Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-71
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Providing Eligible Entities Access to Aggregate 
Form 477 Data
Implementation of the Broadband Data 
Improvement Act of 2008
A National Broadband Plan for our Future
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
WC Docket No. 07-38
GN Docket No. 09-47
GN Docket No. 09-51
ORDER
Adopted:  April 23, 2010 Released:  April 26, 2010
By the Commission:  
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Order, we adopt rules interpreting and implementing sections 106(h)(1) and 
106(h)(2) of the Broadband Data Improvement Act (BDIA).1 Section 106(h)(1) of the BDIA requires the 
Commission to provide eligible entities, which are the sole designees of each state that are eligible to 
receive a BDIA State Broadband Data and Development grant, with access to the “aggregate” data that 
the Commission collects from broadband service providers on Form 477.2 Section 106(h)(2) of the BDIA 
imposes certain confidentiality requirements on eligible entities that receive these data.3 Our action today 
will facilitate the broadband mapping and other projects that eligible entities are undertaking under the 
BDIA to improve available data on broadband deployment and adoption.  In doing so, we balance access 
to Commission-collected data with important safeguards against improper disclosure.  
2. Specifically, to enable eligible entities to map broadband availability and undertake their 
other responsibilities as set forth in the BDIA, we find that the broadband data that we share with eligible 
entities should be aggregated to create the complementary sets of data that we describe below.  We also 
find that the sensitivity of much of the data, and their potential to reveal provider-specific data even in 
aggregated form, warrant certain protective measures, including data-sharing firewalls, to minimize the 
  
1 Broadband Data Improvement Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-385, 122 Stat. 4097 (codified at 47 
U.S.C. §§ 1301-04).
2 47 U.S.C. §§ 1304(h)(1).  Section 106(i)(2) of the BDIA defines “eligible entity” as: (A) an entity that is either (i) 
an agency or instrumentality of a State, or a municipality or other subdivision (or agency or instrumentality of a 
municipality or other subdivision) of a State; (ii) a nonprofit organization that is described in section 501(c)(3) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and that is exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of such Code; or (iii) an 
independent agency or commission in which an office of a State is a member on behalf of the State; and (B) is the 
single eligible entity in the State that has been designated by the State to receive a grant under this section.  BDIA 
§ 106(i)(2); 47 U.S.C. § 1304(i)(2).
3 Specifically, section 106(h)(2) provides that an eligible entity “shall treat any matter that is a trade secret, 
commercial or financial information, or privileged or confidential, as a record not subject to public disclosure except 
as otherwise mutually agreed to by the broadband service provider and the eligible entity.”  BDIA § 106(h)(2); 47 
U.S.C. § 1304(h)(2).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-71
2
risk of inappropriate or inadvertent disclosure of the competitively sensitive information that the BDIA 
directs us to share with the state grantees.
II. BACKGROUND
A. Form 477 Data Collection  
3. Since May 2000, the Commission has collected information from facilities-based 
providers of broadband connections on a semi-annual basis using Form 477.4 The Commission revised 
the Form 477 data collection program in 2008,5 and wireline and terrestrial-fixed wireless broadband 
service providers must now report, by Census Tract, the number of broadband subscribers, broken down 
by technology; more disaggregated speed tiers;6 and percentage of subscribers that are residential.7  
Incumbent LECs must continue to report the percentage of their service areas to which DSL connections 
are available to residential end-user premises, and cable system operators must do the same with regard to 
cable modem service availability.8 Providers of terrestrial mobile wireless (TMW) broadband services 
must continue to submit their broadband subscriber totals on a state-by-state basis, rather than at the 
Census-Tract level, and must report the Census Tracts that “best represent” their broadband service 
footprint for each speed tier in which they offer service.9 The Commission also collects local telephone 
competition data from wireline and wireless providers.10
4. The Commission also sought comment in 2008 on further revising several aspects of its 
Form 477 collection, including whether and how to institute a nationwide broadband availability mapping 
program.  Of relevance for the issues here, the Commission sought comment “on ways in which we can 
preserve confidentiality when sharing the information collected on Form 477, the voluntary registry, and 
other sources with agencies such as the Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service and with 
  
4 Local Competition and Broadband Reporting, CC Docket No. 99-301, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 7717 (2000) 
(2000 Data Gathering Order).
5 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, WC Docket No. 07-38, Report and Order and Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, 23 FCC Rcd 9691 (2008) (2008 Broadband Data Gathering Order and Further Notice); 
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, Order on 
Reconsideration, 23 FCC Rcd 9800 (2008) (2008 Broadband Data Gathering Reconsideration Order).
6 The Commission updated the broadband reporting tiers, which now consist of an upload speed tier of 200 kbps or 
less and upload and download speeds of:  (1) greater than 200 kbps but less than 768 kbps; (2) equal to or greater 
than 768 kbps but less than 1.5 Mbps; (3) equal to or greater than 1.5 Mbps but less than 3.0 Mbps; (4) equal to or 
greater than 3.0 Mbps but less than 6.0 Mbps, (5) equal to or greater than 6.0 Mbps but less than 10.0 Mbps; (6) 
equal to or greater than 10.0 Mbps but less than 25.0 Mbps; (7) equal to or greater than 25.0 Mbps but less than 
100.0 Mbps; and (8) equal to or greater than 100 Mbps—for a total of 72 speed-tier combinations.  2008 Broadband 
Data Gathering Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 9700–01, para. 20.
7 Previously, the Commission collected data by the Zip Codes where each provider had one or more customers, but 
collected subscriber counts only at the state level and in accordance with less granular speed tiers.  See, e.g., 2000 
Broadband Data Gathering Order 15 FCC Rcd at 7761, para. 94; 7772-73, Appendix B Cover Page, Part I.
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 2008 Broadband Data Gathering Order and Further Notice, 23 FCC Rcd at 9698–99, para. 16.
10 See 2008 Broadband Data Gathering Order and Further Notice, 23 FCC Rcd at 9693, para.5.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-71
3
public-private partnerships such as ConnectKentucky and similar ventures, for example by sharing the 
data in a less granular or aggregated form than the level at which it is collected.”11
5. Form 477 Confidentiality.  Due to the unique nature of this data collection, the 
Commission allows filers to request confidential treatment for competitively sensitive information by 
making a selection on the cover page of Form 477 without filing at that point the detailed confidentiality 
justification otherwise required by our rules.12 In establishing this framework, the Commission 
announced its intention not to reveal individual-provider data in published reports.13 At present, the 
Commission publishes aggregate Form 477 data in its High Speed Services report,14 its Section 706 
report,15 and other reports, such as the Statistics of Communications Common Carriers report.16 In 
making the Form 477 data publicly available, the Commission has had a longstanding policy of “releasing 
only aggregated information about broadband deployment . . . to protect against release of company-
specific information directly or indirectly.”17 Both in the reports and the accompanying statistical 
summaries, the Commission has used “statistical methods, such as suppression and aggregation” to 
prevent the release of company-specific information.18
6. The Commission has not made any formal findings about which data elements constitute 
competitively sensitive information19 and has never ruled on any requests for confidentiality.  The 
Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB) has invoked FOIA Exemption 4 to protect against disclosure of 
filers’ Zip-Code and other data in response to requests for that information under FOIA.20 In the one case 
where the Bureau’s denial of access to Form 477 data was appealed, the federal district court affirmed the 
Commission’s decision not to release Zip-Code data.21
  
