from 400- 700 kbps and upload speeds of 50-70 kbps.55 The EV-DO Rev A network upgrade increases these average download speeds to 600 kbps-1.4 mbps and significantly improves average upload speeds to 350- 800 kbps.56 The Commission estimates that, as of mid-2007, EV-DO/EV-DO Rev A networks had been deployed to approximately 82 percent of the U.S. population.57 In addition to the EV-DO deployments by CDMA wireless carriers, some GSM carriers have upgraded portions of their networks with Wideband CDMA/High Speed Downlink Packet Access (WCDMA/HSDPA) technology, which enables mobile broadband access at average user download speeds of 400-700 kbps.58 The Commission estimates that, as of mid-2007, WCDMA/HSDPA networks covered approximately 43 percent of the U.S. population.59 20. In addition, wireless operators in the 2.5 GHz Broadband Radio Service (BRS) and Educational Broadband Service (EBS) and 2.3 GHz WCS spectrum have begun rolling out, or have announced plans to deploy, wireless broadband services using Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) technologies, including WiMAX and similar technologies.60 Because OFDM 54 See Implementation of Section 6002(b) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Annual Report and Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions with Respect to Commercial Mobile Services, WT Docket No. 04-111, Ninth Report, 19 FCC Rcd 20597, 20652-53, para. 134 (2004) (Ninth CMRS Competition Report); Implementation of Section 6002(b) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Annual Report and Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions with Respect to Commercial Mobile Services, WT Docket No. 06-17, Eleventh Report, 21 FCC Rcd 10947, 10993, para. 112 (2006) (Eleventh CMRS Competition Report); News Release, Verizon Wireless, Verizon Wireless: 100 Percent of Wireless Broadband Network Now Enhanced with Faster Speeds (June 29, 2007), available at http://news.vzw.com/news/2007/06/pr2007-06-28h.html (Verizon Wireless June 29, 2007 News Release). 55 See News Release, Sprint Nextel, Sprint Powers Up Faster Mobile Broadband Network in 10 More Markets, Upgraded Coverage Reaches 60 Million People (Dec. 12, 2006), available at http://www2.sprint.com/mr/news_dtl.do?id=14680; 3G Americas, 3G Technologies (visited July 3, 2007), available at http://www.3gamericas.com/English/PDFs/3G_technology_comparison.pdf (3G Americas website). The maximum peak download speed for EV-DO is 2.4 mbps. See 3G Americas website. 56 See News Release, Sprint Nextel, America’s Largest and Fastest Mobile Broadband Network Just Got Even Larger – Sprint Customers Can Do More, In More Places, And At Fast Speeds (June 19, 2007), available at http://www2.sprint.com/mr/news_dtl.do?id=17121 (Sprint Nextel June 19, 2007 News Release); Verizon Wireless June 29, 2007 News Release. The maximum peak download speed for EV-DO is 3.1 mbps. See 3G Americas website. 57 Commission estimate based on service area boundary maps provided by American Roamer and census block analysis of population covered. 58 See Implementation of Section 6002(b) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Annual Report and Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions with Respect to Commercial Mobile Services, WT Docket No. 05-71, Tenth Report, 20 FCC Rcd 15908, 15953 (2005) (Tenth CMRS Competition Report); see also, e.g., News Release, Cingular Wireless, Cingular Wireless Completes $86 Million Investment in Las Vegas During 2006 – Delivers Wireless Innovation (Jan. 30, 2007), available at http://att.centralcast.net/cingularnewsarchive/Release.aspx?ID=4224. 59 Commission estimate based on service area boundary maps provided by American Roamer and census block analysis of population covered. 60 See, e.g., Eleventh CMRS Competition Report, 21 FCC Rcd at 10962, para. 32 (noting that several small BRS/EBS licensees offer wireless broadband services in rural areas of the country using technologies that employ OFDM); News Release, Sprint Nextel, Sprint Nextel Cites WiMAX Network Progress for 2007 (Jan. 8, 2007), (continued....) Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-88 12 allows signals to pass through buildings and trees, carriers can use the technology to offer wireless broadband services without a direct line-of-sight between the transmitter and the end user’s receiver.61 Therefore, many of the services offered using OFDM technology allow customers to access the Internet with portable “plug-and-play” modem devices connected to a personal or laptop computer, rather than a fixed antenna mounted on a rooftop, allowing customers to transport these devices to other locations within the carrier’s coverage area where a network signal is available and in some cases use them while traveling at high speeds.62 21. As of June 2007, 35.3 million mobile wireless devices capable of accessing the Internet over high-speed lines were in use, versus almost none at the end of 2003.63 In addition, the Commission estimates that, as of mid-2007, providers have deployed mobile broadband networks to areas of the country containing 233 million people, or 82 percent of the U.S. population.64 (...continued from previous page) available at http://www2.sprint.com/mr/news_dtl.do?id=15000; News Release, Horizon Wi-Com, Horizon Wi-Com Selects Navini for Wireless Deployment (Jan. 15, 2007), available at http://www.wcai.com/pdf/2007/p_naviniJan12.pdf (Horizon Wi-Com Jan. 15, 2007 News Release); News Release, Clearwire Corporation, Richmond First in Virginia to Experience Clearwire Wireless Broadband Service (June 5, 2007), available at http://www.clearwire.com/company/news/06_05_07_b.php; W. David Gardner, WiMax Networks Go Live in Nine Northeast Cities, InformationWeek (June 13, 2007), available at http://www.informationweek.com/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=OPFNJOZNUB2L0QSNDLOSKH0CJUNN2JVN? articleID=199903928&queryText=WiMax+Networks+Go+Live+in+Nine+Northeast+Cities (noting that Horizon Wi-Com purchased its WCS licenses from Verizon in 2006); News Release, Sprint Nextel, Sprint Nextel and Clearwire to Partner to Accelerate and Expand the Deployment of the First Nationwide Mobile Broadband Network Using WiMAX Technology (July 19, 2007), available at http://www2.sprint.com/mr/news_dtl.do?id=17520; supra para. 17 (discussing WiMAX technology). As one of the conditions of the August 2005 merger of Sprint and Nextel, the Commission required the merged company to fulfill its voluntary commitment to provide service in the 2.5 GHz band. The merged company is required to offer service using its BRS/EBS spectrum to at least 15 million Americans by August 2009 and to an additional 15 million Americans by August 2011. See Applications of Nextel Communications, Inc. and Sprint Corporation for Consent to Transfer Control of Licenses and Authorizations, File Nos. 0002031766, et al., WT Docket No. 05-63, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 13967, 14028-29, para. 165 (2005). In June 2007, the merged company reported that it expected to meet and exceed those requirements. See Howard Buskirk, Sprint Says It Easily Will Exceed Buildout Requirements, Comm. Daily at 9 (June 15, 2007). The AT&T/BellSouth merger also resulted in merger commitments by AT&T to offer mobile and fixed wireless broadband service to 25% of the population covered by its WCS licenses (excluding Alaska) by July 21, 2010. See AT&T Inc. and BellSouth Corporation Application for Transfer of Control, WC Docket No. 06-74, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 5662, 5816 (2007). AT&T also agreed to divest its 2.5 GHz BRS/EBS spectrum, and in May 2007, Clearwire completed the acquisition of this spectrum. See News Release, Clearwire Corporation, Clearwire Completes Acquisition of AT&T Mobile WiMAX Spectrum (May 31, 2007), available at http://www.clearwire.com/company/news/05_31_07.php. 61 See Eleventh CMRS Competition Report, 21 FCC Rcd at 10995, para. 119. 62 See id. 63 See Appendix B, Table 1. 64 Commission estimate based on service area boundary maps provided by American Roamer and census block analysis of population covered. Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-88 13 F. Broadband over Power Lines Technologies 22. Since the Fourth Report, the broadband over power line (BPL) industry continues to evolve.65 There are two types of BPL. Access BPL carries broadband to the customer and acts as a last- mile technology.66 Access BPL alleviates the need to build broadband infrastructure to every customer because power lines are installed virtually everywhere in the United States.67 In-House BPL provides home networking within the customer’s premises.68 Since a provider can route In-House BPL to any power outlet, it enjoys certain advantages over wireless networks when it comes to penetrating through walls and buildings. 23. New BPL companies and technologies are entering the marketplace and new strategies are emerging. Utility companies have formed strategic partnerships with BPL equipment manufacturers to facilitate deployment.69 Utilities are also focusing on using BPL to improve their own services, including 65 See Amendment of Part 15 Regarding New Requirements and Measurement Guidelines for Access Broadband over Power Line Systems; Carrier Current Systems, Including Broadband Over Power Line Systems, ET Docket Nos. 04-37, 03-104, Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 21265, 21266, paras. 1-2 (2005) (Access BPL Order), appeal pending, ARRL v. FCC, Docket No. 06-1343 (D.C. Cir. filed Oct. 10, 2006); Amendment of Part 15 Regarding New Requirements and Measurement Guidelines for Access Broadband over Power Line Systems; Carrier Current Systems, including Broadband over Power Line Systems, ET Docket Nos. 04-37, 03-104, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 21 FCC Rcd 9308 (2006) (Access BPL Reconsideration Order), appeal pending, ARRL v. FCC, Docket No. 06-1343 (D.C. Cir. filed Oct. 10, 2006); United Power Line Council, Status of Broadband over Power Line 2007 (visited June 26, 2007), available at http://uplc.utc.org/file_depot/0-10000000/0- 10000/7966/conman/2007+BPL+Update.pdf. BPL is the delivery of broadband over the existing medium- and low- voltage electric power distribution network. See Access BPL Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 21267-68, para. 5. 66 Although several proprietary Access BPL technologies exist, they function similarly by attaching “couplers” to medium voltage power lines, typically at intervals of less than a mile, that process and/or repeat digital signals between the end-user customer premises and the point where the utility network connects to the Internet at its backhaul connection point. See Access BPL Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 21267-68, para. 5. 67 There are over a dozen Access BPL devices certified under our rules. See FCC, Equipment Authorization System Generic Search (visited July 26, 2007), available at https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm (searching the Commission’s database for grants of Access BPL equipment). Because BPL injects radio frequency (RF) energy into unshielded medium voltage lines, the technology creates RF emissions, which raise concerns of potential harmful interference with incumbent users of the spectrum. The American Radio Relay League (ARRL) has filed for judicial review of the Access BPL Order and the Access BPL Reconsideration Order. See ARRL v. FCC, Docket No. 06-1343 (D.C. Cir. filed Oct. 10, 2006) (appealing the Commission’s BPL rules on the contention that, among other things, they fundamentally alter the longstanding rights of radio spectrum licensees, including amateur radio operators). The Commission’s BPL orders impose specific requirements to minimize this interference, and the BPL industry has responded with second-generation Access BPL equipment in compliance with the new rules. See 47 C.F.R. § 15.601 et seq. 68 See Access BPL Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 21267-68, para. 5. 69 For example, ConEdison Company of New York, Duke Energy Corporation, and San Diego Gas & Electric are working with Ambient Corporation for their BPL equipment. See Ambient Corporation Website (visited Aug. 6, 2007), available at www.ambientcorp.com. PPL Telcom, Northeast Utilities System, and Duquesne Light are working with Amperion for their BPL equipment. See Amperion Website (visited Aug. 6, 2007), available at www.amperion.com. PEPCO, Duke Energy Corporation, Texas Utilities (TXU), and Hawaiian Electric Company (HECO) are working with Current Technologies for their equipment. See Current Technologies Website (visited Aug. 6, 2007), available at www.currenttechnologies.com. Central Virginia Electric Cooperative and South Central Indiana REMC are working with International Broadband Electric Communications (IBEC) for their BPL equipment. See International Broadband Electric Communications, Inc. Website (visited Aug. 6, 2007), available at www.ibec.net. Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-88 14 a variety of utility and energy “smart grid” applications, such as advanced metering for time-of-use pricing, load management, and power outage warning and detection.70 There are approximately 36 BPL deployments around the country in both rural and suburban areas, nine of which are commercial deployments and the remaining 27 of which are either pilot or trial deployments.71 Currently, most BPL systems provide symmetrical speeds upwards of 2 mbps to the customer. G. Satellite Technologies 24. Satellite-based Internet access services are an option for consumers that live in areas where wireline, cable, or terrestrial wireless Internet access is unavailable.72 With a few exceptions, none of the three most widely subscribed satellite-based Internet access services satisfies, however, the Commission’s definition of advanced services, which calls for a minimum transmission speed of in excess of 200 kbps downstream and upstream.73 Satellite services account for only approximately 0.7 percent of the total high-speed lines in the United States.74 Satellite technology continues to evolve, however. Recently launched Ka-Band satellites promise improved coverage and higher speeds for upstream and downstream 70 See Access BPL Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 21267-68, para. 5. 71 See United Power Line Council, BPL Deployment Map 2007 (visited June 26, 2007), available at http://uplc.utc.org/file_depot/0-10000000/0-10000/7966/conman/BPL+Deployment+Map+2007.pdf; United Power Line Council, Status of Broadband over Power Line 2007 (visited June 26, 2007), available at http://uplc.utc.org/file_depot/0-10000000/0-10000/7966/conman/2007+BPL+Update.pdf. 72 With the commencement of service by WildBlue Communications in June 2005, there are now three providers of satellite-based high-speed Internet access serving the residential, small office/home office, and small business market segments, including HughesNet, the successor to the DirecWay Service, and Starband, a subsidiary of Gilat Satellite Networks. As of June 2007, all three companies offer a variety of service plans with each requiring installation of satellite equipment. See HughesNet Website (visited June 18, 2007), available at http://www.hughesnet.com; Starband Inc. Website (visited June 18, 2007), available at http://starband.com/services/; WildBlue Communications Website (visited June 18, 2007), available at http://www.wildblue.com. 73 Most satellite services provide downstream speeds in excess of 200 kbps. Upstream speeds, with a few exceptions, are slower. See, e.g., WildBlue Packages (visited Aug. 20, 2007) (describing “Value Pak” service with speeds up to 512 kbps downstream and up to 128 kbps upstream, “Select Pak” services with speeds up to 1 mbps downstream and up to 200 kbps upstream, and “Pro Pak” service with speeds up to 1.5 mbps downstream and up to 256 kbps upstream), available at http://www.wildblue.com/aboutWildbue/qaa.jsp. 74 See Appendix B, Table 1. Approximately 79% of satellite high-speed lines are for residential use. See id., Tables 1, 3. Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-88 15 service.75 Satellite technology is also increasingly being developed and deployed for last-mile Internet connectivity to mobile platforms, such as airplanes, ships and automobiles.76 IV. NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN SERVICES, APPLICATIONS AND DEVICES 25. Advances in the delivery of broadband since the Fourth Report have been paralleled by advances in broadband-based services and applications, as well as the devices used to run or access such services and applications. These evolving services, applications and devices continue to revolutionize how Americans exchange information. 26. Voice Developments. The wireless industry has recently made available mobile devices that connect to both traditional commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) and Wi-Fi networks for voice and data access.77 These devices can move seamlessly between the two types of networks without dropping a call. This development exemplifies the convergence of wireless and wireline networks, as home or in-building Wi-Fi hot spots typically rely on technologies such as DSL, cable, fiber, or T-1 lines for access to the Internet. 27. In addition, in light of faster broadband speeds becoming available to consumers and improvements in VoIP technology, more Americans are subscribing to interconnected VoIP services.78 75 Ka-Band refers to frequencies in the 18 to 40 GHz range. Commercial satellite use of this band is a relatively recent development, focused primarily on the 17.7-20.2 GHz (downlink) and 27.5-30.0 GHz (uplink) frequency bands. In March 2007, WildBlue launched the WildBlue-1 satellite, specifically designed for the provision of high- speed Internet access using Ka-Band frequencies. See Press Release, WildBlue Communications, Inc., WildBlue High-Speed Internet via Satellite Triples Capacity with New Satellite (Mar. 20, 2007), available at http://www.wildblue.com/company/doPressReleaseDetailsAction.do?pressReleaseID=41. Hughes launched the Ka- Band Spaceway 3 satellite on August 14, 2007, which promises upload speeds as high as 16 mbps and downloads as fast as 30 mbps. See Hughes Spaceway Website (visited Aug. 20, 2007), available at http://www.spaceway.com/HUGHES/Rooms/DisplayPages/LayoutInitial?Container=com.webridge.entity.Entity%5 BOID%5B1F25CC9CF1479743B2C83A5CF6F811F0%5D%5D. 76 See, e.g., International Bureau Filing System File Nos. SES-LIC-20051028-01494; SES-AMD-20060314-00440; SES-AMD-20070309-00325 (proposal of Viasat to provide an aeronautical mobile service). Ships now have several options concerning high-speed Internet access, including use of C- and Ku-Band under the Commission’s earth stations on vessels (ESV) rules. See infra para. 53. 77 See, e.g., News Release, T-Mobile USA, Inc., T-Mobile Introduces Unlimited Calling Over Wi-Fi With the National Launch of T-Mobile HotSpot @Home (June 27, 2007), available at http://www.lbszone.com/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=2026; AT&T Website, iPhone – Technical Specs for iPhone (visited July 10, 2007), available at http://www.wireless.att.com/cell-phone- service/specials/iPhoneCenter.html; T-Mobile Website, T-Mobile Wing (visited July 10, 2007), available at http://www.t-mobile.com/shop/phones/Detail.aspx?device=acc8102d-4506-4eaa-bc2f-9c7b8ec1b1e0. 78 See Universal Service Contribution Methodology, WC Docket No. 06-122; CC Docket Nos. 96-45, 98-171, 90- 571, 92-237; NSD File No. L-00-72; CC Docket Nos. 99-200, 95-116, 98-170; WC Docket No. 04-36, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 21 FCC Rcd 7518, 7528-29, para. 19 (2006) (2006 Interim Contribution Methodology Order) (noting that the number of interconnected VoIP subscribers had grown from 150,000 in 2003 to 4.2 million by the end of 2005); see also Press Release, Infonetics, VoIP Service Revenue Doubles in North America, Europe, Asia Pacific in 2005 (July 26, 2006), available at http://www.infonetics.com/resources/purple.shtml?ms06.vip.nr.shtml; Bear Stearns, March Broadband Buzz: A Monthly Update on Critical Broadband Issues at 4 (Mar. 12, 2007); Cable Telephone Subscriptions Growth Accelerates, IP Media Monitor (March 12, 2007), available at http://www.ipmediamonitor.com. The Commission has defined “interconnected VoIP services” as those that (1) enable real-time, two-way voice communications; (2) require a broadband connection from the user’s location; (3) require IP-compatible customer premises (continued....) Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-88 16 Many cable operators are currently deploying PacketCable 1.0 and 1.5 architecture to improve support for VoIP services within their cable networks, with PacketCable 2.0 and 3.0 technology promising even greater flexibility and the potential for new services.79 28. Video Developments. Video services and devices continue to evolve as broadband speeds increase. The growth of new technology in the cable arena will soon allow IP video over cable systems.80 CableLab’s DOCSIS 3.0 specification will make available speeds of over 100 mbps by logically bonding multiple 6 MHz channels to act as if they were a single channel. Several cable providers recently have launched or soon will begin IPTV trials and pilot projects based on broadband applications.81 (...continued from previous page) equipment; and (4) permit users to receive calls from and terminate calls to the public switched telephone network (PSTN). See IP-Enabled Services; E911 Requirements for IP-Enabled Service Providers, WC Docket Nos. 04-36, 05-196, First Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC Rcd 10245, 10257-58, para. 24 (2005) (VoIP 911 Order) (defining “interconnected VoIP service” as set forth in section 9.3 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 9.3). 79 PacketCable 2.0 is an application-agnostic architecture based on a common network core of standard protocols to register clients and establish sessions for voice, video, and text. PacketCable 2.0 will supply quality-of-service (QoS) for all forms of IP-enabled applications and services and allow integration across a single network of cable’s voice, video, and data silos. See Jeff Baumgartner, The Slow Road to PacketCable 2.0, Light Reading’s Cable Digital News (June 7, 2007), available at http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=125943&print=true. This technology has the potential to allow the rapid introduction of new services, such as the integration of the cable network with wireless networks and cross-platform feature integration (e.g., set-top box applications that integrate with a customer’s voice service for certain features, including caller ID display on the TV and the ability to forward incoming calls to voicemail or other telephone numbers). See Kevin Johns and Eric Rosenfeld, PacketCable 2.0- Design Goals, Strategic Drivers and Architecture, CED Web Extra (Dec. 1, 2006), available at http://www.cedmagazine.com/article.aspx?id=68204. PacketCable 3.0 is described supra at paras. 9-10. 80 Cisco announced the addition of Internet streaming capabilities to its Video on Demand (VOD) Content Delivery System (CDS) while also showing two HD MPEG-4 video streams over a cable modem at the Cable Show in 2007. Motorola is looking to incorporate an IPTV bypass technique for cable modems into CableLabs’ specifications. At the ANGA Cable show, BigBand demonstrated HD VOD over DOCSIS 2.0 and delivery of HD Video to an IPTV set-top using DOCSIS 3.0’s channel bonding techniques. See Todd Spangler, Cable Firms Might Pump Video over Fast Modems, MultiChannel News (May 28, 2007), available at http://www.multichannel.com/index.asp?layout=article&articleid=CA6446742&industryid=47196. 