Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Modernizing the FCC Form 477 Data Program
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
Service Quality, Customer Satisfaction, 
Infrastructure and Operating Data Gathering
Review of Wireline Competition Bureau Data 
Practices
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
WC Docket No. 11-10
WC Docket No. 07-38
WC Docket No. 08-190
WC Docket No. 10-132
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING
Adopted:  February 8, 2011 Released:  February 8, 2011
Comment Date:  [30 days after publication in the Federal Register]
Reply Comment Date:  [45 days after publication in the Federal Register]
By the Commission:  Chairman Genachowski and Commissioners McDowell, Clyburn and Baker issuing 
separate statements; Commissioner Copps concurring and issuing a statement. 
Heading Paragraph #
I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 1
II. BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................................... 3
A. Form 477 Data Program................................................................................................................... 3
B. Other Developments Relating to Data Collection.......................................................................... 11
1. Broadband Data Improvement Act.......................................................................................... 12
2. Recovery Act........................................................................................................................... 17
3. The Commission’s Data Innovation Initiative......................................................................... 20
4. 2010 Biennial Review ............................................................................................................. 21
III. PURPOSES FOR WHICH THE COMMISSION MUST OBTAIN DATA........................................ 22
A. Ensuring Universal Service............................................................................................................ 24
B. Ensuring Public Safety................................................................................................................... 26
C. Promoting Telephone and Broadband Competition....................................................................... 28
D. Promoting Broadband Deployment and Availability..................................................................... 32
E. Other Statutory Obligations ........................................................................................................... 35
IV. REVISIONS TO THE FCC FORM 477 DATA PROGRAM.............................................................. 36
A. General Considerations.................................................................................................................. 38
1. Streamlining Collection........................................................................................................... 38
2. Use of Third-Party and Publicly Available Data..................................................................... 41
3. Who Must Report .................................................................................................................... 43
4. Frequency of Reporting........................................................................................................... 46
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
2
B. Specific Categories of Data............................................................................................................ 47
1. Deployment ............................................................................................................................. 49
2. Price......................................................................................................................................... 66
3. Subscription............................................................................................................................. 77
4. Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction............................................................................. 89
5. Ownership and Contact Information ..................................................................................... 100
6. Other Data ............................................................................................................................. 105
V. LEGAL ISSUES................................................................................................................................. 107
A. Authority...................................................................................................................................... 107
B. Disclosure .................................................................................................................................... 108
C. Privacy ......................................................................................................................................... 110
VI. OTHER ISSUES ................................................................................................................................ 113
A. Tribal Lands................................................................................................................................. 113
B. International Data......................................................................................................................... 115
VII.PROCEDURAL MATTERS.............................................................................................................. 117
A. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis ............................................................................................. 117
B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ................................................................................................... 118
C. Ex Parte Presentations ................................................................................................................. 119
D. Comment Filing Procedures......................................................................................................... 120
E. Contact Persons............................................................................................................................ 126
VIII. ORDERING CLAUSES .............................................................................................................. 127
APPENDIX - Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), we seek comment on whether and how to 
reform the Form 477 data program to improve the Commission’s ability to carry out its statutory duties, 
while streamlining and minimizing the overall costs of the program, including the burdens imposed on 
service providers.  This NPRM is an important part of our larger Data Innovation Initiative to modernize
and streamline how we collect, use, and disseminate data, and to ensure that all of the data we collect is 
useful for supporting informed policymaking, promoting competition, and protecting consumers.  We are 
focused on giving careful consideration to the benefits and burdens of our data collections, and eliminating 
unnecessary collections where possible.  For example, the Initiative already has identified over twenty data 
collections across the entire Commission that may be outdated and ripe for elimination, as well as a number 
of statutory reporting obligations that may have outlived their usefulness.1 Similarly, for each type of data 
  
1 Pleading Cycle Established for Comments on Review of Media Bureau Data Practices, MB Docket No. 10-103, 
Public Notice, 25 FCC Rcd 8236 (MB 2010); Pleading Cycle Established for Comments on Review of Wireless 
Competition Bureau Data Practices, WT Docket No. 10-131, Public Notice, 25 FCC Rcd 8373 (WTB 2010); 
Pleading Cycle Established for Comments on Review of Wireline Competition Bureau Data Practices, WC Docket 
No. 10-132, Public Notice, 25 FCC Rcd 8213 (WCB 2010).  Commission action on the collections identified 
through the Initiative will occur in the dockets associated with those collections.  For example, the Commission 
today issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in which it proposes removal of the narrowband comparably efficient 
interconnection (CEI) and open network architecture (ONA) requirements that currently apply to the Bell Operating 
Companies (BOCs). See Review of Wireline Competition Bureau Data Practices; 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, WC Docket No. 10-132, CC Docket Nos. 95-20, 98-10, 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC No. 11-15 (rel. Feb. 8, 2011).  The Commission also may take action through 
its biennial review of telecommunications regulations.  See 47 U.S.C. § 161; Commission Seeks Public Comment in 
2010 Biennial Review of Telecommunications Regulations; Announces Particular Focus on Data Collection 
Requirements, CG Docket No. 10-266, EB Docket No. 10-267, IB Docket No. 10-268, ET Docket No. 10-269, PS 
Docket No. 10-270, WT Docket No. 10-271, WC Docket No. 10-272, Public Notice, FCC 10-204 (rel. Dec. 30, 
2010) (2010 Biennial Review Public Notice).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
3
discussed in this Notice, we will consider the burdens and benefits of any proposed changes.  Our goal is to 
ensure that the Commission has the data it needs, while minimizing the overall burdens of data collection.
2. Established in 2000, Form 477 is the Commission’s primary tool for collecting data about 
broadband and local telephone networks and services.2 The form requires providers of broadband service, 
local telephone service, interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service, and mobile telephone 
service to report the number of subscribers they have in their respective service areas.3 But the Commission 
has in the past noted shortcomings of the data collected using Form 477,4 and after more than a decade of 
rapid innovation in the market for broadband and telephone services, and consistent with the Government 
Accountability Office’s (GAO) recent finding that the Commission’s broadband data collection fails to 
collect key data required to inform policy decisions and generally needs improvement,5 we believe it may 
be time to modify Form 477 to better serve the needs of the Commission, Congress, service providers, and 
consumers.  In fact, since the last modification of Form 477, Congress directed the FCC to collect 
additional information to supplement its analysis of broadband deployment and availability.6 As we have 
noted before, Form 477 collects data that are “a critical precursor” to the Commission’s ability to fulfill its 
statutory duties,7 and provides the Commission with “a set of data of uniform quality and reliability” 
superior to other publicly available information sources.8 Form 477 also enables us to fulfill our obligation 
to reduce government regulation wherever possible,9 by providing “a factual basis to evaluate the nature and 
impact of our existing regulation and, in particular, to identify areas where competition has developed 
sufficiently to justify deregulation.”10  
  
2 Local Competition and Broadband Reporting, CC Docket No. 99-301, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 7717, 7718, 
para. 1 (2000) (2000 Data Gathering Order).
3 Local Telephone Competition and Broadband Reporting, Report and Order, WC Docket No. 04-141, 19 FCC Rcd 
22340, 22342-43, para. 3 (2004) (2004 Broadband Data Gathering Order).
4 See, e.g., 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, as Amended by the Broadband Data Improvement Act, GN Docket Nos. 09-137, 09-
51, Notice of Inquiry, 24 FCC Rcd 10505, 10526–27, para. 45 (2009) (2009 Sixth Broadband Deployment NOI); 
Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable 
and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 98-146, Report, 14 FCC Rcd 2398, 2402, para. 7 (1999) (1999 
First Broadband Deployment Report) (relying on subscribership data as a proxy for deployment and availability, 
and noting that such data “may not be a precise estimate of actual deployment and availability”); see also INDUS.
ANALYSIS & TECH. DIV., FCC, INTERNET ACCESS SERVICES: STATUS AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2008 at 1 (Feb. 2010) at 
4–5, nn.16 & 17 (December 2010 Internet Access Services Report) (explaining that mobile wireless connections are 
only reported at the state level and some business connections could be miscategorized as residential connections), 
available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296239A1.pdf.
5 UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, TELECOMMUNICATIONS: CURRENT BROADBAND 
MEASURES HAVE LIMITATIONS, AND NEW MEASURES ARE PROMISING BUT NEED IMPROVEMENT, GAO-10-49 at 3-6 
(Oct. 2009) (October 2009 GAO Report), available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1049.pdf.
6 Broadband Data Improvement Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-385, 122 Stat. 4097 (codified at 47 U.S.C. 
§§ 1301-04) at § 103(b); 47 U.S.C. § 1303(b) (BDIA).
7 2000 Data Gathering Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 7719, para. 2.
8 Id. at 7726, para. 14.
9 See 47 U.S.C. §§ 160(b), 161(a)(2).
10 2000 Data Gathering Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 7720, para. 5.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
4
II. BACKGROUND
A. Form 477 Data Program 
3. Development of FCC Form 477.  The Commission initiated the Form 477 data program in May 
2000 to “materially improve its ability to develop, evaluate, and revise policy” for broadband and telephone 
services, and “to provide valuable benchmarks for Congress, the Commission, other policy makers, and 
consumers.”11 The Commission designed the program as a standardized collection, with separate sections 
on subscriptions to broadband services, local telephone service competition, and mobile telephony 
services.12  
4. In establishing the Form 477 framework for broadband data, the Commission anticipated that a 
“regular and consistent survey of broadband deployment” would substantially assist it in fulfilling its 
statutory duty under section 706 of the Telecommunications Act to report to Congress on broadband 
deployment and availability, and to encourage the deployment of broadband to all Americans.13 To that 
end, the initial Form 477 collected broadband subscribership data.  Specifically, the form collected data 
from facilities-based providers on the numbers of connections to the Internet in service to consumers in 
each state, and whether such connections used the provider’s own facilities, unbundled network elements 
(UNEs), special-access lines or other leased lines, or wireless channels.14 The Commission established 200 
kilobits per second (kbps) as the minimum transfer-speed threshold for the connections it would track,15 and 
required providers to identify the technology used to provide the connections,16 the percentage of 
connections offered to residential customers and small businesses,17 and each ZIP code in which the 
providers had at least one connection in service.18
5. The initial Form 477 likewise collected subscribership data for local telephone service, 
including data from incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) and competitive LECs on the number of 
voice-grade equivalent lines and fixed wireless channels in service for the provision of local exchange or 
exchange access service to end-user customers and for resale.19 The original Form 477 required LECs to 
report the five-digit ZIP codes in which customers served, by reported lines and wireless channels.  Mobile 
telephony providers were required to report their total subscribers by state, and the percentage of customers 
billed directly by the reporting provider.
6. The initial Form 477 program did not require small providers to file reports.  Specifically, 
broadband service providers with fewer than 250 connections in service in a state were not required to file 
the form.20 LECs with fewer than 10,000 voice-grade equivalent lines or wireless channels in service, and 
mobile telephony providers with fewer than 10,000 subscribers were similarly not required to file.21
  
11 Id. at 7718, para. 1.
12 Id. at 7749–50, 7753–54, 7756–57, 7772–90, paras. 66, 75, 84, App. B.
13 Id. at 7725, para. 13; 47 U.S.C. § 1302(b).
14 2000 Data Gathering Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 7749–50, para. 66.
15 Id.
16 Id. at 7750, para. 67.
17 Id. at 7751, para. 69.
18 Id. at 7721, para. 6.
19 In addition, LEC respondents reported the percentage of lines provided over the carriers’ own facilities, the 
percentage provided over UNE loops obtained from other LECs, and the percentage provided by competitive LECs 
directly from incumbent LEC switching centers in which the competitive LEC was collocated.  
20 2000 Data Gathering Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 7739, 7745, paras. 40, 52.  
21 Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
5
7. Revisions to Form 477.  The Commission has twice modified Form 477.  First, in 2004, the 
Commission revised the Form 477 program to require submissions from all facilities-based providers of 
broadband connections, in order to capture a more comprehensive picture of broadband deployment in rural 
areas.22 Further, the Commission required filers to report the percentage of their connections that fell into 
five speed tiers.23 The Commission also required all wired and fixed wireless providers to report the 
technologies used to provide service in the ZIP codes in which at least one connection was in service.24 The 
Commission acknowledged that mobile broadband service differs in some respects from fixed broadband 
service, and required filers reporting mobile wireless broadband subscribers to list the ZIP codes that “best 
represent the filers’ mobile wireless broadband coverage areas.”25
8. The Commission next refined the Form 477 data program in 2008, establishing the framework 
that is currently in place.  The Commission decided to collect more granular subscription and speed data, 
and to improve the quality of data on mobile wireless broadband services.26 All wireline and 
terrestrial-fixed wireless broadband service providers must now report the numbers of subscribers at the 
census-tract level, broken down by technology and more disaggregated speed tiers;27 and the percentage of 
subscribers that are residential.28 Incumbent LECs must continue to report the percentage of their service 
areas where DSL connections are available to residential premises, and cable system operators must do the 
same with regard to cable modem service availability.29 Providers of terrestrial mobile wireless broadband 
services must continue to submit their broadband subscriber totals on a state-by-state basis, rather than at 
  