11 2008 Broadband Data Gathering Order and Further Notice, 23 FCC Rcd at 9711-12, para. 39.
12  See 2000 Data Gathering Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 7759, para. 90; 2004 Data Gathering Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 
22352, para. 23 n.56.  If the Commission receives a request for release of information pursuant to the Freedom of 
Information Act, the filer is notified and afforded an opportunity to show why the data should not be released.  2000 
Data Gathering Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 7759, para. 90; 2004 Data Gathering Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 22352, para. 23 
n.56.  In implementing the streamlined procedure, the Commission explained that it expected that this mechanism 
would “lead to a greater level of compliance . . . and will give providers confidence that protectible data will not be 
published in our regular reports.”  2000 Data Gathering Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 7759, para. 90.
13 Id. at 7761, para. 89, 91.
14 See, e.g., Federal Communications Commission, Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry Analysis and 
Technology Division, High-Speed Services for Internet Access:  Status as of ,December 31, 2008 (rel. Feb. 12, 
2010), available at http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/iatd/comp.html.
15 47 U.S.C. § 1302(a).  
16 See, e.g., Federal Communications Commission, Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry Analysis and 
Technology Division, Statistics of Common Carriers:  2005/2006 Edition (rel. Jun. 10, 2008), available at
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282813A1.pdf.
17 2004 Data Gathering Notice, 19 FCC Rcd at 7377 n.25.
18 Third Section 706 Report, 17 FCC Rcd at 2855 n.49.  Although the Commission has never formally announced its 
protective mechanisms, it has explained in its releases that, “when an item of aggregated data combines information 
from only a few filers, an informed party could ‘back out’ a particular filer’s specific data only by successfully 
bringing reliable information to bear.”  Local Telephone Competition and Broadband Reporting, Report and Order, 
WC Docket No. 04-141, 19 FCC Rcd 22340, 22347 at para. 12, n.27 (2004).
19 See 2000 Data Gathering Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 7758, para. 87; 47 C.F.R. § 0.459.
20 Under FOIA Exemption 4, an agency may withhold from release records containing trade secrets and commercial 
or financial information that is privileged or confidential.  See 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(4).
21 See Center for Public Integrity v. FCC, Memorandum Opinion, 505 F.Supp.2d 106, 115-16 (D.D.C. 2007) 
(agreeing with the Commission’s arguments that analyzing the Zip-Code data for a particular filer over time could 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-71
4
7. State Commission Access to Raw Form 477 Data.  In establishing the Form 477 data 
collection, the Commission created a limited exception to its general policy of releasing only aggregated 
and redacted Form 477 data.  Specifically, it established a mechanism to allow state public utility 
commissions to view all disaggregated state-specific data, provided that the state commission has 
appropriate confidentiality protections in place (which may include confidentiality agreements or 
designation of information as proprietary under state law).22 Where the relevant state law affords less 
protection than federal FOIA law, the state must agree to comply with the higher federal standard as a 
precondition to the data release.23 The Commission has delegated to the Chief of the WCB authority to 
release the information where these conditions are satisfied.24
B. Broadband Data Improvement Act
8. Section 106(h)(1) and Eligible Entities’ Access to “Aggregate Data.”  On October 10, 
2008, Congress passed the BDIA, which provides for improved federal data on the deployment and 
adoption of broadband services. Section 106(h)(1) of the BDIA, entitled “Access to Aggregate Data,” 
provides that, “[s]ubject to paragraph (2), the Commission shall provide eligible entities access, in 
electronic form, to aggregate data collected by the Commission based on the Form 477 submissions of 
broadband service providers.”25 The BDIA defines “eligible entity” to be an entity that is (i) an agency or 
instrumentality of a State, or a municipality or other subdivision; (ii) a nonprofit organization; or (iii) an 
independent agency or commission in which an office of a State is a member on behalf of the State; and is 
the single eligible entity in the State that has been designated by the State to receive a grant under BDIA 
section 106(i)(2).26
9. Section 106(h)(2) of the BDIA imposes certain confidentiality requirements on eligible 
entities that receive the FCC Form 477 “aggregate data.”  Specifically, section 106(h)(2) provides:
(2) LIMITATION.—Notwithstanding any provision of Federal or State law to the 
contrary, an eligible entity shall treat any matter that is a trade secret, commercial or 
financial information, or privileged or confidential, as a record not subject to public 
disclosure except as otherwise mutually agreed to by the broadband service provider and 
the eligible entity. This paragraph applies only to information submitted by the 
Commission or a broadband provider to carry out the provisions of this title and shall not 
otherwise limit or affect the rules governing public disclosure of information collected by 
any Federal or State entity under any other Federal or State law or regulation.27  
10. Section 106(b) of the BDIA sets forth the primary role for eligible entities through the 
establishment of a State Broadband Data and Development Grant Program (Program), which requires the 
Secretary of Commerce to award grants “to eligible entities for the development and implementation of 
statewide initiatives to identify and track the availability and adoption of broadband services within each 
(Continued from previous page)    
reveal where customers had been acquired or lost, or could allow competitors to free ride on the efforts of the first 
new entrants to identify areas where competition is more likely to be successful, and finding that disclosure of even 
redacted Zip-Code data would be likely to cause substantial competitive harm to others), mot. for recon. denied, 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 515 F.Supp.2d 167 (D.D.C. 2007)
22 2000 Data Gathering Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 7761-62, paras. 95-96.
23 Id.
24 See 2000 Data Gathering Order at 7761-62 & n.240 (delegating authority to the Chief of the then-Common 
Carrier Bureau).
25 47 U.S.C. § 1304(h)(1).
26 47 U.S.C. § 1304(i)(2) (emphasis supplied).
27 47 U.S.C. § 1304(h)(2).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-71
5
State.”28 Section 106(e) identifies ten activities to be funded through the Program, which include the 
creation within each State of a geographic inventory map of broadband service availability.29 On July 2, 
2009, NTIA released a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) on funding this program, which defined 
several key terms for the purposes of the state broadband program.30 The NOFA defines “broadband” to 
include data-transmission technology with advertised speeds of at least 768 kbps downstream and at least 
200 kbps upstream to end users.31 An “area,” consisting of “one or more contiguous census blocks,” is 
considered to be an “underserved area” if at least one of three factors is met: (1) 50% or fewer households 
in the area have access to facilities-based terrestrial broadband service, (2) no fixed or mobile broadband 
service provider advertises broadband transmission speeds of at least three Mbps downstream in the area, 
or (3) the rate of household broadband subscribership in the area does not exceed 40%.32 An area is 
“unserved” for purposes of the NOFA if 90% of households in the area lack access to facilities-based 
terrestrial broadband service.33 NTIA later issued a clarification of the Technical Appendix to the NTIA 
State Mapping NOFA,34 and later provided additional guidance to its implementation of the Program by 
posting responses to Frequently Asked Questions.35
11. On July 17, 2009, the Commission issued a Public Notice seeking comment on how to 
interpret and implement sections 106(h)(1) and 106(h)(2) of the BDIA.36 On September 9, 2009, NTIA 
published a list of the eligible applicants that had filed applications under the Program, from all 50 states, 
five territories, and the District of Columbia.37 NTIA announced on October 5, 2009, that it had awarded 
the first four grants under the Program.38 As of March 5, 2010, NTIA had awarded a total of 54 grants 
totaling approximately $102 million under the Program.39  
  