81 In July 2005, Time Warner Cable conducted a six-month pilot project of “Broadband TV” service for roughly 9,000 subscribers. Customers could view the channels through a PC after downloading RealPlayer media player and logging into a specially designated website with their cable account numbers. See Kathryn Balint, For Television via Internet, Future is Now, Union-Tribune (July 13, 2005), available at http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/20050713-9999-1b13iptv.html. In May 2007, Comcast announced plans to conduct an IPTV trial in an undisclosed 50,000 homes when expected DOCSIS 3.0 gear becomes available later this year. The trial will include an IP-video headend and DOCSIS 3.0 set-top boxes built to the operator’s Residential Network Gateway requirements. One trial will provide voice, video, and data over a single, high-bandwidth IP connection. The test bed will also include other network-connected devices, such as Sling Media’s Slingbox, dual-mode Wi-Fi/cellular phones and mobile handsets capable of playing video. See Todd Spangler, Comcast to Take IPTV for a Spin, MultiChannel News (May 4, 2007), available at http://www.multichannel.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA6439264. Sling Media’s Slingbox digitally encodes a signal source, such as the video output of a set-top box, and streams the video over the home network or over the Internet to a personal computer or mobile device, allowing users to effectively take their multichannel video service with them to wherever they can access the Internet. See Sling Media Website (visited June 25, 2007), available at http://us.slingmedia.com/page/home. Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-88 17 29. Data Developments. There have also been some significant developments in data services, applications, and devices since the Fourth Report. BPL technology companies have developed an In- House BPL system known as HomePlug, which allows for broadband speed communications among local devices attached to the power outlets within the premises. In 2005, the HomePlug 1.0 standard was superseded by HomePlug AV, which now offers up to 200 mbps over home electrical wiring, making it capable of streaming multiple high-definition video streams, such as HDTV signals to television sets located in different rooms in a house.82 V. BROADBAND IS BEING DEPLOYED TO ALL AMERICANS 30. The Commission has taken a number of actions designed to promote broadband deployment since the Fourth Report, and the evidence indicates that deployment continues to increase. Below we provide an overview of the data regarding deployment of broadband in the United States, and then discuss the steps taken by the Commission to foster broadband deployment. A. Overview of Broadband Data 31. The Commission’s data collection program has required every facilities-based broadband provider to report to the Commission information about its service offerings and types of customers. Since the Fourth Report, the Commission updated and improved its data collection program. In November 2004, the Commission released an order that modified the collection requirements and removed the reporting exemption for providers with fewer than 250 high-speed connections in service in a particular state.83 Also in that order, the Commission required providers to report more information about the speeds of their deployed advanced services lines.84 These modifications to the Commission’s data collection program provide the Commission with further insight into broadband deployment advances. 32. Further, as discussed above, we recognize that broadband services and applications are evolving at a fast rate, and that consumers increasingly demand higher transmission speeds. Thus, with this Report, the Commission for the first time begins reporting with deployment data that are more granular. Additionally, the Commission is adopting an order that updates the Commission’s Form 477 data collection to further refine its speed tiers and monitor more precisely the progress of broadband deployment.85 33. Since the Commission’s Fourth Report, broadband deployment has continued to increase steadily.86 The number of high-speed lines – those lines with speeds of over 200 kbps in at least one direction – has increased from 27.7 million in December 2003 to 100.9 million in June 2007.87 A 82 See Eric Bangeman, HomePlug AV Networking Tech Takes Stage at CeBIT, Ars Technica (March 16, 2007), available at http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070316-homeplug-av-networking-tech-takes-stage-at-cebit.html. 83 See 2004 Data Gathering Order, 19 FCC Rcd 22340. Because of this reporting change, we realize that when we compare broadband deployment numbers in this Report to those same numbers from the Fourth Report, we are comparing different base sets. Nonetheless, we find evidence that broadband deployments are increasing. 84 See supra para. 3 (discussing the reporting of various broadband speeds). 85 See supra para. 6. 86 The Fourth Report reported Commission data as of December 2003. See Fourth Report, 19 FCC Rcd at 20567-69. 87 Compare FCC, High-Speed Services for Internet Access: Status as of December 31, 2006, Table 1 (Oct. 2007) (December 2006 High-Speed Services Report), with Appendix B, Table 1. Although the Commission currently (continued....) Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-88 18 granular inspection of the June 2007 high-speed line counts reveals that, in the faster direction, 27.9 million of these lines offer service at speeds greater than 200 kbps but less than 2.5 mbps; 37.7 million of these lines offer service at speeds greater than or equal to 2.5 mbps but less than 10 mbps; 3.8 million of these lines offer speeds greater than or equal to 10 mbps but less than 25 mbps; nearly 92,000 of these lines offer speeds greater than or equal to 25 mbps but less than 100 mbps; and over 21,700 of these lines offer speeds greater than or equal to 100 mbps.88 Further, the number of advanced services lines – those lines with speeds of over 200 kbps in each direction – has also increased from 19.9 million in December 2003 to 69.6 million in June 2007, of which 61.1 million are residential advanced service lines.89 34. As was true in the Commission’s last report, cable modem and ADSL providers continue to provide the majority of advanced service lines. Cable represents 48.8 percent of advanced service lines and ADSL represents 33.6 percent, while SDSL and fiber-to-the-end-user premises represent 1.5 percent and 2 percent, respectively, and other technologies represent the remaining 14.1 percent.90 The relative position of cable and ADSL advanced service lines was 77.2 percent and 15.3 percent in December 2003, respectively.91 Notably, only 11.6 percent of cable modem advanced service lines are provided at speeds of less than 2.5 mbps based on the latest High Speed Services Report.92 In addition, subscribers to ADSL appear increasingly to subscribe to higher-capacity offerings. In particular, the percentage of ADSL advanced service lines provided at speeds of less than 2.5 mbps declined from approximately 67 percent to 55.7 percent from June 2006 to June 2007.93 Looking more broadly at high-speed lines, the Commission’s data indicate that cable modem service represents 34.1 percent of the lines, with ADSL representing 27.3 percent of the lines as of June 2007.94 Along with this growth, the number of high- speed providers has increased from 432 in December 2003, to 1,360 in June 2007.95 35. With regard to residential subscribers, the Commission’s data indicate that the number of high-speed lines increased from 26 million in December 2003 to 65.9 million as of June 2007.96 Further, (...continued from previous page) collects data on mobile wireless subscribers, the 2007 Data Gathering Notice seeks comment on whether the Commission should collect more granular information to identify separately mobile wireless customers with broadband Internet access plans. See 2007 Data Gathering Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 7766-67, paras. 12-14. 88 See Appendix B, Table 5. 89 Compare December 2006 High-Speed Services Report at Table 2, with Appendix B, Table 2; Appendix B, Table 4. 90 See Appendix B, Chart 4. 91 See December 2006 High-Speed Services Report at Table 2. 92 See Appendix B, Tables 2, 5. The 200 kbps/2.5 mbps speed tier is the lowest in the Commission’s current advanced services data collection. As noted above, the Commission is adopting an order updating the Commission’s Form 477 data collection to refine further its speed tiers and more precisely monitor the progress of broadband deployment. See supra para. 6. 93 Compare FCC, High-Speed Services for Internet Access: Status as of June 30, 2006, Tables 2, 5 (Jan. 2007) (reporting data on advanced services lines as of June 2006), with Appendix B, Tables 2, 5 (providing data on advanced services lines as of June 2007). 94 See Appendix B, Chart 2. 95 See id., Table 7. As a result, in part, of the Commission removing the exemption for filing Form 477 for providers with less than 250 lines per state, the number of providers of high-speed lines doubled between December 2004 and June 2005. See id. Nonetheless, we still find that the number of providers continues to increase over time. See id. 96 Compare Fourth Report, 19 FCC Rcd at 20569, with Appendix B, Table 13. The Commission stopped including small business lines with residential lines after December 2004. See Appendix B, Table 3, note. Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-88 19 as of June 2007, only 0.1 percent of zip codes in the United States reported no high-speed lines, compared to 6.8 percent of zip codes with no reported lines in December 2003.97 The percent of zip codes reporting four or more providers of high-speed lines also has increased, from 46.3 percent in December 2003 to 88.5 percent in June 2007.98 While we recognize that the presence of reported lines in a zip code does not necessarily mean service is available throughout a zip code, these figures do provide evidence that broadband deployment is increasing over time. Further, the Commission is assessing how to assess geographic broadband deployment on a more granular basis in a current proceeding, and thus we anticipate being able to provide more disaggregated broadband deployment data in future reports.99 36. High-speed deployments in rural communities also have continued to increase since the Commission’s Fourth Report. With respect to the lowest density zip codes – those with fewer than six persons per square mile – there has been a significant increase in subscribership. The percentage of the lowest density zip codes with at least one high-speed subscriber increased from 73.5 percent in December 2003 to 90.5 percent as of June 2007.100 Further, based on the 2007 NTCA Broadband/Internet Availability Survey Report, 99 percent of the NTCA respondents offer broadband service to some part of their customer base.101 In addition, an OPASTCO membership survey found that on average, respondents make broadband available to over 90 percent of their customer base.102 Ninety percent of the respondents in that survey reported being able to deliver data speeds of at least one mbps in one direction.103 Over 75 percent of the respondents also indicated that they compete against two or more providers in the broadband market.104 37. States are also taking action to monitor and promote broadband deployment, in some cases through public-private partnerships. For example, ConnectKentucky, a non-profit public-private partnership in Kentucky, developed an initiative that increased broadband penetration to rural communities through data-gathering and work with local communities.105 ConnectKentucky created a detailed map depicting broadband penetration throughout Kentucky, and then analyzed the map against demographic information such as population density, planned development, and existing public assets to identify possible investment opportunities.106 ConnectKentucky then established eCommunity Leadership Teams in all of Kentucky’s 120 counties “to develop comprehensive technology growth plans 97 See Appendix B, Table 15. 98 See id. 99 See 2007 Data Gathering Notice, 22 FCC Rcd 7760. 100 Compare December 2006 High-Speed Services Report at Table 18, with Appendix B, Table 18. 101 See National Telecommunications Cooperative Association, NTCA 2007 Broadband/Internet Availability Survey Report (Sept. 2007), available at http://www.ntca.org/content_documents/2007NTCABroadbandSurveyReport.pdf. NTCA members are small carriers that are rural telephone companies. See id. at 5. For the purposes of this survey, NTCA defines “broadband” as throughput of 200 kbps in one direction. See id. at 6. 102 See OPASTCO Comments at 3. OPASTCO is a trade association that represents over 520 small incumbent LECs serving rural areas, serving over 3.5 million customers. See id. at 1. For the purposes of this survey, OPASTCO defines “broadband” to be those services of at least 200 kbps in at least one direction. See id. at 3 n.5. 103 See id. at 3. 104 See id. at 4. 105 See Connected Nation Comments at 5 (describing Connect Kentucky’s approach to modeling data). Connected Nation, the parent company of ConnectKentucky, is a national non-profit that deals with broadband issues in the United States. See id. at 2. 106 See id. at 5-6. Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-88 20 that involve many sectors of the community, including healthcare, education and local government.”107 Based on this project, companies invested more than $650 million in private capital in Kentucky’s broadband infrastructure, resulting in broadband availability in Kentucky households increasing from 60 percent to 93 percent since 2004.108 Lawmakers in other states are also taking steps to introduce similar programs.109 38. As the GAO has found, however, subscribership to Internet access services (of any speed) by Native American households on tribal lands is largely unknown because no federal survey has been designed to track this information.110 As the GAO noted, the Commission previously asked the Census Bureau to collect data on Internet subscribership on tribal lands as part of its surveys, but “Census Bureau officials told [the GAO] that the bureau’s internal policy is to not include questions on its new survey unless the collection of that data by the Census Bureau is mandated by law.”111 While the Commission’s Form 477 data collection does not currently collect information on broadband deployment specifically on tribal lands, our pending NPRM seeks comment on ways that the Commission might track this information.112 B. Commission Action Since the Fourth Report to Facilitate Broadband Deployment 39. We remain committed to adopting measures that encourage broadband deployment. Since the Fourth Report, the Commission has taken a number of steps to promote broadband deployment. 107 ConnectKentucky, eCommunity Strategies (visited Sept. 7, 2007), available at http://www.connectkentucky.org/projects/ecs/; see also Connected Nation Comments at 8-9. 108 See Connected Nation Comments at 5-7. 109 See, e.g., Michael Martinez, Ohio Governor Eyes Statewide Broadband, National Journal (Aug. 1, 2007), available at http://www.njtelecomupdate.com/2007/08/ohio_governor_eyes_statewide_b.html (noting broadband deployment programs in Ohio, Rhode Island, and South Carolina); News Release, Verizon Communications Inc., Verizon Announces Plans to Expand High-Speed Internet Availability for Rural West Virginians; Network Expansion, Partnership with ‘Connected Nation’ to Help Provide Broadband to More West Virginians (Aug. 15, 2007), available at http://newscenter.verizon.com/press-releases/verizon/2007/verizon-announces-plans-to.html (announcing a program similar to Connected Nation’s Kentucky program in West Virginia); Connected Tennessee, Inc. Website (visited Aug. 31, 2007), available at http://www.connectedtn.org/ (discussing an independent non- profit organization focused on broadband deployment in Tennessee); Testimony of James Winnigham before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation (Aug. 28, 2008) available at http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Testimony&Hearing_ID=1894&Witness_ID=6 714 (discussing Connect Arkansas, a “non-profit organization created to centrally manage and support an effort to help make broadband available to every home and organization in Arkansas”). 110 See United States Government Accountability Office, Challenges to Assessing and Improving Telecommunications for Native Americans on Tribal Lands, GAO-06-189 at 16 (Jan. 2006), available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06189.pdf (GAO Tribal Lands Report) (noting that the Census Bureau’s new American Community Survey will provide data on tribal lands but does not include a question on Internet access, and that the monthly survey of households conducted by the Census Bureau for the Bureau of Labor Statistics contains too few tribal lands households to provide reliable estimates). We note that Native Public Media (NPM) states in its comments that “broadband penetration on Indian lands is estimated at 10%.” NPM Comments at 3 (citing Testimony of NCAI President Joe Garcia before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation at 1-2 (March 7, 2006), available at http://commerce.senate.gov/pdf/garcia-030706.pdf (NCAI Senate Testimony)). 111 GAO Tribal Lands Report at 4. 112 See 2007 Data Gathering Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 7771-72, 7774, 7777, paras. 25, 29, 37. Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-88 21 1. Promoting Deployment of Broadband Facilities & Services 40. Eliminating Regulatory Disincentives to Broadband Deployment. Since the Fourth Report, the Commission has taken multiple steps to promote broadband deployment by reevaluating its legacy regulations. In October 2004, the Commission concluded that FTTC loops should enjoy the same unbundling relief that the Commission previously extended to FTTH loops.113 By extending this unbundling relief to FTTC loops, the Commission removed powerful regulatory disincentives for broadband deployment by carriers seeking to provide advanced services.114 In addition, to encourage broadband deployment and promote local competition, the Commission forbore from applying the Triennial Review Order’s independent section 271 unbundling obligations to the broadband elements – including FTTH loops, FTTC loops, the packetized functionality of hybrid loops, and packet switching – that the Commission had previously relieved from unbundling under section 251 of the Communications Act.115 41. Further, the Commission determined that facilities-based wireline broadband Internet access service is an information service, removing outdated regulations in favor of a framework in parity with cable modem service, designed to allow the providers of such services to respond effectively to changing marketplace demands and to spur broadband investment and deployment.116 Specifically, this new framework removed the requirement that facilities-based providers separate out and offer the wireline broadband transmission component as a stand-alone telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act, and removed the Bell Operating Company Computer Inquiry requirements with respect to wireline broadband Internet access service.117 The Commission later ensured comparable regulatory treatment of BPL-enabled broadband Internet access service and wireless broadband Internet access service by classifying these services as information services under Title I of the Communications 113 See Review of Section 251 Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers; Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capability, CC Docket Nos. 01-338, 96-98, 98-147, Order on Reconsideration, 19 FCC Rcd 20293, 20293, para. 1 (2004). 114 See id. at 20297, para. 9. 115 See Petition for Forbearance of the Verizon Telephone Companies Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 160(c); SBC Communications Inc.’s Petition for Forbearance Under 47 U.S.C. § 160(c); Qwest Communications International Inc. Petition for Forbearance Under 47 U.S.C. § 160(c), BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. Petition for Forbearance Under 47 U.S.C. § 160(c), WC Docket Nos. 01-338, 03-235, 03-260, 04-48, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 21496 (2004). 116 See Appropriate Framework for Broadband Access to the Internet over Wireline Facilities; Universal Service Obligations of Broadband Providers; Review of Regulatory Requirements for Incumbent LEC Broadband Telecommunications Services; Computer III Further Remand Proceedings: Bell Operating Company Provision of Enhanced Services; 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review – Review of Computer III and ONA Safeguards and Requirements; Conditional Petition of the Verizon Telephone Companies for Forbearance Under 47 U.S.C. § 160(c) with Regard to Broadband Services Provided Via Fiber to the Premises; Petition of the Verizon Telephone Companies for Declaratory Ruling or, Alternatively, for Interim Waiver with Regard to Broadband Services Provided Via Fiber to the Premises; Consumer Protection in the Broadband Era, CC Docket Nos. 02-33, 01-337, 95-20, 98-10; WC Docket Nos. 04-242, 05-271, Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC Rcd 14853, 14863, 14865, paras. 14, 17 (2005), aff’d, Time Warner Telecom v. FCC, No. 05-4769 (and consolidated cases) (3rd Cir. Oct. 16, 2007). 117 See id. at 14899-992, paras. 86-107. Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-88 22 Act.118 In reaching these determinations, the Commission provided regulatory certainty regarding the classification of these services, thereby encouraging deployment of broadband Internet access service to consumers. 42. Recognizing the link between the ability to provide a triple play of voice, Internet, and video service and providers’ incentives to deploy broadband networks, in March 2007, the Commission adopted an order to facilitate and expedite entry of new competitors in the market for the delivery of video programming. The Commission’s order preempted local laws, regulations, and franchise agreement requirements to the extent they imposed greater restrictions on market entry than the rules adopted by the Commission.119 The Commission explained that the operation of the franchising process at that time placed unreasonable demands on competitive applicants that contravened the goal of encouraging broadband deployment.120 In turn, the Commission found that its new rules would accelerate broadband deployment.121 43. On March 1, 2007, the Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB) granted a petition filed by Time Warner Cable requesting that the Commission clarify that wholesale telecommunications carriers are entitled to interconnect with incumbent LECs in order to provide service to the wholesale carriers’ customers, including new entrants such as VoIP service providers.122 That order helped ensure that new entrants have the ability to interconnect with incumbent LECs, consistent with the text of the Communications Act and Commission precedent. WCB concluded that a contrary decision also would impede the important development of wholesale telecommunications competition, facilities-based VoIP competition, and broadband deployment policies that the Commission had developed and implemented over the last decade by limiting the ability of wholesale carriers to offer service.123 44. Promotion of New Wireline-Based Broadband Technologies. In 2004 and 2006, the Commission adopted rules for Access BPL systems to ensure that the development of BPL systems did not pose harmful interference risks for licensed radio services.124 Given that power lines reach virtually every residence and business in every community and geographic area in this country, BPL service potentially could be made available nearly everywhere, and compete with cable modem service, DSL, and other broadband services.125 118 See United Power Line Council’s Petition for Declaratory Ruling Regarding the Classification of Broadband over Power Line Internet Access Service as an Information Service, WC Docket No. 06-10, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 21 FCC Rcd 13281 (2006); Wireless Broadband Internet Access Services Order, 22 FCC Rcd 5901. 119 See Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as Amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, MB Docket No. 05-311, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 22 FCC Rcd 5101 (2007). 120 See id. at 5102-03, paras. 1, 3. 121 See id. 122 See Time Warner Cable Request for Declaratory Ruling that Competitive Local Exchange Carriers May Obtain Interconnection Under Section 251 of the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended, to Provide Wholesale Telecommunications Services to VoIP Providers, WC Docket No. 06-55, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 3513 (WCB 2007). 