22 2004 Broadband Data Gathering Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 22345-46, paras. 8-9 (“Based on our experience with the 
Form 477 over the past nearly five years, we now conclude that the current thresholds render impossible a thorough 
understanding of the dynamics of broadband deployment in states with rural and/or underserved areas.”).
23 Id. at 22347-48, para. 14. These tiers were: (1) greater than 200 kilobits per second (kbps) and less than 2.5 
megabits per second (Mbps); (2) greater than or equal to 2.5 Mbps and less than 10 Mbps; (3) greater than or equal 
to 10 Mbps and less than 25 Mbps; (4) greater than or equal to 25 Mbps and less than 100 Mbps; and (5) greater 
than or equal to 100 Mbps. 
24 Id. at 22349-50, para. 18.
25 Id.
26 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).
27 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 and Further Notice, 23 FCC Rcd at 9700–01, para. 20.
28 Previously, the Commission required providers to compile a list of ZIP codes in which they offered service, but 
collected subscriber counts only at the state level and in accordance with less granular speed tiers.  See, e.g., 2000 
Data Gathering Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 7761, para. 94; 7772-73, App. B Cover Page, Part I.
29 See 2004 Broadband Data Gathering Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 22349, para. 16.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
6
the census-tract level, and must report on the census tracts that “best represent” their broadband service 
footprint for each speed tier in which they offer service.30  
9. The 2008 Broadband Data Gathering Order and Further Notice also required providers of 
interconnected VoIP services to report the number of subscribers in each state, the number of subscribers 
who purchase the service in conjunction with the purchase of a broadband connection and, of those, the 
types of connections purchased.31 Interconnected VoIP providers also must report the percentage of 
subscribers who can use the service over any broadband connection.32
10. 2008 Further Notice.  The Commission sought comment in 2008 on further revisions to Form 
477, including whether and how to institute a national broadband availability mapping program.  The 
Commission tentatively concluded that it “should collect information that providers use to respond to 
prospective customers to determine on an address-by-address basis whether service is available.”33 The 
Commission sought comment on standardized collection formats; whether it should collect information on 
pricing and actual speeds of broadband services; how generally to maintain the confidentiality of broadband 
data; whether the Commission should conduct and publish periodic consumer surveys on broadband 
services; and whether it should require LECs and interconnected VoIP providers to report the number of 
subscribers in geographic units below the state level, either by ZIP code or census tract.34
B. Other Developments Relating to Data Collection
11. Since the adoption of the 2008 Broadband Data Gathering Order and Further Notice, a 
number of legislative and regulatory developments have affected the obligations of the Commission and 
other government agencies to collect data related to telephone and broadband services.
1. Broadband Data Improvement Act
12. On October 10, 2008, Congress enacted the Broadband Data Improvement Act (BDIA), 
expressly finding that “[i]mproving Federal data on the deployment and adoption of broadband service will 
assist in the development of broadband technology across all regions of the nation.”35 The BDIA imposed 
several new obligations on the Commission and other federal agencies.36
  
30 See 2008 Broadband Data Gathering Order and Further Notice, 23 FCC Rcd at 9698–99, para. 16.
31 Id. at 9705-07, paras. 26-31.
32 Id. at 9707, para. 31.
33 Id. at 9709, para. 35.
34 Id. at 9708, para. 33.  This Notice addresses issues that were first raised in WC Docket Nos. 07-38, 08-190 and 10-
123 that relate to the Commission’s data programs.  Given the changes that the industry has experienced since the 
2008 Broadband Data Order and Further Notice, the increased focus on broadband issues by the Commission and 
Congress (see Section II.B, infra), and the administrative efficiencies that will result from consolidating these issues 
in a single docket, we hereby open a new docket and incorporate the comments and ex parte presentations of WC 
Docket Nos. 07-38, 08-190 and 10-123.  Commenters need not resubmit material previously filed in those 
proceedings.
35 BDIA § 102(3); 47 U.S.C. § 1301(3).
36 In particular, the Census Bureau, in consultation with the Commission, is required to expand the Census Bureau’s 
American Community Survey to include additional questions on residential subscriptions to broadband services.  
See BDIA § 103(d); 47 U.S.C. § 1303(d).  The BDIA also directed the Small Business Association to conduct a 
survey evaluating the impact of broadband speed and price on small businesses by October 10, 2010.  See BDIA 
§ 105; 47 U.S.C § 1304.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
7
a. Revisions to Section 706 Reporting Requirements
13. The BDIA amended section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to improve the quality 
and quantity of data the Commission collects on the deployment and adoption of broadband services.37  
First, the BDIA requires the Commission to publish its section 706 reports “annually” instead of 
“regularly,” as previously required.38 Second, the BDIA requires the Commission to compile “demographic 
information for unserved areas” as part of the annual section 706 inquiry.39 Specifically, the BDIA requires 
that the Commission “compile a list of geographical areas not served by any provider of advanced 
telecommunications capability.”40 If Census Bureau data are available, the Commission must “determine, 
for each such unserved area—(1) the population; (2) the population density; and (3) the average per capita 
income.”41  
14. The BDIA also requires the Commission to perform an international comparison in its annual 
broadband deployment report conducted pursuant to section 706 of the Telecommunications Act.42  
Specifically, section 1303 of Title 47 now requires the Commission to “include information comparing the 
extent of broadband service capability (including data transmission speeds and price for broadband service 
capability) in a total of 75 communities in at least 25 countries abroad for each of the data rate benchmarks 
for broadband service utilized by the Commission to reflect different speed tiers.”43  
b. The GAO’s Report on Broadband Metrics and Standards 
15. In addition, the BDIA required the GAO’s Comptroller General to conduct a study and issue a 
report on broadband metrics and standards by October 10, 2009.44 That report evaluated the “broadband 
metrics that may be used by industry and the Federal Government [including the Commission] to provide 
users with more accurate information about the cost and capability of their broadband connection[s], and to 
better compare the deployment and penetration of broadband in the United States with other countries.”45
16. The GAO found that current measures of broadband performance “have limitations,” that 
“views were mixed on potential alternatives, and ongoing [broadband data collection] efforts need 
improvement.”46 Further, stakeholders reported to the GAO that the data collected by the FCC Form 477 
“[do] not include information on availability, price, or actual delivered speeds, which limits the ability to 
make comparisons across the country and inform policy or investment decisions.”47
2. Recovery Act
17. In February 2009, Congress enacted the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA),48
which directed the Commission to develop a national broadband plan to ensure that all people of the United 
  
37 BDIA § 101; 47 U.S.C. § 1301.  
38 BDIA § 103(a)(1); 47 U.S.C. § 1302(b). 
39 BDIA § 103(a)(3); 47 U.S.C. § 1302(c). 
40 Id.
41 Id.
42 BDIA § 103(b); 47 U.S.C. § 1303(b).
43 Id.
44 BDIA § 104(b).  
45 BDIA § 104(a).
46 See OCTOBER 2009 GAO REPORT, n.4.
47 Id.
48 See American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, § 6001(k)(2), Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115 (2009) 
(Recovery Act or ARRA).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
8
States have access to broadband.49 The ARRA also directed the National Telecommunications and 
Information Administration (NTIA) to develop and maintain a comprehensive nationwide and publicly 
available map of broadband service capability and availability.50
a. National Broadband Plan
18. Section 6001(k) of the ARRA instructed the Commission to submit to Congress a national 
broadband plan that would analyze mechanisms for ensuring broadband access by all people of the United 
States, provide a detailed strategy for achieving affordability and maximum usage, and include a plan for 
use of broadband to advance national purposes such as education, health care, energy, and public safety.51  
The resulting National Broadband Plan, published on March 16, 2010, noted the necessity for “continuous 
collection and analysis of detailed data on competitive behavior,”52 and stressed the need for the 
Commission to conduct “more thorough data collection to monitor and benchmark competitive behavior.”53  
In particular, recommendation 4.2 of the Plan suggested that the Commission “revise Form 477 to collect 
data relevant to broadband availability, adoption and competition.”54
b. NTIA’s Broadband Inventory Map
19. In order to comply with requirements under the BDIA and the ARRA, NTIA in July 2009 
established a State Broadband Data and Development Grant Program (SBDD).55 Through this program, 
NTIA has awarded grants, funded through 2015, to certain state-designated entities to fund the collection of 
data from broadband providers.56 The data collected by NTIA as part of the SBDD program will help 
populate a national broadband inventory map, which will be made public in February of this year.57  In 
  
49 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, CONNECTING AMERICA: THE NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN, GN 
Docket No. 09-51 (2010) (NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN or Plan).
50 Recovery Act § 6001(l).
51 Recovery Act § 6001(k)(2).
52 NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 29.
53 Id. at 9.
54 Id. at 43.
55 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, 32547 
(July 8, 2009) (NTIA State Mapping NOFA).
56 Awardees are required to “submit all of their collected data to NTIA for use by NTIA and the [Commission] in 
developing and maintaining the national broadband map, which will be displayed on an NTIA Web page before 
February 17, 2011.”  Id; see also 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); NTIA, 
STATE BROADBAND DATA AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM (BROADBAND MAPPING PROGRAM) FREQUENTLY ASKED 
QUESTIONS (rel. Aug. 12, 2009), available at
http://www2.ntia.doc.gov/html/files/BTOP_BroadbandMappingFAQs.pdf (NTIA Aug. 12 FAQs).  Consistent with 
the ARRA, these grants include funding both for broadband mapping and for broadband planning and capacity 
building.  Press Release, Department of Commerce, NTIA, Commerce’s NTIA Announces Final Recovery Act 
Investments for State-Driven Broadband Activities (rel. Sep. 27, 2010), available at
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press/2010/BTOP_SBDD_09272010.html.
57 Press Release, Department of Commerce, NTIA, NTIA Unveils Program to Help States Map Internet 
Infrastructure, (rel. Jul. 1, 2009), available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press/2009/BTOP_mapping_090701.html.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
9
accordance with the ARRA, this map will allow consumers to determine broadband “availability” through a 
website that is “interactive and searchable.”58
3. The Commission’s Data Innovation Initiative
20. On June 29, 2010, the Commission launched the Data Innovation Initiative, designed to 
modernize and streamline how the Commission collects, uses, and disseminates data.59 As part of the 
Initiative, the Wireline Competition, Wireless Telecommunications, and Media Bureaus released public 
notices seeking input on which existing data collections should be eliminated or improved, and which new 
ones should be added.60 Review of the resulting record, along with staff work in the three Bureaus, has 
identified over twenty data collections that may be outdated and ripe for elimination, as well as a number of 
statutory reporting obligations that may have outlived their usefulness.  We will initiate proceedings to 
consider elimination of those data collections that are completely within our purview.61 Recognizing that 
data collection is essential to fulfill the Commission’s central statutory obligations, including advancing 
universal service, protecting consumers, promoting competition, and ensuring public safety, we also look 
forward to working with Congress to eliminate any outdated statutory reporting obligations that they choose 
to relieve us of.
4. 2010 Biennial Review
21. The Commission also is conducting its 2010 biennial review of telecommunications 
regulations, pursuant to Section 11 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.62 This section 
requires the Commission (1) to review biennially its regulations “that apply to the operations or activities of 
any provider of telecommunications service,” and (2) to “determine whether any such regulation is no 
longer necessary in the public interest as the result of meaningful economic competition between providers 
of such service.”63 The Commission is directed to repeal or modify any regulations that it finds are no 
longer in the public interest.64  
III. PURPOSES FOR WHICH THE COMMISSION MUST OBTAIN DATA
22. The Commission must collect timely and reliable information to carry out its statutory duties.  
In the eleven years that have passed since the Commission established the Form 477 data program, 
commenters in a number of proceedings have suggested that the broadband and telephone subscription data 
we currently collect are insufficient to allow the Commission to fulfill its statutory responsibilities.  
Telecommunications markets are now in a period of transition to a world in which fixed and mobile 
broadband networks give consumers access to not only voice communications capability but a myriad of 
  
58 Recovery Act § 6001(l).  We note that neither the NTIA nor the Commission have defined broadband availability.  
See infra para. 34.
59 Press Release, FCC Launches Data Innovation Initiative (rel. Jun. 29, 2010), available at
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-299269A1.pdf.
60 Pleading Cycle Established for Comments on Review of Wireline Competition Bureau Data Practices, 
WC Docket No. 10-132, Public Notice, 25 FCC Rcd 8213 (WCB 2010); Pleading Cycle Established for Comments 
on Review of Wireless Competition Bureau Data Practices, WT Docket No. 10-131, Public Notice, 25 FCC Rcd 
8373 (WTB 2010); Pleading Cycle Established for Comments on Review of Media Bureau Data Practices, 
MB Docket No. 10-103, Public Notice, 25 FCC Rcd 8236 (MB 2010).
61 See supra n.1.
62 47 U.S.C. § 161; 2010 Biennial Review Public Notice.  Comments in that proceeding are due January 31, 2011, 
with reply comments due February 22, 2011.
63 47 U.S.C. § 161.
64 The Commission resolved several interpretative issues under the Section 11 standard in the 2002 Biennial 
Regulatory Review, FCC 02-342, 18 FCC Rcd 4726 (2003), aff’d, Cellco Partnership v. FCC, 357 F.3d 88 (D.C. 
Cir. 2004) (Cellco Partnership).  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
10
other applications and services.  Commission data shows that there are now more than 274 million mobile 
telephony subscriptions in the United States,65 and interconnected VoIP subscriptions increased by more 
than 20% during 2009 while traditional PSTN switched access lines decreased by 6%.66  
23. The National Broadband Plan recommended that the Commission closely observe this 
transition from legacy circuit-switched networks to all IP, broadband networks to ensure that legacy 
regulations and services do not impede the transition to a modern and efficient use of resources, that 
businesses can plan for and adjust to new standards,67 and, perhaps most importantly, that consumers do not 
lose access to statutorily required “adequate facilities at reasonable charges.”68 Commenters in the National 
Broadband Plan suggested that the Commission collect data, or seek comment on the need to collect data, 
on a variety of issues related to this transition, including public safety,69 service quality,70 customer 
satisfaction,71 and price.72 Below, we identify a number of important purposes for which the Commission 
and commenters have noted that we may require more robust data, and seek comment on the data needed to 
fulfill those purposes.
A. Ensuring Universal Service
24. Section 254 of the Act, which governs administration of universal service programs, requires 
the Commission to base its universal service policies on certain principles, including that “[q]uality 
services” be “available at just, reasonable, and affordable rates,”73 and that “[c]onsumers in all regions of 
the Nation, including low-income consumers and those in rural, insular, and high cost areas, should have 
access to telecommunications and information services . . . that are reasonably comparable to those services 
provided in urban areas and that are available at rates that are reasonably comparable to rates charged for 
similar services in urban areas.”74 A key goal set forth in the National Broadband Plan is to reform the 
Universal Service Fund (USF) to “accelerate the deployment of broadband to unserved areas,”75 and the 
  