28 47 U.S.C. § 106(b).
29 47 U.S.C. § 106(e). 
30 Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, State Broadband Data 
and Development Grant Program, Docket No. 0660-ZA29, Notice of Funds Availability, 74 Fed. Reg. 32545, 32555 
(July 8, 2009) (NTIA State Mapping NOFA).
31 NTIA State Mapping NOFA, 74 Fed. Reg. at 32548.
32 NTIA State Mapping NOFA, 74 Fed. Reg. at 32549.
33 Id.
34 Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, State Broadband Data 
and Development Grant Program, Docket No. 0660-ZA29, Notice of Funds Availability; Clarification.  74 Fed. Reg. 
40569 (Aug. 12, 2009) (NTIA State Mapping NOFA Clarification).
35 NTIA, State Broadband Data and Development Program (Broadband Mapping Program) Frequently Asked 
Questions, http://www2.ntia.doc.gov/html/files/BTOP_BroadbandMappingFAQs.pdf (rel. Aug. 12, 2009) (NTIA 
Aug. 12 FAQs). 
36 See Comment Sought on Providing Eligible Entities Access to Aggregate Form 477 Data as Required by the 
Broadband Data Improvement Act, Public Notice, DA 09-1550, WC Docket No. 07-38, GN Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-
51 (WCB rel. Jul. 17, 2009) (Aggregate Data Notice).
37 NTIA, NTIA’s Broadband Mapping Imitative Off to Strong Start, All U.S. States, Territories, and D.C. Apply to 
Participate in Program, http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press/2009/BTOP_mappingtotals_090909.html (rel. Sep. 9, 2009); 
NTIA, Summary of State Broadband Data and Development Grant Program, Eligible Applications
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press/2009/BTOP_applicantlist_090909.pdf (rel. Sep. 9, 2009) (NTIA Eligible Applicants 
List). 
38 NTIA, Press Release: NTIA Announces First State Broadband Mapping Grants; Recovery Act Funding to Provide 
Policymakers and Consumers with Improved Data on Internet Service in California, Indiana, North Carolina, and 
Vermont, http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press/2009/BTOP_MappingAwards_091005.html (rel. Oct. 5, 2009).
39 See NTIA, Press Release: NTIA Awards Grants for Broadband Mapping and Planning in Virginia and American 
Samoa, http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press/2010/BBMapping_VA_AS_03052010.html (rel. Mar. 5, 2009).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-71
6
III. DISCUSSION
12. In this part, we first interpret the term “aggregate” in section 106(h)(1), through 
examination of the statutory language, its context in the statute, and the purposes of the BDIA itself.  We 
then apply our interpretation of “aggregate data” to the various categories of broadband data collected 
through Form 477.  We next discuss the need for additional safeguards that apply to the eligible entities’ 
access to that aggregated data, and impose certain requirements to protect the confidentiality of those data 
and the integrity of the data-sharing process.
A. Interpretation of “Aggregate Data” under section 106(h)(1)
13. While the BDIA does not include an explanation for the requirement that the 
Commission provide “aggregate” Form 477 data to eligible entities, the only mention of eligible entities 
in the statute is in connection with the State Broadband Data and Development Grant Program (Program) 
contemplated by section 106(b).  Accordingly, we find the only reasonable interpretation of the 
requirement to be that Congress intended the Commission to provide aggregate Form 477 data to eligible 
entities in order to support the activities to be funded through the Program, as identified in section 106(e).   
This conclusion informs our interpretation of the requirement and the meaning of “aggregate.”  In this 
regard, we note that section 106(e) sets forth a range of activities that grants can support, and NTIA has 
made clear that “[w]ith respect to this Program, NTIA’s highest priority is the development and 
maintenance of a national broadband map.”40  
14. We also conclude that, at a minimum, section 106(h)(1) requires the Commission to 
aggregate at least some of the Form 477 data that it collects, and that “aggregate data” necessarily 
includes some confidential information.  Traditional canons of statutory interpretation compel us to read 
all of section 106(h) to have meaning.41 We therefore conclude that the BDIA’s use of the term 
“aggregate” in section 106(h)(1) directs us to collapse or combine some of the granular categories of 
information collected on Form 477.  Several commenters assert that we should share fully disaggregated, 
raw Form-477 data with eligible entities, largely because Census-Tract data are already an aggregation of 
Census Block information or street address availability, and the NTIA has already directed the grantees to 
collect such availability data from providers.42 We do not find these arguments persuasive; logically, 
“aggregate data” must mean something other than fully disaggregated data.  Moreover, the statute directs 
us to aggregate the data we collect through Form 477, not to aggregate based on a broader set of more 
granular data that we do not collect.  Similarly, we also conclude that Congress contemplated that 
“aggregate [Form 477] data” would include some confidential information, to avoid rendering section 
106(h)(2) superfluous or irrelevant.43
15. We squarely reject the argument advanced by some commenters that, under the 
Commission’s longstanding treatment of Form 477 broadband information, “aggregate data” must mean 
  
40 NTIA State Mapping NOFA, 74 Fed. Reg. at 32547.
41 See, e.g., TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19, 31 (2001) (“It is a cardinal principle of statutory construction that a 
statute ought, upon the whole, to be so construed that, if it can be prevented, no clause, sentence, or word shall be 
superfluous, void, or insignificant.”); Carter v. United States, 530 U.S. 255, 256 (2000) (“These extra clauses in 
subsection (b) cannot be regarded as mere surplusage; they mean something.”) (quoting Potter v. United States, 155 
U.S. 438, 446 (1894)).
42 See, e.g., Public Knowledge, et al. Comments at 3-4 (arguing that the NOFAs’ requirements of Census Block-
level information supports the agreement that Census Tract-level data should be considered “aggregate”); California 
PUC Comments at 6; Benton Comments at 4-5; Free Press Comments at 3-4; NASUCA/NJDRC Comments at 5; 
Massachusetts DTC Reply Comments at 6-7.
43 See, e.g., CTIA Reply Comments at 5 (“Congress clearly required both aggregation and confidential treatment,
and it would violate elementary principles of statutory construction to read either provision out of the statute.”) 
(emphasis in original).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-71
7
that no provider-specific data are to be disclosed.44 Such an interpretation misreads or overstates 
precedent in several ways.  First and foremost, we find that previous statements regarding Commission 
policies of data disclosure to the public have little if any relevance in the context of disclosure to 
designees selected by states subject to the protective provisions of this order, and the existence of our past 
practices does not indicate congressional intent to extend Form 477 reporting methodologies to this 
context.45 The issue of defining “aggregate data” to share with a state designee is a novel one for the 
Commission, and past references in a distinct context do not dispositively define this term here.  
Similarly, we find reliance on Bureau-level actions to establish longstanding Commission precedent to be 
inappropriate here.46
16. Accordingly, we interpret “aggregate data” to mean data that are combined in a manner 
that involves providing utility to eligible entities in carrying out activities under section 106(e), while 
protecting the confidentiality interests of providers submitting the data.  In crafting a balance between 
sharing as much as possible to help eligible entities and preserving confidentiality, we rely heavily on the 
language and purpose of the BDIA, as well as on the lines drawn by the NTIA in its NOFA and 
subsequent guidance in implementing the statute.  Specifically, our guiding policy in aggregating data is 
to maximize disclosure to eligible entities to allow them to carry out their activities under section 106(e) 
without unnecessarily disseminating, or creating an undue risk of misuse of, data the Commission has 
historically protected. 
17. In making this determination, we acknowledge that competitively sensitive information 
will be shared with eligible entities, and that, especially where there are only one or two providers in an 
area, eligible entities may be able to reverse engineer additional granularity for some data.47 In light of 
the confidentiality protections of section 106(h)(2), however, this will not make confidential data 
available to the general public.  In combination with the additional safeguards we impose today, we find 
that our sharing of this information with eligible entities is consistent with, and indeed necessary to 
furthering, the overall purposes of the statute.  
18. We emphasize that the decisions we reach in this order are limited to the issues raised in 
the Public Notice, and that we do not reach any of the issues regarding disclosure of Form 477 data to the 
  