123 See id. at 3517, para. 8. 124 See Access BPL Order, 19 FCC Rcd 21265; Access BPL Reconsideration Order, 21 FCC Rcd 9308. 125 See Access BPL Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 21266, para. 1. Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-88 23 45. Clearing Spectrum for Broadband Technology. The Commission opened up new opportunities for broadband deployment by clearing spectrum for new commercial use. Since the Fourth Report, the Commission has: reallocated twenty megahertz of spectrum in the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995- 2000 MHz, and 2020-2025 MHz and 2175-2180 MHz bands; reallocated twenty megahertz of spectrum in the 2155-2175 MHz band; and opened up the 1710-1755 MHz band for new advanced wireless services (AWS) services, including third generation (3G) wireless systems.126 Further, the Commission has reassigned spectrum in the 2 GHz Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) band to help promote the provision of broadband services in rural areas.127 This spectrum will make possible the introduction of hybrid satellite and terrestrial wireless systems in frequency bands with favorable radiofrequency propagation characteristics. 46. As a part of this spectrum clearing, the Commission completed the AWS auction in the 1.7 and 2.1 GHz bands, and adopted service and technical rules for the 700 MHz band in preparation for the upcoming auction in early 2008.128 The AWS auction was the biggest and most successful in the Commission’s history, and represented the largest amount of spectrum suitable for deploying wireless broadband ever made available in a single auction.129 In total, the auction raised $13.9 billion in gross 126 See Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission’s Rules to Allocate Spectrum Below 3 GHz for Mobile and Fixed Services to Support the Introduction of New Advanced Wireless Services, including Third Generation Wireless Systems, ET Docket Nos. 00-258, 95-18, RM-9498, RM-10024, Sixth Report and Order, Third Memorandum Opinion and Order, and Fifth Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 20720 (2004); Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission’s Rules to Allocate Spectrum Below 3 GHz for Mobile and Fixed Services to Support the Introduction of New Advanced Wireless Services (AWS), including Third Generation Wireless Systems, ET Docket No. 00-258, WT Docket No. 02-08, Seventh Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 21350 (2004); Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission’s Rules to Allocate Spectrum Below 3 GHz for Mobile and Fixed Services to Support the Introduction of New Advanced Wireless Services, including Third Generation Wireless Systems, ET Docket No. 00- 258, Eighth Report and Order and Fifth Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 15866 (2005) (AWS Eighth R&O). Advanced wireless systems could provide, for example, a wide range of voice, data, and broadband services over a variety of mobile and fixed networks. 127 See Use of Returned Spectrum in the 2 GHz Mobile Satellite Service Frequency Bands, IB Docket Nos. 05-220, 05-221, Order, 20 FCC Rcd 19696 (2005). 128 The 700 MHz band includes spectrum running from 698-806 MHz and encompasses television channels 52 to 69, which television broadcasters currently use during the digital television transition. Once the transition is completed, scheduled for February 17, 2009, this 108 megahertz of spectrum will become available for other uses. A portion of the spectrum, 24 megahertz, has been set aside for use by state and local public safety agencies. Because the 700 MHz spectrum falls below 1 GHz, it has excellent propagation characteristics that will enable licensees to cover a larger area with fewer cell sites and less network infrastructure, making the spectrum particularly valuable and ideal for serving rural and other hard-to-reach areas. 129 AWS spectrum can be used by carriers to provide a wide array of innovative wireless services and technologies, including voice, data, video, and other wireless broadband services. In addition to the 90 megahertz of AWS-1 spectrum, the Commission has taken steps toward licensing an additional 40 megahertz of spectrum available for AWS. The Commission has sought comment on the service and technical rules for 20 megahertz of AWS-2 spectrum in the 1.9 and 2 GHz bands. See Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in the 1915-1920 MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz and 2175-2180 MHz Bands; Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in the 1.7 GHz and 2.1 GHz Bands, WT Docket Nos. 04-356, 02-353, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 19 FCC Rcd 19263 (2004). Further, the Commission has allocated 20 megahertz of spectrum at 2155 to 2175 MHz for AWS use. See AWS Eighth R&O, 20 FCC Rcd 15866. In 2006, an application for exclusive use of the spectrum in the 2155-75 MHz band was filed, which was accepted for filing in January 2007; subsequently, other applicants filed similar applications for use of this spectrum. All applications are currently pending. See Application of M2Z Networks, Inc. for License and Authority to Provide a National Broadband Radio Service in the 2155-2175 MHz Band (filed May 5, 2006) (M2Z Application); see also Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Announces that M2Z Networks, (continued....) Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-88 24 winning bids, and the Commission sold 1,087 licenses to 104 bidders.130 The winning bidders included a mix of different types of companies, including major wireless carriers looking to enhance coverage or deploy new technologies, small businesses seeking to serve rural areas, and new entrants from other technology sectors, most notably cable providers. 47. In April 2007, the Commission adopted certain service and technical rules for the 700 MHz band spectrum and sought comment on additional issues.131 Specifically, the Commission ruled that E911 and hearing aid compatibility requirements apply to all CMRS services, regardless of the spectrum band used to provide them; established three different geographic areas of varying sizes to be used for licensing the 700 MHz spectrum – Regional Economic Area Groups (REAGs), Economic Areas (EAs), and Cellular Market Areas (CMAs); and harmonized the power levels for paired spectrum between the Upper and Lower 700 MHz bands, moving toward a power spectral density approach.132 The Commission has already licensed a small portion of the commercial spectrum in the 700 MHz band and some licensees have begun to offer service before the end of the DTV transition by coordinating with television broadcasters. 48. On July 31, 2007, the Commission adopted its second order in the 700 MHz proceeding and revised the rules governing the 700 MHz band spectrum.133 The goal of these revisions is to foster new (...continued from previous page) Inc.’s Application for License and Authority to Provide a National Broadband Radio Service in the 2155-2175 MHz Band is Accepted for Filing, WT Docket No. 07-16, Public Notice, 22 FCC Rcd 1955 (2007); Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Sets Pleading Cycle for Application by M2Z Networks, Inc. to Be Licensed in the 2155- 2175 MHz Band, WT Docket No. 07-16, Public Notice, 22 FCC Rcd 4442 (2007). 130 See Auction of Advanced Wireless Services Closes: Winning Bidders Announced for Auction 66, Report No. AUC-06-66-F, Public Notice, 21 FCC Rcd 10521 (2006). In Auction 66, the Commission made available 1,122 AWS licenses in the 1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz bands. The revenue collected from this auction nearly doubled the total revenue transferred to the U.S. Treasury from all previous auctions combined. See News Release, FCC, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Completes Review of Applications for Licenses for Advanced Wireless Services (Apr. 30, 2007). 131 See Service Rules for the 698-746, 747-762, and 777-792 MHz Bands; Revision of the Commission’s Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems; Section 68.4(a) of the Commission’s Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Telephones; Biennial Regulatory Review – Amendment of Parts 1, 22, 24, 27, and 90 to Streamline and Harmonize Various Rules Affecting Wireless Radio Services; Former Nextel Communications, Inc. Upper 700 MHz Guard Band Licenses and Revisions to Part 27 of the Commission’s Rules; Implementing a Nationwide, Broadband, Interoperable Public Safety Network in the 700 MHz Band; Development of Operational, Technical and Spectrum Requirements for Meeting Federal, State and Local Public Safety Communications Requirements Through the Year 2010, WT Docket Nos. 06-150, 01-309, 03-264, 06-169, 96-98, CC Docket No. 94-102, PS Docket No. 06-229, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 22 FCC Rcd 8064 (2007) (700 MHz Service Rules Order); id., Appendix B (identifying the new rules). 132 See id. at 8067-68, paras. 6-8. 133 See Service Rules for the 698-746, 747-762 and 777-792 MHz Bands; Revision of the Commission’s Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems; Section 68.4 (a) of the Commission’s Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Telephones; Biennial Regulatory Review – Amendment of Parts 1, 22, 24, 27, and 90 to Streamline and Harmonize Various Rules Affecting Wireless Radio Services; Former Nextel Communications, Inc. Upper 700 MHz Guard Band Licenses and Revisions to Part 27 of the Commission’s Rules; Implementing a Nationwide, Broadband, Interoperable Public Safety Network in the 700 MHz Band; Development of Operational, Technical and Spectrum Requirements for Meeting Federal, State, and Local Public Safety Communications Requirements Through the Year 2010; Declaratory Ruling on Reporting Requirement under Commission’s Part 1 Anti-Collusion Rule, WT Docket Nos. 06-150, 01-309, 03-264, 06-169, 96-98, 07-166, CC (continued....) Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-88 25 and innovative wireless broadband services, and to create a nationwide broadband network for public safety. To promote the public safety network, the Commission established a framework that will partner commercial and public spectrum licensees, with the commercial licensees funding the network build- out.134 To promote the development of wireless broadband services, the Commission amended the rules so that the spectrum licensees will be required to permit customers, manufacturers, and third-party application developers to use the device or application of their choice on the licensed networks.135 The auction for the 700 MHz band closed on March 18, 2006.136 49. Promotion of Unlicensed Wireless-Based Broadband Technologies. Since the Fourth Report, the Commission has adopted a series of orders to encourage the deployment of wireless broadband services. For example, the Commission adopted an order to facilitate the testing and development of ultra-wideband (UWB) devices, which will promote broadband wireless communication.137 The Commission also permitted the emissions from UWB transmitters operating in the 3.1-5.03 GHz and 5.65-10.6 GHz bands that employ frequency hopping or stepped frequency modulation techniques, or that gate the transmitted signal, to be measured with the transmitter operating in its normal transmission mode. Further, the Commission issued an order to promote broadband development in the 3650 MHz frequency band.138 That order adopted, among other things, a streamlined licensing mechanism with minimal regulatory entry requirements, which will encourage multiple entrants and stimulate the rapid expansion of wireless broadband services – especially in rural America – and will serve as a safeguard to protect incumbent satellite earth stations from harmful interference.139 50. In 2007, the Commission adopted an order that took a number of important first steps towards allowing the introduction of new low power devices in the broadcast television spectrum (TV bands) on channels/frequencies that are not being used for authorized services (TV band devices).140 Specifically, the Commission made initial decisions to permit fixed low power devices to operate on any permissible TV channel, but only at times and locations where other authorized services are not already using the spectrum.141 The adopted final rules will allow the marketing of TV band devices to commence on (...continued from previous page) Docket No. 94-102, PS Docket No. 06-229, Second Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 15289 (2007) (700 MHz Band Plan Order); id., Appendix B (identifying the rule changes). 134 See id. at 15428-32, paras. 386-402. 135 See id. at 15361-73, paras. 195-228. 136 See News Release, Statement by FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin (rel. Mar. 18, 2008) (announcing the close of Auction 73); see also Notice and Filing Requirements, Minimum Opening Bids, Reserve Prices, Upfront Payments, and Other Procedures for Auctions 73 and 76, AU Docket No. 07-157, Public Notice, DA 07-4171, para. 1 (rel. Oct. 5, 2007); 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(15)(C)(v) (requiring the Commission to conduct the auction for the recovered analog spectrum by commencing the bidding not later than January 28, 2008). 137 See Petition for Waiver of the Part 15 UWB Regulations Filed by the Multi-band OFDM Alliance Special Interest Group, ET Docket No. 04-352, Order, 20 FCC Rcd 5528 (2005). 138 See Wireless Operations in the 3650-3700 MHz Band; Rules for Wireless Broadband Services in the 3650-3700 MHz Band, ET Docket Nos. 04-151, 02-380, 98-237, WT Docket No. 05-96, Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 6502 (2005). 139 See id. 140 See Unlicensed Operation in the TV Broadcast Bands; Additional Spectrum for Unlicensed Devices Below 900 MHz and in the 3 GHz Band, ET Docket Nos. 04-186, 02-380, First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 21 FCC Rcd 12266 (2007). 141 See id. at 12272, para. 13. Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-88 26 February 18, 2009, after the completed transition to DTV service and all TV stations are in operation on their permanent DTV channels.142 51. Additionally, the Commission sought comment on amending Part 15 of the Commission’s rules applicable to transmitters operating on an unlicensed basis in the 57-64 GHz frequency range.143 The Commission found that these proposals could promote greater utility for the 60 GHz band to serve the public interest more effectively without potentially increasing interference risks to existing services in the band, while encouraging a more flexible development of products providing broadband data services, and furthering the Commission’s objective of making broadband more readily available to all Americans.144 52. Promotion of Licensed Wireless Broadband Technologies. In April 2006, the Commission continued its transformation of the rules governing BRS/EBS.145 Specifically, the Commission revised the mechanism for licensees to transition from the old to the new band plan by allowing BRS and EBS providers to act as “proponents” and propose market-based transition plans for relocating all of the licenses within the same Basic Trading Area (BTA) to the spectrum assignments of the new band plan.146 The Commission anticipated that this action would facilitate providers’ use the spectrum in the 2496- 142 See id. 143 See Revision of the Commission’s Rules Regarding Operation in the 57-64 GHz Band, ET Docket No. 07-113; RM-11104, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 22 FCC Rcd 10505 (2007). 144 See id. 145 See Amendment of Parts 1, 21, 73, 74, and 101 of the Commission’s Rules to Facilitate the Provision of Fixed and Mobile Broadband Access, Educational, and Other Advanced Services in the 2150-2162 and 2500-2690 MHz Bands; Part 1 of the Commission’s Rules – Further Competitive Bidding Procedures; Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 to Enable Multipoint Distribution Service and the Instructional Television Fixed Service Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 to Engage in Fixed Two-Way Transmissions; Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 of the Commission’s Rules with Regard to Licensing in the Multipoint Distribution Service and in the Instructional Television Fixed Service for the Gulf of Mexico; Promoting Efficient Use of Spectrum Through Elimination of Barriers to the Development of Secondary Markets; Review of the Spectrum Sharing Plan Among Non-Geostationary Satellite Orbit Mobile Satellite Service Systems in the 1.6/2.4 GHz Bands; Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission’s Rules to Allocate Spectrum Below 3 GHz for Mobile and Fixed Services to Support the Introduction of New Advanced Wireless Services, Including Third Generation Wireless Systems, WT Docket No. 03-66, RM-10586, WT Docket No. 03-67, MM Docket No. 97-217, WT Docket No. 02-68, RM-9718, WT Docket No. 00-230, IB Docket No. 02-364, ET Docket No. 00-258, Order on Reconsideration, Fifth Memorandum Opinion and Order, Third Memorandum Opinion and Order, and Second Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd 5606, 5609, para. 1 (2006) (BRS/EBS Transition Order). Formerly, the BRS and EBS were known as the MDS service and the ITFS service, respectively. See Amendment of Parts 1, 21, 73, 74, and 101 of the Commission’s Rules to Facilitate the Provision of Fixed and Mobile Broadband Access, Educational, and Other Advanced Services in the 2150-2162 and 2500-2690 MHz Bands; Part 1 of the Commission’s Rules – Further Competitive Bidding Procedures; Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 to Enable Multipoint Distribution Service and the Instructional Television Fixed Service Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 to Engage in Fixed Two-Way Transmissions; Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 of the Commission’s Rules with Regard to Licensing in the Multipoint Distribution Service and in the Instructional Television Fixed Service for the Gulf of Mexico; Promoting Efficient Use of Spectrum Through Elimination of Barriers to the Development of Secondary Markets, WT Docket No. 03-66, RM-10586, WT Docket No. 03-67, MM Docket No. 97-217, WT Docket No. 02-68, RM-9718, WT Docket No. 00-230, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 19 FCC Rcd 14165, 14169-70, para. 6 (2004) (creating a new BRS/EBS band plan for the 2496-2690 MHz band that eliminated the use of interleaved channels and created distinct band segments for high power operations, such as one-way video transmission, and low power operations, such as two-way fixed and mobile broadband applications). 146 See BRS/EBS Transition Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 5639, para. 59. Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-88 27 2690 MHz band for new and innovative wireless technologies and services, including wireless broadband services that have the potential to compete with cable modem service and DSL broadband providers, and to extend broadband service to rural and underserved areas. As of March 14, 2008, proponents had filed transition plans for 375 of the 493 BTAs, and completed the transition in 222 BTAs.147 53. Promotion of Satellite-Based Broadband Technologies. For Earth Station on Vessels (ESV), the Commission adopted licensing and service rules for licensees to provide telecommunications services, including Internet access in the 5925-6425 MHz/3700-4200 MHz (C-band) and 14.0-14.5 GHz/11.7-12.2 GHz (Ku-band) frequencies.148 This order also established technical requirements for ESV operators to protect fixed service operations, fixed-satellite service operations, and a limited number of government operations in the C-band and the Ku-band from harmful interference.149 As of March 2008, the Commission has issued sixteen ESV licenses.150 The Commission also adopted an order to facilitate the licensing of earth stations with antennas smaller than those traditionally used.151 These smaller antennas are particularly useful for mass market consumer applications, including satellite-based broadband Internet access services. 2. Fostering Consumer Access to Broadband for All Americans 54. Expansion of the Rural Health Care (RHC) Program. The Commission’s rural health care program provides discounts to rural health care providers so providers are better able to access modern telecommunications services. In its Rural Health Care Second Report and Order, the Commission revised several of the rural health care program’s rules in an effort to expand the program’s funding and improve efficiency.152 To this effect, the Commission enacted rules subsidizing the use of satellite service for mobile telemedicine links that corresponds in bandwidth to urban wireline service.153 Additionally, 147 See Initiation Plans and Post-Transition Notifications filed in WC Docket No. 06-136; see also Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Establishes Docket for the Filing of Initiation Plans, Post-Transition Notifications, and Self Transition Notices in the Transition of the 2500-2690 MHz Band, WT Docket No. 06-136, Public Notice, 21 FCC Rcd 7909 (2007). 148 See Procedures to Govern the Use of Satellite Earth Stations on Board Vessels in the 5925-6425 MHz/ 3700- 4200 MHz Bands and 14.0-14.5 GHz/11.7-12.2 GHz Bands, IB Docket No. 02-10, Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 674 (2005). 149 See id. at 676, paras. 1-2. 150 See IBFS File Nos. SES-MOD-20060609-00965; SES-MFS-20061117-02028; SES-LIC-20020326-00479; SES- MOD-20060828-01518; SES-LIC-20011130-02259; SES-LIC-20070330-00431; SES-MOD-20070314-00351; SES-LIC-20060815-01373; SES-MOD-20070316-00368; SES-MOD-20070314-00353; SES-MOD-20070314- 00352; SES-LIC-20070618-00826; SES-LIC-20070608-00779; SES-LIC-20071012-01416; SES-LIC-20070910- 01261; SES-LIC-20071008-01392. 151 See 2000 Biennial Regulatory Review – Streamlining and Other Revisions of Part 25 of the Commission’s Rules Governing the Licensing of, and Spectrum Usage by, Satellite Network Earth Stations and Space Stations, IB Docket No. 00-248, Fifth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 5666, 5671, para. 11 (2005); see also 2000 Biennial Regulatory Review – Streamlining and Other Revisions of Part 25 of the Commission’s Rules Governing Licensing of, and Spectrum Usage by, Satellite Network Earth Stations and Space Stations, IB Docket No. 00-248, Sixth Report and Order and Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC Rcd 5593 (2005). 152 See Rural Health Care Support Mechanism, WC Docket No. 02-60, Second Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 19 FCC Rcd 24613, 24614, para. 1 (2004) (Rural Health Care Second Report and Order). 153 See id. at 24619-20, para. 12. Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-88 28 the Commission updated the definitions of key terms and enacted fixed deadlines for applications in order to clarify and expedite the administrative process.154 55. In September 2006, the Commission released the 2006 Pilot Program Order, which initiated a pilot funding program to facilitate the creation of a nationwide broadband network dedicated to health care, connecting public and private non-profit health care providers in rural and urban locations.155 To accomplish this, the program will fund up to 85 percent of costs associated with deploying a dedicated broadband network connecting health care providers in rural and urban areas within a state or region. Up to 85 percent of the cost of connecting to the dedicated nationwide backbones Internet2 or National LambdaRail (NLR) may also be funded by the Pilot Program.156 As with the existing rural health care program, the Pilot Program includes access to the public Internet if requested by the applicants.157 The Pilot Program will provide the Commission with a more complete and practical understanding of how to ensure the best use of the available RHC support mechanism funds to support a broadband, nationwide health care network (expressly including rural areas).158 Applications to participate in the Pilot Program were due May 7, 2007. The Pilot Program generated overwhelming interest from the health care community, resulting in 81 applications representing 43 states and three United States territories.159 56. On November 19, 2007, the Commission released the Rural Health Care Pilot Program Selection Order, selecting 69 applicants to participate in the Rural Health Care Pilot Program.160 Each selected participant has a maximum funding support amount spread over a 3-year commitment period (total available support for the entire Pilot Program is approximately $417 million over three years (or $139 million per funding year).161 Accordingly, as set forth in that Order, the 69 selected participants are eligible to receive funding for up to 85 percent of the costs associated with: (1) the construction of a state or regional broadband network and the advanced telecommunications and information services provided over that network; (2) connecting to Internet2 or National LambdaRail (NLR); and (3) connecting to the 154 See id. at 24626, 24629, paras. 