65 WIRELINE COMPETITION BUREAU, FCC, INDUSTRY ANALYSIS AND TECHNOLOGY DIVISION, LOCAL TELEPHONE 
COMPETITION: STATUS AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2009, at 29 (rel. Jan. 2011) available at
http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2011/db0111/DOC-304054A1.pdf.
66 Id. at 3.
67 NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN, § 4.5 at 59; see also Comment Sought on Transition from Circuit-Switched 
Network to All-IP Network, NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN PN #25, GN Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 09-137, 24 FCC 
Rcd 14272 (Dec. 1, 2009).
68 47 U.S.C. § 151.
69 See, e.g., California Public Utilities Commission Comments in re NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN PN #25, filed 
Dec. 18, 2009, at 8-11; Intrado Inc. et al. Dec. 21, 2009 Comments in re NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN PN#25, GN 
Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 09-137 at 2-7; Metaswitch Networks Dec. 17, 2009 Comments in re NATIONAL 
BROADBAND PLAN PN#25, GN Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 09-137 at 4.
70 See, e.g., Empirix Comments in re NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN PN #25, filed Dec. 4, 2009, at 7 (filed as Mark 
Ivanov); Southwick Comments in re NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN PN #25, filed Dec. 4, 2009, at 1.
71 See, e.g., GVNW Comments in re NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN PN #25, filed Dec. 22, 2009, at 3; Skype 
Comments in re NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN PN #25, filed Dec. 22, 2009, at 9.
72 See, e.g., New Jersey Division of Rate Counsel Comments in re NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN PN #25, filed Dec. 
21, 2009, at 10.
73 47 U.S.C. § 254(b)(1).
74 47 U.S.C. § 264(b)(1), (3).
75 NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at xiii, section 8.2.  We seek comment in an item released today on a framework to 
modernize the Commission’s USF and intercarrier compensation (ICC) regime.  Connect America Fund; A National 
Broadband Plan for Our Future; Establishing Just and Reasonable Rates for Local Exchange Carriers; High-Cost 
Universal Service Support; Developing an Unified Intercarrier Compensation Regime; Federal-State Joint Board 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
11
Commission’s unanimously adopted Joint Statement on Broadband calls for the USF to be reformed “to 
increase accountability and efficiency, encourage targeted investment in broadband infrastructure, and 
emphasize the importance of broadband to the future of these programs 76
25. We seek comment on the data needed to ensure universal service.  Numerous stakeholders have 
asserted that the Commission must collect deployment, price, and service quality data to effectively fulfill 
its obligations under section 254 and to modernize the USF to focus on broadband.77 For example, Verizon 
has stated that the Commission must have reliable data to identify areas that are truly unserved by 
broadband to implement USF reform.78 The National Broadband Plan noted that “[a]cross the four USF 
programs, there is a lack of adequate data to make critical policy decisions regarding how to better utilize 
funding to promote universal service objectives.”79 The Commission itself has noted the importance of 
having reliable data to measure the performance of the USF and to protect against waste, fraud, and abuse.80  
Would data on deployment, price, service quality, and subscription be required to assess whether the 
performance goals proposed for the USF high-cost program and Connect America Fund in the NPRM 
released today are being achieved?81 Would voice and broadband pricing data be necessary to develop 
possible rate benchmarks for voice and/or broadband service in order to determine if services are 
“affordable” and “reasonably comparable to rates in urban areas?”82 Would determining whether particular 
areas of the country—including rural, insular, and high-cost areas—should be exempt from aspects of the 
USF reform program or afforded different treatment require deployment, subscription, price and service 
quality data?83
B. Ensuring Public Safety
26. The Communications Act charges the Commission with ensuring that “wire and radio 
communications service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges” are available for the purpose of, 
(Continued from previous page)    
on Universal Service; Lifeline and Linkup, WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 07-135, 05-337, 03-109, GN Docket No. 09-51, 
CC Docket Nos. 01-92, 96-45, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 11-13 (adopted Feb. 8, 2011) 
(USF/ICC Transformation NPRM).
76 Joint Statement on Broadband, GN Docket No. 10-66, 25 FCC Rcd 3420, para. 3 (2010).
77 See, e.g., NASUCA and New Jersey Rate Counsel Sep. 2 Reply Comments, WC Docket 07-38 at 19, 26; 
Communications Workers of America (CWA) Jul. 17, 2008 Comments, WC Docket 07-38 at 3.
78 Verizon Jul. 12, 2010 Comments, WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 05-337, GN Docket No. 09-51 at 6–7. See also
USF/ICC Transformation NPRM at para. 269.
79 NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 144.
80 See, e.g., Comprehensive Review of Universal Service Fund Management, Administration, and Oversight, WC 
Docket Nos. 05-195, 02-60, 03-109, CC Docket Nos. 96-45, 02-6, 97-21, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC Rcd 11308, 11318–19, para. 24 (2005) at para. 24 (“Clearly 
articulated goals and reliable performance data allow the Commission and other stakeholders to assess the 
effectiveness of the USF programs . . . .”); FCC, FISCAL YEAR 2010 AGENCY FINANCIAL REPORT (OCTOBER 1, 2009
- SEPTEMBER 30, 2010) at 84-87, available at www.fcc.gov/Reports/fr2010.pdf.
81 USF/ICC Transformation NPRM at paras. 483-89 (proposing the following four specific performance goals for 
the current high-cost program and the Connect America Fund: (1) preserve and advance voice service; (2) increase 
deployment of modern networks; (3) reasonably comparable rates for broadband and voice services; and (4) limit 
universal service contribution burden on households.).
82 47 U.S.C. § 254; USF/ICC Transformation NPRM at para. 139.
83 For example, deployment, subscription, price and quality of service data that can be verified by the Commission 
may be critical to determining whether to exempt Tribal lands, Alaska Native Regions, and Hawaiian Home Lands 
from the phase out of the interim competitive eligible telecommunications carrier cap.  See USF/ICC 
Transformation NPRM para. 259.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
12
inter alia, “promoting safety of life and property through the use of wIre and radio communications.”84  
Congress has further tasked the Commission with a key role in guaranteeing that Americans have access to 
emergency services via 911.85 The Commission must be able to monitor the performance of both legacy 
circuit-switched networks and broadband networks to ensure that consumers can access emergency services 
as service providers transition from one technology to the other. As noted in the National Broadband Plan, 
“[a] more reliable [broadband] network would also benefit homeland security, public safety, businesses and 
consumers, who are increasingly dependent on their broadband communications, including their mobile 
phones.”86
27. We seek comment on what data the Commission needs to fulfill these goals.  Would mobile 
service deployment data, for example, allow the Commission to identify areas where consumers lack access 
to 911 service, such as rural highways or remote worksites?  Would service quality data enable the 
Commission to identify networks that limit consumers’ access to emergency services as a result of 
excessive downtime?  Could customer complaint data likewise serve as an indicator that networks are 
insufficiently reliable to ensure that consumers can depend on them in an emergency?
C. Promoting Telephone and Broadband Competition
28. Promoting competition is a core purpose of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as 
amended,87 and as the National Broadband Plan noted, “[c]ompetition is crucial for promoting consumer 
welfare and spurring innovation and investment in broadband access networks,” and “provides consumers 
the benefits of choice, better service and lower prices.”88 Others have noted the importance of competition 
  
84 47 U.S.C. § 151.
85 Congress directed the Commission in 1999 to, among other things, designate 911 as the universal emergency 
assistance number for wireless and wireline calls.  See Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999, 
Pub. L. No. 106-81, 113 Stat. 1286, § 3(b) (1999) (911 Act) (codified at 47 U.S.C. § 615).  Congress since has 
amended the 911 Act to codify the Commission’s 911 regulations for interconnected VoIP providers, and to 
establish an advisory committee.  See New and Emerging Technologies 911 Improvement Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 
110-283, 122 Stat. 2620 (2008) (NET 911 Act).  Congress also has directed the Commission to establish an advisory 
committee for the purpose of achieving equal access to emergency services by individuals with disabilities as part of 
our nation’s migration to next generation 911 systems.  See Twenty-First Century Communications and Video 
Accessibility Act of 2010, PL 111-260, § 106; see also FCC Requests Nominations for Membership on the 
Emergency Access Advisory Committee in Accordance with the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video 
Accessibility Act of 2010, Public Notice, DA 10-2001 (Oct. 19, 2010).
86 NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 251.
87 See Conference Report, Telecommunications Act of 1996, House of Representatives, 104th Congress, 2d Session, 
H. Rpt. 104-458, at 1 (stating the purpose of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was “to provide for a pro-
competitive, de-regulatory national policy framework designed to accelerate rapidly private sector deployment of 
advanced services and information technologies and services to all Americans by opening all telecommunications 
markets to competition.”).
88 NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 36.  The Commission has repeatedly recognized the importance of competition 
information in carrying out its statutory duty to conduct broadband inquiries.  The 2000 Data Gathering Order
identified several essential areas of inquiry from the 1999 First Broadband Deployment Report, most of which 
center on competition analysis:  “Key issues in evaluating deployment of advanced telecommunications capabilities 
include the state of competition in the residential advanced telecommunications services market, the existence of 
barriers to speedy deployment (especially of new technologies), the nature of demand for advanced 
telecommunications services among residential customers, and possible slow deployment in rural and low-income 
areas, and among persons with disabilities.”  2000 Data Gathering Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 7719, n.5.  In the 2004 
Broadband Data Gathering Order, the Commission introduced state-level subscription estimates for cable modem 
and incumbent LEC DSL connections “to better enable us to monitor the extent to which these broadband platforms 
are available to all Americans, and to ascertain with more precision the pattern of competition between these 
platforms.”  2004 Data Gathering Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 22349, para. 16.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
13
to consumer welfare.89 In addition, vibrant competition in a market can reduce or eliminate the need for 
regulation.  For example, competition, properly demonstrated, can be the basis for forbearance from 
regulations under section 10 of the Act.90 As the Commission previously has found in the context of its 
section 10 analysis, “competition is the most effective means of ensuring that . . . charges, practices, 
classifications, and regulations . . . are just and reasonable, and not unjustly or unreasonably 
discriminatory.”91 The Commission also is required to annually present its findings regarding the state of 
competition in the mobile services marketplace pursuant to Congress’s instruction in section 332(c)(1)(C) 
of the Act.92
29. Despite the importance of assessing competition in order to fulfill the Commission’s statutory 
responsibilities, the Commission does not always have sufficient information about voice and broadband 
services sufficient to assess competition accurately.  For example, the Commission has recognized that a 
lack of comprehensive data on telephone and broadband services has, in certain situations, compromised the 
rigor of its analysis in proceedings seeking the transfer of Title III licenses and section 214 authorizations.93  
Similarly, in a decision regarding whether to grant forbearance from network unbundling and other 
regulations pursuant to section 10 of the Act, the Commission was unable to make a definitive finding 
regarding market share in the telephony market when the primary cable operator did not voluntarily file 
reliable data.94
30. The National Broadband Plan also noted that statements from a number of commenters—
including officials from the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission—demonstrate that 
“additional data are needed to more rigorously evaluate broadband competition.”95 The Plan concluded that 
  