44 See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 3 (“As used in the Form 477 context, the production of ‘aggregate data’ is 
well-established and understood by regulators and broadband providers to mean the accumulation and organization 
of data from multiple providers such that no provider-specific information is disclosed.”); id. at 3-4 & n.10 (relying 
on CFPI and the Sept. 26, 2006 Burgee Letter); NCTA Comments at 2; CTIA Reply Comments at 3-4 (pointing to 
Commission protection of Numbering Resource Utilization and Forecast data and other regulatory provisions).
45 See AT&T Comments at 4 (arguing that in enacting the BDIA, Congress was well aware of the Commission’s 
publication of aggregated broadband data in its reports, and the statutory direction to make aggregate data available 
to eligible entities “clearly demonstrates” that Congress intended for the Commission to continue to use those same 
practices and methodologies).
46 See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 2, 4, nn. 4, 5, 10 (citing Letter from Kirk Burgee to Drew Clark (dated Sept. 26, 
2006)).
47 See, e.g., USTelecom Comments at 5-6 (arguing that in particular, where the number of providers is fewer than 
three, the Commission should avoid any disclosure of customer counts at the Census Tract level); ITTA/OPASTCO 
Comments at 7 (“Any disclosure of subscribership counts should only occur at the state level – so that 
subscribership data is aggregated at least to the point at which a broadband provider’s subscribership rates in a 
specific region can be neither discerned nor ‘reverse engineered’.”); TSTCI Comments at 3 (arguing that small rural 
incumbent LECs may be the only broadband provider to some Census Tracts, and it may be necessary to combine 
the data for two or more tracts or provide data on only those Census Tracts where there are no broadband 
connections); Sprint Reply Comments at 3 (agreeing with USTelecom that there should be at least three carriers in 
each category of aggregated data that is provided to eligible entities).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-71
8
public that many commenters raise and which remain pending.48 As we explain in more detail below, 
eligible entities are expressly prohibited from publishing directly or indirectly any of the aggregate data 
that they access.49 We also recognize that several designated awardees are state commissions, which have 
rights to disaggregated data through the data-sharing mechanism set forth in the 2000 Form 477 Order.  
We emphasize that nothing we do here today expands or diminishes the rights and obligations of state 
commissions as set forth in that order.
B. Aggregate Data Sets
19. As set forth below, we have developed a data-sharing framework intended to enable 
eligible entities to carry out the activities specified in section 106(e), particularly with regard to mapping.  
Several commenters, including Form 477 broadband filers, support such disclosure of comprehensive data 
to eligible entities to carry out their mapping activities.50 Two associations of broadband providers 
expressly recognize that the disclosure should be tied to the speed thresholds used in the stimulus 
programs’ definitions of “unserved” and “underserved.”51 We agree, but also recognize that the release of 
aggregate data should support the fuller set of responsibilities set forth in section 106(e), rather than just 
mapping.52
20. Rather than adopt a single form of aggregation, we find that the creation of the 
complementary data sets described below would be the most useful approach for eligible entities.53 For 
each such data set, we identify below how we aggregate the data so as to help the eligible entities carry 
out their responsibilities without unduly risking exposure of confidential information.   In adopting these 
data sets, we emphasize that nothing we do today modifies the Commission’s definition of “broadband,” 
  
48 See, e.g., Free Press Comments at 20-23 (urging public disclosure of current Form 477 data).  Accordingly, we 
also find no basis to support the argument that eligible entities should be allowed to disclose data to other eligible 
entities, see, NASUCA/NJDRC Comments at 7, especially since each eligible entity has no rights or obligations 
with regard to other states.
49 See, infra, para. 40.
50 See, e.g., TW Telecom Comments at 2-3 (citing the Broadband Technology Opportunity Program NOFA in 
asserting that detailed and comprehensive maps are necessary for the government to target broadband programs 
where the necessary infrastructure is lacking, and arguing that the Commission should condition the use of the data 
solely for the purpose of developing broadband maps); Time Warner Cable Comments at 3 (“Indeed, particularly for 
states that have yet to begin their individual broadband mapping efforts . . . the currently available Form 477 raw 
data may be extremely timely and most beneficial.”); XO Comments at 3 (“It is also critical that BDIA grantees 
produce reliable broadband mapping products.  High-quality broadband maps will be a valuable ongoing resource 
for the public sector, public interest groups, and other industry participants as all parties work to expand broadband 
availability throughout the United States.”).
51 See ITTA/OPASTCO Comments at 7-8; see also Sprint Reply Comments at 3-4 (“Furthermore, the purpose of 
collecting broadband data is to identify underserved and unserved areas of the country.”); NASUCA/NJDRC Joint 
Reply Comments at 2.
52 See NTIA Mapping NOFA FAQs at 7 (“NTIA encourages states to consider what specific activities will best 
support broadband planning in their states based on the history, needs, population and other factors unique to each 
state’s circumstance.”); Time Warner Cable Comments at 4 (“[T]he Commission should emphasize that the Form 
477 broadband data provided pursuant to the BDIA cannot be used for any purpose other than that contemplated by 
statute – i.e., to improve the quality of federal and state data regarding the availability and quality of broadband 
services and to promote the deployment of affordable broadband services to all parts of the country.”); CPUC 
Comments at 2 (arguing that “it is imperative that the FCC require Form 477 to be given to these eligible entities, 
and that the data be as detailed as possible to enable the necessary analysis for fulfilling the BDIA’s requirements”).
53 See Free Press Comments at 22 (“Aggregation can take a number of forms, and most have limitations of one sort 
or another.”).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-71
9
and that we reach these conclusions exclusively for the more narrow concerns of implementing section 
106(h).54  
1. Subscriber-Count Data 
21. Data Set 1:  Number of Total Wireline, Terrestrial-Fixed Wireless and Satellite 
Broadband Subscribers per Census Tract, with Disaggregated Technology and Residential/Business 
Classification Data.  With this data set, we will provide eligible entities with the total number of wireline, 
terrestrial-fixed wireless (TFW), and satellite “broadband” connections55 for each Census Tract in their 
state, broken down by technology and residential/business classification.  We will aggregate all speed 
tiers above 768 kbps downstream and 200 kbps upstream, and will not supply provider names as part of 
this data set for any specific provider.
22. Providing access to this data set advances the activities of eligible entities in multiple 
ways.  First, by showing actual subscribership in a Census Tract, the data set will assist eligible entities in 
verifying the availability data they collect, confirming their findings or alerting them to areas that may 
warrant further investigation.  Additionally, numbers of the wireline and TFW residential subscribers 
could also be used to inform eligible entities’ identification of “underserved” and “unserved” areas, as 
defined in the NTIA NOFA.  Where an eligible entity determines, for example, that a tract has a level of 
household fixed subscription penetration of less than 10 percent, it could investigate and verify, based on 
availability data collected from providers, that the tract, as a whole or some portion thereof, is “unserved.” 
23. In addition, the technology and residential/business breakdowns in this data set should 
help eligible entities carry out their non-mapping functions in sections 106(e)(1)-(9) of the BDIA, 
specifically with regard to identifying problems and barriers unique to certain technologies or to the 
residential market.56 With regard to geographical granularity, due to the importance in both the statute 
and the NOFA of identifying those geographical areas that lack broadband availability, we decline to 
aggregate geographically any of the Census-Tract information that we collect on Form 477.  We find that 
the Census Tract is the appropriate level of granularity to assist in identifying areas where broadband 
service is or is not available.
24. Data Set 2: Total Number of Terrestrial Mobile Wireless Broadband Subscribers per 
State by Residential/Business Classification.  For each state, we will provide the total number of 
terrestrial mobile wireless (TMW) “broadband” subscribers, broken out by business/residential 
classification, and will aggregate all provider data and all speed tiers above 768 kbps downstream and 200 
kbps upstream.  We will not supply individual provider identities as part of this data set.  This is the most 
geographically granular TMW subscribership data we collect.  This information complements the 
information in Data Set 1, and will similarly assist eligible entities in carrying out non-mapping functions 
under sections 106(e)(1)-(9) of the BDIA.
2. Provider Data
25. Data Set 3:  List, by Census Tract, of Wireline, Satellite and Terrestrial-Fixed Wireless 
Providers, Reporting at Least One Broadband Subscriber, Disaggregated According to NTIA NOFA 
Speed Breakpoint for “Underserved” and by Residential/Business Classification.  The Commission will 
provide, for each Census Tract, a list of all wireline, TFW and satellite providers reporting at least one 
“broadband” subscriber in the Census Tract.  We will also provide data indicating whether or not each 
  