28, 34. 155 See Rural Health Care Support Mechanism, WC Docket No. 02-60, Order, 21 FCC Rcd 11111 (2006) (2006 Pilot Program Order). 156 See id. at 11115, para. 14; Rural Health Care Support Mechanism, WC Docket No. 02-60, Order on Reconsideration, 22 FCC Rcd 2555 (2007) (Pilot Program Reconsideration Order) (reconsidering the 2006 Pilot Program Order to permit funding to connect a state or regional health care network to National LambdaRail or to the public Internet, in addition to Internet2). 157 Compare, e.g., Rural Health Care Support Mechanism, WC Docket No. 02-60, Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 18 FCC Rcd 24546, 24557-62, paras. 22-29 (2003) (providing a 25% discount off the cost of monthly Internet access for eligible health care providers under section 254(h)(2)(A)), with Pilot Program Reconsideration Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 2555, para. 2 n.5 (explaining that because the Pilot Program will reimburse up to 85% of the costs of advanced telecommunications and information, applicants can request funding for connection to the public Internet). 158 See 2006 Pilot Program Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 11113, para. 9. Upon completion of the Pilot Program, the Commission intends to issue a report detailing the results of the Pilot Program and the status of the RHC support mechanism generally, and to recommend any changes necessary to improve existing RHC program. In addition, the Commission intends to incorporate the information it gathers as part of the Pilot Program into the record of any subsequent proceeding. See id. 159 See generally Rural Health Care Support Mechanism, WC Docket No. 02-60, Order, 22 FCC Rcd 20360 (2007) (Rural Health Care Pilot Program Selection Order). 160 See id. 161 See id. at 20361, para. 2. Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-88 29 public Internet.162 The Rural Health Care Pilot Program Selection Order further states that the Pilot Program will operate under the rules of the existing RHC mechanism, including the competitive bidding requirements.163 In doing so, the Order provides instructions to selected participants concerning Pilot Program administration, including the submission of FCC forms to the Universal Service Administrative Company.164 57. Encouragement of Access to Broadband by Individuals with Disabilities. The Commission extended the disability access requirements of sections 225 and 255 of the Communications Act to providers of interconnected VoIP services and to manufacturers of specially designed equipment used to provide those services.165 In so doing, the Commission ensured that as more consumers migrate from traditional phone service to interconnected VoIP services, the disability access provisions mandated by Congress will apply to, and benefit users of, interconnected VoIP services and equipment.166 In addition, the Commission clarified that IP-captioned telephone service (IP CTS) is a type of telecommunications relay service (TRS) eligible for compensation from the TRS Fund.167 This clarification provides an incentive for multiple providers to offer this service on a nationwide basis, generating competition that will enhance consumer choice, service quality, and available features,168 and encourages IP CTS users to secure broadband connections in order to take full advantage of the benefits of the service. The Commission also adopted rules designed to encourage the deployment and usage of video relay service (VRS), establishing, for the first time, mandatory speed of answer requirements for VRS, and requiring VRS providers to offer the service 24 hours a day, seven days a week.169 The Commission concluded that 162 See id. at 20397-98, para. 74. 163 See id. at 20403-04, para. 83. 164 See id. at 20403-11, paras. 83-98. 165 See IP-Enabled Services; Implementation of Sections 255 and 251(a)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Access to Telecommunications Service, Telecommunications Equipment and Customer Premises Equipment by Persons with Disabilities; Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities; The Use of N11 Codes and Other Abbreviated Dialing Arrangements, WT Docket Nos. 04-36, 96-198, CG Docket No. 03-123, CC Docket No. 92-105, Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 11275 (2007) (Section 255 VoIP Order). 166 See id. at 11276, para. 1. 167 See Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities; Internet Based Telephone Service, CG Docket No. 03-123, Declaratory Ruling, 22 FCC Rcd 379, 379- 80, para. 1 (2007). IP CTS will benefit hard of hearing consumers, generally those who have the ability to speak and some residual hearing, by giving them the flexibility of using a computer, PDA, or wireless device to make a TRS call without having to purchase special telephone equipment. Like captioned telephone service, the provider sends to the consumer the text of what the other party is saying. In this manner, IP CTS accommodates persons who wish to speak to the other party, and both simultaneously listen to other party and read captions. See id. at 388, para. 21. The fact that the service is IP-based makes it more portable and available, but less expensive, than captioned telephone service, which requires special telephone equipment. The service is also useful to consumers who have low vision in addition to some hearing loss, because they can take advantage of the large text, variable fonts, and variable colors that are available on a computer or similar device. See id. at 386, 389, paras. 15, 23. 168 See id. at 390, para. 25. 169 See Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CG Docket No. 03-123, CC Docket No. 98-67, Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 13165 (2005). VRS “allows people with hearing or speech disabilities who use sign language to communicate with voice telephone users through voice equipment.” 47 C.F.R. § 64.601(17). The video equipment allows a communications assistant (CA) to view and interpret the party’s signed conversation and relay the conversation back and forth with a voice caller in real-time over a broadband connection. Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-88 30 Spanish translation VRS – in which the CA translates signing into spoken Spanish, and vice versa – is a form of TRS entitled to reimbursement from the TRS Fund.170 Furthermore, the Commission adopted rules simplifying the process for new VRS and Internet Protocol Relay (IP Relay) providers to enter the market.171 The Commission’s Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB) has released four notices certifying new providers to offer service under these rules.172 Finally, in the VRS Interoperability Order, the Commission concluded that all VRS consumers must be able to place a VRS call through any VRS provider’s service, and all VRS providers must be able to receive calls from, and make calls to, any VRS consumer.173 Through this action, the Commission availed broadband offerings to more Americans, which in turn increased broadband deployment demand. 58. Outreach Efforts Regarding Broadband. In 2005, CGB established a comprehensive broadband outreach campaign to help foster broadband development by increasing consumer awareness about the benefits and availability of broadband. These outreach efforts include, but are not limited to: (1) educating the public about broadband and its benefits; (2) discussing solutions to broadband deployment challenges, with particular emphasis on rural and other underserved communities; and (3) raising awareness of funding sources for telemedicine and other programs relying on broadband deployment.174 In addition, the Indian Telecommunications Initiatives (ITI) is a series of interactive workshops among Tribal Nations, government agencies, and industry addressing telecom issues facing Indian Country to encourage partnerships among these groups to improve telecommunications coverage, including broadband deployment, in American Indian and Alaska Native communities.175 170 See Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CC Docket No. 98-67, CG Docket No. 03-123, Order on Reconsideration, 20 FCC Rcd 13140 (2005). 171 See Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CG Docket No. 03-123, Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, 20 FCC Rcd 20577 (2005). IP Relay service is a text-based form of TRS that allows persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, or who have difficulty speaking, to connect to a TRS facility via a computer (or other similar device) through the Internet, rather than through a text telephone (TTY) device. The CA then relays the call to the receiving party via voice through the public switched telephone network. The availability of computers or other web-enabled devices, including mobile devices, allows IP Relay to significantly enhance the accessibility of telecommunications to people with hearing and speech disabilities because such users are no longer reliant on the presence of TTY devices. 172 See, e.g., Notice of Certification of Healinc Telecom, LLC as a Provider of Video Relay Service (VRS) Eligible for Compensation from the Interstate Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS) Fund, CG Docket No. 03-123, Public Notice, 21 FCC Rcd 6486 (2006). 173 See Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CG Docket No. 03-123, Declaratory Ruling and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 21 FCC Rcd 5442 (2006). 174 This campaign includes the distribution of information and consumer education materials online and at seminars and conferences. See FCC, What is Broadband (visited July 27, 2007), available at http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/broadband.html (containing sections on the importance of broadband, descriptions on the types of broadband, and the use of broadband in rural areas). 175 See FCC Tribal Initiatives Website (visited Sept. 6, 2007), available at http://www.fcc.gov/indians; see also, e.g., News Release, FCC, FCC to Hold Indian Telecommunications Initiatives Regional Workshop and Roundtable In San Diego, CA, On July 27-28, 2006 (July 21, 2006), available at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266525A1.pdf (announcing the agenda of an ITI workshop addressing, among other things, promoting broadband in Indian country). Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-88 31 VI. BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT IS REASONABLE AND TIMELY 59. Based on our analysis in this Report, we conclude that the deployment of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans is reasonable and timely. The data reflect the industry’s extensive investment in broadband deployment, including at higher speeds, as evidenced by increased subscribership for those higher-speed services. The record also reflects that providers are continuing to make significant investments in broadband facilities going forward. Further, while section 706 does not require the Commission to report on actual broadband subscribership, we believe that subscribership to broadband services continues to increase steadily as new broadband-dependent services and applications emerge in the marketplace, and that subscribership growth is important due to its relationship with deployment.176 A. Use of Broadband 60. Use of Broadband at Home and Work. A recent Pew Internet study finds that 47 percent of all adult Americans have a broadband connection at home as of early 2007.177 Further, the study finds that in rural areas, home broadband adoption is now at 31 percent.178 The Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) also recently conducted a study that finds that over 57.8 million U.S. households subscribe to broadband at home, which is an increase of 21 percent over the prior 12 months.179 The CEA study also finds that 44 million adults (20 percent of non-subscribers) expect to have broadband at home within the next two years.180 In total, the CEA study finds that 72 percent of all U.S. adults either have broadband at home or regularly access the Internet through a broadband connection outside the home.181 61. Use of Broadband in the Classroom & Libraries. Access to the Internet is virtually ubiquitous in public schools and libraries. In a study released by the National Center for Education Statistics in 2006, nearly 100 percent of public schools in the United States had Internet access, and 97 percent of these schools used broadband connections to access the Internet.182 Comparatively, in 1997, the year that the Commission started the E-rate program, only 78 percent of public schools had any 176 Additionally, in January 2008, the United States Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Association (NTIA) released a report finding that that there has been “substantial growth in the broadband marketplace punctuated by demonstrable increases in capital investment, innovation, and entry, as well as superior productivity relative to other countries.” NTIA, Networked Nation: Broadband in America 2007 at 2 (rel. Jan. 2008). 177 See John B. Horrigan and Aaron Smith, Home Broadband Adoption 2007, Pew Internet & American Life Project at 3 (June 2007) (2007 Pew Broadband Adoption Study), available at http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/217/report_display.asp. 178 See 2007 Pew Broadband Adoption Study at 6. 179 See Consumer Electronics Association, Broadband in America: Access, Use and Outlook at 2 (July 2007), available at http://www.ce.org/PDF/CEA_Broadband_America.pdf (CEA Broadband Study). 180 See id. at 2, 10. 181 See id. at 3, 5. 182 See John Wells and Laurie Lewis, Internet Access in U.S. Public Schools and Classrooms: 1994-2005, U.S. Department of Education at 4-5 (Nov. 2006), available at http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2007/2007020.pdf (NCES Study). NCES’s definition of broadband connection refers to the type of connection the school uses when connecting to the Internet (e.g., T3/DS3, fractional T3, T1/DS1, fractional T1, cable modem, and/or DSL), and does not have a minimum connection speed threshold. See id. at Appendix B. Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-88 32 Internet access. 183 In 2005, 94 percent of public school instructional classrooms had Internet access, compared with only 27 percent in 1997.184 In 2000, the first year that the NCES Study tracked broadband use, 80 percent of public schools that had Internet access used broadband connections, compared to 97 percent in 2005.185 62. Public libraries also have high Internet access adoption rates. A 2006 study sponsored by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the American Library Association found that 99 percent of public library branches connect to the Internet and 98 percent of connected public library branches offer public Internet access.186 Further, 33 percent of libraries now provide wireless Internet access.187 Library Internet access is important because it provides Internet access to entire communities, including those that might not be able to afford it at home, and even can provide access to information during times of disaster when libraries are used as disaster response facilities.188 63. Low-Income Population’s Use of Broadband. Since publication of the Fourth Report, statistics demonstrate that broadband for low-income Americans is more available and is increasingly used by that population. Our data indicate that as of June 2007, 92 percent of the lowest-income zip codes have at least one high-speed subscriber, compared with 99.4 percent of the highest-income zip codes.189 By comparison, as of December 2003, only 81.9 percent of the lowest-income zip codes had at least one high-speed subscriber, while 98.7 percent of the highest-income zip codes had at least one high- speed subscriber.190 The 2007 Pew Internet study reinforces these statistics, finding that broadband adoption among the lowest income group (less that $30,000 a year) increased from 15 percent in 2005 to 30 percent in 2007.191 Additionally, in the $30,000-$50,000 annual income range, broadband adoption increased from 27 percent in 2005 to 46 percent in 2007.192 64. There are also non-governmental programs that are working actively to promote broadband subscription in low-income populations.193 For example, One Economy, a national non-profit organization, has worked with 42 states to adopt policies that support broadband in new housing units.194 183 See id. at 14. 184 See id. at 16. 185 See id. at 18. 186 See John Bertot et al., Public Libraries and the Internet 2006: Study Results and Findings, College of Information, Florida State University at 1 (Sept. 2006), available at http://www.ii.fsu.edu/projectFiles/plinternet/2006/2006_plinternet.pdf (ALA Study); ALA Comments at 2. 187 See ALA Comments at 5. 188 See id. at 3-4. 189 See Appendix B, Table 19. 190 See December 2006 High-Speed Services Report at Table 19. 191 See 2007 Pew Broadband Adoption Study at 4. 192 See id. 193 See, e.g., APT Comments at 12-13. 194 See One Economy Corporation, Bring IT Home Campaign Report: 2004-2006 (visited Aug. 17, 2007), available at http://www.one-economy.com/pdf/bih_2006_report-low-res.pdf. Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-88 33 The result of this, according to the Alliance for Public Technology (APT), was that in 2005 alone, 200,000 low-income Americans enjoyed broadband Internet access in their homes.195 65. Minority Broadband Adoption. Statistical data reflects an upward trend in subscription to broadband by minorities in the United States. According to a Pew Internet study, 40 percent of African- Americans had a home broadband connection in 2007, compared to 14 percent in 2005, resulting in a 186 percent increase.196 For the Hispanic adult population, 29 percent have a home broadband connection, compared to the 24 percent reported in 2003.197 66. Disabilities Community Use of Broadband. Broadband services have the ability to provide opportunities for people with disabilities. Both IP Relay services and VRS, two forms of TRS that allow people who are deaf or hard of hearing to communicate, have seen exponential growth over the past few years. In the Fourth Report, the Commission noted that in May 2004, consumers used 4,567,870 IP Relay minutes and 733,040 VRS minutes.198 In May 2007, however, consumers used 6,725,447 IP Relay minutes and 5,298,825 VRS minutes.199 Thus, in this last three-year period, consumers used over 45 percent more IP relay minutes, while the usage of VRS increased more than seven-fold. B. International Broadband Comparisons 67. As in prior reports, we consider comparative data regarding broadband deployment in other countries. The most commonly cited international comparison of broadband subscribership is conducted semiannually by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). In the OECD’s most recent report, the United States ranked 15th out of the 30 OECD member states in the Americas, Europe, and Asia, with 22.1 broadband subscribers per 100 people.200 However, with regard to the total number of broadband subscribers, the United States continues to be the leader, by far, in the OECD’s report. Among the 30 OECD members, the United States has the greatest number of broadband subscribers – estimated at 66,213,257, which is more than the total number of broadband subscribers of the top ranked 12 member states combined, and represents 30 percent of all broadband connections in the OECD.201 While the OECD ranking is commonly cited, a more fully developed picture of broadband markets would provide a more accurate and useful international comparison. 68. For one, in making international comparisons, it is important to account for differences in geography and population distribution, given the economics of density in supplying broadband. Geographic factors, such as terrain, and demographic factors, such as the way population is dispersed, can 195 See APT Comments at 13. 196 See 2007 Pew Broadband Adoption Study at 4-5. 197 See 2007 Pew Broadband Adoption Study at 9; Fourth Report, 19 FCC Rcd at 20575. 198 See Fourth Report, 19 FCC Rcd at 20576. 199 See National Exchange Carrier Association, TRS Fund Performance Status Report: Funding Year July 2006 – June 2007 (visited July 16, 2007), available at http://www.neca.org/media/0607MaydataTRSstatus.pdf. 200 See Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, OECD Broadband Statistics to June 2007 (visited Nov. 6, 2007), available at http://www.oecd.org/document/60/0,3343,en_2825_497105_39574076_1_1_1_1,00.html (OECD June 2007 Report). The Commission had not released figures for broadband subscribership for June 2007. Accordingly, the OECD estimated the United States figure by collecting subscriber information reported by major United States broadband providers. 201 See OECD June 2007 Report. Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-88 34 affect the cost of deployment and thus the take-up rate. For example, the cost of broadband deployment would likely differ between two countries with similar populations and geographic sizes (and thus similar population densities) if the vast majority of the population of one country lived in a city, while the population was more evenly distributed over a more rural area in the second country. It is likely to be significantly more costly to deploy broadband infrastructure in countries where a significant portion of the population is located in rural and sparsely populated areas compared with countries where the vast majority of the population is located in urban areas. For instance, sixth-ranked Iceland’s capital city, Reykjavik, has a population of approximately 180,000, which is almost 60 percent of Iceland’s population.202 Such considerations also are important to comparisons of countries of similar geographic size.203 For example, Canada, which was ranked ninth by the OECD, covers an area of 9,984,670 square kilometers, while the United States covers a similar area of 9,826,630 square kilometers.204 However, while the United States encompasses a similar geographic area, two out of three Canadians live near Canada’s southern border.205 Thus, factors such as geography and population distribution are likely to lead to variations in broadband deployment and adoption rates in different countries. 69. Another important characteristic of the United States broadband market, relevant for comparisons with other countries, is the presence of multi-platform competition in the U.S. Importantly, the Commission has removed regulatory hurdles to promote infrastructure investment by competing broadband platforms in the United States. Most households in the United States have access to both DSL and cable modem services.206 In addition, wireless broadband, fiber-to-the-premises, and broadband over power line are being deployed in many areas. For example, according to Commission data, the United States now has over 1.4 million fiber-based broadband subscribers.207 In most OECD countries (27 out of 30), DSL is the predominant broadband technology, and in many of those countries (23 out of the 30), 60 percent or more of broadband subscribers use DSL.208 70. Finally, the OECD study overlooks other important avenues of consumer broadband access. Specifically, it does not take into consideration broadband usage outside of the home, such as Wi-Fi hot 202 See Iceland Tourist Board Website (visited Aug. 2, 2007), available at http://www.icelandtouristboard.com/reykjavik.html. It is also worth pointing out that Iceland has only 90,622 total broadband subscribers. See OECD June 2007 Report. 