89 See, e.g., Department Of Justice (DOJ) Jan. 4, 2010 Comments, GN Docket No. 09-51 at 21.
90 47 U.S.C. § 160; Petition of Qwest Corporation for Forbearance Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 160(c) in the Phoenix, 
Arizona Metropolitan Statistical Area, WC Docket No. 09-135, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 25 FCC Rcd 
8622, 8633, 8642, paras. 23, 37.
91 Petition of US WEST Communications Inc. for a Declaratory Ruling Regarding the Provision of National 
Directory Assistance, Petition of U S WEST Communications, Inc., for Forbearance, The Use of N11 Codes and 
Other Abbreviated Dialing Arrangements, CC Docket Nos. 97-172, 92-105, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 14 
FCC Rcd 16252, 16270, para. 31 (1999) (US WEST Forbearance Order).
92 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(1)(C); see, e.g., 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, Fourteenth Report, WT Docket No. 09-66, FCC 10-81 (WTB 2010).
93 See, e.g., SBC Communications Inc. and AT&T Corp. Applications for Approval of Transfer of Control, WC 
Docket No. 05-65, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 18290, 18347, para. 102 n.307 (2005) 
(SBC/AT&T) (“We discuss the Applicants’ market shares before and after the merger instead of HHIs for each 
geographic market because we do not have sufficient market share information for all of the significant competitors 
in these markets.”).
94 47 U.S.C. § 160; see Petitions of the Verizon Telephone Companies for Forbearance Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 
160(c) in the Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Providence and Virginia Beach Metropolitan Statistical 
Areas, WC Docket No. 06-172, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 21293, 21308, para. 28 (2006) 
(Verizon 6-MSA Order) (determining that the Commission lacked sufficient evidence to determine Verizon’s market 
share in the New York MSA consistent with its approach for the other MSAs, where the primary cable competitor 
did not voluntarily file complete and correct data).
95 NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 37, citing DOJ Ex Parte in re National Broadband Plan NOI, filed Jan. 4, 2010 at 
7; Gregory L. Rosston, Deputy Director, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, Remarks at FCC 
Benchmarks Workshop 5–17 (Sept. 2, 2009), available at http://www.broadband.gov/docs/ws_20_benchmarks.pdf; 
James Prieger, Professor of Pub. Policy, Pepperdine Univ., Remarks at FCC Economic Growth, Job Creation and 
Private Investment Workshop 4–15 (Aug. 26, 2009), available at http://broadband.gov/docs/ ws_16_economy.pdf; 
Ryan McDevitt, Lecturer, Dep’t of Manag. & Strat., Northwestern Univ., Remarks at FCC Economic Growth, Job 
Creation and Private Investment Workshop 23–34 (Aug. 26, 2009), available at http:// 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
14
to ensure that the right policies are put in place so that the broadband ecosystem benefits from meaningful 
competition as it evolves, it is “important to have an ongoing, data-driven evaluation of the state of 
competition.”96 The National Broadband Plan therefore recommended that the Commission “revise Form 
477 to collect data relevant to broadband availability, adoption and competition.”97 Numerous commenters 
have made similar observations and recommendations.98
31. It is important to note that although more robust deployment and subscription data may give the 
Commission a view of the potential for competition in an area,99 the National Broadband Plan and a number 
of commenters have explained that such data alone would not necessarily reveal the actual extent of 
competition or the level of benefit that consumers enjoy from any competition that exists, and that price and 
service quality data could fill these gaps.100 We seek comment on the need for price and service quality data 
as well as deployment and subscription data to satisfy relevant statutory goals.
D. Promoting Broadband Deployment and Availability
32. As discussed above, Section 706(b) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as amended, 
directs the Commission to annually “initiate a notice of inquiry concerning the availability of advanced 
telecommunications capability to all Americans” and “determine whether advanced telecommunications 
capability is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.”101 The Commission has 
noted that information about broadband deployment and availability throughout the nation is essential to 
fulfill its obligations under section 706, including the requirement to compile information about 
demographic information for unserved areas.102
(Continued from previous page)    
broadband.gov/docs/ws_16_economy.pdf; Joseph Farrell, Director, Bureau of Econ., FTC, Remarks at FCC 
Economic Issues in Broadband Competition Workshop 55–66 (Oct. 9, 2009), available at http://broadband. 
gov/docs/ws_28_economic.pdf; Carl Shapiro, Deputy Ass’t Attorney General for Economics, Antitrust Div., DOJ, 
Remarks at FCC Economic Issues in Broadband Competition Workshop 66–83 (Oct. 9, 2009), available at
http://broadband.gov/docs/ws_28_economic.pdf.
96 NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 37.
97 Id. at 43.
98 See, e.g., DOJ Jan. 4, 2010 Comments, GN Docket No. 09-51 at 7; Free Press Aug. 13, 2010 Comments, WC 
Docket No. 10-132 at 5 (“Broadband subscribership and availability, along with speed and price, represent the most 
basic information concerning broadband.”).
99 Though the NTIA obtains deployment data through the SBDD, the Commission does not currently collect 
deployment data.  See Section II.B.2.b, supra.
100 See, e.g., NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 42 (“[I]t is crucial that the FCC track and compare the evolution of 
pricing in areas where two service providers offer very high peak speeds with pricing in areas where only one 
provider can offer very high peak speeds.  The FCC should benchmark prices and services and include these in 
future reports on the state of broadband deployment.”); DOJ Jan. 4, 2010 Comments, GN Docket No. 09-51 at 20; 
Consumers Union et al. Sep. 2, 2008 Comments, WC Docket No. 07-38 at 8; People of the State of Illinois Sep. 2, 
2008 Comments, WC Docket No. 07-38 at 6; NASUCA and New Jersey Rate Counsel Sep. 2, 2008 Reply 
Comments, WC Docket 07-38 at 26; Horizontal Merger Guidelines, issued by the U.S. Dept. of Justice & Federal 
Trade Commission (Apr. 2, 1992, revised Aug. 19, 2010) at 2  (“Enhancement of market power by sellers often 
elevates the prices charged to customers.  For simplicity of exposition, these Guidelines generally discuss the 
analysis in terms of such price effects.  Enhanced market power can also be manifested in non-price terms and 
conditions that adversely affect customers, including reduced product quality, reduced product variety, reduced 
service, or diminished innovation. Such non-price effects may coexist with price effects, or can arise in their 
absence.”).
101 47 U.S.C. § 1302(b).
102 2008 Broadband Data Gathering Order and Further Notice, 23 FCC Rcd at 9694, para. 8 (citing 47 U.S.C. § 
157nt (incorporating section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. Law No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
15
33. We seek comment on whether the Commission has data sufficient to effectively fulfill this 
purpose.  The Commission has observed that the data it has collected to date have allowed only limited 
assessments of broadband deployment and availability.  For example, the Commission has used information 
about the existence of at least one subscriber in a ZIP code or census tract as a proxy for both deployment 
and availability.103 But the Commission and commenters have noted that subscription data, particularly 
when collected above the household level, is an imperfect proxy for network deployment or capability.104  
For example, deployment is overstated when households subscribe in one part of an area (such as a census 
tract) but service is not offered to households in other parts of the same area, while deployment is 
understated if no household in an area has chosen to subscribe to any service offering provided by a 
network, and capability is understated if no household has opted for the highest speed offering.  
34. We also note that the Commission has long identified broadband availability as a broader 
concept than broadband deployment.105 A number of commenters have suggested that the Commission 
collect other types of data beyond the Form 477 subscribership data to fulfill its obligations under section 
706, including information on where infrastructure has been deployed,106 the price of broadband services,107
and service quality.108 Would the use of such data sources in conjunction with subscription data provide 
additional insights into broadband adoption in the United States?109 If infrastructure data were collected, 
(Continued from previous page)    
(1996))).  Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was later codified at 47 U.S.C. § 1302 et seq. by the 
BDIA.
103 1999 First Broadband Deployment Report, 14 FCC Rcd at 2402, 2404, paras. 7, 13 (“this Report uses actual 
subscribership as a proxy for ‘deployment’ and ‘availability’”); Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced 
Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to 
Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 98-
146, Second Report, 15 FCC Rcd 20913, 20916-17, para. 7 (2000) (2000 Second Broadband Deployment Report); 
Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable 
and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996, as Amended by the Broadband Data Improvement Act, GN Docket No. 10-159, 
Seventh Broadband Deployment Notice of Inquiry, 25 FCC Rcd 11355, 11363, para. 18 (2010 Seventh Broadband 
Deployment NOI).
104 See, e.g., 2009 Sixth Broadband Deployment NOI, 24 FCC Rcd at 10526–27, para. 45; 1999 First Broadband 
Deployment Report, 14 FCC Rcd at 2402, para. 7 (relying on subscribership data as a proxy for deployment and 
availability, and noting that such data “may not be a precise estimate of actual deployment and availability”); see 
also December 2010 Internet Access Services Report at 4–5, nn.16 & 17 (explaining that mobile wireless 
connections are only reported at the state level and some business connections could be miscategorized as residential 
connections).
105 1999 First Broadband Deployment Report, 14 FCC Rcd at 2409–10, para. 30 (“The record before us focuses on 
deployment of advanced capability, such as investment and construction plans, and generally lacks information 
about availability, which we believe refers to a consumer’s ability to purchase a capability that has been deployed.”); 
2000 Second Broadband Deployment NOI, 15 FCC Rcd at 16648, para. 13 n.26 (“Factors that affect the availability of 
broadband services might include the existence of content that requires broadband service for a consumer to receive 
it, the purchase of personal computers for the home, trends in the operation of the Internet, the ability of WebTV and 
other TV set-based forms of Internet access which require broadband speeds, and the development of technology 
that will enable a cost-effective fixed wireless last mile.”).
106 See, e.g., California PUC Oct. 2, 2011 Reply Comments, GN Docket Nos. 09-137, 09-51 at 4 (recommending 
against the use of subscribership data because “[a]vailability data, or infrastructure data, shows where broadband is 
available. Meanwhile, subscribership data denotes where consumers are choosing to purchase broadband service.”).
107 See, e.g., Consumer Federation of America et al. Sep. 2, 2008 Comments, WC Docket No. 07-38 at 4.
108 See, e.g., Hugh Carter Donahue & Josephine Ferringo-Stack, Broadband Quality of Service Monitoring: A 
Promising Public Policy Response, NTIA Docket No. 011109273-1273-01, available at
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/broadband/comments2/donahuestack.htm.
109 See BDIA § 102. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
16
how could the Commission ensure that sensitive information on critical infrastructure is appropriately 
shielded and protected?  
E. Other Statutory Obligations
35. We seek comment on other statutory obligations and Commission efforts that may require the 
Commission to reform its the 477 data program.  In addition, we seek comment on whether the subscription 
data currently collected via Form 477 and the Commission’s other data collection programs are sufficient 
for such obligations, or whether the Commission should collect additional types of data. Commenters who 
advocate the collection of additional data should explain how collecting specific types of data would result 
in concrete benefits for consumers, service providers, and other stakeholders, and explain whether the 
benefits would outweigh the burdens.
IV. REVISIONS TO THE FCC FORM 477 DATA PROGRAM
36. In the preceding section, we discussed specific statutory obligations of the Commission that, to 
be performed effectively, may require the collection of better data.  We turn now to discussion of what
specific data may be necessary to discharge these statutory responsibilities, and whether and (where 
relevant) how we should collect each type of data using Form 477.  After reviewing input from outside 
parties, we believe that there are five categories of data that may be necessary to meet the Congressional 
mandates described in the prior section: deployment, pricing, and service quality and customer satisfaction 
data, which provide measures of supply; subscription data, which provides a measure of consumer demand;  
and ownership and contact information, which serves multiple statutory purposes.  While collecting other 
categories of data, such as the location of last- and middle-mile infrastructure,110 could prove useful to the 
Commission, Form 477 may not be the most appropriate tool for collecting such data.  We seek comment 
on whether there are other types of data necessary for the Commission to complete its mandates that should 
be collected using Form 477.
37. We recognize that data collections place burdens – and potentially significant burdens – on 
those required to file, and we actively seek to balance the benefits of data collected against those burdens.  
We seek comment on whether each of the types of data noted below is necessary for the Commission to 
fulfill its statutory mandates.  Those who suggest that the Commission does not need particular data should 
specify how the Commission can meet its obligations without such data.  For data that the Commission 
should collect, we seek comment on whether the Commission should gather the data through an OMB-
approved data collection or whether there are other sources.  For example, are there commercial data 
sources that would allow the Commission to meet its obligations?  Alternatively, would it be practical for 
Commission staff to collect data from public sources (e.g., from service providers’ websites)?  Those 
advocating the use of commercial or publicly available data should discuss any limitations associated with 
such sources,111 the resources the Commission would need to devote to the collection method proposed 
  
110 See NTIA State Mapping NOFA, 74 Fed. Reg. at 32557, NOFA Technical Appendix A; Service Quality, 
Customer Satisfaction, Infrastructure and Operating Data Gathering; Petition of AT&T Inc. for Forbearance Under 
47 U.S.C. § 160(c) from Enforcement of Certain of the Commission’s ARMIS Reporting Requirements; Petition of 
Qwest Corporation for Forbearance from Enforcement of the Commission's ARMIS and 492A Reporting 
Requirements Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 160(c); Petition of the Embarq Local Operating Companies for Forbearance 
Under 47 U.S.C. § 160(c) from Enforcement of Certain of ARMIS Reporting Requirements; Petition of Frontier and 
Citizens ILECs for Forbearance Under 47 U.S.C. § 160(c) from Enforcement of Certain of the Commission's ARMIS 
Reporting Requirements; Petition of Verizon for Forbearance Under 47 U.S.C. § 160(c) from Enforcement of 
Certain of the Commission's Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements; Petition of AT&T Inc. for Forbearance 
Under 47 U.S.C. § 160 from Enforcement of Certain of the Commission's Cost Assignment Rules, WC Docket Nos. 
08-190, 07-139, 07-204, 07-273, 07-21, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 23 
FCC Rcd 13647, 13664, para. 34 (2008) (ARMIS Forbearance Order and Notice) (tentatively concluding that the 
collection of infrastructure and operating data could be useful to the Commission’s public safety and broadband 
policymaking).
111 See infra para 42.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
17
(e.g., direct costs, staff time), and the impact such a collection method would have on other Commission 
efforts.  Where a data collection is necessary, we seek comment on ways that the Commission can minimize 
the burden for filers, for example, in the design of the collection or in tools the Commission can provide.  
Commenters who cite the burden of an OMB-approved collection should quantify the burden they expect 
and explain their quantification methodology. We seek comment on issues specific to reducing the burden 
of each collection as they are discussed in the following sections.
A. General Considerations
1. Streamlining Collection
38. To reduce production burdens, commenters urge the Commission to ensure that the FCC Form 
477 collection process is as “streamlined as possible,” and we agree that streamlining the process where 
appropriate must be a top priority for the Commission.112 For example, providers request that the Form 477 
interface be redesigned to allow parties to file data on multiple states as a single file.113 We seek comment 
on these proposals, and on other steps the Commission can take to streamline the Form 477 data program.
39. Reporting entities already maintain subscriber databases that include address-level information; 
thus, providing subscribership information at the address level could simplify reporting.  At the same time, 
collection of address-level deployment and availability information would allow the Commission to make 
policy decisions based on a more granular and accurate understanding of the marketplace.114 We note that 
some providers have explicitly requested that they be allowed to submit subscribership data at the address 
level to reduce their reporting burden.115 We seek comment whether it would be less burdensome for 
providers to submit address-level data with respect to the deployment and availability of services.  We also 
seek comment on other ways that the Commission can ease the burden on small- and medium-sized 
providers.
40. In addition, we seek comment on the extent to which technological tools can reduce the burden 
of producing information.  For example, the Commission now makes available a Census Block Conversions 
application programming interface (API) that returns a U.S. Census Bureau Census Block number given a 
passed latitude and longitude.116 The API also returns the state and county name associated with a block.  
Among other benefits, we expect that this API will assist providers in assigning subscribers to census-
defined geographic areas.  What other tools are available to reduce the burdens providers face in complying 
with our data reporting programs?  Are there other tools that the Commission itself should develop?
2. Use of Third-Party and Publicly Available Data
41. We seek comment on whether and how the Commission can obtain reliable data from third 
parties and publicly available sources.  The Commission in 2007 sought comment on the “availability of 
commercial sources of broadband deployment data or data-processing programs that could augment or 
otherwise add value to our use of Form 477 data, or reduce the associated costs and other burdens imposed 
on reporting providers.”117 The Commission declined to use any such sources in the 2008 Broadband Data 
  