54 Compare Comment Sought on Defining “Broadband,” NBP Public Notice #1, GN docket Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 09-
137, Public Notice, 24 FCC Rcd 10897 (2009).
55 Unless otherwise noted in this Order, “broadband” refers to services with transmission speeds of at least 768 kbps 
downstream and at least 200 kbps upstream, consistent with the NTIA’s definition of that term in the BDIA NOFA.  
See NTIA State Mapping NOFA, 74 Fed. Reg. at 32548.
56 See §§ 106(e)(1)-(9).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-71
10
provider reported at least one connection above 3 Mbps downstream as well as whether they reported at 
least one business connection, at least one residential connection or both.   
26. Access to this data set will provide eligible entities with a tool useful in identifying 
broadband providers and broadband service availability in their respective states.57  This data set will thus 
assist eligible entities in creating a geographic inventory map of broadband service, as contemplated by 
section 106(e)(10).  In particular, this data set will allow eligible entities to identify providers for whom 
they do not have data and assess the availability of service in an area. This data set can also help 
providers carry out several other activities funded under section 106(e), including the identification and 
tracking of possible suppliers of broadband services to areas that have low levels of broadband service 
deployment.58
27. This data set can also inform eligible entities’ identification of “underserved” Census 
Tracts, since an area is underserved if “ii) no fixed or mobile broadband service provider advertises 
broadband transmission speeds of at least three megabits per second (‘mbps’) downstream in the area.”59  
Specifically, where an eligible entity otherwise fails to find an advertised speed over 3 Mbps, the 
existence of a fixed subscriber at a tier above that speed would signal that further investigation is 
necessary, and the identity of the relevant provider would assist an eligible entity to locate any associated 
advertisement.
28. In determining whether and which speed tiers are appropriate to aggregate, we look to the 
NOFA’s definition of “broadband” as being above 768 kpbs downstream, and its 3 Mpbs cutoff for 
downstream transmission speeds as part of its definition of “underserved area.”60 We conclude that 
aggregating the 72 tiers of combined upstream and downstream speeds61 into two speed tiers -- between 
768 kbps and 3 Mbps downstream, and above 3 Mbps downstream – comports with the statutory directive 
to aggregate, while preserving the distinctions that NTIA has deemed critical to carry out section 106(b) 
of the BDIA.  While we agree with commenters that aggregation of speed tiers will shield particular 
provider’s performance, we decline to adopt the differing proposed breakpoints that do not comport with 
these key NTIA definitions.62  
29. Data Set 4: List, by Census Tract, of Terrestrial-Mobile Wireless Broadband Providers 
Representing Service. The Commission will provide, for each Census Tract, a list of the TMW providers 
identifying the Census Tract as a part of their “broadband” service territory, along with data indicating 
whether or not they provide service at speeds above 3 Mbps.  Similar to Data Set 3, this data set will 
assist in identifying the universe of TMW providers from whom eligible entities are seeking to collect 
availability data.  The data set could also assist in the identification of “underserved” areas by providing 
an indication that service is available or may be advertised in an area.  While a TMW provider’s 
identification of those Census Tracts best representing its footprint is not necessarily indicative of 
“access” as defined in NTIA’s NOFA, such information provides useful guidance for the eligible entity to 
follow up.
  
57 WCB’s Industry Analysis and Technology currently posts lists of the Form 477 filers submitting broadband data, 
broken out by states for which data is filed.  These lists can be accessed at:  http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/iatd/comp.html.
58 §§ 106(e)(2)(A),(C).
59 NTIA State Mapping NOFA, 74 Fed. Reg. at 32549.
60 NTIA State Mapping NOFA, 74 Fed. Reg. at 32548-49.  ; 
61 See 2008 Broadband Data Gathering Order and Further Notice, 23 FCC Rcd at 2701, para. 20 Fig. 1.
62 See, e.g., Verizon Comments at 7 (suggesting breakpoints of 1.5 Mbps, 6 Mbps, 10 Mbps, and 25 Mpbs, on the 
basis that such distinctions separate entry-level broadband services, video services, and advanced applications and 
services).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-71
11
3. DSL and Cable-Modem Service Availability
30. Data Set 5: Percentages of Incumbent LEC DSL and Cable Modem Service Residential 
Availability.  The Commission will provide percentages, by state, of residential end-user premises in 
incumbent LEC and cable provider service territories that have access to high-speed DSL and cable-
modem services, disaggregated by technology.  This dataset is the same as the percentages that are 
published as part of the High-Speed Services Report,63 although without any redaction.  Again, these 
figures are based on providers’ responses to questions about “availability” on Form 477 which may differ 
from NTIA’s definition of “access,” but these data can be helpful to eligible entities in tracking down 
availability.
C. Confidentiality of Form 477 Data
1. Need for Protection
31. We turn now to the question of whether the Commission should seek to prevent 
inappropriate release of sensitive data, or whether it is more appropriate under the statute to release data 
to eligible entities and leave them to determine how to comply.  We identify two issues of commercial 
sensitivity posed by the release of confidential data to an eligible entity:  (1) an eligible entity’s 
inadvertent disclosure of confidential Form 477 data to third parties potentially could cause competitive 
harm to the broadband provider that submitted the data to the Commission; and (2) where the eligible 
entity is itself a provider of broadband service, it could unfairly use these aggregated data in marketing its 
own services or planning its investment strategy.64 In this regard, we note the language of section 
106(h)(2) requiring eligible entities to treat “any matter that is a trade secret, commercial or financial 
information, or privileged or confidential, as a record not subject to public disclosure,” unless providers 
expressly agree to such disclosure.  This provision establishes important protections for the aggregated 
data that the Commission will provide.  Even in aggregated form, however, the data will contain provider-
specific information, which the Commission has historically protected and which may give rise to 
competitive sensitivities even in limited release.  Accordingly, we find it appropriate to condition our 
release of the aggregate data by instituting the procedural mechanism described below. 
32. We make clear at the outset that the affirmative steps we impose to safeguard 
confidentiality do not constitute a non-disclosure agreement (NDA), as some parties suggest.65 In 
contrast to an NDA that is a product of a contractual negotiation between two parties, we emphasize that 
we safeguard the limited release of our data through the issuance of a non-negotiated and non-negotiable 
order, and we require a certification from each eligible entity to several terms and conditions set forth 
below.
  