203 Thirteen of the fourteen countries that the OECD ranks higher than the United States are geographically much smaller than the United States. See Letter from Paul Brigner, Executive Director Federal Regulatory, Verizon, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 07-45, Attach. at 4 (filed May 17, 2007) (noting that Sweden is comparable in size to California and Norway is comparable in size to New Mexico) (Verizon May 17, 2007 Ex Parte Letter). 204 See OECD June 2007 Report; Central Intelligence Agency, World Factbook, Canada, Geography (visited Oct. 10, 2007), available at https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ca.html#Geo; Central Intelligence Agency, World Factbook, United States, Geography (visited Oct. 10, 2007), available at https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html#Geo. 205 See Statistics Canada, Portrait of the Canadian Population in 2006: National Portrait (visited Aug. 2, 2007), available at http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/analysis/popdwell/NatlPortrait2.cfm. 206 See Appendix B, Table 14 (noting that xDSL service is available in 82% of residential end-user premises with access to high-speed services where incumbent local exchange carriers offer local telephone service, and that cable modem service is available to 96% of residential end-user premises with access to high-speed services where cable systems offer cable television service). 207 See id., Table 2. 208 See OECD June 2007 Report. Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-88 35 spots, or broadband access via 3G mobile technologies.209 Users of mobile wireless technologies are increasingly able to connect through broadband connections to the Internet when they travel. Further, outside the home usage of broadband is a significant part of the U.S. broadband experience, with providers providing non-residential broadband access (e.g., Wi-Fi hot spots, businesses, libraries, and classrooms), which are excluded from the OECD study.210 For example, one website identifies over 58,000 Wi-Fi hotspots in the United States, more than any other country in the world, and with the next ranked country being the United Kingdom with only approximately 17,000 hotspots.211 71. Other reports on broadband identify additional differences and ways of comparing broadband markets in different countries. For example, a recent study by the Phoenix Center found that even if every household and business establishment had broadband among the OECD member nations, the United States would rank 20th because of the OECD study’s reliance on per capita accounting.212 As another example, the Economist Intelligence Unit considers broadband deployment in the context of a country’s “e-readiness,” which it defines as the “‘state of play’ of a country’s information and communications technology (ICT) infrastructure and the ability of its consumers, businesses, and governments to use ICT to their benefit.”213 The report ranks the United States second only to Denmark in e-readiness.214 Other international comparisons cite other metrics and comparisons.215 Fundamentally, these various reports demonstrate the value of understanding the broader context when making comparisons regarding broadband deployment and adoption. Indeed, the priority the Commission places on continuing to promote broadband deployment will remain, as intended by section 706, regardless of the United States’s ranking on any particular metric. 209 See Letter from Ambassador David A. Gross, United States Coordinator for International Communications and Information Policy, United States Department of State, to Secretary-General Angel Gurria, Organisation of Economic Co-Operation and Development at 1-2 (Apr. 24, 2007), available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/press/2007/State_OECD_042407.pdf (noting that the OECD analysis excludes millions of student-age users that gain access to broadband services through Wi-Fi access on college campuses, as well as millions of workers that gain access to broadband services at their work desks). 210 See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 17. 211 See JiWire, Inc. Website (visited Aug. 20, 2007), available at http://www.jiwire.com/. 212 See Phoenix Center, The Broadband Performance Index: A Policy-Relevant Method for Comparing Broadband Adoption Among Countries at 7-8 (July 2007), available at http://www.phoenix-center.org/PCPP/PCPP29.final.pdf; see also id. at 5 (noting that, as measured by the OECD, the United States broadband subscription rates have increased 436% from 2001 through 2006). 213 The Economist Intelligence Unit, The 2007 E-readiness Rankings, Raising the Bar, The Economist at 1 (visited July 23, 2007), available at http://www.eiu.com/site_info.asp?info_name=eiu_2007_e_readiness_rankings&rf=0. These rankings are predicated on the belief that for digital business to be effective and widely utilized in a country, a holistically supportive environment must first exist. 214 See id. at 5. 215 See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 18 (citing the finding in a recent study by Analysys Consulting of broadband offers in a number of countries that “differences in actual bandwidth speeds among the offerings of broadband service providers internationally are less significant than simple advertised rates imply”); Consumers Union et al. Comments at 39-40 (comparing lower broadband price per mbps per month in certain other countries as compared to the United States); Verizon May 16, 2007 Ex Parte Letter, Attach. at 7 (citing data indicating that customers in the United States live further from central offices than customers in certain other countries). Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-88 36 VII. THE FUTURE OF BROADBAND 72. In the future, we anticipate ever-greater demand for services and applications requiring greater bandwidth over an ever-expanding area. The record in this proceeding demonstrates that multiple industries are aggressively investing in and deploying services to meet this demand, enhancing consumer choice in both providers and services. 73. Increases in Broadband Demand. Demand for broadband will increase as broadband continues to become a vital part of our economy, education, healthcare, e-government, libraries, business, agriculture, community organizations, national defense, and emergency response.216 While the current rate of broadband services adoption is robust, some reports suggest that increased rates of broadband adoption are yet to come.217 For example, Morgan Stanley projects that the number of households that adopt broadband will increase approximately 50 percent over the next four years, with a forecast that 72 million households will have acquired broadband services by 2010.218 As the cost of personal computer ownership continues to fall and other IP-enabled broadband devices roll out at cheaper prices, they become less of a barrier to broadband adoption.219 Today, broadband Internet access service continues to be a more fully integrated experience, with users hooked up to multiple devices throughout their residences, places of work, and on their person. 74. Advances in Broadband Networks. At the same time that broadband demand increases, network technology continues to evolve and improve. Previously distinct networks are now converging and overlapping to form competing broadband networks that perform all of the network applications once 216 See, e.g., Connected Nation Comments at 3 (stating that 70% of Kentucky counties now operate or are establishing a web presence for e-government, up from 30% two years ago); Embarq Comments at 1, 9 (arguing that it is impossible to protect against terrorism or criminal activity if there are substantial land areas isolated from communications infrastructure); NATOA et al. Comments at 2 (arguing that proper communications tools are necessary for effective disaster response); NCTA Comments at 23 (estimating that by 2010 that the Web will affect half of all retail sales); see also, e.g., U.S. Census Bureau, Quarterly Retail E-Commerce Sales: 1st Quarter 2007 (May 16, 2007), available at http://www.census.gov/mrts/www/data/html/07Q1.html (estimating that U.S. retail e-commerce sales for the first quarter of 2007 were $31.5 billion). 217 See Everett Rogers, Diffusion of Innovation (1962) (describing the adoption of technology on an S Curve); Michele Jackson, Tom Lookabaugh, Scott Savage, Douglas C. Sicker, and Donald Waldman, Broadband Demand Study Final Report, Telecommunications Research Group, University of Colorado, at 14-16 (November 2002), available at http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/Broadband_Demand.pdf (stating that broadband adoption is in the middle of the S curve); Bear Stearns, March Broadband Buzz: A Monthly Update on Critical Broadband Issues, at 4 (Mar. 12, 2007) (projecting broadband adoption rates of 2007: 58.4%; 2008: 66%; and 2009: 72.7%); Morgan Stanley, Cable & Telecom, VoIP Success Driving Telco On-Net and Off-Net Video, at 16 (July 23, 2007) (projecting residential broadband adoption rates of 2007: 47.5%; 2008: 55.2%; 2009: 58.7%; and 2010: 61.4%); UBS, Telecommunications and Cable Services, HSD/VoIP Outlook and 4Q06 Review: Cable vs Telco Competition Heats Up, at 5 (Apr. 4, 2007) (projecting residential broadband adoption rates of 2007: 53.5%; 2008: 59.9%; 2009: 65.4%; and 2010: 70.5%); see also Verizon/Verizon Wireless Comments at 5 (stating that at the end of the first quarter of 2007, 44% of U.S. households subscribed to broadband, and that this figure is expected to reach 50% by 2008); Appendix B, Table 2 (recognizing an increase in the number of broadband lines over time). 218 See NCTA Comments at 23. 219 See Connected Nation Comments at 9 (noting that the lack of a home computer was ranked higher than the monthly broadband subscription fee as the primary barrier to residential broadband in Kentucky); see also Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index (June 15, 2007), available at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm (stating that the price index of personal computers declined by 2.7% from June 2006 to June 2007); Intel Corporation, Moore’s Law (visited Aug. 31, 2007), available at http://www.intel.com/technology/mooreslaw/ (stating that computers are growing substantially more powerful while the cost of computers is declining). Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-88 37 only possible by purchasing services from multiple service providers. Competition between broadband platform providers attempting to keep up with their competitors will drive higher speed technologies and service offerings to the marketplace.220 Coverage too will continue to become more ubiquitous as a diversity of technologies mature.221 In fact, telecommunications companies expect to make $50 billion in capital expenditures in 2008 and 2009.222 Further, local communities report that a key to their future is broadband. In order to attract business and residents, they must be able to provide the necessities, and this increasingly includes broadband.223 The future of a community’s economy, employment opportunities, telecommuting, and opportunities for individuals with disabilities are related directly to the future of broadband in that community.224 75. Advances in Services and Applications. The deployment of new broadband networks continues to help introduce next generation broadband services and applications into the marketplace. The separation of applications from the physical network will continue to spur competition between previously geographically distinct companies.225 For example, satellite radio and clips of major league sports games are available over the Internet; podcasting has opened doors for new independent voices; game systems allow users to interact with each other over the Internet; and consumers can control and monitor their home security and environmental systems remotely.226 220 See, e.g., FTTH Council Comments at 6 (explaining that broadband speeds are expected to increase by 42% per year); NuVox/XO Comments at 4 (discussing the emergence of Ethernet-over-Copper technologies); Verizon/Verizon Wireless Reply at 4 (stating that cable operators soon will deploy new DOCSIS 3.0 architecture that will allow speeds above 100 mbps). 221 See, e.g., NASUCA Comments at 15 (stating that by 2008, AT&T/BellSouth will offer Internet access service at speeds in excess of 200 kbps in at least one direction to 100 percent of the residents living within its territory); Covad Comments at 2, 4 (stating that Covad is developing services, using legacy copper, that were previously unavailable); id. at 5 (explaining that legacy copper can now be used for the provision of television services). 222 See Bank of America Equity Research, Wireline and Wireless Telecommunications Services, at 23 (July 18, 2007); see also, e.g., Andrew Bartels, US IT Spending 2007 Update: What the 4Q 2006 IT Purchase Data Says About the 2007 Outlook, Forrester Research Teleconference (Feb. 26, 2007), available at http://www.forrester.com/Events/Content/0,5180,1625,00.ppt (projecting US purchases of communications equipment in 2007: $115B; 2008: $123B; 2009: $131B; 2010: $155B); Verizon/Verizon Wireless Comments at 6 (noting that North American telecom companies expect to spend $70 billion on new infrastructure in 2007); id. at 8 (stating that Comcast plans to spend $5.7 billion in capital expenditures in 2007). 223 See, e.g., Connected Nation Comments at 7 (describing how the increase in broadband availability has attracted companies to Kentucky). 224 See, e.g., id. at 7 (describing job growth associated with the improved technology infrastructure in Kentucky); NATOA et al. Comments at 2 (describing how increased broadband alleviates traffic jams through the increased use of telecommuting). 225 See, e.g., CCIA Comments at 7 (describing how AT&T’s VoIP package will compete against Verizon and Qwest). 226 See, e.g., XM Radio Online Website (visited July 25, 2007), available at http://xmro.xmradio.com/xstream/index.jsp; SIRIUS Online Website (visited July 25, 2007), available at http://www.sirius.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=Sirius/Page&c=FlexContent&cid=1174328309443; Major League Baseball TV Website (visited July 25, 2007), available at http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/subscriptions/mlbtv.jsp?c_id=mlb?c_id=mlb; May Wong, NHL, Sling Media partner on clip-sharing service, USA Today (June 7, 2007), available at http://www.usatoday.com/tech/techinvestor/industry/2007-06-07-nhl-sling-partnership_N.htm. Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-88 38 VIII. CONCLUSION 76. Access to broadband continues to play a critical role in the economy of the United States and in American life. The availability of broadband shapes our world by allowing us to connect to others across the globe in an instant. From schoolchildren learning to use the Internet in the classroom to businesses connecting instantaneously with faraway customers using VoIP technologies to doctors simultaneously reviewing patient records over telemedicine networks, broadband-based technologies are revolutionizing our lives. While broadband in the United States is being deployed in a reasonable and timely fashion, the future of broadband holds great promise and the Commission will work to ensure that all Americans have an opportunity to enjoy its benefits. The Commission’s broadband policy is to continue to promote investment in multiple broadband platforms, to promote greater speeds, and to promote related digital technologies and services that will encourage broadband demand. The end goal is to ensure the ubiquitous and affordable availability of broadband for all Americans. IX. ORDERING CLAUSE 77. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 157 nt., this Report IS ADOPTED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-88 39 APPENDIX A Commenters in GN Docket No. 07-45 Comments Abbreviation AT&T Inc. AT&T Alexicon Telecommunications Consulting Alexicon The Alliance for Public Technology APT The American Library Association ALA Clearwire Corporation Clearwire Computer & Communications Industry Association CCIA Connected Nation, Inc. Connected Nation Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America, and Free Press Consumers Union et al. Covad Communications Company Covad CTIA – The Wireless Association® CTIA Roy A. Elliott Elliot Embarq Embarq The Fiber-to-the-Home Council FTTH Council The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments MWCOG M2Z Networks, Inc. M2Z The National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors, The National Association of Counties, The U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the National League of Cities NATOA et al. The National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates NASUCA The National Cable & Telecommunications Association NCTA The National Telecommunications Cooperative Association NTCA Native Public Media NPM The Nebraska Rural Independent Companies Nebraska Companies The New Jersey Division of Rate Counsel NJ Rate Counsel NuVox Communications and XO Communications, LLC NuVox/XO The Organization for the Promotion and Advancement of Small Telecommunications Companies OPASTCO Pacific LightNet, Inc. and Silver Star Telecom, LLC Joint Commenters PCIA – The Wireless Infrastructure Association PCIA Puerto Rico Telephone Company, Inc. PRTC Qwest Corporation and Qwest Communications Corporation Qwest Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center for Wireless Technologies Wireless RERC Regional Planning Commission of Greater Birmingham Birmingham Regional Commission Sprint Nextel Corporation Sprint Nextel The Telecommunications Industry Association TIA Time Warner Telecom, Inc. Time Warner Telecom Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-88 40 Tropos Networks Tropos Daniel J. Udovic, P.E. Udovic Verizon and Verizon Wireless Verizon/Verizon Wireless Reply Commenters in GN Docket No. 07-45 Reply Comments Abbreviation The American Cable Association ACA AT&T Inc. AT&T BT Americas Inc. BT Americas Colorado Department of Education CO DoE Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America, and Free Press Consumers Union et al. Decatur Public Library Decatur Library Fuller Public Library Fuller Library Haakon County Public Library Haakon Library Mississippi Library Commission Mississippi Library The National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates NASUCA The National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative NRTC The National Telecommunications Cooperative Association NTCA The New Jersey Division of Rate Counsel NJ Rate Counsel New York State Library NY Library Park County, Colorado Library Park County, Colorado Library Pillsbury Free Library Pillsbury Library San Bernardino Public Library San Bernardino Library The Satellite Industry Association SIA TeleTruth TeleTruth Verizon and Verizon Wireless Verizon/Verizon Wireless Vonage Holdings Corp. Vonage The Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction Wisconsin DPI Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-88 41 APPENDIX B Commission’s Report on High-Speed Services for Internet Access: Status as of June 30, 2007 High-Speed Services for Internet Access: Status as of June 30, 2007 Industry Analysis and Technology Division Wireline Competition Bureau March 2008 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 Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW, Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone (800) 378-3160, or via their website at www.bcpiweb.com. The report can also be downloaded from the Wireline Competition Bureau Statistical Reports Internet site at www.fcc.gov/wcb/stats. 1 High-Speed Services for Internet Access: Status as of June 30, 2007 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 (FCC Form 477) to gather standardized information about subscribership to high-speed services, including advanced services, from wireline telephone companies, cable system operators, terrestrial wireless service providers, satellite service providers, and any other facilities-based providers of advanced telecommunications capability. 2 We summarize here information from the sixteenth semi-annual data collection, thereby presenting a snapshot of subscribership as of June 30, 2007. 3 High-speed lines connecting homes and businesses to the Internet increased by 22% during the first half of 2007, from 82.8 million to 100.9 million lines in service, following a 27% increase, from 65.3 million to 82.8 million lines, during the second half of 2006. For the full twelve-month period ending June 30, 2007, high-speed lines increased by 55% (or 35.7 million lines). The presence of high-speed service subscribers was reported in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, and in over 99% of the Zip Codes in the United States. Twice a year, all facilities-based providers of high-speed connections to end users are required to report to the Commission basic information about their service offerings and types of customers. 4 Prior to June 2005, providers with fewer than 250 high-speed lines (or wireless 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); Local Telephone Competition and Broadband Reporting, WC Docket No. 04-141, Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 22340 (2004). During this data gathering program, qualifying entities 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). The first data collected by Form 477 were data as of December 31, 1999. An updated 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. 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 terms “broadband connections” (which is used as a synonym for “high-speed connections” in the Form 477 program) and “facilities-based provider” are defined on the first page of the Form 477 instructions that are available at www.fcc.gov/formpage.html, and the term “end users” is defined on the third page. Facilities-based providers report information about high-speed connections they provide directly to their own end-user customers and also high-speed connections they provide to Internet Service Providers for resale to end users. 2 channels) in service in a particular state were not required to report data for that state. 5 Small providers of high-speed connections, many of whom serve rural areas with relatively small populations, were therefore underrepresented in the earlier data. Including these providers resulted in a substantial one-time increase in the number of holding companies and unaffiliated entities reporting information about high-speed connections from December 31, 2004 to June 30, 2005. 6 The data reported for June 30, 2007 include detail about the information transfer rates (“speeds”) of the reported connections and a breakdown of high-speed connections by type of technology. 7 The reported data also enable us to estimate, for individual states, the extent to which Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) high-speed connections provided by incumbent local exchange carriers (incumbent LECs), and cable modem high-speed service provided by cable system operators, are available to households residing in the areas these companies serve. Readers can draw the following broad conclusions from the data summarized in this report: • High-speed lines (or wireless channels) connecting homes and businesses to the Internet at speeds that exceed 200 kbps in at least one direction increased from 82.8 million lines to 100.9 million lines during the first half of 2007. For the full twelve-month period ending June 30, 2007, high-speed lines increased by 35.7 million, from 65.3 million lines to 100.9 million lines. See Table 1 and Chart 1. • ADSL lines increased by 2.1 million lines during the first half of 2007, fiber connections increased by 0.4 million lines, and cable modem service increased by 2.4 million lines. For the full twelve-month period ending June 30, 2007, ADSL increased by 4.9 million lines, fiber connections increased by 0.7 million lines, and cable modem service increased by 5.2 million lines. See Table 1. • Of the 100.9 million total high-speed lines, 34.1% were cable modem, 27.3% were ADSL, 1.0% were symmetric DSL (SDSL) or traditional wireline, 1.4% were fiber to the end user premises, and 36.2% used other technologies. 