112 Verizon Aug. 13, 2010 Comments, WC Docket No. 10-132 at 7-8.
113 Id.; see also T-Mobile Sept. 13, 2010 Reply Comments, WC Docket No. 10-132 at 4.
114 We seek comment on the privacy implications of such collections in Section V.C below.
115 See, e.g., OPASTCO-RICA Nov. 24, 2008 Paperwork Reduction Act Comments, WC Docket No. 07-38, OMB 
Control No. 3060-0816.
116 FCC, CENSUS BLOCK CONVERSIONS API—REBOOT.FCC.GOV, http://reboot.fcc.gov/developer/census-block-
conversions-api.
117 Development of National Broadband Data to Evaluate Reasonable and Timely Deployment of Advanced Services 
to All Americans, Improvement of Wireless Broadband Subscribership Data, and Deployment of Data on 
Interconnected Voice Over Internet Protocol (VoIP) Subscribership, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, WC Docket 
No. 07-38, 22 FCC Rcd 7760, 7774, para. 32 (2007).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
18
Gathering Order and Further Notice.118 We note that the Commission currently relies on some third-party 
data that may be considered authoritative,119 and seek comment on what other data could be obtained by the 
Commission from third parties. We also seek comment on whether there are new sources of data that could 
serve Commission goals.  
42. We note that there are limitations associated with third-party data sources.  Commercial data 
sources rarely rely on a census of all data sources of a particular type and more often rely on sampling.120  
The bias associated with sampling, or the use of proprietary methods to create or extrapolate from a sample, 
could limit the applicability of commercial data.  Further, commercial data often include restrictions to data 
rights that could limit the Commission’s ability to publish underlying data or resulting analysis.  We seek 
comment on these potential shortcomings of commercial data, whether there are ways to mitigate them, and 
the balance between these limitations and the burden that could be avoided by the use of commercial data.  
The Commission could also cull some information from public sources, such as company websites.  We 
note that such data may be unreliable or insufficiently detailed,121 and seek comment on the extent to which 
the Commission can base policy on such data.122 To the extent commenters advocate for the use of 
commercial or third-party data for a specific collection, we ask that they quantify the resources the 
Commission would have to devote to procure or process those data.  How should the Commission balance 
the costs of purchasing data or collecting data itself from public sources against the burdens that Form 477 
data collection may impose on service providers?
3. Who Must Report
43. Four classes of entities currently file FCC Form 477: facilities-based providers of broadband 
connections to end user locations;123 providers of wired or fixed wireless local exchange telephone 
service;124 providers of interconnected VoIP service;125 and providers of mobile telephony services.126  
  
118 See generally, 2008 Broadband Data Gathering Order and Further Notice, 23 FCC Rcd at 9695-9708, paras. 9-
32.
119 The Commission currently licenses commercial data for mobile network deployment; see infra Section 
IV.B.1.a(ii).
120 We note that the Recovery Act authorized NTIA to expend up to $350 million to “develop and maintain a 
comprehensive nationwide inventory map of existing broadband service capability and availability in the United 
States.”  See Recovery Act § 6001(l).  Such expenditures are likely outside the ability of commercial or non-profit 
firms.
121 For example, data available on websites about mobile-network coverage do not indicate signal strength.
122 See Free Press Aug. 13, 2010 Comments, WC Docket No. 10-132 at 5 (urging the Commission to “view calls to 
rely on third party information as an adequate substitute for Commission collection with serious skepticism.”).
123 Broadband connections, for the purpose of Form 477 reporting, are “wired ‘lines’ or wireless ‘channels’ that 
enable the end user to receive information from and/or send information to the Internet at information transfer rates 
exceeding 200 kbps in at least one direction.”  FCC, FCC FORM 477 INSTRUCTIONS FOR LOCAL TELEPHONE 
COMPETITION AND BROADBAND REPORTING (2010) (regarding filings due Sep. 1, 2010), available at
http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form477/477inst.pdf (FCC Form 477 Instructions) at 2.  In the 2010 Sixth Broadband 
Deployment Report, the Commission chose to benchmark broadband as “a transmission service that actually enables 
an end user to download content from the Internet at 4 Mbps and to upload such content at 1 Mbps over the 
broadband provider’s network.  Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to 
All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to 
Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 09-137, 25 FCC Rcd 9556, 9563, para. 11 
(2010) (2010 Sixth Broadband Deployment Report).
124 Consistent with past practice, for purposes of this proceeding, “local telephone service,” “local 
telecommunications service,” and “local exchange and exchange access services” refer collectively to the services 
that are subject to the local competition reporting requirements established in the 2000 Data Gathering Order.  See 
2000 Data Gathering Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 7735-36, para. 32.  These internal references are not meant to affect or 
modify any existing definitions of similar terms, such as “telephone exchange service,” “exchange access,” and 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
19
Some entities may fill out only certain portions of the form.
44. Some of the proposals identified below would have the Commission collect from all providers 
of voice and broadband services data that may have in the past been collected only from a subset of 
providers.  For example, some of the service quality data some have suggested we should collect from all 
broadband providers formerly were collected only from price cap carriers.127 We seek comment on whether 
there are classes of providers that should be exempted from reporting elements of any proposed data 
collection.  For example, small broadband providers may find it relatively more burdensome to comply with 
certain data reporting obligations than larger carriers.128 Any proposals to exempt certain providers should 
include the legal and policy grounds and the policy implications for such an exemption.
45. We also seek comment on whether additional classes of entities should be required to file FCC 
Form 477.  For example, should we revise our definition of “interconnected VoIP” for the purposes of this 
collection to include services that permit users to receive calls that originate on the public switched 
telephone network or to terminate calls to the public switched telephone network?129 Proposals to require 
additional classes of entities to file should discuss the Commission’s authority to do so.
4. Frequency of Reporting
46. The Commission previously has decided that it can best balance its need for timely information 
with its desire to minimize the reporting burden on respondents by requiring providers to report data on a 
semi-annual basis.  One commenter has asked the Commission to require quarterly collections “to keep 
pace with rapidly evolving Internet technology and allow regulators to plan and adjust policies.”130 Another 
commenter asks that the Commission synchronize the filing deadlines for FCC Form 477 with those for the 
(Continued from previous page)    
“telecommunications service” as set forth in the Act and our prior orders. See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. §§ 153(16), (46), (47); 
Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, CC Docket No. 96-45, Report to Congress, 13 FCC Rcd 11501 
(1998).
125 See 47 CFR § 9.3.
126 Consistent with past practice, for purposes of this proceeding, the term “mobile telephone service” has the same 
meaning as used in the Data Gathering Order.  See 2000 Data Gathering Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 7735-36, para. 32 
(noting that the mobile telephony market generally includes providers of cellular, broadband personal 
communications service (PCS), and specialized mobile radio services that offer real-time, two-way switched voice 
service that is interconnected with the public switched network utilizing an in-network switching facility that 
enables the provider to reuse frequencies and accomplish seamless handoffs of subscriber calls); see also 47 C.F.R. 
§ 20.15(b)(1).  While only facilities-based mobile telephone service providers complete Form 477, those filers report 
the total number of voice telephone service subscribers served over their systems, whether served directly or via 
resale by an unaffiliated entity.  See 2000 Data Gathering Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 7756-57, para. 84.
127 See supra Section IV.B.4; see, e.g., ARMIS Forbearance Order and Notice at 13648-49, paras. 1-2 (2008) 
(Explaining that the Commission established certain ARMIS reports in order to monitor two potential concerns 
raised by price cap regulation: first, that carriers might lower quality of service, instead of being more productive, in 
order to increase short term profits; and second, that carriers might not spend money on infrastructure 
development.).
128 See, e.g., Fred Williamson and Associates Feb. 12, 2009 Comments in Support of Request for Extension, WC 
Docket No. 07-38 at 1-2 (“FWA supports the purposes of the FCC Form 477, but is concerned that, unless the 
extension is granted, inaccurate and incomplete data will be provided regarding broadband deployment. . . . The 
additional time should allow small carriers the time to accurately develop and report the FCC Form 477 data . . . .”).
129 The Commission’s rules currently define interconnected VoIP as “a service that: (1) enables real-time, two-way 
voice communications; (2) requires a broadband connection from the user's location; (3) requires Internet protocol-
compatible customer premises equipment (CPE); and (4) permits users generally to receive calls that originate on 
the public switched telephone network and to terminate calls to the public switched telephone network.” 
47 C.F.R. § 9.3.
130 MMTC Aug. 13, 2010 Comments, WC Docket No. 10-132 at 11.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
20
NTIA’s SBDD.131 We seek comment on whether FCC Form 477 should be filed more or less frequently.  
B. Specific Categories of Data
47. Commenters have identified five categories of data that may help the Commission more 
effectively carry out its statutory obligations: deployment, price, subscription,  service quality and customer 
satisfaction, and ownership and contact information.  We seek comment on whether and how the 
Commission should collect such data, and the Commission’s authority to do so.
48. Those commenting on how to collect data should be as specific as possible.  Establishing 
detailed data reporting requirements is an inherently difficult task.  Particular elements of a dataset may be 
simple to describe conceptually, but difficult to specify as a practical matter.  Conversely, a data element 
may be easily specified, but difficult to explain in plain language.  To the extent commenters propose that 
we collect specific data elements, we ask that commenters both discuss the concept and provide an actual 
specification of each data element.  To the extent particular proposals are offered, are there different data 
elements that might better achieve our goals, including minimizing production burdens on filers and 
processing burdens on the Commission?
1. Deployment
49. As discussed above, numerous stakeholders have urged the Commission to obtain data that 
would allow it to understand where providers have deployed networks capable of delivering a given service.  
We seek comment on whether deployment data are necessary to fulfill several of the purposes discussed 
above: ensuring universal service by tracking the expansion of broadband networks, identifying areas that 
lack access to fixed or mobile broadband and assisting the Commission in targeting support to areas that 
most need it; monitoring telephone and broadband competition by providing insight into the service areas of 
potential competitors regardless of the technology used; and promoting broadband deployment and 
availability by providing reliable information about broadband deployment nationwide.  In this section, we 
seek comment on how the Commission might obtain deployment data for voice and broadband services.
a. Voice Network Deployment
(i) Fixed
50. The Commission currently does not collect data on fixed voice network deployment.  And 
although the national telephone subscription rate has remained high over the last decade,132 a number of 
commenters have informed the Commission that residents in some areas of the country—particularly rural, 
insular, high-cost, and Tribal areas—do not have access to basic fixed telephone service.133 Other 
commenters assert that state carrier of last resort obligations are sufficient to ensure that fixed voice 
networks are ubiquitously deployed.134 We seek comment on whether the Commission should collect fixed 
voice network deployment data.  If such a collection is warranted, should it be limited to areas in which 
network deployment has historically been a concern, such as rural, insular, high-cost, and tribal areas?  
What geographic area (e.g., census block or address-level) would be appropriate for reporting such data?
  
131 NCTA Aug. 13, 2010 Comments, WC Docket No. 10-132 at 11.
132 See INDUS. ANALYSIS & TECH. DIV., FCC, TRENDS IN TELEPHONE SERVICE (rel. Sep. 2010) at 16-17, tbl. 16.5 
(showing that the percentage of occupied housing units with telephone service in the United States has ranged 
between 94.1% and 98.2% since 2001).
133 See CommNet Wireless Dec. 16, 2010 Comments, WT Docket No. 10-208 at 6; PR Wireless et al. Dec. 16, 2010 
Joint Comments, WT Docket No. 10-208 at 13, attached to PR Wireless Dec. 16, 2010 Comments, WT Docket No. 
10-208; National Tribal Telecommunications Association Nov. 26, 2008 Comments, CC Docket No. 96-45, WC 
Docket No. 04-36 at 9.
134 See, e.g., Embarq Jun. 2, 2008 Reply Comments, WC Docket No. 05-337, CC Docket No. 96-45 at 4, 7.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
21
(ii) Mobile
51. The Commission currently licenses a dataset from a commercial source, American Roamer, for 
data on mobile network deployment.135 American Roamer provides coverage boundary maps for mobile 
voice and broadband networks based on information provided to them by mobile wireless network 
operators.136 The Commission previously has noted that analysis based on this data “likely overstates the 
coverage actually experienced by consumers, because American Roamer reports advertised coverage as 
reported to it by many mobile wireless service providers, each of which uses a different definition of 
coverage.  The data do not expressly account for factors such as signal strength, bit rate, or in-building 
coverage, and they may convey a false sense of consistency across geographic areas and service providers.  
Nonetheless, the analysis is useful because it provides a quantitative baseline that can be compared across 
network types, technologies, and carriers, over time.”137  
52. We seek comment on whether it is appropriate to continue relying on American Roamer’s 
mobile telephony deployment data.  Are alternative datasets available, and if so, how do they compare to 
the data available to and currently purchased by the Commission?  Are such datasets available only as off-
the-shelf products, or would it be possible to acquire datasets tailored to the Commission’s specifications?
For such datasets, what are the likely costs, and how timely is the data?  Should the Commission require 
carriers to submit mobile telephony deployment data, notwithstanding the availability of some data from 
third parties?  If so, what data submissions should be required?  Should the Commission collect data that are 
based on a standardized definition of coverage or a range of signal strengths that would reflect a likely 
consumer experience?  We also seek comment on whether the Commission should collect data on the 
spectrum bands used for mobile voice network deployment in specific geographic areas, which would help 
the Commission to fulfill its spectrum management responsibilities under Title III of the Act.138 How 
burdensome would the collection of mobile telephony deployment data be for providers?  What are the 
benefits of obtaining such information?
b. Broadband Network Deployment
(i) SBDD Data
53. The national broadband inventory map under development by the NTIA is an important step 
toward collecting more robust data about broadband deployment and availability.  The GAO’s report noted 
that stakeholders “generally agreed” that this national broadband map “would address some gaps and 
provide detailed data on availability, subscribership, and actual delivered speeds,” but there were concerns 
that the data collection mechanism used—which depends on voluntary reporting by providers to state 
entities whose methods may vary from state to state—could “result in inconsistent data and limit the 
effectiveness of the effort.”139
54. Broadband deployment data collected via Form 477 could address these consistency concerns 
and provide an ongoing source of data at the conclusion of the SBDD program.  Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile, 
and NCTA suggest that the Commission consider the extent to which it is necessary to collect broadband 
deployment data through Form 477 once NTIA’s national broadband inventory map is online and the data 
  
135 Implementation of Section 6002(b) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993; Annual Report and 
Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions With Respect to Mobile Wireless, Including Commercial Mobile 
Services, WT Docket No. 09-66, Fourteenth Report, 23 FCC Rcd 11407, 11413, para. 4 (2010) (14th CMRS 
Competition Report).
136 Id. at 11442, n.88.
137 Id. at 11413, n.5, citing NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 39.  
138 See 47 U.S.C. § 301 et seq.
139 OCTOBER 2009 GAO REPORT, summary.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
22
become available to the Commission.140 We seek comment on this suggestion.  On what data would the 
Commission rely at the conclusion of the SBDD program, and how would the Commission reliably analyze 
trends in broadband deployment if there are gaps in data collected by the SBDD program?
(ii) Data Collection by the Commission
55. We seek comment on a number of issues raised by commenters who recommend that the 
Commission collect data on broadband network deployment.
56. Geographic Area. Parties have proposed varying levels of geographic specificity the 
Commission should require when collecting deployment information.141 Currently, the Commission 
collects subscription data—which it uses as a proxy for deployment—for fixed broadband providers at the 
census tract level.142 In the 2008 Broadband Data Gathering Order and Further Notice, the Commission 
tentatively concluded that it should measure deployment on an address-by-address basis, which would 
provide the most granular and accurate information.143 A number of commenters in prior proceedings, 
particularly state regulatory agencies, have expressed support for collection of broadband deployment data 
at the address level.144 These commenters note that address-by-address data would yield the most useful 
data for the Commission about where broadband is deployed.  Some smaller providers also state that 
reporting at the subscriber address level would ease the burden of reporting.145 Other commenters, 
however, have suggested that reporting address-level deployment information would be unduly burdensome 
for providers, particularly for small- and medium-sized providers that do not maintain such data.146 We 
seek comment on the benefits and burdens of requiring address-level deployment data.  In addition, we seek 
comment on how to account for areas where networks are deployed, but there are no homes or businesses 
  