63 See Federal Communications Commission, Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry Analysis and Technology 
Division, High-Speed Services for Internet Access:  Status as of Dec. 31, 2008 at Table 19 (WCB IATD rel. XXX, 
2009), available at http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/iatd/comp.html.  The reported xDSL availability is weighted by 
incumbent LEC end-user switched access lines and VoIP lines, and the reported cable modem availability is 
weighted by cable television subscribers.
64 Further, where an eligible entity is a broadband service provider itself, we are aware of the possibility that it may 
also apply for a BTOP grant.  See Department of Agriculture, Rural Utilities Service, Broadband Initiatives 
Program, Docket No. 0572-ZA01, Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information 
Administration, Broadband Technology Opportunities Program, Docket No. 0660-ZA28, Notice of Funds 
Availability, 74 Fed. Reg. 33104 (rel. Jul. 9, 2009) (BTOP NOFA).  Providing one BTOP applicant with access to 
the subscribership or availability information of competing BTOP applicants that is unavailable to others would 
potentially create an unfair advantage in the application process and in the market generally.
65 See ITTA/OPASTCO Comments at 9-10; NTCA Comments at 7; Time Warner Cable Comments at 3; TW 
Telecom Comments at 9; Verizon Comments at 9-10; USTelecom Comments at 6; TSTCI Comments at 4; Sprint 
Reply Comments at 2-3.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-71
12
33. We decline to adopt the several alternative procedural vehicles that some commenters 
propose.  For example, one provider suggests that the Commission require all eligible entities to abide by 
the safeguarding regimes that are at least as robust as the Commission’s, and require all 
non-governmental eligible entities to sign an NDA that is mutually agreeable to the mapping entity and 
each broadband provider and afford providers rights to notice and objection to the publication or sharing 
of data.66 For reasons of administrability, efficiency, and fairness, we find that a uniform mechanism 
featuring streamlined reviews of a standardized declaration form and avoiding assessments of state 
disclosure laws or non-standard commitments will promote the timely processing of access requests and 
most effectively advance the goals of the BDIA.
34. Although we look to our past precedent for guidance on the necessary safeguards, we 
find that the more minimal set of conditions for release of the raw Form 477 data to state commissions set 
forth in the 2000 Data Gathering Order and NPRM are insufficient in this context for a variety of 
reasons, most notably the potential for misuse in a recipient’s provision of its own broadband services.67  
We also find that imposing a traditional protective order, such as those issued in recent merger and other 
adjudicatory proceedings, including the National Broadband Plan, would not be appropriately tailored to 
the instant proceeding.  In particular, unlike those proceedings, the Form 477 data collection is mandatory 
for thousands of broadband providers, the list of entities eligible to gain access is enumerated by statute, 
and interested third parties have no right to review the data and use that information to participate in any 
Commission proceeding.  Nevertheless, we respect the concerns identified by those commenters seeking 
the imposition of a protective order,68 and we find many of the terms and conditions of prior adjudicatory 
protective orders – particularly those adopted in the National Broadband Plan Protective Order – are 
instructive in crafting the safeguards we impose today.69
2. Specific Safeguards
35. We conclude that the Chief of the WCB may provide electronic access to state-specific 
aggregate data collected on Form 477 to the eligible entity for each state, subject to the conditions set out 
below.70 We agree with commenters who identify the importance of protecting against inadvertent 
disclosure in transit,71 and direct the WCB Chief to exercise its discretion in establishing the medium for 
such electronic access and appropriate security measures, such as encryption and passwords.72 We 
therefore revise our delegation of authority to the WCB Chief consistent with the new regulation we adopt 
in Appendix C.
36. Non-Disclosure of Aggregate Data.  Consistent with the terms of BDIA section 106(h)(2) 
and the Commission’s historical practice with regard to Form 477 data, we will condition our release of 
  
66 Verizon Comments at 9.  Several other parties propose similar bifurcation or even trifurcation of safeguards, 
which may set forth different procedures depending on the protections afforded by a state’s public record laws and 
the governmental status of the eligible entity.  See, e.g., DCPSC/NJBPU Comments at 5-9; MDTC Reply Comments 
at 8-9.  The record also indicates concerns that confidentiality concerns are particularly acute now that there are 
more data recipients than there were prior to the BDIA’s enactment, and that some of them may lack the state 
commissions’ experience in handling confidential information.  See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 8 n.21.
67 See 2000 Data Gathering Order and NPRM, at 7761-62, para. 95.
68 E.g., NCTA Comments at 3.
69 See, e.g., A National Broadband Plan for Our Future, GN Docket No. 09-51, Protective Order, DA 09-2187 (rel. 
Oct. 8, 2009) (National Broadband Plan Protective Order).
70 47 U.S.C. § 0.291; 2000 Data Gathering Order and NPRM, at 7761-62, para. 95.
71 See, e.g., CTIA Reply Comments at 6.
72 WCB has recently implemented a comprehensive electronic system to allow state commissions to gain access to 
state-specific disaggregated Form 477 data designed to maximize security of transmission of sensitive data.  See 
http://www.fcc.gov/form477/datashareprocess.html.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-71
13
the aggregate data upon a commitment from each eligible entity that they will abide by the protections of 
section 106(h)(2) and will not disclose the aggregate data to any third party except with the consent of the 
provider that submitted it.73 Additionally, we will require each eligible entity to execute and submit a 
Declaration (in the format attached as Appendix B) containing an express commitment to protect the data 
in this fashion.74
37. Procedures for Obtaining Access to Aggregate Data.  In order to initiate its request for 
electronic access to aggregate data, each eligible entity seeking access shall execute the Declaration and 
file it with the Bureau via the Commission’s Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) for this docket, and 
must also submit an electronic copy to the WCB Chief and the Chief of the Industry Analysis and 
Technology Division (IATD).75 We agree with the several commenters that emphasize the need for 
certifications from eligible entities as critical tools in keeping the aggregate data secure.76 We also find 
that making these certifications public by requiring them to be filed in this docket will enhance the 
transparency and accountability of this process, and that the standardized Declaration and the request 
process for eligible entities will lead to a more efficient administration of the processing of requests for 
access.  For these administrative and efficiency reasons, we reject the proposals that the Commission 
review protections of state-instrumentality eligible entities individually.77
38. Each prospective party seeking access must demonstrate that it qualifies as an eligible 
entity by submitting into ECFS documentation of the fact that it “is the single eligible entity in the State 
that has been designated by the State to receive a grant under” section 106(i)(2).78 NTIA has already 
established a procedure for identifying the designation of an eligible entity,79 and has published a list of 
eligible applicants for all 50 states, the five territories, and the District of Columbia.80 Although the 
Commission will make its own determinations of which entities qualify under section 106(i)(2), we find 
NTIA’s Letter of Designation standard to be appropriate and administrable, and we adopt this standard 
here.
39. Use of Aggregate Data.  Each eligible entity obtaining access under this order must 
certify that it shall use the aggregate data only for the purposes of the section 106(b) State Broadband 
  