8 See Chart 2. 5 High-speed lines reported in voluntary submissions of data prior to June 2005 represented less than 0.05% of total reported high-speed lines. As of June 30, 2005, filers with fewer than 250 lines in a state (including some entities that previously made voluntary submissions) represented about 0.2% of total reported high-speed lines. 6 The nationwide number of holding companies and unaffiliated entities reporting high-speed lines increased from 552 as of December 31, 2004 to 1,270 as of June 30, 2005. See Table 7. 7 Some Internet-access connections that telephone companies, cable system operators, and wireless service providers offer do not meet the 200 kbps criterion for reporting high-speed connections to the Commission, but may nevertheless meet the needs of the subscribers who select them over a more expensive service option. 8 Providers are instructed to report a high-speed connection in the (mutually exclusive) technology category that characterizes the last few feet of distribution plant to the subscriber’s premises. In addition to cable modem, ADSL, SDSL, traditional wireline when used for Internet access, and optical carrier (fiber to the end user) connections, reporting entities specify satellite, terrestrial fixed wireless (licensed or unlicensed), terrestrial mobile wireless (licensed or unlicensed), electric power line, or “all other” technology. See additional notes following Chart 10. 3 • Lines connecting homes and businesses to the Internet at transmission speeds that exceed 200 kbps in both directions increased from 59.8 million lines to 69.6 million lines during the first half of 2007. For the full twelve-month period ending June 30, 2007, they increased by 18.5 million, from 51.1 million lines to 69.6 million lines. See Table 2 and Chart 3. • Of the 69.6 million lines which were faster than 200 kbps in both directions, 48.8% were cable modem, 33.6% were ADSL, 1.5% were SDSL or traditional wireline, 2.0% were fiber to the end user premises, and 14.1% used other technologies. See Chart 4. • Of the 100.9 million total high-speed lines, 65.9 million were designed to serve primarily residential end users. Cable modem represented 50.6% of these lines while 37.5% were ADSL, 0.2% were SDSL or traditional wireline connections, 1.7% were fiber to the end user premises, and 10.0% used other technologies. See Table 3 and Chart 6. For state-specific data, see Table 13. • Of the 69.6 million lines that were faster than 200 kbps in both directions, 61.1 million lines were designed to serve primarily residential end users. Of these, cable modem represented 53.9% while 34.1% were ADSL, 0.2% were SDSL or traditional wireline, 1.9% were fiber to the end user premises, and 10.0% used other technologies. See Table 4 and Chart 8. • Of the 69.6 million reported high-speed lines that were faster than 200 kbps in both directions as of June 30, 2007, 59.8% were at least 2.5 mbps in the faster direction and 40.2% were slower than 2.5 mbps in the faster direction. See Table 5. • Incumbent LECs or their affiliates reported 97.0% of ADSL connections, 91.2% of fiber-to- the-premises connections, 81.5% of the mobile service subscribers whose wireless device is capable of operating on a high-speed mobile wireless network, and 49.2% of traditional wireline connections. When all technologies are considered, incumbent LECs reported 56.8% of total high-speed connections. See Table 6. • High-speed lines were reported in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. See Table 9 and, for historical data, Tables 10 - 12. • As a nationwide average, we estimate that high-speed DSL connections were available to 82% of the households to whom incumbent LECs could provide local telephone service, and that high-speed cable modem service was available to 96% of the households to whom cable system operators could provide cable TV service. See Table 14. 4 • The Commission’s data collection program requires providers to list the Zip Codes in which the provider has at least one high-speed connection in service to an end user, and over 99% of Zip Codes were listed by at least one provider. 9 The most widely reported technologies by this measure were high-speed mobile wireless (with at least some presence reported in 96% of Zip Codes), satellite (in 92% of Zip Codes), ADSL (in 85% of Zip Codes), and cable modem service (in 66% of Zip Codes). ADSL and/or cable modem connections were reported to be present in 90% of Zip Codes. 10 See Tables 15 and 16. For state-specific data, see Table 17. • Our analysis indicates that more than 99% of the country’s population lives in the more than 99% of Zip Codes where a provider reports having at least one high-speed service subscriber. Moreover, numerous competing providers report serving high-speed subscribers in the major population centers of the country. See the map that follows Table 16. • High population density has a positive association with reports that high-speed subscribers are present, and low population density has an inverse association. For example, high-speed subscribers were reported to be present in more than 99% of the most densely populated Zip Codes and in 91% of Zip Codes with the lowest population densities. 11 The comparable figure for the lowest-density Zip Codes was 89% a year earlier. See Table 18. • High median household income also has a positive association with reports that high-speed subscribers are present. In the top one-tenth of Zip Codes ranked by median household income, high-speed subscribers are reported in 99% of Zip Codes. By contrast, high-speed subscribers are reported in 92% of Zip Codes with the lowest median household income, compared to 91% a year earlier. See Table 19. As other information from the Commission’s data collection program (FCC Form 477) becomes available, it will be included in future reports on the deployment of advanced telecommunications capability and in publications such as this one. 9 Lists of Zip Codes with number of service providers as reported in the FCC Form 477 filings are made available at www.fcc.gov/wcb/stats in a format that honors requests for nondisclosure of information the reporting entities assert is competitively sensitive. 10 The 90% figure (more precisely, 89.6%) includes ZIP codes with either ADSL subscribers reported, cable modem subscribers reported, or both. In 60.9% of ZIP codes, both ADSL and cable modem subscribers have been reported. In 23.7% of ZIP codes, there are ADSL subscribers reported but no cable modem subscribers, and in 5.0% of ZIP codes there are cable modem subscribers reported but no ADSL subscribers reported. 11 For this comparison, we consider the most densely populated Zip Codes to be those with more than 3,147 persons per square mile (the top decile of Zip Codes) and the least densely populated Zip Codes to be those with fewer than 6 persons per square mile (the bottom decile). 5 We invite users of this information to provide suggestions for improved data collection and analysis by: • Using the attached customer response form, • E-mailing comments to James.Eisner@fcc.gov or Suzanne.Mendez@fcc.gov, • Calling the Industry Analysis and Technology Division of the Wireline Competition Bureau at (202) 418-0940, or • Participating in any formal proceedings undertaken by the Commission to solicit comments for improvement of FCC Form 477. 2003 2007 Jun ADSL 951,583 2,693,834 5,101,493 7,675,114 11,398,199 16,316,309 19,515,483 22,584,255 25,412,883 27,516,171 SDSL and Traditional Wireline 758,594 1,088,066 1,186,680 1,215,713 1,407,121 898,468 878,973 948,134 1,030,698 1,028,654 SDSL - - - - - 411,731 368,782 337,412 344,759 319,932 Traditional Wireline - - - - - 486,737 510,191 610,722 685,939 708,722 Cable Modem 2,284,491 5,184,141 9,172,895 13,684,225 18,592,636 24,017,442 26,558,206 29,174,494 31,981,705 34,408,553 Fiber 3 46,635 81,248 105,991 111,386 130,928 315,651 448,257 685,823 1,035,677 1,402,652 Satellite and Wireless 65,615 194,707 220,588 309,006 421,690 965,068 3,812,655 11,872,998 23,344,106 36,560,197 Satellite - - - - - 376,837 426,928 495,365 571,980 668,803 Fixed Wireless - - - - - 208,695 257,431 361,113 484,277 586,141 Mobile Wireless - - - - - 379,536 3,128,296 11,016,520 22,287,849 35,305,253 Power Line and Other - - - - - 4,872 4,571 5,208 4,776 5,420 Total Lines 4,106,918 9,241,996 15,787,647 22,995,444 31,950,574 42,517,810 51,218,145 65,270,912 82,809,845 100,921,647 For data through December 2004, only those providers with at least 250 lines per state were required to file. Some historical data have been revised. See additional notes following Chart 10. High-Speed Lines by Technology as of June 30, 2007 Jun Jun Jun Chart 2 Total High-Speed Lines Chart 1 Dec Technology 2 2000 Jun 2004 Jun DecJun Jun Table 1 (Over 200 kbps in at least one direction) High-Speed Lines 1 2001 2002 2005 2006 0 10,000,000 20,000,000 30,000,000 40,000,000 50,000,000 60,000,000 70,000,000 80,000,000 90,000,000 100,000,000 110,000,000 Jun 2000 Jun 2001 Jun 2002 Jun 2003 Jun 2004 Jun 2005 Jun 2006 Jun 2007 Cable Modem 34.1% SDSL and Traditional Wireline 1.0% ADSL 27.3% Fiber 1.4% All Other 36.2% 2003 2007 Jun Jun Jun Jun Jun Jun Dec Jun Dec Jun ADSL 326,816 998,883 1,852,879 2,536,368 3,768,019 13,176,095 15,921,336 18,310,957 21,144,159 23,381,289 SDSL and Traditional Wireline 758,594 1,088,066 1,186,680 1,215,713 1,407,121 869,772 874,261 946,874 1,029,782 1,027,937 SDSL -----387,451 368,736 336,586 344,739 319,293 Traditional Wireline 482,321 505,525 610,288 685,043 708,644 Cable Modem 1,469,130 3,329,976 6,819,395 11,935,866 17,567,468 22,745,012 26,293,596 28,878,587 31,594,111 33,939,919 Fiber 3 40,627 81,204 104,015 110,829 129,636 314,229 447,235 684,729 1,034,317 1,400,565 Satellite and Wireless 3,649 73,476 66,073 64,393 93,805 223,274 338,635 2,275,154 4,982,675 9,800,951 Satellite -----10,966 36,331 27,489 36,026 57,202 Fixed Wireless 191,229 220,268 333,209 455,741 553,919 Mobile Wireless -----21,079 82,036 1,914,456 4,490,908 9,189,830 Power Line and Other 4,174 4,501 5,209 4,776 5,420 Total Lines 2,598,816 5,571,605 10,029,042 15,863,169 22,966,048 37,332,557 43,879,564 51,101,510 59,789,820 69,556,081 For data through December 2004, only those providers with at least 250 lines per state were required to file. Some historical data have been revised. See additional notes following Chart 10. Chart 4 Advanced Services Lines by Technology as of June 30, 2007 200620042000 2001 Chart 3 Advanced Services Lines Total High-Speed Lines Table 2 Advanced Services Lines 1 (Over 200 kbps in both directions) Technology 2 2002 2005 0 10,000,000 20,000,000 30,000,000 40,000,000 50,000,000 60,000,000 70,000,000 80,000,000 Jun 2000 Jun 2001 Jun 2002 Jun 2003 Jun 2004 Jun 2005 Jun 2006 Jun 2007 Cable Modem 48.8% SDSL and Traditional Wireline 1.5% ADSL 33.6% Fiber 2.0% All Other 14.1% 2003 2007 Jun Jun Jun Jun Jun Jun Dec Jun Dec Jun ADSL 772,272 2,490,740 4,395,033 6,429,938 10,759,495 14,442,823 17,370,508 20,152,290 22,768,500 24,690,513 SDSL and Traditional Wireline 111,490 138,307 223,599 250,372 393,049 159,489 129,444 112,017 117,708 117,437 SDSL -----153,978 122,220 102,605 105,012 104,944 Traditional Wireline 5,511 7,224 9,412 12,696 12,493 Cable Modem 2,215,259 4,998,540 9,157,285 13,660,541 18,525,265 23,578,060 25,714,461 28,365,648 31,118,079 33,340,678 Fiber 3 325 2,623 6,120 16,132 22,719 83,293 213,479 442,027 763,394 1,152,195 Satellite and Wireless 64,320 182,165 202,251 288,786 387,563 428,367 532,704 1,840,060 3,589,607 6,598,329 Satellite -----265,017 320,142 382,047 455,936 530,357 Fixed Wireless 160,775 203,179 301,293 424,284 522,752 Mobile Wireless ----- 2,574 9,384 1,156,720 2,709,387 5,545,220 Power Line and Other 4,447 4,550 5,093 4,711 5,347 Total Lines 3,163,666 7,812,375 13,984,287 20,645,769 30,088,091 38,696,480 43,965,147 50,917,135 58,361,999 65,904,499 For data through December 2004, only those providers with at least 250 lines per state were required to file. Small business lines were included in totals through December 2004. Some historical data have been revised. See additional notes following Chart 10. Table 3 Residential High-Speed Lines 1 (Over 200 kbps in at least one direction) Technology 2 2000 2001 2002 200620052004 Chart 6 Residential High-Speed Lines by Technology as of June 30, 2007 Chart 5 Residential High-Speed Lines 0 10,000,000 20,000,000 30,000,000 40,000,000 50,000,000 60,000,000 70,000,000 Jun 2000 Jun 2001 Jun 2002 Jun 2003 Jun 2004 Jun 2005 Jun 2006 Jun 2007 SDSL and Traditional Wireline 0.2% ADSL 37.5% Fiber 1.7% Cable Modem 50.6% All Other 10.0% 2003 2007 ADSL 195,324 916,364 1,580,575 2,071,779 3,174,022 11,731,303 14,242,291 16,416,522 18,878,873 20,835,274 SDSL and Traditional Wireline 111,490 138,307 223,599 250,372 393,049 151,979 125,116 111,935 117,652 116,881 SDSL -----149,862 122,220 102,580 105,002 104,432 Traditional Wireline 2,118 2,895 9,355 12,650 12,449 Cable Modem 1,401,434 3,146,953 6,809,170 11,920,207 17,505,907 22,324,471 25,533,423 28,121,912 30,770,517 32,920,397 Fiber 3 325 2,617 5,118 15,751 21,866 82,831 212,862 441,128 762,083 1,150,246 Satellite and Wireless 2,916 60,988 47,787 46,407 72,485 150,893 204,703 1,449,299 3,114,987 6,074,665 Satellite ----- 2,244 25,117 15,055 23,334 35,319 Fixed Wireless 146,074 170,515 277,524 399,732 494,144 Mobile Wireless ----- 2,574 9,071 1,156,720 2,691,921 5,545,202 Power Line and Other 3,916 4,481 5,093 4,711 5,347 Total Lines 1,711,488 4,265,229 8,666,249 14,304,515 21,167,329 34,445,394 40,322,876 46,545,889 53,648,823 61,102,810 For data through December 2004, only those providers with at least 250 lines per state were required to file. Small business lines were included in totals through December 2004. Some historical data have been revised. See additional notes following Chart 10. Residential Advanced Services Lines Chart 8 Residential Advanced Services Lines by Technology as of June 30, 2007 Table 4 Residential Advanced Services Lines 1 (Over 200 kbps in both directions) Chart 7 Dec 2006 JunDec 2005 Jun Jun JunJun Jun Technology 2 200420022000 2001 Jun Jun 0 10,000,000 20,000,000 30,000,000 40,000,000 50,000,000 60,000,000 70,000,000 Jun 2000 Jun 2001 Jun 2002 Jun 2003 Jun 2004 Jun 2005 Jun 2006 Jun 2007 Fiber 1.9% All Other 10.0% SDSL and Traditional Wireline 0.2% ADSL 34.1% Cable Modem 53.9% ADSL 4,134,882 13,025,758 10,303,122 52,373 * * SDSL 639 317,401 1,805 * * 0 Traditional Wireline 78 671,080 18,740 5,928 6,245 6,651 Cable Modem 468,634 3,941,006 26,682,038 3,246,906 * * Fiber 2,087 214,373 646,776 508,829 16,292 14,295 Satellite 611,601 57,202 0 0 0 0 Fixed Wireless 32,222 523,309 30,061 * * * Mobile Wireless 26,115,423 * * 0 0 0 Power Line and Other 0 * * 0 * 0 Total Lines 31,365,566 27,944,008 37,683,911 3,814,471 91,983 21,708 * Data withheld to maintain firm confidentiality. See notes following Chart 10. Greater than 200 kbps and less than 2.5 mbps in the faster direction Greater than or equal to 2.5 mbps and less than 10 mbps in the faster direction Chart 9 Lines by Information Transfer Rates in the Faster Directions as of June 30, 2007 (Includes only lines exceeding 200 kbps in both directions) Greater than or equal to 100 mbps in the faster direction Greater than or equal to 10 mbps and less than 25 mbps in the faster direction Greater than or equal to 25 mbps and less than 100 mbps in the faster direction Table 5 High-Speed Lines by Information Transfer Rates 1 As of June 30, 2007 Exceeding 200 kbps in both directions, and: Technology 2 Exceeding 200 kbps in only one direction 40.2% 5.6% 54.2% > than 200 kbps, < than 2.5 mbps ? than 2.5 mbps, < than 10 mbps ? than 10 mbps Other Non- ILEC ILEC 5 ADSL 22,121,630 4,554,463 840,078 27,514,518 80.4 % 16.6 % 3.1 % SDSL * * 205,943 319,543 * * 64.4 Traditional Wireline 334,730 13,455 360,537 707,647 47.3 1.9 50.9 Cable Modem * * 34,319,043 34,408,570 * * 99.7 Fiber 1,233,079 45,249 124,324 1,402,070 87.9 3.2 8.9 Satellite 0 0 668,803 668,803 0.0 0.0 100.0 Fixed Wireless * * 564,588 586,141 * * 96.3 Mobile Wireless * * 6,512,904 35,253,224 * * 18.5 Power Line and Other 0 0 5,420 5,420 0.0 0.0 100.0 Total Lines 52,489,028 4,830,985 43,601,634 100,865,936 52.0 % 4.8 % 43.2 % * Data withheld to maintain firm confidentiality. See notes following Chart 10. Table 6 High-Speed Lines by Type of Provider as of June 30, 2007 1 (Over 200 kbps in at least one direction) ILEC ILEC 5 Lines Percent of Lines Chart 10 Share of High-Speed Lines by Type of Provider as of June 30, 2007 RBOC 4 Total RBOC 4 Other Technology 2 Non- Non-ILEC 43.2% RBOC 52.0% Other ILEC 4.8% 4 RBOC lines include lines owned by AT&T, Qwest and Verizon, and their affiliates. 5 High-speed lines reported by non-ILEC affiliates of RBOCs are reported in the column for RBOC lines and are excluded from the column for non-ILEC lines. Lines reported by non-ILEC affiliates of ILECs other than the RBOCs are reported in the column for non-ILEC lines. Notes for Tables 1 - 6 and Charts 1 - 10. Advanced services lines, residential high-speed lines, and residential advanced services lines are estimated based on data reported on FCC Form 477. Therefore, figures may not add to totals due to rounding. 1 High-speed lines are connections to end-user locations that deliver services at speeds exceeding 200 kbps in at least one direction. Advanced services lines, which are a subset of high-speed lines, are connections that deliver services at speeds exceeding 200 kbps in both directions. In Tables 2 and 4, we enumerate those reported high-speed lines that also qualify as advanced services lines. More detailed information about connection speeds is presented in Table 5. Line counts presented in this report are not adjusted for the number of persons at a single end-user location who have access to, or who use, the Internet-access services that are delivered over the high-speed connection to that location. 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; symmetric digital subscriber line (SDSL) technologies; traditional wireline technologies when used to provide equivalent Internet access functionality, including Ethernet service if delivered to the subscriber's location over copper (as opposed to optical fiber) plant; cable modem, 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); satellite and fixed and mobile terrestrial wireless systems, which use radio spectrum to communicate with a radio transmitter; electric power line; and other. 3 Fiber lines included electric power line through December 2004. ADSL Cable Modem Total Dec 1999 28 43 65 105 Jun 2000 47 36 75 116 Dec 2000 68 39 87 136 Jun 2001 86 47 98 160 Dec 2001 117 59 122 203 Jun 2002 142 68 138 237 Dec 2002 178 87 169 299 Jun 2003 235 98 217 378 Dec 2003 274 110 246 432 Jun 2004 298 129 281 485 Dec 2004 352 147 312 552 Jun 2005 758 227 779 1,270 Dec 2005 820 242 835 1,347 Jun 2006 833 254 814 1,326 Dec 2006 857 279 880 1,394 Jun 2007 857 282 860 1,360 Table 7 Nationwide Number of Providers of High-Speed Lines by Technology (Over 200 kbps in at least one direction) All Other 1 1 All other includes SDSL, traditional wireline, fiber, satellite, fixed and mobile wireless, and power line. Chart 11 Historical Number of Reporting Providers of High-Speed Lines by Technology For data through December 2004, only those providers with at least 250 lines per state were required to file. Some historical data have been revised. 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Jun 2000 Jun 2001 Jun 2002 Jun 2003 Jun 2004 Jun 2005 Jun 2006 Jun 2007 ADSL Cable Modem Total Traditional Cable Fixed Mobile Power Line Total Wireline Modem Wireless Wireless and Other (Unduplicated) Alabama 30 9 16 18 7 * 6 4 * 63 Alaska 9 4 4 * * * 7 * 0 18 American Samoa * * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * Arizona 22 9 17 9 10 * 12 5 0 55 Arkansas 20 8 10 10 6 * * 4 0 44 California 26 17 30 17 14 * 18 * 0 79 Colorado 28 12 15 11 9 * 18 5 0 62 Connecticut 6 8 10 6 6 * 0 4 0 27 Delaware 6 5 11 * * * 0 * 0 23 District of Columbia 9 8 14 * 5 * * * 0 28 Florida 26 14 28 11 12 * 8 4 0 65 Georgia 38 14 24 26 20 * 8 4 0 83 Guam * 0 * 0 0 0 0 0 0 * Hawaii * * 5 * 4 * * * 0 14 Idaho 23 5 13 7 11 * 12 * 0 45 Illinois 57 21 37 17 11 * 40 4 * 121 Indiana 42 13 24 12 17 * 25 * * 84 Iowa 128 41 29 37 24 * 45 6 0 188 Kansas 38 19 12 24 13 * 24 4 0 81 Kentucky 30 9 12 18 11 * 10 4 0 67 Louisiana 22 8 13 10 10 * 6 5 * 50 Maine 14 8 9 5 6 * * * 0 27 Maryland 12 9 16 12 7 * * 4 0 43 Massachusetts 14 10 17 7 6 * * * 0 38 Michigan 41 15 21 12 11 * 15 5 0 74 Minnesota 67 24 19 13 22 * 16 4 0 98 Mississippi 21 4 14 13 5 * * 5 0 47 Missouri 40 20 17 17 11 4 24 4 * 88 Montana 17 7 9 4 5 * 10 * 0 36 Nebraska 34 15 11 15 4 * 21 4 0 65 Nevada 16 9 14 * 6 * 6 4 0 36 New Hampshire 15 9 12 5 5 * * * 0 31 New Jersey 15 11 22 7 8 * * 4 0 41 New Mexico 22 6 7 6 4 * 6 4 0 38 New York 40 15 28 13 12 * 9 * 0 73 North Carolina 33 18 20 13 11 * 8 5 0 65 North Dakota 23 13 12 7 9 * 11 * 0 40 Northern Mariana Isl. * 0 * 0 * 0 * 0 0 * Ohio 40 18 24 19 17 * 16 4 * 86 Oklahoma 40 9 20 10 6 * 17 4 0 72 Oregon 38 9 15 8 12 * 11 * 0 61 Pennsylvania 44 17 30 19 16 * 8 4 0 78 Puerto Rico 4 0 7 * **** 0 14 Rhode Island 9 8 9 * 5 * 0 * 0 20 South Carolina 24 6 18 14 10 * * 4 0 43 South Dakota 25 9 9 8 9 4 8 * 0 43 Tennessee 29 14 15 12 8 * 7 4 0 62 Texas 63 26 33 24 18 * 48 6 0 135 Utah 17 12 9 * 8 * 10 4 0 39 Vermont 12 6 10 **** 0 24 Virgin Islands * * * 0 0 * * * 0 7 Virginia 26 12 23 14 14 * 13 4 * 66 Washington 30 11 19 14 16 * 19 * * 66 West Virginia 11 * 8 7 **** 0 27 Wisconsin 54 17 16 14 11 * 18 4 0 83 Wyoming 12 6 7 * 5 * 8 * 0 30 Nationwide 857 239 244 282 247 5 479 19 6 1,360 Table 8 Providers of High-Speed Lines by Technology as of June 30, 2007 (Over 200 kbps in at least one direction) ADSL SDSL Fiber SatelliteState * Indicates one to three providers. Traditional Cable Fixed Mobile Power Line Wireline Modem Wireless Wireless and Other Alabama 356,732 5,483 10,528 374,029 1,050 * 662 * * 1,117,951 Alaska 63,708 8,673 483 * * * 8,269 * 0 156,187 American Samoa * * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * Arizona 405,724 1,491 12,630 850,307 1,996 * 17,122 * 0 2,192,644 Arkansas 226,842 1,406 3,018 205,349 2,254 * * * 0 528,653 California 4,582,000 32,731 145,031 3,410,983 194,514 * 60,899 * 0 14,446,700 Colorado 529,504 2,810 16,060 560,557 1,285 * 21,864 * 0 1,827,860 Connecticut * 3,414 5,964 513,211 2,860 * 0 * 0 1,546,724 Delaware * 151 1,901 * * * 0 * 0 353,763 District of Columbia * 2,462 2,675 * 704 * * * 0 337,897 Florida 1,960,025 8,186 54,413 2,344,445 * * * * 0 6,349,084 Georgia 1,218,885 6,472 33,415 802,047 2,793 * 3,797 * 0 3,091,055 Guam * 0 * 0 0 0 0 0 0 * Hawaii * * 813 * 329 * * * 0 486,337 Idaho 129,188 340 1,507 116,273 635 * 34,905 * 0 483,049 Illinois 1,299,358 11,815 35,976 1,465,869 21,020 * 28,822 * * 4,305,351 Indiana 566,103 3,855 11,042 410,438 34,449 * 10,834 * * 1,809,728 Iowa 270,101 4,244 3,151 267,712 5,633 * 14,802 * 0 826,096 Kansas 216,800 4,568 5,555 351,371 3,474 * 13,303 * 0 869,111 Kentucky 340,350 4,352 7,208 383,593 2,513 * 2,100 * 0 959,771 Louisiana 306,283 3,693 9,265 446,485 14,266 * 2,171 * * 1,087,384 Maine 106,037 3,179 5,083 169,458 2,684 * * * 0 349,868 Maryland 512,156 9,180 16,776 829,473 * * * * 0 2,172,295 Massachusetts * 6,273 16,986 1,088,170 * * * * 0 2,660,501 Michigan 668,725 4,408 22,575 1,197,105 9,033 * 6,655 * 0 2,966,289 Minnesota 449,452 21,562 7,114 570,448 6,961 * 27,403 * 0 1,578,290 Mississippi 180,281 184 4,645 151,539 623 * * * 0 399,571 Missouri 618,302 5,653 12,129 473,449 4,731 * 7,512 * * 1,564,371 Montana 95,790 2,549 876 74,246 286 * 7,653 * 0 346,230 Nebraska 124,126 3,135 1,081 238,019 527 * 10,866 * 0 537,693 Nevada 207,051 1,565 6,422 * 1,810 * 10,997 * 0 1,059,761 New Hampshire 98,113 2,427 4,908 234,466 * * * * 0 544,115 New Jersey 731,487 5,561 17,592 1,473,709 * * * * 0 4,150,053 New Mexico 179,856 401 1,867 117,336 424 * 2,518 * 0 544,706 New York 1,178,637 22,270 26,764 3,164,178 * * 507 * 0 6,797,126 North Carolina 725,396 24,100 21,531 1,134,075 5,683 * * * 0 2,894,042 North Dakota 51,096 