140 Verizon Aug. 13, 2010 Comments, WC Docket No. 10-132 at 8; Sprint Sep. 30, 2010 Reply Comments, WC 
Docket No. 10-132; T-Mobile Sep. 13, 2010 Reply Comments, WC Docket No. 10-132 at 4; Connected Nation Jul. 
17, 2008 Comments, WC Docket No. 07-38.  But see generally Kentucky Municipal Utilities Association Aug. 1, 
2008 Comments and Reply Comments, WC Docket No. 07-38; Consumers Union et al. Aug. 8, 2008, Further Reply 
Comments, WC Docket No. 07-38 at 16–19.  As discussed above, the national broadband inventory map must be 
online no later than February 17, 2010.  
141 Some commenters have argued that more granular data are needed.  See, e.g., TSTCI Aug. 1, 2008 Reply 
Comments, WC Docket No. 07-38 at 1.  Providers generally recommend that we stay at the census tract level.  See, 
e.g., Verizon Aug. 1, 2008 Comments, WC Docket No. 07-38 at 3; Verizon Aug. 1, 2008 Reply Comments, 
WC Docket No. 07-38 at 3-5; AT&T Aug. 1, 2008 Reply Comments, WC Docket No. 07-38 at 2; TCA Aug. 1, 
2008 Comments, WC Docket No. 07-38 at 4-5.
142 2008 Broadband Data Gathering Order and Further Notice, 23 FCC Rcd at 9697, para. 13.
143 Id. at 9709, para. 35; Letter from Helen M. Mickiewicz, Assistant General Counsel, California Public Utilities 
Commission, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, Aug. 19, 2008, Attach. at 10.  As discussed below, we 
recognize that the privacy-based limitations on the government’s access to customer information in both Title II of 
the Electronic Communications Act (ECPA), also known as the Stored Communications Act (SCA), 18 U.S.C. § 
2701 et seq., and the privacy provisions of Cable Act,  47 U.S.C. § 551 et seq., may be implicated by collection of 
address-level subscribership data.  See Section V.C, infra. However, a request for address-level deployment 
information would not seek customer information, but only information about the services a provider can provide on 
an address-by-address basis.  As such, we do not believe that address-level collection of deployment information 
would implicate the privacy provisions of those acts.
144 See, e.g., Maine Public Utilities Commission July 16, 2008 Comments, WC Docket No. 07-38 at 1; New Jersey 
Division of Rate Counsel Jul. 17, 2008 Comments, WC Docket No 07-38 at 12. 
145 See, e.g., APPA et al. Jul. 17, 2008 Comments, WC Docket No. 07-38 at 3.
146 Windstream Jul. 17, 2008 Comments, WC Docket No. 07-38 at 2; Verizon Jul. 17, 2008 Comments at 2; 
Connected Nation July 17, 2008 Comments, WC Docket No. 07-38 at ii-iii; ITTA Jul. 17, 2008 Comments, WC 
Docket No. 07-38 at 4.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
23
with addresses (e.g., uninhabited highways with mobile network coverage).147 At least one state 
(California) already requires address-level reporting for the construction of its broadband map.148 We seek 
comment on this and similar state agency initiatives and request any empirical evidence of the burdens and 
impact of compliance.  
57. Some commenters in prior proceedings have suggested that the Commission collect 
deployment data at the census block level.149 The California Public Utility Commission (PUC) notes that 
reporting by census block would yield an average of 22 households, whereas a census tract yields an 
average of 1,628 households.150 Census block-level reporting could provide a balance between being more 
granular than census tract-level reporting and avoiding any privacy issues associated with address-by-
address reporting.  Commenters have also noted that the utilization of a Census geography facilitates the 
application and analysis of Census demographic data, such as income, race, age, and household size and 
composition.151 We seek comment on whether the burdens imposed by collecting census block-level data 
are significantly greater than those associated with collecting census tract-level data.  Would the burdens 
imposed by collecting census block-level data be substantially greater than requiring address-level 
reporting?152 Are there particular benefits to using census-block level reporting?  What were the costs and 
benefits of initiatives that have used census block-level reporting?153 What alternative reporting methods 
could the Commission use to ease the burden on carriers that might find census block-level data to be 
unduly burdensome, while still collecting comparable and useful data?154
58. NTIA’s broadband mapping effort sought deployment data for a smaller geographic area than a 
census block for census blocks larger than two square miles.155 We seek comment on the benefits and costs 
  
147 The challenges of assigning mobile services to particular geographic areas is discussed more fully in para. 61, 
infra.
148 California Public Utilities Commission Aug. 1, 2008, Reply Comments, WC Docket No. 07-38 at 4–5.
149 See Letter from Helen M. Mickiewicz, Assistant General Counsel, California Public Utilities Commission, to 
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, Aug. 18, 2008, Attach. at 8.
150 Id.
151 Id.
152 See, e.g., OPASTCO-RICA Nov. 24, 2008 Paperwork Reduction Act Comments, WC Docket No. 07-38, OMB 
Control No. 3060-0816. 
153 See, e.g., Connected Nation: Broadband Mapping FAQ: What types of data are required for the broadband 
mapping project?, http://connectednation.org/mapping/broadband_mapping_FAQ.php (“The dataset includes layers 
outlined in the technical appendix of the NOFA, such as broadband service availability by Census Block for those 
Census Blocks with an area of no greater than two square miles, broadband service availability by road segment in 
those Census Blocks larger in area than 2 square miles, and the footprint of wireless service providers (including 
fixed wireless, mobile wireless, and satellite).”).
154 For its mapping initiative, the California PUC provided the following format alternatives: 1) a list of all 
addresses, in a parsed address field format, with available broadband within the provider’s service area; 2) a list of 
all addresses in a concatenated-address field format, with available broadband within the provider’s service area, 
according to certain specifications; and 3) a GIS or CADD data file (an ESRI shapefile or personal geodatabase, or 
Autodesk AutoCAD DWG file, or Bentley Microstation DGN file), with available broadband within the provider’s 
service area only if such areas are delineated by CBTF Speed as city blocks or smaller areas, according to certain 
specifications.  California Public Utilities Commission Aug. 1, 2008, Reply Comments, WC Docket No. 07-38 at 4–
5 (citations omitted).
155 Michael Byrne, Geographic Information Officer, FCC, National Broadband Map Update, Presentation for the 
Federal Geographic Data Committee, at 4 (Dec. 10, 2010), available at
http://www.fgdc.gov/ngac/meetings/december-2010/national-broadband-map-update.ppt#259,1,Slide 1.  See also
Connected Nation: Broadband Mapping FAQ: What types of data are required for the broadband mapping project?, 
http://connectednation.org/mapping/broadband_mapping_FAQ.php (last visited Jan. 6, 2011) (“The dataset includes 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
24
of this approach.  What unit of measurement should the Commission utilize for larger census blocks if the 
Commission does not use address-by-address reporting?
59. Speed.  The National Broadband Plan noted the importance of speed data to consumers and 
policymakers, and stakeholders generally acknowledge its usefulness.156 The Commission currently 
collects information about advertised broadband speeds in its Form 477 collection.  The National 
Broadband Plan noted, however, that consumers and policymakers would benefit from data on actual 
speeds.157 The Commission has sought information about how best to measure actual broadband speeds.158  
Recognizing the difficulty of measuring actual speeds, a number of stakeholders have nonetheless urged the 
Commission to require providers to report actual speeds.159 Some have suggested that the Commission 
require providers to report a statistical sampling of average speeds.160 Others have suggested requiring 
providers to report data contention ratios (the ratio of the potential maximum demand to the actual 
bandwidth available).161 Broadband providers and their industry associations have argued that actual speeds 
are affected by a wide variety of factors, many beyond the providers’ control, and that measuring speed will 
be “almost impossible.”162 We seek comment on whether the Commission should collect data on 
contention ratios or some other measure of network congestion.  We further seek comment on whether the 
Commission should continue to collect data only on advertised speeds, or whether, for example, providers 
should provide information about actual speeds by geographic area, or speeds that extend beyond the access 
network (e.g., end-to-end speeds that reflect an end user’s typical Internet performance).  We also seek 
comment on how to best measure the actual speeds of services that can be provided over a network.  The 
Commission has undertaken a program to measure such speeds directly for a sample of end users of fixed 
broadband, and is considering a similar program for mobile broadband.163 We seek comment on whether an 
approach like this one, a similar approach with more measurements, or some other method is appropriate.  
Comments on measurements of actual speed should identify the part or parts of the network where speed 
(Continued from previous page)    
layers outlined in the technical appendix of the NOFA, such as broadband service availability by Census Block for 
those Census Blocks with an area of no greater than two square miles, broadband service availability by road 
segment in those Census Blocks larger in area than 2 square miles, and the footprint of wireless service providers 
(including fixed wireless, mobile wireless, and satellite).”). 
156 See NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 43; see also Free Press Aug. 13, 2010 Comments, WC Docket No. 10-132 
at 5.
157 NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 43.
158 For example, the Commission has begun an effort, in partnership with broadband providers and SamKnows, to 
measure the actual speed and performance of broadband service.  See Comment Sought on Residential Fixed 
Broadband Services Testing and Measurement Solution, Pleading Cycle Established, Public Notice, 25 FCC Rcd 
3836 (2010) (SamKnows project); Comment Sought on Measurement of Mobile Broadband Network Performance 
and Coverage, Public Notice, 25 FCC Rcd 7069 (2010) (same).
159 See, e.g., National Assoc’n of State Utility Commissioners and New Jersey Rate Counsel Jul. 17, 2008 
Comments, WC Docket No. 07-38 at 16-18; Consumers Union et al. Aug. 8, 2008 Further Reply Comments, WC 
Docket No. 07-38 at 17; National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Jul. 17, 2008 
Comments, WC Docket No. 07-38 at 4.
160 See National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Jul. 17, 2008 Comments, WC Docket 
No. 07-38 at 4.
161 The higher the contention ratio, the greater the number of users that may be trying to use the actual bandwidth at 
any one time and, therefore, the lower the effective bandwidth or speed offered, especially at peak times.  See
Consumer Federation of America Sept. 2, 2008 Further Reply Comments, WC Docket No. 07-38 at 17.
162  See, e.g., Sprint Aug. 1, 2008, Comments and Reply Comments WCB Docket No. 07-38 at 3; American Cable 
Assoc’n Jul. 17, 2008 Comments, WCB Docket No. 07-38; CTIA Aug 1, 2008 Comments, WCB Docket No. 07-38 
at 2; Frontier Aug. 1, 2008 Comments, WCB Docket No. 07-38 at n.4.
163 See supra n.158.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
25
should be measured.  What starting and ending points are most relevant for consumers, providers, and the 
Commission?
60. The Commission currently collects speed data in eight tiers of advertised download speeds and 
nine tiers of advertised upload speeds, leading to 72 possible combinations.164 The SBDD established nine 
tiers of advertised download speeds and 11 tiers of advertised upload speeds, for 99 possible 
combinations.165 We seek comment on whether the FCC and NTIA should conform their speed tiers.166  
Further, while there is value in having speed data broken out at a granular level, relevant speeds are likely to 
evolve over time, and having 72 or 99 speed-tier combinations may be unnecessarily complex.  However, 
we note that there are benefits to maintaining some continuity in this area to enable tracking data on 
particular speed-tier combinations over time.  Further, measuring the same speed tiers for both business and 
residential customers may not be appropriate, as they often have different needs for speed.  When collecting 
speed data, should the Commission reduce the number of speed tiers reported by providers?  Should we add 
a tier specifically tied to any speed benchmark that may be required to receive USF or Connect America 
Fund (CAF) funding?167 Should any future increase in that potential benchmark result in the addition of a 
speed tier for that new speed?  An alternative approach would be to define tiers by pairs of upstream and 
downstream speeds.168 Such an approach would greatly reduce the number of tiers but would lock-in 
pairings of downstream and upstream speeds.  We seek comment on these approaches, including comment 
on the number of speed tiers and breakpoints.  
61. Mobile Issues.  Mobile broadband presents additional challenges with respect to geography.  
We seek comment on whether a mobile service should be treated differently from a fixed service for 
reporting purposes.  For mobile service, a billing address can provide a subscriber’s home location but does 
not reflect the entire coverage area where a mobile broadband network is available; nor would a billing 
address necessarily be reflective of the primary usage area of the subscriber, particularly in the case of 
family plans and for businesses.  As discussed above, American Roamer produces mobile voice and 
broadband coverage maps, which the Commission has used to estimate mobile broadband deployment at the 
census block level.  However, these coverage maps have certain drawbacks, including that the data do not 
account for factors such as signal strength variations.  Should the Commission collect some measure of 
signal strength beyond a simple “signal/no signal” flag?  For example, would a “good/better/best” measure 
for each geographic area be appropriate, or would reported advertised speeds accurately reflect the impact 
of signal strength?  How should reporting account for the variability of signal strength and capacity in a 
network that includes mobile users?  We seek comment on whether billing address, census blocks, or 
another geographic area should be used to collect data on mobile broadband network coverage areas, 
separate from the maps obtained from American Roamer.  In addition, Sprint has stated it has maps that 
would allow for the identification of service availability at the street address level, and has suggested that 
the Commission request such data on a trial basis from providers that currently produce such maps.169 We 
  