73 See, e.g., Verizon Reply at 5.
74 See National Broadband Plan Protective Order, at 3, para. 6.
75 As indicated in the attached Declaration, the eligible entity must specify contact person(s) to coordinate access, 
including contact e-mail addresses and direct dial telephone numbers.  Any changes to contact person(s) must be 
made through an amended declaration and filed consistent with the terms of this order.
76 See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 7; NARUC Comments at 8; Time Warner Cable at 4.
77  See, e.g., DCPSC/NJBPU Comments at 5 (“If necessary, the Commission can review a State’s FOIA to determine 
whether it is sufficiently protective of confidential information and, by agreement, impose federal requirements 
where not.”); NARUC Comments at 8.
78 47 U.S.C. § 1304(i)(2)(B).
79 For the purposes of designation of an eligible entity, the NTIA State Mapping NOFA requires a Letter of State 
Designation, which letter “signed by the Governor or equivalent chief executive of the State, or his duly authorized 
designee, affirms that the applicant is the single eligible entity in the State that has been designated by the State to 
receive a grant under this Program.”  NTIA State Mapping NOFA, 74 Fed. Reg. at 32553; see also NTIA State 
Mapping NOFA at 32549 (defining State to be “the Governor or in the absence of a designation by the Governor, the
Legislature, officer, or executive agency within the State that the Governor or State Constitution authorizes to take
binding action for the State”), 32550 (setting forth eligibility standards), 32551 (requiring a Letter of State 
Designation).  The NOFA further explains that “[i]n the case State, the District of Columbia, or a territory or 
possession of the United States, the terms Governor, Legislature or State Constitution shall mean their respective 
functional equivalents.”  NTIA State Mapping NOFA at 32549.  
80 NTIA Eligible Applicants List.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-71
14
Data and Development Grant Program and, except as provided herein, shall not use such documents or 
information for any other purpose, including without limitation, business, governmental, or commercial 
purposes, or in other administrative, regulatory or judicial proceedings.  We agree with those filers that 
assert that eligible entities should not be permitted to use data received pursuant to the BDIA to enhance 
their own efforts to compete against Form 477 filers,81 or to provide data to entities that are direct or even 
indirect competitors.82 These restrictions are necessary to prevent an eligible entity’s right to access 
aggregate data from becoming an unfair, anticompetitive tool in its own provision of broadband service.
40. Numerous commenters express concerns about grantee publication of confidential, 
provider-specific Form 477 data, and several propose different mechanisms for the Commission to deem 
confidential all or part of those data prior to sharing them with the grantee, including a review for 
confidential information by the Commission of grantee broadband maps and appropriate redaction.83 We 
recognize the legitimacy of these concerns.  Rather than undertaking any case-by-case review of maps or 
data, however, we specifically prohibit any eligible entity, contractor, or other party from publishing, 
sharing or otherwise disseminating Form 477 aggregate data or further aggregation of these aggregate 
data, including maps designating broadband subscription based on Form 477 aggregate data, as well as 
penetration or other indicators derived from subscription.  We view this approach as administratively 
efficient and as an effective safeguard, and consistent with the goal of the BDIA and the NTIA NOFA – to 
award grants for eligible entities to track availability, not to republish information supplied to them by the 
Commission.84 We are aware of the utility that the Form 477 broadband subscribership data has to states, 
providers, and the public, and to the extent possible, we will publish those data in our High-Speed 
Services Reports and miscellaneous reports.
41. Permissible Disclosure.  We limit access to aggregate data to certain personnel.  NTIA 
expressly anticipates that awardees may use contractors and subcontractors,85 including for-profit 
companies,86 and we devise our disclosure rules to be consistent with that relationship.  At least one 
commenter has recognized, however, that use restrictions should extend to third parties,87 and we agree 
that avoiding potential conflicts of interest – as well the appearance of such conflicts – warrant certain 
measures.  Accordingly, subject to the use description described above, we specifically limit access to 
aggregate data to (1) principals or employees of the eligible entity; (2) outside contractors, subcontractors, 
consultants or experts retained for the purpose of assisting eligible entities, provided that such outside 
consultants are not employees of or consultants or contractors to any broadband service provider in the 
relevant state, and do not otherwise participate directly in the business decisions of any broadband service 
provider in the state nor the analysis underlying the business decisions; and (3) outside counsel to eligible 
entities, provided that such persons are not involved in competitive decision-making, i.e., outside 
counsel’s activities, association, and relationship with any broadband service provider in the relevant state 
do not involve advice about or participation in the business decisions of that provider nor the analysis 
  
81 See WISPA Reply Comments at 5.
82 See TW Telecom Comments at 2-3, 9; ITTA/OPASTCO Comments at 8 (“The Commission should avoid offering 
data that enables third-party determinations of a broadband provider’s strategic plans.”); TSTCI Comments at 3 
(“Some eligible entities that can receive Form 477 data may in fact be competitors of broadband providers.”).
83 See, e.g., TW Telecom Comments at 11-12.
84 See also BDIA, 47 U.S.C. § 1303(e) (“Nothing in this chapter shall reduce or remove any obligation the 
Commission has to protect proprietary information, nor shall this chapter be construed to compel the Commission to 
make publicly availably any proprietary information.”).
85 See Broadband Mapping NOFA at 32554.
86 NTIA Aug. 12 FAQs at 1-2.
87 ITTA/OPASTCO Comments at 8 (arguing for restrictions to extend to third parties, such as subcontractors).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-71
15
underlying the business decisions.  We find this protective measure necessary to ensure against 
anticompetitive misuse.
42. Protection of Aggregate Data.  Persons described in paragraphs 37 and 41 shall have the 
obligation to ensure that access to aggregate data is strictly limited as prescribed in this order.  We agree 
with those commenters who seek strengthened safeguards to preserve confidentially, and agree with the 
proposal of some commenters that eligible entities should be required to implement reasonable internal 
data protection policies, such as employee training and security of storage.88 Furthermore, each eligible 
entity must work with the encryption, password-protection, designation-of-confidentiality, or other 
security measures that the Commission may attach to the aggregate data or the electronic access to those 
data, and may not remove, alter, or otherwise adjust any such security feature.  We adopt similar file 
protections as those adopted in the National Broadband Plan Protective Order,89 as set forth below, 
although in this docket we expressly allow WCB to transmit information electronically, consistent with 
the BDIA’s requirement to provide access in electronic form:
a. In order to receive a password to access directly the state-specific aggregate data, an 
eligible entity will submit, via the Commission’s Electronic Comment Filing System, a 
Declaration, consistent with Appendix B, signed by a corporate officer, director, managing 
partner or equivalent official of the eligible entity.  Upon receipt of a properly executed 
Declaration, the Wireline Competition Bureau will supply the Declarant with a password for 
access.  Other individuals may then access the aggregate data consistent with the terms of this 
Order, although at all times the eligible entity and Declarant assume full responsibility for 
compliance with all terms and conditions of this order.  The Declarant must maintain a list of the 
names and titles of all employees, contractors, and others who access these aggregate data, and 
must produce this list to the Commission upon request.
b.  A person in receipt of aggregate data in electronic format shall load the information onto 
a computer solely for the purpose of analysis in connection with this proceeding and for no other 
purpose.    
c. Once loaded onto a computer, the files containing aggregate data shall be password 
protected immediately.  The aggregate data may not be stored on a computer after being 
analyzed.  Consequently, aggregate data should not be stored in computer memory that is copied, 
such as to a network’s back-up or archival storage.  After the analysis is complete, the results of 
such analysis may be stored by saving the results (but not the underlying aggregate data) to a 
mobile data storage medium.  All files containing aggregate data shall, as soon as practicable, be 
deleted from the computer.
43. Subpoena by Courts, Departments or Agencies.  If a court, or a federal or state 
department or agency issues a subpoena or orders production of aggregate data that an eligible entity has 
obtained under terms of this Order, the eligible entity shall promptly notify the WCB Chief of the 
pendency of such subpoena or order.  Consistent with the independent authority of any court, department 
or agency, such notification must be accomplished such that the Commission has a full opportunity to 
oppose such production prior to the production or disclosure of any aggregate data.
44. Violations of Order.  Should a person that has properly obtained access to aggregate data 
under this Protective Order violate any of its terms, that person shall immediately convey that fact to the 
Commission, including the WCB Chief.  Further, should such violation consist of improper disclosure of 
  