3,288 382 76,353 5,508 * 4,873 * 0 144,994 Northern Mariana Isl. * 0 * 0 * 0 * 0 0 * Ohio 945,096 4,722 18,124 1,405,899 15,876 * 13,573 * * 3,956,535 Oklahoma 301,523 3,109 4,637 347,813 4,241 * 3,324 * 0 780,533 Oregon 338,765 7,844 6,121 489,902 23,118 * 21,293 * 0 1,285,947 Pennsylvania 1,125,794 18,768 18,624 1,271,157 * * 1,214 * 0 4,120,573 Puerto Rico * 0 3,880 * * * * * 0 332,671 Rhode Island * 1,078 1,799 * * * 0 * 0 416,053 South Carolina 322,858 92 12,527 459,110 7,684 * * * 0 1,308,281 South Dakota 45,772 3,895 252 100,903 2,724 * 4,878 * 0 164,627 Tennessee 446,551 912 24,648 662,520 9,890 * 354 * 0 2,036,625 Texas 2,180,827 13,629 37,066 2,081,963 169,821 * 72,403 * 0 6,855,680 Utah 249,683 5,454 3,947 * 1,907 * 21,252 * 0 818,665 Vermont 68,041 936 2,273 * * * * * 0 193,151 Virgin Islands * * * 0 0 * * * 0 16,014 Virginia 547,941 5,052 18,940 906,252 100,609 * 9,507 * * 2,689,907 Washington 569,397 7,688 10,799 862,049 19,849 * 45,664 * * 2,481,537 West Virginia 123,645 * 2,193 155,867 * * * * 0 306,449 Wisconsin 443,296 13,977 15,225 636,675 10,838 * 8,624 * 0 1,459,607 Wyoming 49,933 1,657 190 * 294 * 3,445 * 0 205,711 Nationwide 27,516,171 319,932 708,722 34,408,553 1,402,652 668,803 586,141 35,305,253 5,420 100,921,647 * Data withheld to maintain firm confidentiality. Table 9 High-Speed Lines by Technology as of June 30, 2007 (Over 200 kbps in at least one direction) SDSLADSL Fiber Satellite TotalState 2007 Jun Jun Jun Jun Jun Dec Jun Dec Jun Alabama 86,234 172,365 283,946 350,691 455,300 531,976 615,510 898,850 1,117,951 Alaska 20,906 46,791 61,121 88,076 95,761 109,484 125,005 145,008 156,187 American Samoa 0 0 0 * **** * Arizona 154,883 305,304 441,227 618,677 809,819 1,039,445 1,392,711 1,832,564 2,192,644 Arkansas 40,803 84,061 128,100 188,185 258,270 302,881 363,933 431,530 528,653 California 1,639,921 2,527,275 3,378,373 4,608,822 5,954,876 7,337,217 9,395,265 11,894,864 14,446,700 Colorado 142,295 238,702 338,083 515,081 688,189 882,669 1,165,853 1,489,091 1,827,860 Connecticut 146,266 233,277 364,371 516,039 679,891 807,796 1,024,053 1,262,569 1,546,724 Delaware 12,158 35,941 54,272 74,732 108,554 132,399 157,648 273,734 353,763 District of Columbia 28,861 44,266 58,800 83,213 113,086 139,594 200,221 268,008 337,897 Florida 634,703 1,103,236 1,634,552 2,236,963 2,958,350 3,537,720 4,408,427 5,346,321 6,349,084 Georgia 285,637 494,263 748,016 1,039,440 1,328,956 1,610,750 2,054,171 2,547,165 3,091,055 Guam 0 0 0 * **** * Hawaii * * * * * * 294,612 417,674 486,337 Idaho 20,233 43,119 64,353 99,845 149,023 167,926 202,521 381,283 483,049 Illinois 325,085 525,817 840,632 1,270,907 1,817,481 2,159,932 2,666,304 3,538,857 4,305,351 Indiana 77,617 156,375 233,679 515,812 742,667 922,569 1,191,752 1,417,112 1,809,728 Iowa 72,583 102,932 162,257 229,811 325,701 394,359 446,187 657,102 826,096 Kansas 101,478 149,415 248,405 322,742 419,384 470,287 595,979 728,569 869,111 Kentucky 39,297 90,284 121,594 300,704 408,184 508,198 629,538 774,736 959,771 Louisiana 121,685 207,257 315,682 420,917 536,934 508,009 730,203 892,835 1,087,384 Maine 37,888 61,069 85,212 123,739 176,396 214,599 248,440 306,006 349,868 Maryland 171,423 306,504 458,128 655,588 899,640 1,120,826 1,492,484 1,813,960 2,172,295 Massachusetts 342,643 566,796 802,423 1,004,229 1,213,640 1,431,925 1,811,845 2,243,742 2,660,501 Michigan 389,441 531,524 729,113 946,819 1,336,312 1,557,918 1,917,892 2,430,869 2,966,289 Minnesota 143,819 269,433 394,982 561,411 716,826 855,752 1,057,576 1,312,900 1,578,290 Mississippi 21,185 57,168 95,628 139,429 191,675 219,552 262,671 332,307 399,571 Missouri 120,863 220,477 362,040 537,343 704,273 811,837 1,016,732 1,275,123 1,564,371 Montana 10,446 17,969 28,023 57,650 90,583 112,662 139,946 264,121 346,230 Nebraska 55,188 92,849 141,172 199,282 253,968 305,120 355,013 470,118 537,693 Nevada 78,076 137,407 209,028 290,518 401,932 474,019 614,151 792,950 1,059,761 New Hampshire 55,241 85,697 118,304 168,000 236,817 268,128 302,957 443,207 544,115 New Jersey 394,198 654,235 924,835 1,194,557 1,605,301 1,989,803 2,654,674 3,392,607 4,150,053 New Mexico 20,099 44,462 71,355 115,147 174,534 204,054 252,361 422,964 544,706 New York 811,386 1,364,556 1,891,457 2,349,956 3,067,983 3,660,500 4,854,803 5,669,523 6,797,126 North Carolina 205,100 461,378 680,828 965,761 1,222,648 1,482,930 1,914,822 2,366,079 2,894,042 North Dakota 6,277 14,164 25,474 39,274 86,274 96,314 108,476 131,348 144,994 Northern Mariana Isl. 0 0 0 0 0 * * * * Ohio 354,258 575,756 817,020 1,152,300 1,601,981 1,932,269 2,461,379 3,200,543 3,956,535 Oklahoma 90,147 148,006 231,106 331,605 444,777 502,984 569,398 657,940 780,533 Oregon 91,457 197,778 316,300 437,040 558,489 688,487 860,385 1,060,386 1,285,947 Pennsylvania 249,119 501,950 755,947 1,123,876 1,578,981 1,999,118 2,646,898 3,374,313 4,120,573 Puerto Rico * * 32,063 43,091 66,484 118,268 169,917 251,163 332,671 Rhode Island 48,258 71,463 104,444 141,981 185,415 221,901 276,141 349,994 416,053 South Carolina 96,839 175,088 262,868 354,877 464,315 549,019 646,344 1,041,762 1,308,281 South Dakota 5,448 12,555 22,016 34,026 112,506 124,243 138,621 154,738 164,627 Tennessee 151,706 293,516 413,476 534,597 682,369 847,025 1,153,432 1,574,022 2,036,625 Texas 614,704 1,015,245 1,571,250 2,203,490 2,943,487 3,467,504 4,357,437 5,554,547 6,855,680 Utah 54,005 92,623 133,467 196,590 259,150 313,854 471,137 638,618 818,665 Vermont 16,230 29,990 39,773 56,033 82,279 95,901 108,622 170,245 193,151 Virgin Islands * * * * 2,183 2,967 7,226 11,139 16,014 Virginia 202,663 348,716 553,635 817,881 1,117,591 1,367,465 1,792,817 2,197,693 2,689,907 Washington 227,066 422,348 577,378 775,027 1,000,412 1,219,631 1,575,375 2,015,564 2,481,537 West Virginia 16,697 58,209 90,173 127,283 178,323 205,984 245,669 268,746 306,449 Wisconsin 127,172 256,735 401,565 564,670 731,934 859,114 1,034,646 1,253,335 1,459,607 Wyoming * 10,990 17,507 35,464 55,905 70,574 83,086 156,940 205,711 Nationwide 9,241,996 15,787,647 22,995,444 31,950,574 42,517,810 51,218,145 65,270,912 82,809,845 100,921,647 Some historical data have been revised. 2006 Table 10 High-Speed Lines by State (Over 200 kbps in at least one direction) * Data withheld to maintain firm confidentiality. 2003 20042001 2002 State 2005 2005 2007 Jun Jun Jun Jun Jun Dec Jun Dec Jun Alabama * 45,350 70,639 112,059 177,196 220,657 268,970 314,640 356,732 Alaska * 11,337 14,013 20,686 38,530 43,249 53,687 60,055 63,708 American Samoa 0 0 0 0 * * * * * Arizona 39,828 68,280 77,368 108,735 152,937 207,727 276,261 365,228 405,724 Arkansas * 28,477 44,801 80,981 127,445 149,878 180,883 200,129 226,842 California 735,677 1,214,543 1,715,998 2,342,186 3,078,824 3,592,220 4,001,529 4,342,556 4,582,000 Colorado 52,617 100,197 126,189 201,523 268,114 333,313 404,989 473,148 529,504 Connecticut 30,142 61,093 124,742 204,034 * * * * * Delaware * * * 10,572 * * * * * District of Columbia 16,313 28,723 39,471 44,231 * * * * * Florida 170,702 391,188 644,621 928,402 1,284,507 1,509,104 1,722,888 1,873,271 1,960,025 Georgia 106,649 237,922 368,372 535,088 757,720 890,128 1,008,705 1,126,082 1,218,885 Guam 0 0 0 * * * * * * Hawaii * * * * * * * * * Idaho * 16,108 19,382 35,166 62,691 81,520 97,662 113,001 129,188 Illinois 89,080 195,560 363,733 588,906 847,522 979,709 1,094,088 1,211,763 1,299,358 Indiana 2,375 36,685 85,968 179,942 304,800 379,465 443,473 515,054 566,103 Iowa 9,532 18,751 39,386 65,580 118,777 150,890 189,178 233,039 270,101 Kansas * 28,713 50,839 88,246 136,402 159,996 179,430 202,751 216,800 Kentucky 20,256 55,454 75,316 119,709 180,324 213,131 250,715 303,296 340,350 Louisiana 37,444 73,120 100,919 136,406 190,603 207,488 235,750 270,811 306,283 Maine 6,877 * 11,052 31,577 52,032 72,709 89,964 104,780 106,037 Maryland 51,051 95,439 126,873 192,139 305,677 379,316 450,019 489,553 512,156 Massachusetts 82,699 147,139 207,344 253,576 * * * * * Michigan 41,428 80,588 135,360 236,310 374,861 463,373 533,835 606,616 668,725 Minnesota 51,640 86,184 115,244 159,137 227,988 276,439 330,736 394,686 449,452 Mississippi * * 33,650 52,892 88,252 105,874 128,585 154,179 180,281 Missouri 53,250 84,642 138,046 233,916 341,618 398,671 468,334 545,679 618,302 Montana 2,842 7,108 13,119 28,238 46,786 57,300 70,471 82,876 95,790 Nebraska 9,293 11,547 18,285 35,180 66,268 81,188 95,404 112,032 124,126 Nevada * 24,073 47,934 74,879 116,395 139,938 168,086 190,202 207,051 New Hampshire 5,651 11,781 17,823 31,843 54,233 71,689 85,247 93,589 98,113 New Jersey 102,430 172,472 211,540 301,789 443,808 540,382 638,293 703,950 731,487 New Mexico 7,578 18,224 26,948 51,375 82,062 105,210 130,998 156,620 179,856 New York 197,135 338,229 438,241 536,980 736,769 861,452 1,002,972 1,103,960 1,178,637 North Carolina 41,332 89,680 161,642 264,248 412,991 488,533 561,102 648,001 725,396 North Dakota * 6,575 11,593 19,412 26,841 32,000 38,729 46,346 51,096 Northern Mariana Isl. 0 * * * * Ohio 87,567 151,612 243,689 369,386 555,749 663,011 752,633 858,846 945,096 Oklahoma 31,321 50,617 78,248 129,996 189,496 222,048 246,899 277,282 301,523 Oregon 25,877 68,747 95,654 142,483 197,927 244,694 280,286 311,604 338,765 Pennsylvania 89,595 162,258 230,322 346,720 541,274 692,079 871,164 1,012,845 1,125,794 Puerto Rico * * * * * * * * * Rhode Island * * * * * * * * * South Carolina 9,704 26,184 52,667 98,583 154,666 205,529 242,548 284,892 322,858 South Dakota 1,652 4,389 8,637 15,230 20,632 26,168 32,763 39,684 45,772 Tennessee 22,902 57,984 92,777 147,922 237,180 293,915 348,344 396,928 446,551 Texas 197,668 368,796 597,447 930,997 1,300,681 1,513,639 1,733,423 1,997,483 2,180,827 Utah 23,476 47,637 65,648 95,656 129,607 160,313 189,240 222,307 249,683 Vermont * 9,409 15,072 22,519 35,281 43,934 51,382 61,441 68,041 Virgin Islands * * * * * * * * * Virginia 39,114 75,524 114,797 196,568 308,947 384,243 446,448 505,285 547,941 Washington 64,812 172,652 225,377 300,804 363,796 427,451 491,409 533,668 569,397 West Virginia * * * * 53,292 69,390 86,507 104,637 123,645 Wisconsin 17,800 42,052 84,100 159,167 243,370 298,111 359,530 417,510 443,296 Wyoming * * 5,503 13,510 23,769 33,030 38,541 44,347 49,933 Nationwide 2,693,834 5,101,493 7,675,114 11,398,199 16,316,309 19,515,483 22,584,255 25,412,883 27,516,171 Some historical data have been revised. 2006 Table 11 ADSL High-Speed Lines by State (Over 200 kbps in at least one direction) * Data withheld to maintain firm confidentiality. 2003 20042001 2002 State 2007 Jun Jun Jun Jun Jun Dec Jun Dec Jun Alabama 47,325 104,990 181,338 206,208 257,225 285,177 310,548 342,340 374,029 Alaska 0 * * * * * * * * American Samoa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Arizona * 194,431 319,272 457,869 583,897 679,284 761,419 838,455 850,307 Arkansas * * * 95,528 117,953 137,105 148,940 183,503 205,349 California 609,174 1,013,503 1,395,435 1,929,080 2,467,232 2,734,659 2,956,932 3,155,718 3,410,983 Colorado * * 181,766 280,909 383,154 433,184 476,463 523,159 560,557 Connecticut 106,019 160,913 227,658 299,176 372,346 403,723 441,092 454,348 513,211 Delaware * * * * * * * * * District of Columbia * * * * * * * * * Florida 372,190 595,806 867,513 1,171,641 1,559,592 1,757,875 1,939,409 2,178,484 2,344,445 Georgia 109,922 183,886 289,922 407,038 522,800 583,884 649,583 742,552 802,047 Guam 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hawaii * * * * * * * * * Idaho * * * * 78,185 73,528 75,185 108,595 116,273 Illinois 144,872 242,394 383,069 589,025 841,737 955,518 1,042,272 1,332,023 1,465,869 Indiana 56,441 98,414 122,338 304,866 397,481 445,420 490,020 370,200 410,438 Iowa 59,253 77,592 111,748 151,299 186,821 219,803 225,190 234,266 267,712 Kansas 74,337 111,615 181,437 209,233 258,856 272,660 316,866 320,638 351,371 Kentucky * 12,867 23,672 154,567 217,302 269,274 306,487 333,339 383,593 Louisiana 64,219 115,198 189,920 257,405 328,675 254,819 378,613 419,735 446,485 Maine * * * * 116,203 132,075 145,831 152,291 169,458 Maryland 97,466 181,864 306,442 433,754 546,576 592,283 637,405 781,120 829,473 Massachusetts 243,670 391,391 564,961 704,956 826,351 885,578 954,812 1,044,333 1,088,170 Michigan 301,842 402,642 543,336 656,263 891,842 953,786 1,019,338 1,103,040 1,197,105 Minnesota 80,259 166,323 255,988 358,477 440,726 493,783 518,063 541,116 570,448 Mississippi * 27,872 50,234 72,271 95,805 104,363 114,140 135,965 151,539 Missouri 51,733 110,026 191,658 266,493 323,270 353,331 400,808 444,118 473,449 Montana * * * 22,856 35,625 45,442 54,056 65,238 74,246 Nebraska 37,168 73,306 111,903 142,555 177,074 200,600 218,335 239,465 238,019 Nevada * * * * * * * * * New Hampshire * * 95,612 129,024 176,033 188,212 201,873 209,781 234,466 New Jersey * 454,750 690,620 862,834 1,107,751 1,205,182 1,312,433 1,385,953 1,473,709 New Mexico * * 38,004 56,369 78,035 89,003 100,157 108,906 117,336 New York 564,423 967,949 1,401,322 1,752,189 2,216,153 2,444,565 2,765,476 2,967,028 3,164,178 North Carolina 115,949 313,884 454,272 623,414 762,203 861,990 963,651 1,040,513 1,134,075 North Dakota * * 10,066 14,428 50,781 54,772 57,722 70,878 76,353 Northern Mariana Isl. 0 0 0 0 0 Ohio 213,606 363,675 508,458 709,145 961,119 1,064,948 1,184,924 1,303,470 1,405,899 Oklahoma * * * * 233,993 261,585 284,184 312,500 347,813 Oregon * * 197,794 262,513 335,847 375,351 407,195 452,517 489,902 Pennsylvania 131,119 300,840 482,471 724,101 962,149 1,074,912 1,164,080 1,255,720 1,271,157 Puerto Rico 0 0 * * * * * * * Rhode Island * * * * * * * * * South Carolina 68,487 126,598 185,083 228,648 290,233 326,370 368,338 417,584 459,110 South Dakota * * 9,156 12,114 83,667 88,812 92,860 100,155 100,903 Tennessee 96,119 199,121 277,579 340,883 422,063 460,235 506,143 601,889 662,520 Texas 328,900 577,233 888,595 1,162,797 1,467,804 1,617,513 1,692,433 1,944,069 2,081,963 Utah * * * * * * * * * Vermont * * * * * * * * * Virgin Islands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Virginia 131,553 238,300 404,616 579,580 748,694 817,100 892,955 877,235 906,252 Washington * 217,644 313,915 426,487 585,125 660,159 725,832 806,126 862,049 West Virginia * 48,858 73,263 97,463 117,538 128,133 145,450 144,569 155,867 Wisconsin * 189,585 287,519 371,106 446,840 497,262 542,881 591,981 636,675 Wyoming * * * * * * * * * Nationwide 5,184,141 9,172,895 13,684,225 18,592,636 24,017,442 26,558,206 29,174,494 31,981,705 34,408,553 Some historical data have been revised. * Data withheld to maintain firm confidentiality. 20062001 2002 State 2003 2005 Table 12 Coaxial Cable High-Speed Lines by State (Over 200 kbps in at least one direction) 2004 State Residential Business Total Alabama 718,686 399,265 1,117,951 Alaska 132,870 23,317 156,187 American Samoa *** Arizona 1,333,095 859,549 2,192,644 Arkansas 459,257 69,396 528,653 California 8,727,780 5,718,920 14,446,700 Colorado 1,162,337 665,523 1,827,860 Connecticut 974,624 572,100 1,546,724 Delaware 200,239 153,524 353,763 District of Columbia 163,968 173,929 337,897 Florida 4,548,288 1,800,796 6,349,084 Georgia 2,022,505 1,068,550 3,091,055 Guam *** Hawaii 306,910 179,427 486,337 Idaho 275,666 207,383 483,049 Illinois 2,943,747 1,361,604 4,305,351 Indiana 1,054,016 755,712 1,809,728 Iowa 531,037 295,059 826,096 Kansas 642,058 227,053 869,111 Kentucky 722,888 236,883 959,771 Louisiana 810,519 276,865 1,087,384 Maine 270,313 79,555 349,868 Maryland 1,516,557 655,738 2,172,295 Massachusetts 1,705,007 955,494 2,660,501 Michigan 1,954,325 1,011,964 2,966,289 Minnesota 1,052,320 525,970 1,578,290 Mississippi 325,461 74,110 399,571 Missouri 1,195,717 368,654 1,564,371 Montana 166,819 179,411 346,230 Nebraska 370,930 166,763 537,693 Nevada 736,004 323,757 1,059,761 New Hampshire 342,189 201,926 544,115 New Jersey 2,361,052 1,789,001 4,150,053 New Mexico 307,519 237,187 544,706 New York 4,590,879 2,206,247 6,797,126 North Carolina 1,877,677 1,016,365 2,894,042 North Dakota 129,193 15,801 144,994 Northern Mariana Isl. *** Ohio 2,409,776 1,546,759 3,956,535 Oklahoma 681,017 99,516 780,533 Oregon 886,110 399,837 1,285,947 Pennsylvania 2,505,015 1,615,558 4,120,573 Puerto Rico 275,840 56,831 332,671 Rhode Island 258,772 157,281 416,053 South Carolina 761,919 546,362 1,308,281 South Dakota 145,375 19,252 164,627 Tennessee 1,121,831 914,794 2,036,625 Texas 4,995,235 1,860,445 6,855,680 Utah 454,577 364,088 818,665 Vermont 118,146 75,005 193,151 Virgin Islands 14,697 1,317 16,014 Virginia 1,616,838 1,073,069 2,689,907 Washington 1,525,681 955,856 2,481,537 West Virginia 275,845 30,604 306,449 Wisconsin 1,119,172 340,435 1,459,607 Wyoming 101,092 104,619 205,711 Nationwide 65,904,499 35,017,148 100,921,647 * Data withheld to maintain firm confidentiality. Table 13 High-Speed Lines by Type of End User as of June 30, 2007 (Over 200 kbps in at least one direction) xDSL Availability Where Cable Modem Availability Where State ILECs Offer Local Telephone Service Cable Systems Offer Cable TV Service Alabama 75% 92% Alaska 76% * American Samoa *0% Arizona 82% 99% Arkansas 75% 73% California 89% 98% Colorado 87% 96% Connecticut * 100% Delaware * * District of Columbia * * Florida 89% 97% Georgia 91% 90% Guam *0% Hawaii * * Idaho 76% 99% Illinois 83% 98% Indiana 79% 94% Iowa 85% 89% Kansas 83% 91% Kentucky 87% 90% Louisiana 79% 96% Maine 68% 93% Maryland 75% 99% Massachusetts * 99% Michigan 72% 98% Minnesota 85% 94% Mississippi 72% 91% Missouri 79% 97% Montana 78% 88% Nebraska 88% 94% Nevada 90% * New Hampshire 61% 99% New Jersey 87% 100% New Mexico 78% 77% New York 77% 99% North Carolina 85% 96% North Dakota 88% 83% Northern Mariana Isl. * 0% Ohio 84% 98% Oklahoma 80% 90% Oregon 83% 95% Pennsylvania 83% 94% Puerto Rico * * Rhode Island ** South Carolina 79% 93% South Dakota 78% 73% Tennessee 81% 96% Texas 79% 96% Utah 87% * Vermont 66% * Virgin Islands * 0% Virginia 66% 95% Washington 82% 96% West Virginia 73% 85% Wisconsin 81% 96% Wyoming 80% * Nationwide 82% 96% * Data withheld to maintain firm confidentiality. xDSL includes both asymmetric and symmetric DSL. Each state-specific estimate is a weighted average of the availability percentages that ILECs or cable system operators report for the areas they serve. Reported xDSL availability is weighted by ILEC end-user switched access lines. Reported cable modem availability is weighted by cable TV subscribers. The weighted averages include ILECs or cable system operators that report no availability. Revised on March 20, 2008 Table 14 Percentage of Residential End-User Premises with Access to High-Speed Services as of June 30, 2007 Number of Providers Zero 33.0 % 26.8 % 22.2 % 20.6 % 16.1 % 12.0 % 9.0 % 6.8 % 5.7 % 4.6 % 2.0 % 1.0 % 0.7 % 0.4 % 0.1 % One 25.9 22.7 20.3 19.3 18.4 17.3 16.4 14.9 13.8 12.5 9.3 5.6 3.7 2.4 0.9 Two 17.8 18.4 16.7 15.7 16.2 16.8 16.9 17.1 16.8 16.3 14.1 11.9 8.2 5.7 3.5 Three 9.2 10.9 13.2 13.1 13.3 14.4 14.0 14.9 14.9 15.1 15.0 14.8 11.3 8.9 7.0 Four 4.9 6.1 8.2 9.1 9.6 10.3 10.6 11.2 11.6 12.2 12.6 13.5 12.9 11.4 11.1 Five 3.4 4.0 4.9 6.1 6.9 7.3 7.7 7.8 8.4 8.9 9.7 10.3 12.2 12.5 13.6 Six 2.5 3.0 3.6 4.2 4.6 5.0 5.3 5.8 6.1 6.3 6.8 7.8 10.4 11.7 13.0 Seven 1.7 2.3 2.8 3.2 3.2 3.9 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.6 5.3 5.7 8.7 10.0 11.6 Eight 0.8 2.0 2.2 2.5 2.8 2.7 3.1 3.3 3.6 3.6 4.0 4.6 7.1 8.3 9.1 Nine 0.4 1.6 1.9 2.0 2.4 2.2 2.5 2.6 2.8 3.1 3.8 4.0 5.8 6.7 7.4 Ten or More 0.4 2.4 3.9 4.0 6.4 8.0 10.5 11.4 11.8 12.8 17.5 20.7 19.1 22.0 22.7 For data through December 2004, only those providers with at least 250 lines per state were required to file. Figures may not add up to 100% due to rounding. 1 Table 15 Percentage of Zip Codes with High-Speed Lines in Service Chart 12 Percent of Zip Codes with High-Speed Providers 2000 Dec 2001 2002 2004 Jun 2005 Jun Jun 2003 DecDec DecJun Dec 2007 JunDec 2006 JunJun DecJun 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% J un 2 000 J un 2 001 J un 2 002 J un 2 003 J un 2 004 J un 2 005 J un 2 006 J un 2 007 One or More Providers Four or More Providers Technology Zero One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight Nine Ten or More ADSL 15.4 37.7 19.9 10.9 7.2 4.4 2.3 1.4 0.7 0.2 0.1 SDSL 59.9 20.6 6.8 4.9 3.7 2.6 1.1 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 Cable Modem 34.1 56.6 8.6 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Fiber 57.4 24.2 10.5 5.3 2.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Satellite 8.0 26.8 42.8 22.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Fixed Wireless 74.7 19.3 5.0 0.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mobile Wireless 4.1 23.7 39.0 29.3 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Power Line and/or Other 1 80.3 16.3 2.9 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ADSL and/or Cable Modem 10.4 23.7 22.0 15.8 10.3 7.3 4.8 2.7 1.7 0.8 0.4 All Technologies 0.1 0.9 3.5 7.0 11.1 13.6 13.0 11.6 9.1 7.4 22.7 Figures may not add up to 100% due to rounding. 1 Other includes high-speed lines provided over traditional wireline facilities such as T-carrier and also lines provided over any technology that is not specified in the table. Table 16 Percentage of Zip Codes with High-Speed Lines in Service by Technology as of June 30, 2007 Number of Providers Alabama 0 % 0 % 2 % 6 % 10 % 15 % 15 % 13 % 10 % 10 % 18 % Alaska 0 15 40 20 13612200 Arizona 000151210910846 Arkansas 003920488665 California 001511077884 Colorado 0014741513853 Connecticut 000171 720131315 Delaware 00031002619092 District of Columbia 0008400001276 Florida 00001259903 Georgia 0013813151377 Hawaii 0 0 2 10 10 17 13 17 19 10 2 Idaho 0 0 1 10 14 25 16 11 7 4 10 Illinois 0029131715108719 Indiana 003606 51384 Iowa 0 3 10 14 16 17 12 10738 Kansas 0 0 5 12 14 15 11 10 7 8 17 Kentucky 0 4 16 15 13 12 119658 Louisiana 00149188138624 Maine 1 5 10 18 15 19 13 11430 Maryland 002412181096434 Massachusetts 00117 814972 Michigan 0003611551398 Minnesota 0 0 3 12 16 15 10 10 8 5 21 Mississippi 003614201598718 Missouri 0 2 5 12 15 17 13987 Montana 0027282858634 Nebraska 00161 1913777 Nevada 0003016035934 New Hampshire 00111282522759 New Jersey 00003511131242 New Mexico 002515172506515 New York 0026341129720 North Carolina 000361025113 North Dakota 0 4 26 31 24831101 Ohio 000127120191426 Oklahoma 0148171731 081 Oregon 013954119792 Pennsylvania 01371134131070 Puerto Rico 00136 362459 Rhode Island 00177151215141416 South Carolina 000269 3223 South Dakota 0 4 23 24 19 1284222 Tennessee 0146941119827 Texas 00125824131035 Utah 0032916151372 Vermont 000921546897 Virginia 0015 11141072 Washington 0014122 08636 West Virginia 2 11 18 20 17 1294331 Wisconsin 00130620181 716 Wyoming 0 0 1 12 18 17 25 11754 Nationwide 0 % 1 % 4 % 7 % 11 % 14 % 13 % 12 % 9 % 7 % 23 % Zero One Two Three Ten or Four Five Six Seven Eight Nine More Table 17 Percentage of Zip Codes with High-Speed Lines in Service as of June 30, 2007 (Over 200 kbps in at least one direction) Number of Providers Jun 2003 More Than 3,147 98.1 % 98.7 % 98.9 % 98.9 % 99.3 % 99.4 % 99.7 99.9 % 99.8 % 100.0 % 99.9 % 100.0 % 99.9 % 99.9 947-3,147 97.1 98.2 98.2 98.5 99.0 99.5 99.6 99.8 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 268-947 95.6 97.5 98.4 98.5 99.2 99.4 99.7 99.5 99.9 99.9 99.