STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER ROBERT M. McDOWELL
APPROVING IN PART, DISSENTING IN PART
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.
Today, we take steps to update and refine the Commission’s efforts to determine the 
current state of broadband deployment in the U.S.  It is imperative that we continually improve 
and sharpen our data collection efforts through revisions in the Form 477 to reflect technological 
advances in the marketplace.  As I stated earlier, the Commission should take great care to seek 
accurate and complete information that it needs to have an accurate picture of the current state of 
broadband deployment.  We must always keep foremost in mind the objective of this data 
collection effort—to provide a basis for sound policies that foster broadband deployment for all 
Americans.  What we should avoid is imposing data reporting requirements on all providers that 
may be unduly burdensome or which may put one provider at a competitive advantage.  In those 
instances where initiatives are undertaken by providers in the marketplace or by public-private 
entities, the federal government should not stand in their way.
On a positive note, we are revising the form to seek broadband deployment data on a 
Census Tract basis and at more specific upload and download speeds.  This should provide more 
complete and useful information about the current state of broadband availability.  It should also 
provide a useful tool to expand advanced telecommunications services to those areas that are 
underserved.    
But unfortunately, today the majority is playing with fire by attaching subjective and, 
perhaps, misleading terminology and definitions to various speeds.  In short, what started out with 
a sleepy bureaucratic Order may end up being a change of tectonic proportions.  The majority has 
not thought through the unintended consequences of its actions today.  Instead of allowing 
consumers to determine what is a sufficient speed for their desired purposes, the government is 
drawing an arbitrary line that may favor some technologies that are currently considered 
“broadband.”  While the concept of what is “broadband” should constantly improve and evolve, 
these decisions are best left to consumers and the marketplace, not unelected bureaucrats.  It 
certainly should not be a political decision.  I fear that what the majority has wrought this 
morning may very well come back to haunt us.  Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from this 
portion of the item. 
Fortunately we have a Further Notice where we seek comment on adoption of a national 
broadband availability mapping program.  Already, public-private partnerships, such as 
ConnectKentucky and Connected Nation, are underway that use helpful mapping methodologies 
on a statewide basis and have been exceedingly successful.  There may be differences in the 
approach taken by these entities that cannot be easily replicated by the federal government.  I 
look forward to reviewing the comments on this important issue before we consider whether to 
adopt a national broadband mapping program.  
On the other hand, the majority adopts a separate reporting category for mobile service 
providers to delineate the number of subscribers whose devices and subscription permit them to 
access Internet content of their choice, and “to exclude subscribers whose choice of content is 
restricted to only customized-for-mobile content, and to exclude subscribers whose subscription 
does not include. . . a data plan providing the ability to transfer . . . either a specified or an 
unlimited amount of data to and from Internet sites of the subscriber’s choice.”  Wireless 
broadband Internet access service holds great potential to bring service to customers throughout 
America.  We should be encouraging these offerings and recognize that they will maximize 
innovation and consumer benefits as wireless services continue to flourish and evolve.  By 
excluding them, we are penalizing wireless consumers who have not purchased data plans.  In 
addition, consumers who use wireless devices to access broadband do not expect their experience 
to duplicate the wired, desktop experience of broadband access.  Those wireless offerings should 
be included in our statistics that reflect broadband deployment.
For these reasons, I also dissent to this part of the order.