88 See, e.g., NTCA Comments at 7 (seeking protections through NDAs that could address the form in which data are 
stored, who has access to the data, length of data retention, training on handling data, and other issues); CTIA Reply 
at 6.
89 National Broadband Plan Protective Order at 5, para. 11.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-71
16
aggregate data, the violating person shall take all necessary steps to remedy the improper disclosure.  The 
Commission retains its full authority to fashion appropriate sanctions for violations of this Order, 
including but not limited to suspension or disbarment of Counsel from practice before the Commission, 
forfeitures, cease and desist orders, and denial of further access to aggregate data.90
45. Several commenting parties urge the Commission to recognize a right to recovery by 
providers against eligible entities.91 We decline at this time to address this issue, but we do make clear 
that nothing in this Order shall limit any other rights and remedies available to a provider that has 
submitted underlying Form 477 data at law or in equity against any person using aggregated data in a 
manner not authorized by this Order.92
D. Adequacy of Notice
46. We reject the argument raised by one commenter that the Aggregate Data Notice is 
inadequate to implement section 106(h), and that a new rulemaking proceeding is necessary in order to 
adopt new Form 477 data distribution rules.93 That commenter contends that rural broadband service 
providers may have “inadvertently” submitted confidential information that they would not have 
otherwise disclosed, and therefore “fairness” and due process dictates that the Commission should not 
apply section 106(h) retrospectively to data that have already been collected.94 We disagree for several 
reasons.  First, the mandatory nature of Form 477 negates the argument that any broadband provider may 
somehow have not included certain information that is required from all facilities-based broadband 
providers.  Second, the breadth of the current pending 2008 Broadband Data Gathering Further Notice
and the Aggregate Data Public Notice provide more than enough opportunity for filers to provide 
meaningful comment on the rule change that we make today.  Third, the combination of aggregation and 
the confidentiality protections described above provide ample protection for the confidential data.
IV. PROCEDURAL MATTERS
A. Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
47. Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification.  The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA),95 requires that a regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for rulemaking proceedings, 
unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.”96 The RFA generally defines "small entity" as having the same meaning as the 
terms "small business," "small organization," and "small governmental jurisdiction."97 In addition, the 
  
90 See Time Warner Cable Comments at 4 (“[T]he Commission should make clear that an eligible entity’s 
entitlement to obtain such information is conditioned on its agreement, in advance and in writing, to comply with the 
BDIA’s confidentiality provisions.  Such an acknowledgement, which could be modeled on those that typically 
accompany protective orders in Commission proceedings, would provide the Commission with the ability to enforce 
this requirement.”).
91 See, e.g., ITTA/OPASTCO Comments at 8-10.
92 See USTelecom at 8 (arguing that any public penalties that the Commission imposes for violation of 
confidentiality provisions of an NDA should not preclude a right of action); ITTA/OPASTCO Comments at 9.
93 NTCA Comments at 5-6.
94 Id.  Furthermore, NTCA argues that the Public Notice was not accompanied by any proposed rule change 
wording, upon which affected parties could comment.
95 The RFA, see § 5 U.S.C. S 601 et. seq., has been amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of 
1996, Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA).  Title II of the CWAAA is the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA).
96 5 U.S.C. § 605(b).
97 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-71
17
term "small business" has the same meaning as the term "small business concern" under the Small 
Business Act.98 A small business concern is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is 
not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small 
Business Administration (SBA).99
48. This Order takes steps to provide for the sharing of Form 477 data with other entities.  
Our rule imposes no burden on Form 477 filers or on the eligible entities.  Therefore, we certify that the 
requirements of this Order will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.  The Commission will send a copy of the Order including a copy of this final certification, in a 
report to Congress pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, see 5 
U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).  In addition, the Order and this certification will be sent to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, and will be published in the Federal Register.  See 5 
U.S.C. § 605(b).
B. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis
49. This document contains no new information collection requirements subject to the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. 
C. Accessible Formats
50. To request information in accessible formats (computer diskettes, large print, audio 
recording, and Braille), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Commission’s Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).  This document can also 
be downloaded in Word and Portable Document Format (PDF) at: http://www.fcc.gov.
V. ORDERING CLAUSES
51. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 403 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 154(j), and 403, and sections 101-06 of 
the Broadband Data Improvement Act, 47 U.S.C. §§ 1301-04, this Order IS ADOPTED, effective upon 
its release.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
  
98 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small business concern” in Small Business Act, 
15 U.S.C. S § 632).  Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies “unless an 
agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity 
for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the 
agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register.”
99 Small Business Act, § 15 U.S.C. S 632. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-71
18
APPENDIX A
List of Commenters
Comments 
Commenters Abbreviation
AT&T Inc. AT&T
California Public Utilities Commission California PUC
Charles Benton Benton
District of Columbia Public Service Commission; New 
Jersey Board of Public Utilities
DCPSC/NJBPU
Free Press Free Press
Independent Telephone & Telecommunications Alliance and 
the Organization for the Promotion and Advancement of 
Small Telecommunications Companies
ITTA/OPASTCO
Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Cable Massachusetts DTC
Missouri Public Service Commission Missouri PSC
National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners NARUC
National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates 
and New Jersey Division of Rate Counsel
NASUCA/NJBPU
National Cable & Telecommunications Association NCTA
National Telecommunications Cooperative Association National Telecom Cooperative
Public Knowledge, Media Access Project, The New America 
Foundation
Public Knowledge, et al.
Qwest Communications International Inc. Qwest
Texas Statewide Telephone Cooperative, Inc. TSTCI
Time Warner Cable Inc. Time Warner Cable
Time Warner Telecom TW Telecom
United States Telecom Association USTelecom
Verizon and Verizon Wireless Verizon
XO Communications, LLC XO
Reply Comments
Reply Commenters Abbreviation
CTIA - The Wireless Association CTIA
Colorado Public Utilities Commission Colorado PUC
National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates 
and New Jersey Division of Rate Counsel
NASUCA/NJBPU
Sprint Nextel Corporation Sprint
The Wireless Internet Service Providers Association WISPA
United States Telecom Association USTelecom
Verizon Verizon
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-71
19
APPENDIX B
Declaration
In the Matter of
Providing Eligible Entities Access to Aggregate 
Form 477 Data
Implementation of the Broadband Data 
Improvement Act of 2008
A National Broadband Plan for our Future
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
WC Docket No. 07-38
GN Docket No. 09-47
GN Docket No. 09-51
I, _______________________________________, of the eligible entity 
______________________________________________________ for the state of 
_______________________, hereby declare under penalty of perjury that I have read the Order that has 
been entered by the Commission in this proceeding, and I understand it.  
I agree to be bound by its terms pertaining to the treatment of section 106(h) aggregate data, and I 
agree that I shall not disclose or use section 106(h) aggregate data except as allowed by the Order.
I certify that I have verified that there are in place procedures at my place of business where the 
data is accessed to prevent unauthorized disclosure of section 106(h) aggregate data.
I acknowledge that a violation of the Order is a violation of an order of the Federal 
Communications Commission.
 Executed at ________________________ this ___ day of _____________, ____.
[signed]_________________________________
[Name] _________________________________
[Position] _________________________________
[Eligible Entity]_________ _________________________________
[Address] __________________________________________________________________________
[Telephone] _________________________________
[Email] _________________________________
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-71
20
APPENDIX C
Rule Amended
AMENDMENTS TO THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS
PART 1 – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Part 1 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) is amended as follows:
1. Section 1.7001 of the Commission’s rules is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:
§  1.7001 Scope and Content of Filed Reports
(d) Respondents may make requests for Commission non-disclosure of provider-specific data contained in 
FCC Form 477 under § 0.459 of this chapter by so indicating on Form 477 at the time that the subject 
data are submitted.  The Commission shall make all decisions regarding non-disclosure of provider-
specific information, except that:
(1) The Chief of the Wireline Competition Bureau may release provider-specific information to a state 
commission provided that the state commission has protections in place that would preclude disclosure of 
any confidential information, and 
(2) The Chief of the Wireline Competition Bureau may release provider-specific information to “eligible 
entities,” as those entities are defined in the Broadband Data Improvement Act, in an aggregated format 
and pursuant to confidentiality conditions prescribed by the Commission.
* * * * *