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 118-268 92.3 95.2 96.9 97.7 98.8 99.2 99.3 98.8 99.5 99.7 99.8 99.9 99.8 99.9 67-118 87.5 93.0 96.4 97.6 98.6 98.8 99.0 96.8 98.5 99.4 99.6 99.8 99.8 99.7 41-67 80.9 88.0 93.8 96.4 98.2 98.9 99.4 93.0 96.3 98.5 99.1 99.4 99.5 99.6 25-41 72.8 81.0 90.4 94.3 97.6 98.4 99.0 87.3 92.2 96.9 98.2 99.2 99.4 99.5 15-25 58.9 70.0 83.3 88.5 95.7 97.1 98.1 78.4 86.5 93.3 95.6 98.6 98.9 99.2 6-15 51.1 60.9 77.3 83.5 93.7 96.5 97.7 74.6 81.9 90.3 93.8 97.7 98.5 98.9 Fewer Than 6 36.8 49.6 68.5 73.4 84.3 89.3 90.5 60.7 72.6 85.7 91.1 95.1 96.6 96.9 Jun 2003 $53,494 to $291,938 96.4 % 97.9 % 98.5 % 98.7 % 99.0 % 99.3 % 99.4 99.8 % 99.9 % 99.9 % 99.8 % 99.8 % 99.8 % 99.8 $43,617 to $53,478 90.7 93.5 96.2 97.2 98.4 98.9 99.1 99.3 99.7 99.8 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 $38,396 to $43,614 83.8 89.0 94.0 95.9 98.1 98.9 99.1 98.5 99.0 99.6 99.8 99.9 99.9 99.9 $34,744 to $38,395 80.0 85.0 91.5 94.2 97.4 98.6 98.7 97.9 98.7 99.3 99.7 99.8 99.8 99.9 $32,122 to $34,743 77.3 83.3 90.2 93.0 97.2 98.4 98.8 97.4 98.4 99.2 99.5 99.8 99.9 99.9 $29,893 to $32,121 73.4 80.4 89.9 92.5 97.1 98.3 98.9 96.3 97.7 99.1 99.3 99.7 99.8 99.8 $27,542 to $29,892 73.5 79.7 89.2 92.5 96.7 97.9 98.6 95.9 97.5 98.9 99.3 99.7 99.7 99.8 $24,855 to $27,541 69.6 77.2 87.1 90.9 96.3 97.8 98.6 95.2 97.0 98.5 99.0 99.6 99.6 99.8 $21,645 to $24,855 67.4 76.9 87.4 91.2 95.9 97.8 98.5 93.9 96.5 98.5 99.1 99.6 99.7 99.7 $0 to $21,644 59.1 69.2 78.3 81.3 88.3 90.6 92.0 94.1 96.3 98.1 98.8 99.3 99.5 99.5 1 Persons per square mile and median household income are presented in decile groups. Each decile group contains 10% of the reported geographic Zip Codes for which the demographic information, as of the year 2000, is available in Demographic Power Pack, Current Year Update (2000), MapInfo Corporation. Jun 2006 Jun 2006 Median Household Income 1 Jun 2005 Jun 2002 Jun 2004 Jun 2005Jun 2001 Jun 2001 Jun 2007 Jun 2005Jun 2004 Percentage of Zip Codes with at Least One High-Speed Subscriber Percentage of Zip Codes with at Least One High-Speed Subscriber Percentage of Population that Resides in Zip Codes with High-Speed Service Percentage of Population that Resides in Zip Codes with High-Speed Service High-Speed Subscribership Ranked by Household Income Jun 2001 Jun 2003 Table 19 Persons per Square Mile 1 Table 18 High-Speed Subscribership Ranked by Population Density Jun 2001 Jun 2003 Jun 2002 Jun 2004 Jun 2007Jun 2006 Jun 2002 Jun 2007 Jun 2002 Jun 2007Jun 2005Jun 2004 Jun 2006 Customer Response Publication: High-Speed Services for Internet Access: Status as of June 30, 2007 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 Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-88 42 STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN KEVIN J. MARTIN Re: Development of Nationwide Broadband Data to Evaluate Reasonable and Timely Deployment of Advanced Services to All Americans, Improvement of Wireless Broadband Subscribership Data, and Development of Data on Interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) Subscribership, WC Docket No. 07-38 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, GN Docket No. 07-45 Since becoming Chairman, I have made broadband deployment the Commission’s top priority. Broadband technology is a key driver of economic growth. The ability to share increasing amounts of information at greater and greater speeds, increases productivity, facilitates interstate commerce, and helps drive innovation. But perhaps most important, broadband has the potential to affect almost every aspect of our lives – from where we work, to how we educate our children and increasingly to the way healthcare is delivered. Continued broadband deployment and infrastructure investment is vital to this country’s economic growth. The Commission has developed a number of policies to encourage the deployment of broadband. We have removed regulatory obstacles that discouraged infrastructure investment and slowed deployment. We have classified DSL, BPL and Wireless broadband as “information services” not subject to legacy regulations. We have streamlined the franchise process for new entrants and incumbent cable providers and banned exclusive contracts in apartment buildings to spur competition that is essential to further investment in underlying infrastructure for broadband. We initiated a nationwide pilot program for the deployment of broadband infrastructure for healthcare facilities. We have also just completed the largest auction in FCC history of spectrum that is ideally suited to broadband. The United States is the largest broadband market in the world and our newest report finds continued growth. During the first half of 2007, high speed lines increased by 22 percent, from over 82 million to over 100 million lines. Since I joined the Commission, these lines have grown 950% from just over 9 million lines to over 100 million lines. Our analysis indicates that more than 99% of the country’s population lives in the more than 99% of Zip Codes where a provider reports having at least one high- speed service subscriber. Additionally, nationwide, we estimate that high-speed DSL connections were available to 82% of the households to whom ILECs provide local phone service as of the end of June 2007. High-speed cable modem service was available to 96% of the households to whom cable operators provide cable TV service. This is good news for consumers and good news for the country. Accordingly, I support the conclusion in the Section 706 report that broadband services are currently being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion. But there is certainly more work to be done. That is why I am pleased the Commission today adopts an Order to collect dramatically improved data on broadband services. This improved data will enable us to better identify and analyze the deployment of broadband throughout the nation. Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-88 43 As the importance of broadband continues to increase, it is important that we understand better how and where broadband is being deployed by providers and used by consumers. Today’s Order will require detailed subscribership information on a local level and detailed information about the download and upload speeds of broadband services offered to consumers. Specifically, we will collect information in the following tiers of service: o First Generation data: 200k up to 768k o Basic Broadband : 768k to 1.5mbps o 1.5mbps to 3.0mbps o 3.0mbps to 6.0 mbps o 6.0mbps and above Additionally, we conclude that we will obtain and map additional information about broadband service availability to better direct resources toward unserved and underserved areas. Armed with this additional broadband data, the Commission will be better able to assess and promote the deployment of broadband across the nation. I am pleased that the Commission, by its actions today, continues to take additional steps to further broadband deployment. Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-88 44 DISSENTING 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, GN Docket No. 07-45 It’s no secret to most people here that I have not been leading the cheers for previous editions of our Section 706 reports. Based on a paucity of data – mostly primitive and generally-unhelpful – these reports claim progress that simply did not reflect reality. The data lacked a plausible definition of broadband, employed stunningly meaningless zip code measurements concerning its geographic distribution, ignored the prices people paid for broadband completely, and for years failed to look at what other countries were doing to get broadband deployed to their people. As I noted the last time we issued a section 706 Report, way back in September 2004: “America’s competitors around the world are implementing comprehensive broadband plans. Countries like Japan, Korea, and Canada have left us far behind. This is unacceptable. Broadband is our central infrastructure challenge. High-capacity networks are to the Twenty-first century what roads, canals and railroads were to the Nineteenth and highways and basic telecommunications were to the Twentieth. Our economy and our future will be driven by how quickly and completely we deploy broadband. That is why Congress charged the FCC with promoting broadband deployment for all Americans—whether they live in rural areas, inner cities or tribal lands; whether they are affluent or of limited income; whether they live with or without disabilities. Recently, we heard an announcement from the very top of our government that our goal is universal broadband access by 2007. But we are not making acceptable progress toward that goal. Yes, there are good stories in these glossy pages. Schools and libraries enjoy broadband access like never before. New technologies offer new promise. Strides are being made in some rural communities. Companies are working hard. Still, one glaring fact stands out: the United States is ranked eleventh in the world in broadband penetration! [Note: we’ve fallen to 15th in the interim.] This Report somehow finds that this is acceptable, and that our efforts are resulting in timely deployment.” I could continue with the rest of my 2004 statement and it would sound as eerily applicable today as these first few paragraphs do. We can write reports that conclude that Americans are receiving broadband in a reasonable and timely fashion. But the facts are always there, glaring and staring us in the face, showing us where we really stand. The fact is that your country and mine has never had any cognizable national broadband strategy to get the job done. So while broadband deployment is better than when I came to the FCC—I would surely hope so!—and the Commission may separately issue a report today showing improvements in broadband deployment, we’ve been working with one hand tied behind our backs, inhibited by the Commission’s dependence on antiquated methodologies and less than rigorous analysis. I'm happy we're starting to change our benchmarks, but, my goodness, how late it is! Just consider the fact that our international competitors deploy 25, 50 and 100 mbps broadband speeds at fractions of what it costs here in the United States. If consumers in Los Angeles or Washington Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-88 45 pay $40 per month for a 6 mbps connection while those in London or Tokyo pay multiples less for 50 or 100 mbps, just think of the costs and competition burdens this puts on American consumers and businesses. Surely broadband has created many good new jobs in the United States. But, you know—and I haven’t seen any statistics on this—it wouldn’t surprise me that our lack of a real broadband strategy has helped out-source tens of thousands of jobs, probably more, rather than keeping them right here at home. Again, I don’t know that this is true, but the fact that we can even raise such a question ought to scare us all. So we should not be watching from the sidelines, letting the marketplace—still largely a cable- telco duopoly in most places—take its course. A national broadband strategy should include government and the private sector working together as it has always done to meet the great infrastructure challenges of the day. It means redefining the mission of Universal Service in the 21st century to mean broadband, just as Universal Service meant telephone service in the 20th century. It means incentives to build infrastructure, something we always managed to do in our nation’s past but where we seem strangely reluctant to act when it comes to this perhaps most awesome-ever technology. We should be taking closer looks at and learning from the successes and failures of our global competitors. And we should be looking within our own borders to tap into the creative ideas being generated to meet the broadband needs of the Digital Age. I think we can get there but we’re going to have to do more than just issue self-satisfied reports and set high-minded goals. Until universal, affordable broadband is a top priority for the country no report will be able to mask the work still yet to be done. Hopefully the steps we take on broadband data- gathering in another item before us today will provide the basis for a better Section 706 Report next time around. But that is then, this is now, and I must respectfully dissent from this particular Report. Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-88 46 DISSENTING 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, GN Docket No. 07-45. In Section 706 of the 1996 Act, Congress wisely directed this Commission to conduct regular inquiries into the status of broadband deployment. Today, we take up the Commission’s first report in four years on this important topic. Given the ever-increasing importance of broadband to our country’s economy, public safety, education, and health care, I have long argued that the Commission should engage in a comprehensive analysis of broadband deployment, availability, affordability, and competitiveness. Regrettably, this report, like its predecessor in 2004, fails to set out an adequate basis for concluding that broadband is being deployed in a reasonable and timely basis to all Americans, which is our directive under the statute. Instead, this report repeats past shortcomings, relies on faulty data, and fails to present a clear picture of broadband in America. Yes, more people have adopted broadband in recent years. But they have adopted broadband faster in other countries with which we compete. Just because a car speeds up doesn’t mean it wins the race, especially if other cars speed up faster. This report fails to admit that while we have improved, other countries have improved at a faster rate, so we are actually falling behind. Since our 2004 report, it has become increasingly apparent that one of America’s central challenges is promoting the widespread deployment of higher-bandwidth broadband facilities to carry the vast array of innovative services that are transforming virtually every aspect of the way we communicate, and to make sure that these facilities are affordable for consumers. We stand at the forefront of a revolution in the applications that will ride over this infrastructure. They are reshaping the way we work, educate our children, provide health care to our citizens, govern, practice democracy, and interact with one another. These are tools that can play a crucial role in driving our economic growth, enhancing public safety, and revitalizing our communities. Even as consumers are increasingly empowered to use broadband in newer, more creative ways, we are competing on a global stage. So, it is troubling that the warning signs I raised four years ago now flash only brighter. We face real challenges of availability, affordability, and competition. Similarly, while I am glad that this report begins to address broadband in an international context, it is too dismissive of the considerable evidence suggesting that we are behind the global leaders in broadband and have continued to fall. The report unconvincingly attempts to dismiss the international broadband penetration rankings. The fact is the U.S. has dropped year-after-year. This downward trend and the lack of broadband value illustrate the sobering point that when it comes to giving our citizens affordable access to state-of the-art communications, the U.S. has fallen behind its global competitors. We do not wrestle with the question of broadband value, or price per megabit, for which our citizens pay far more than those in many other countries. According to the ITU, the digital opportunity afforded to U.S. citizens is not even near the top, it is 21st in the world. Recent OECD data show the U.S. ranked 11th in the world in price per megabit. Other reports show U.S. consumers pay nearly twice as much as Japanese customers for connections that are twenty times as slow. This is more than a public relations problem, it’s a major productivity problem. Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-88 47 Consumers, small businesses, and even government agencies are becoming increasingly creative with broadband, as it becomes more widely available. Indeed, we have made progress since 2004. The broadband data released concurrently today highlights broadband growth, although these statistics are based on our now defunct definitions. The significant investment in the 700 MHz auction also illustrates the investment being made in broadband facilities. Many providers are deeply committed to their communities, our Schools and Libraries program continues to play a vital role bringing broadband to our nation’s children, and there are positive lessons to draw on. Yet, this report fails to get at the core question of whether all Americans are participating in the broadband revolution and it again fails to present a meaningful analysis of broadband availability, competition, or affordability. It largely relies on the same old methodology for assessing broadband availability and competition that has been recognized almost universally as flawed and broken. Although I am genuinely pleased we also adopt a companion item to improve our data gathering efforts, the truth is that we rest our conclusions today on a far flimsier basis. Unfortunately, the failure over the past eight years to address these data shortcomings – particularly, in time for this report -- seriously undermines the credibility of its findings. Nor does the report address meaningfully the competitiveness of the broadband market. In the Notice initiating this proceeding, we also launched an inquiry into the competitiveness of the broadband market that we committed to do as part of our review of the major BOC-IXC mergers in late 2005. Despite that commitment, a rigorous analysis of the state of broadband competition is absent here. Also gone from this report are attempts to analyze case studies or to provide a compilation of best practices for providers and communities looking to keep up with the fast pace of change. Good and instructive stories abound, and I believe the Commission could have played an important role in documenting these successes. Choosing representative communities and initiatives is inherently difficult, but we lose an opportunity to grapple with the real world challenges and achievements in a way that could better inform policymakers and readers of this report. This report also fails to provide a clearer roadmap for achieving the goal of delivering affordable, truly-high speed broadband to all Americans. The report culls a list of FCC decisions since our last report, some of which have been more effective than others. Yet, it does not probe deeply into broadband challenges for those in rural areas, those in Indian Country, those with disabilities, or those in lower income areas. Nor do we grapple with the policy debates occurring in other countries with whom we compete in the global marketplace. Past reports have included recommendations and policy guidance. Although I may not have agreed with all those recommendations, we miss a chance here to provide guidance in this critical area. It is increasingly apparent that an issue of this importance to the economy and the success of our communities warrants a coherent, cohesive, and comprehensive national strategy. The first step in addressing this challenge is to collect better data about the state of the marketplace and to perform a realistic assessment of our success and failures. Only through such efforts can we truly assess our current strengths and weaknesses and develop responsive solutions. Our companion data gathering item provides hope for the future but, for the reasons outlined above, I must dissent from this Report, which falls short of those goals because it is based on the old, flawed data gathering methodology. Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-88 48 STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER DEBORAH TAYLOR TATE 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, GN Docket No. 07-45. Broadband is revolutionizing how we communicate, how, where and when we work, how we educate our children, the delivery of healthcare and public safety as well as how we entertain ourselves. Broadband is particularly critical in rural and tribal areas, where advanced communications can shrink the distances that isolate remote communities. I believe that the continued and complete deployment of broadband across this nation should be our number one focus, indeed Congress requires this: to provide incentives for investment in broadband facilities and encourage broadband deployment. To that end I have worked to remove legacy regulations to increase incentives for investment in new infrastructure, allowing services, applications and business plans to develop and proliferate in a less regulatory environment. The 706 Report we release today shows that the U.S. remains the largest broadband market in the world, and finds continued dramatic growth in broadband deployment to over 100 million lines as of June 2007. For the full twelve-month period ending June 30, 2007, high speed lines increased 55% (or 37 million lines). Wireless devices, especially the latest generation devices, are increasingly used for Internet access. Just today the New York Times reported on a study that found 84.8 percent of iPhone users access news and information from this handheld device, and 30.9 percent of iPhone users have tuned into a mobile TV or video clip. Given that sales of iPhones will soon reach 10 million, more and more people are utilizing these devices and with our spectrum auctions consumers will have even more choice. High-speed deployments in rural communities also have continued to increase since the Commission’s Fourth Report. Our data, as well as an NTCA report and OPASTCO survey, show there has been a significant increase in broadband availability in rural areas. I am encouraged by the dozens of States and localities that are currently conducting or exploring initiatives in broadband deployment like Connect- Tennessee. They are on the ground, know the providers and needs of the communities better than us here in Washington D.C.- and we should enhance and not burden State and local efforts. To enhance cooperative federalism I join my State colleagues in suggesting reinvigorating the Federal-State Joint Conference on Advanced Services to serve as a vehicle for an ongoing dialogue between the Commission, state regulators, and local and regional entities regarding the deployment of broadband services. In the future, I anticipate ever-greater demand for services and applications requiring greater bandwidth over an ever-expanding area. The record in this proceeding demonstrates that multiple industries are aggressively investing in and deploying services to meet this demand, expecting to make $50 billion in capital expenditures in 2008 and 2009, enhancing consumer choice in both providers and services. I will continue to support policies that encourage competition between broadband platform providers. Attempting to keep up with their competitors will drive higher speed technologies and service offerings to the U.S. broadband marketplace, not government regulation; and as a diversity of technologies mature coverage too will continue to become more ubiquitous. Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-88 49 STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER ROBERT M. McDOWELL 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, GN Docket No. 07-45. Since the Commission issued the Fourth Report on the availability of broadband services in 2004, this nation has made great strides in deploying advanced telecommunications services across America. This report reflects many of those advances. We are seeing impressive developments in new technologies using cable, copper, fiber, wireless, and satellite, that are giving Americans more choices and greater availability of advanced telecommunications services. The truth is, America continues to enjoy the most dynamic and robust Internet economy in the world. It’s important to note that we achieved this success not by regulatory fiat, but by keeping regulations minimal, thus allowing entrepreneurs to flourish. Rigid command-and-control government mandates and arbitrary definitions and terminology would have inhibited creativity and growth, not fostered it. As we move forward toward the next generations of broadband technologies, it is important to remember this important lesson from history: government cannot out-guess the genius of free markets; nor should it try. Nonetheless, we can only measure our progress with diverse and sound data. Currently, we use the data that the Commission receives through its broadband reporting requirements. In a companion item today, we are adopting more granular and expansive reporting requirements that should allow the Commission to render more comprehensive analyses of advances in the marketplace. However, this Commission, and all future commissions, should take great care to seek accurate and complete information that is useful to assess the state of broadband deployment. We must be mindful to let the data speak for itself and analyze it with a variety of methodologies. No one methodology can reveal the complete truth. Accordingly, we should remind ourselves often that the process of data collection and analysis is iterative and that we must constantly strive to improve our performance in this regard. Politics should play no part. Anything less will not move America further ahead in this important area.