164 We utilize the subscription speed data framework in the current Form 477 program to provide a starting point for 
our discussion of collecting deployment speed data.  Current breakpoints for reporting advertised subscription speed 
are at 200 kbps, 768 kbps, 1.5 Mbps, 3 Mbps, 6 Mbps, 10 Mbps, 25 Mbps, and 100 Mbps.  See
http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form477/477inst.pdf; FCC 08-89 at para. 20.
165 The SBDD breakpoints for reporting speed are at 200 kbps, 768 kbps, 1.5 Mbps, 3 Mbps, 6 Mbps, 10 Mbps, 25 
Mbps, 50 Mbps, 100 Mbps, and 1 Gbps.  See NOFA Technical Appendix A.
166 See, e.g., NCTA Aug. 13, 2010 Comments, WC Docket No. 10-132 at 11.
167 USF/ICC Transformation NPRM at paras. 108-109.
168 For example, tier one would be speeds of less than 4 Mbps downstream and 1 Mbps upstream; tier two would be 
4 Mbps £ x < 10 Mbps downstream and 1 Mbps £ y < 3 Mbps; tier 3 would be 10 Mbps £ x < 25 Mbps downstream 
and 3 Mbps £ y < 10 Mbps; tier 4 would be 25 Mbps £ x < 100 Mbps downstream and 10 Mbps £ y < 50 Mbps; and 
tier 5 would be x ³ 100 Mbps downstream and y ³ 50 Mbps upstream.
169 Sprint Nextel Jul. 17, 2008 Comments, WC Docket No. 07-38 at 2.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
26
seek comment on conducting such a trial.    
62. One carrier argues that mobile wireless providers should not be required to report speed data 
because of the difficulty of measuring factors that can affect mobile data transfer rates.170 We seek 
comment on whether we should collect data on mobile connection speed, and whether fixed and mobile 
services should be treated differently when reporting speed data.  In addition we seek comment on the 
extent to which data from the Commission’s mobile broadband speed test could be meaningful in evaluating 
mobile data transfer rates.171
63. Spectrum Issues.  We seek comment throughout this Notice on several issues concerning 
spectrum usage data, which would help the Commission to fulfill its spectrum management responsibilities 
under Title III of the Act.172 How can the Commission best collect such information?  Possible methods 
include requiring providers to indicate the band, radio service code, or call sign used to provide service.  
64. Satellite Issues.  We seek comment on how best to collect deployment data about satellite-
based services.  At least one satellite provider has pointed out the near-ubiquity of satellite signals.173  
Should the Commission exempt satellite broadband providers from reporting deployment information, or 
require only that satellite providers report areas where terrain or other impediments are likely to block line 
of sight to the satellite?
65. Anchor Institutions.  Anchor institutions such as schools, libraries, or hospitals often require 
broadband offerings with quality of service guarantees not required by at least some retail customers, and 
section 254 of the Act places particular emphasis on educational providers, libraries, and health care 
providers for rural areas.174 We seek comment on whether to treat anchor institutions like other businesses 
or whether they should be treated as a different category for the purposes of measuring deployment.
2. Price
66. We seek comment on whether price data are necessary to fulfill several of the purposes 
discussed above, including ensuring universal service by determining whether rural consumers are paying 
affordable and reasonably comparable rates to those in urban areas; monitoring telephone and broadband 
competition (e.g., in forbearance proceedings) by providing data regarding the effect, if any, of competition 
on pricing or by determining whether nominally competitive providers in fact have comparable offerings in 
the market; reporting a comparison of U.S. and international prices for broadband service capability; and 
promoting broadband deployment and availability.
67. The Commission previously has considered whether to use Form 477 to collect price 
information.  In the 1999 First Section 706 Report, for example, the Commission sought suggestions on 
how to measure market demand through “indicia [such] as prices [and] willingness to pay.”175 In the 2008 
Broadband Data Gathering Order and Further Notice, the Commission sought comment on whether to 
require providers to report the monthly price charged for stand-alone broadband service.176
68. Some commenters have argued that broadband providers should not be required to submit price 
information because prices are competitive; bundled offerings, temporary discounts, different pricing plans, 
and other service attributes make comparing pricing complex; the production of pricing data is too 
  
170 T-Mobile Aug. 13, 2010 Comments, WC Docket No. 10-132 at 5.
171 See FCC, CONSUMER BROADBAND TEST (BETA), http://www.broadband.gov/qualitytest/about/.
172 See 47 U.S.C. § 301 et seq.
173 Hughes Network Systems Jul. 17, 2008 Comments, WC Docket No. 07-38 at 5.
174 47 U.S.C. § 254(h)(1)(A)-(B).
175 1999 First Broadband Deployment Report, 14 FCC Rcd at 2410, para. 31.
176 2008 Broadband Data Gathering Order and Further Notice, 23 FCC Rcd at 9711, para. 11.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
27
burdensome; and requiring the production of price data would impose Title II burdens on broadband 
providers.177
69. Others, however, have urged the Commission to require broadband and voice providers to 
report price information to assess competition,178 determine whether prices are reasonably comparable in 
different demographic areas,179 inform our USF distribution mechanism,180 and to assess why consumers 
may not be purchasing broadband where it is available.181 Such commenters have emphasized the need for 
the Commission to collect the actual price of broadband services to, for example, allow consumers to 
compare service prices.182 Proposals on how to collect price data have varied widely, however, in substance 
and level of detail.  For example, some state regulators have urged the Commission to collect price 
information for stand-alone and bundled services, and not to consider promotional prices or short term 
deals.183 Some have urged the Commission to collect a measure of “price per megabit per second.”184  
Others have urged the Commission to collect “information from commercial carriers regarding their tier 
pricing, credit and deposit requirements across various communities.”185 Commenters also have proposed a 
variety of geographic areas for reporting price,186 and a variety of reporting periods.187
70. We seek comment on the Commission’s legal authority to collect price data, whether we should 
use Form 477 to collect price data, and if so, how we should collect and analyze such data.  We 
acknowledge that there are a number of challenges associated with any approach to collecting price 
information.  We therefore seek detailed comment on the strengths and weaknesses of the approaches we 
describe below, and on other possible approaches.
  
177 See, e.g., AT&T Aug. 1, 2008 Comments, WCB Docket No. 07-38 at 12-13; ITTA Aug. 1, 2008 Comments, 
WCB Docket No. 07-38 at 4.
178 See, e.g., State of Illinois Sept. 2, 2008 Reply Comments, WB Docket No. 07-38 at 4; NASUCA and New Jersey 
Rate Counsel Sept. 2, 2008 Reply Comments, WB Docket No. 07-38 at 26; Consumer Federation of America, Free 
Press and Public Knowledge Sept. 2, 2008 Reply Comments, WB Docket No. 07-38 at 5.
179 See, e.g., State of Illinois Sept. 2, 2008 Reply Comments, WB Docket No. 07-38 at 5.
180 See, e.g., NASUCA and New Jersey Rate Counsel Sept. 2, 2008 Reply Comments, WB Docket No. 07-38 at 26; 
Consumer Federation of America, Free Press and Public Knowledge Sept. 2, 2008 Reply Comments, WB Docket 
No. 07-38 at 5.
181 See, e.g., CWA Jul. 17, 2008 Comments, WB Docket No. 07-38 at 3; Consumer Federation of America, Free 
Press and Public Knowledge Sept. 2, 2008 Reply Comments, WB Docket No. 07-38 at 5.
182 See, e.g., New America Foundation Aug. 13, 2010 Comments, WC Docket No. 10-132, attach. at 6; CWA Jul. 
17, 2008 Comments, WB Docket No. 07-38 at 9.
183 See, e.g., People of the State of Illinois Sep. 2, 2008 Reply Comments, WCB Docket No. 07-38 at 6; NASUCA 
Sep. 2, 2008 Reply Comments, WCB Docket No. 07-38 at 19; New Jersey Division of Rate Counsel Aug. 1, 2008 
Comments, WCB Docket No. 07-38 at 13; New American Foundation Aug. 13, 2010 Comments, WC Docket No. 
10-132 at 6. 
184 See, e.g., Consumer Federation of America et al. Sep. 2, 2008 Further Reply Comments, WC Docket No. 07-38 
at 8.
185 MMTC Aug. 13, 2010 Comments, WC Docket No. 10-132 at 13.  We note that credit and deposit requirements 
may affect consumer purchase decisions, and hence adoption rates, by different amounts in different communities.  
Subscription data would be required to capture such effects.
186 Hughes Network Systems July 17, 2008 Comments, WC Docket No. 07-38 at 4, 7-8 (suggesting national price 
reports, if reports are required); ACA Comments in WC Docket No. 07-38 at 13 (July 17, 2008) (suggesting 
statewide reporting, if reporting is required).
187 Hughes Network Systems July 17, 2008 Comments, WC Docket No. 07-38 at  4, 7-8 (suggesting monthly price 
reports, if reports are required); MMTC Comments in WC Docket No. 10-132 at 13 (Aug. 13, 2010) (suggesting 
semi-annual reports).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
28
71. Price data can be collected in many different way.  For example, the Commission could collect 
retail prices charged by providers for basic voice and broadband offerings.188 Given the complexity and 
variety of bundles and discounts, the Commission could instead define a basket of services and collect, or 
require providers to post publicly, the price of that basket.189 Alternatively, the Commission could collect 
information about all available prices and packages, or seek to determine effective prices that end users pay.
72. Another approach would be to have providers report the total revenue associated with all 
offerings (including voice, video (i.e., pay television), and broadband Internet access services), and identify 
the attributes associated with that revenue, such as the types of services provided (e.g., voice, video, and 
broadband) and key descriptors of those services (e.g., basic video, extended video, very high speed Internet 
access).  The Commission could then determine the average effective price for each attribute in a given area 
by performing statistical analysis on aggregate revenue and attribute data across areas large enough to 
generate a significant number of measurements.  We seek comment on whether such an approach would 
yield meaningful results for the purposes outlined above.  We also seek comment on how this approach 
might be specified.  For example, how many and what attributes would be needed to support a useful 
analysis?  Given that resolving the price for more attributes will require more measurements of total 
revenue, how should the number and selection of attributes be balanced against the geographic size of the 
measurement, given that a sufficiently large sample size for a larger number of attributes will require more 
measurements and a larger geographic area?  Should revenue be inclusive or exclusive of taxes and fees?  
Should revenue be reported separately for business and residential customers?
73. We note that the Commission has sought comment on the need for price data to set benchmarks 
in the context of our intercarrier compensation and universal service proceedings.190 Would any of these 
approaches provide data suitable for the establishment of such benchmarks, or are more appropriate data 
available from other sources?
74. If the Commission collects price data, over what geographic area should prices be collected?  
As discussed in Section V.C below, ECPA may limit the Commission’s ability to require providers to report 
price data from service providers at the household or address level.191 Should the Commission collect price 
data at the census block level?  Could the Commission collect data using, for example, street segments as 
the collection geographic area?  If so, would it need to guard against collecting single home street 
segments?  How could it do so?  What impact would different geographic-level collections have on the 
value of the data produced?  Would collecting data at a more granular level that is consistent with the 
restrictions imposed by ECPA (e.g., at the street-segment level) materially improve the quality of the 
analysis and justify the added complexity of the collection?
75. Were we to collect pricing data for mobile services, how should prices for mobile services be 
assigned to a geographic area?  Assigning a fixed service subscriber to a single census block is a relatively 
simple process that providers currently use to provide subscribership data at the census-tract level.192  
Assigning price data for mobile services to a geographic area, however, is less straightforward, particularly 
in light of the billing address issues related to mobile addressed above.  Should providers of mobile services 
use the billing address as the customer’s location, and report data for that customer in the corresponding 
census block?  For those that suggest mobile services do not have any inherent location, how should the 
Commission evaluate substitution of fixed service by mobile?193 How should the Commission account for 
  
188 The California Broadband Task Force conducted such a survey in 2007.  See Advertised Broadband Price and 
Speed Survey, available at http://www.cio.ca.gov/broadband/xls/CBTF_PricingSurvey_2007.xls.
189 See, e.g., OECD Communications Outlook 2009 at 268-274, available at www.oecd.org/sti/telecom/outlook.
190 See, e.g., USF/ICC Transformation NPRM at paras. 139-147, 573-578.
191 See Section V.C, infra.
192 We note that the Commission provides tools to assist with this process.  See http://fcc.gov/developer.
193 NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 42.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
29
various types of pre-paid and family plans that are common in mobile services?
76. The impact of a given price will be very different for consumers, businesses, and anchor 
institutions.  The impact of those prices could vary significantly within those groups as well.  For example, 
schools and libraries may seek a broadband service similar to a community hospital, but may have less 
funding.  Should the Commission specify narrower customer classes (e.g., small, medium, and large 
business) when collecting price data?  How would any such customer classes be defined?
3. Subscription
77. We seek comment on whether subscription data, which the Commission currently collects, are 
necessary to fulfill several of the purposes discussed above: monitoring telephone and broadband 
competition by providing a measure of competition’s outcome: how many customers subscribe to different 
providers’ services in each area; promoting broadband deployment and availability; ensuring public safety 
by providing a measure of what networks and providers are relied on by how many customers in each area; 
monitoring the effects of PSTN-to-IP conversion by providing insight into how many customers are reliant 
on each type of network technology in each area; and ensuring that affordable voice and broadband services 
are available to all Americans.
78. No commenter has asked the Commission to cease collecting subscription data for wireline 
services.  Are there types of subscription data the Commission need not continue to collect?  For example, 
should the Commission continue to require providers to report the percentage of their local exchange 
telephone service lines for which they are the presubscribed interstate long distance carrier or that are 
provided over UNE-Platform?194  One provider has urged the Commission to cease collecting subscription 
data from wireless service providers, and instead to “seek broadband and telephony data based on coverage 
areas” like those provided by American Roamer, because coverage areas more accurately indicate where 
mobile subscribers have access to wireless service than do subscriber billing addresses or area codes.195 We 
seek comment on this proposal.  Would data collected by coverage area be sufficient to achieve the 
outcomes discussed in Section III above?
a. Issues Applicable to Both Voice and Broadband Subscription.  
79. Mobile issues.  Should the Commission modify its data collection practices with respect to 
mobile voice or mobile broadband subscribers?  For example, if most providers treat each line, telephone 
number, or device as a separate subscription, to what extent does over-counting result from individuals 
owning or using more than one device?  We also ask that providers comment on the way in which family 
plans are counted.  Is one family plan a subscription, or is each line within the plan counted as a separate 
subscriber?  In addition, certain challenges can arise in collecting data on prepaid subscribers, particularly 
subscribers to traditional pay-as-you-go prepaid plans.  For instance, the address or location of such 
subscribers is typically unknown, and these subscribers may frequently stop using one device and start 
using another without the first device being counted as a disconnect.  We seek comment on the best way to 
account for pre-paid plan subscribers given these challenges.  In addition, should we collect data on the 
number of mobile voice and mobile broadband subscriptions by spectrum band, by customer class (i.e., 
residential and business), and by technology?196 Should we require that mobile voice and mobile broadband 
providers distinguish which subscribers are voice-only, broadband-only, or both voice and broadband?  
How should we account for mobile data services for non-traditional devices, such as data-only e-readers, 
machine-to-machine communications, telemetry systems, and others?  Are there other ways for the 
Commission to access this information?  How would any proposed changes help us to produce our annual 
  
194 See FCC Form 477 Instructions at 11-12.
195 T-Mobile Aug. 13, 2010 Comments, WC Docket No. 10-132 at 5.
196 Technology may include, for example, GSM, CDMA, EVDO, WiMAX, LTE, and WCDMA/HSPA, among 
others.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
30
report on mobile wireless competition?197
80. Geographic Area.  Form 477 currently collects voice telephony subscription data at the state 
level and broadband subscription data at the census tract level.198 We seek comment on whether voice and 
broadband subscription data should be collected at the same level of geographic specificity.  Are there 
differences in the need for such data that would justify continuing to use different levels of specificity?  We 
also seek comment on whether the Commission should require entities to report deployment and 
subscription levels at the same level of geographic specificity.  
81. As discussed above, commenters in prior proceedings have advocated more granular 
subscribership data for broadband services.199 Commenters have also suggested that policymakers need 
more granular data about voice services, particularly in order to address competition issues.200 Should voice 
and broadband subscription data be reported at the address level, the census block level or some other level?  
Is it important for voice and broadband subscription data to be reported at the same geographic level, 
regardless of which one?  As discussed below, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act may be 
implicated should the Commission collect address-level subscription data from service providers.  
However, some smaller providers have specifically requested that the Commission allow them to provide 
address-level data because that “would reduce reporting burdens on small businesses serving high-cost rural 
areas.”201 Therefore, we seek comment on the propriety of allowing production of such data at the request 
of a provider, the benefits and drawbacks to having some, but not all subscribership data at that level of 
granularity, and whether such collections would violate ECPA.  
82. Data on mobile wireless broadband subscribers are currently collected at the state level, while 
mobile broadband availability is reported at the census tract level.  We seek comment on whether we should 
treat fixed and mobile services differently.  How should we account for users of resold or prepaid mobile 
broadband services, where the address of the end user may be unknown?
83. Residential and Business Subscription Breakdown.  Form 477 currently requires that providers 
report subscriptions separately for residential and business customers.202 We recognize that this distinction 
may be imprecise, particularly for mobile plans where lines used primarily for business may be paid for by 
an individual, or vice versa.  We seek comment on whether there are better ways to distinguish residential 
and business customer classes, for data and voice services.  For example, should we require providers to 
treat all fixed broadband connections with a service-level agreement as “business” and all those without one 
as “residential?”203
b. Voice Subscription Data
84. To the extent the Commission continues to collect subscription data, we seek comment on 
whether we should modify the way in which we collect that data.
85. Fixed. Should the Commission modify its data collection practices with respect to fixed voice 
services?  For example, should the Commission distinguish among services sold as stand-alone offerings 
  
197 See supra para. 29.
198 Except mobile wireless broadband subscribers, which are collected at the state level.
199 See supra paras. 56-59.
200 See, e.g., People of the State of Illinois Sept. 2, 2008 Reply Comments, WCB Docket No. 07-38 at 6; NASUCA 
and New Jersey Rate Counsel Sept. 2, 2008 Reply Comments, WCB Docket No. 07-38 at 15.
201 See, e.g., OPASTCO-RICA Nov. 24, 2008 PRA Comments, WCB Docket NO. 07-38 at 2-3.  
202 See FCC Form 477 Instructions at 2, 7.
203 A SLA is an agreement between a user and a service provider that defines the nature of the service provided and 
establishes a set of metrics to be used to measure the level of service actually provided against the agreed level of 
service.  See HARRY NEWTON, NEWTON’S TELECOM DICTIONARY at 999 (25th ed. 2009).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
31
and services that are bundled with a subscription to broadband, video, or mobile services?  The Commission 
currently collects data on the proportion of subscribers that have the filing carrier as their presubscribed 
interexchange carrier (PIC).  Should the Commission collect information on what type of interexchange 
service plans these subscribers purchase (e.g., per minute, bundles of minutes, or unlimited local and long 
distance)?
86. Form 477 currently collects limited data on the extent of facilities-based competition for fixed 
voice services. Should the Commission distinguish among the types of loops provided under unbundled 
network element (UNE) arrangements? For example, should the Commission collect data on the number of 
DS0, DS1, and DS3 loops provided to unaffiliated telecommunications carriers under a UNE loop 
arrangement? The Commission does not currently collect information for voice services that are provided 
using special access or other high capacity services/facilities that have not been channelized. Should the 
Commission collect information on voice services provided in this manner?
87. Interconnected VoIP. Should the Commission modify its requirements concerning 
interconnected VoIP?204 For example, should the Commission distinguish among stand-alone, facilities-
based interconnected VoIP; stand-alone over-the-top interconnected VoIP; and interconnected VoIP that is 
bundled with a broadband subscription?  Should Form 477 distinguish “nomadic” from “fixed” 
interconnected VoIP (i.e., distinguish whether an interconnected VoIP service can be used from one or 
multiple fixed locations)?  Should the Commission begin collecting data on VoIP services that do not meet 
the definition of interconnected VoIP (e.g., services that can make calls to or receive calls from the PSTN)?
c. Broadband Subscription Data
88. Currently, Form 477 collects data on broadband subscribership at 72 speed tiers for each census 
tract in the nation.  As with deployment data, we seek comment on whether we should reduce the number of 
speed tiers at which providers report.  Should the speed tiers used for deployment and subscription data be 
the same?  Should providers of fixed and mobile broadband services provide the number of subscribers by 
technology?  We also seek comment on whether wireless broadband providers should include information 
about the spectrum band(s) they use to provide service.
4. Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction
89. We seek comment on whether service quality and customer satisfaction data are necessary to 
fulfill several of the purposes discussed above: reducing waste, fraud, and abuse and increasing 
accountability in our universal service programs by ensuring that recipients of government support provide 
services to their customers that are reliable and of comparable quality to those not provided with 
government support; ensuring public safety by ensuring that networks remain a reliable means of contacting 
public safety organizations; monitoring telephone and broadband competition by ensuring that service 
providers with overlapping footprints provide comparable levels of service; promoting broadband 
deployment and availability; protecting consumers by ensuring that end users have information about 
network performance; and tracking the effects of the conversion from PSTN to IP services by providing 
insight into the performance levels of both networks.
a. Issues Applicable to Both Voice and Broadband  
90. Who Should Report. The Commission previously has collected voice service quality and 
customer satisfaction data from a small subset of the total number of carriers.205 We seek comment on 
whether and how such data should be collected from a larger universe of voice and broadband providers.
  
204 See 2008 Broadband Data Gathering Order and Further Notice, 23 FCC Rcd at 9692, para. 3.
205 The Commission previously collected such data only from carriers transitioning from rate-of-return to price cap 
regulation.  See ARMIS Forbearance Order and Notice, 13 FCC Rcd at 13649, 52-53, paras. 2, 8.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
32
91. What Data Should Be Collected.  If we do collect such data, we seek comment on what aspects 
of service quality and customer satisfaction are relevant to the purposes described above or otherwise 
identified by commenters.  The Commission could collect, for example, data regarding the number of 
trouble reports or complaints that customers make regarding network performance or degradation; 
complaints regarding service provider customer care and billing; installation and repair intervals; and 
general customer satisfaction.  The Commission has conducted surveys that include questions on customer 
satisfaction.206 To what extent could data from these surveys and others like it be used to address concerns 
about service quality, particularly with respect to individual carriers in particular geographic areas?  In 
addition, the Commission could collect direct measures of network performance, such as network downtime 
and number of customers affected; call blocking; prevalence of dropped calls; and speed, latency, and jitter.
92. To what extent should the Commission specify common metrics for voice and broadband 
services.  For example, should the Commission collect data on gross churn as a measure of customer 
dissatisfaction?207 Should the Commission collect data from all providers on the number of complaints 
made to providers and to state public utility commissions?  Should data for residential customers include 
the time interval for installation and service commitments, the percent of time those commitments are met, 
and the out-of-service repair interval?  How could the Commission ensure that such metrics were 
comparable for all reporting entities?
93. Geographic Area. We seek comment on over what geographic areas would be appropriate to 
collect service quality and customer satisfaction data.  Given the role states play in regulating some voice 
services, we seek comment on whether collecting data by provider by state is appropriate.  However, some 
provider networks may cross state boundaries, suggesting that market- or carrier-level information would be 
more appropriate.  It may also be the case that different aspects of the proposed service quality collection 
will be most meaningful when measured in different geographic areas (e.g., wireline voice by state; but 
cable information by system), which suggests that the collection should be made over a smaller geographic 
area to allow for different levels of aggregation.  To the extent commenters suggest the Commission collect 
data, we ask that they specify the appropriate geographic area for these data, and the relative burden that 
reporting for different geographic areas might impose.  
b. Voice
94. The Commission in 1990 established ARMIS Reports 43-05 and 43-06 in order to monitor 
whether the implementation of price caps would lead to carriers lowering service quality.208 In 2008, the 
  
206 See, e.g., FCC, WORKING PAPER, BROADBAND SATISFACTION:  WHAT CONSUMERS REPORT ABOUT THEIR 
BROADBAND INTERNET PROVIDER, December 2010 (rel. Dec. 6, 2010), available at
http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db1206/DOC-303263A1.pdf.
207 One definition of churn is “the level of disconnects from service relative to the total subscriber base of the 
system.”  HARRY NEWTON, NEWTON’S TELECOM DICTIONARY at 273 (25th ed. 2009).  To the extent commenters 
advocate including churn, we seek input about how precisely to specify that term.
208 Service Quality, Customer Satisfaction, Infrastructure and Operating Data Gathering; Petition of AT&T Inc. for 
Forbearance Under 47 U.S.C. § 160(c) from Enforcement of Certain of the Commission’s ARMIS Reporting 
Requirements; Petition of Qwest Corporation for Forbearance from Enforcement of the Commission’s ARMIS and 
492A Reporting Requirements Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 160(c); Petition of the Embarq Local Operating Companies 
for Forbearance Under 47 U.S.C. § 160(c) from Enforcement of Certain of ARMIS Reporting Requirements; 
Petition of Frontier and Citizens ILECs for Forbearance Under 47 U.S.C. § 160(c) from Enforcement of Certain of 
the Commission’s ARMIS Reporting Requirements; Petition of Verizon for Forbearance Under 47 U.S.C. § 160(c) 
from Enforcement of Certain of the Commission’s Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements; Petition of AT&T 
Inc. for Forbearance Under 47 U.S.C. § 160 from Enforcement of Certain of the Commission’s Cost Assignment
Rules, WC Docket Nos. 08-190, 07-139, 07-204, 07-273, 07-21, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, 23 FCC Rcd 13647, 13649, para. 3 (2008) (2008 ARMIS Order and NPRM) (citing Policy 
and Rules Concerning Rates for Dominant Carriers, Second Report and Order, CC Docket No. 87-313, 5 FCC Rcd 
6786, 6827, 6830, paras. 334-37, 357 (1990) (Price Cap Order)).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
33
Commission granted certain incumbent LECs conditional forbearance from “the current partial and uneven” 
collection of those reports.  The Commission noted, however, “the possibility that service quality and 
customer satisfaction data . . . might be useful to consumers to help them make informed choices in a 
competitive market, but only if available from the entire relevant industry,” and tentatively concluded that 
the Commission should collect this type of information from “facilities-based providers of broadband 
and/or telecommunications.”209  Some urge the Commission to adopt this tentative conclusion,210 while 
others object, arguing that forbearance was justified and the metrics set forth in those reports are irrelevant 
and outdated.211
95. CWA proposes that the Commission require all providers of voice telecommunications services 
to file all of the data previously submitted on ARMIS Reports 43-05 and 43-06, and to expand service 
quality measurements to include answer times for live representatives responding to customer inquiries.212
We note, however, that all parts of the ARMIS 43-05 and 43-06 collections may not be helpful to 
fulfillment of the policy objectives discussed in Section III.  For example, the California PUC offers a more 
limited proposal, that the Commission collect data formerly reported on four of the six tables of ARMIS 
Report 43-05.213  
96. We seek comment on whether the Commission should use Form 477 to collect service quality 
and customer satisfaction data for voice networks.  Should the Commission collect some or all of the 
service quality metrics formerly collected through ARMIS, or other measures of voice quality?  Should we 
collect metrics from switched and interconnected VoIP providers, over both fixed and mobile networks?  
Are there other metrics for service quality and customer satisfaction that would be more appropriate and 
less burdensome for reporting entities?  Should metrics vary depending on the technology over which 
service is provided?
c. Broadband
97. Several commenters have suggested that the Commission collect service quality and customer 
service data from broadband providers.214 In contrast, most broadband providers that commented objected 
to adopting any service quality data requirements.215 We seek comment on whether Form 477 should be 
revised to collect service quality and customer satisfaction data from broadband providers, and the authority 
under which such a collection would be conducted.
98. The metrics set forth in ARMIS Reports 43-05 and 43-06 were not designed with broadband 
networks in mind, and therefore might not be the best tools for collecting relevant data.  To the extent that 
the Commission decides to extend customer service measurement to broadband services, we seek comment 
  
209 Id. at 13655, para. 35.
210 See, e.g., CWA Aug. 13, 2010 Comments, WC Docket No. 10-132; Free Press Aug. 13, 2010 Comments in WC 
Docket No. 10-132 at 2-4.
211 See, e.g., Verizon Aug. 13, 2010 Comments, WC Docket 10-132 at 4; AT&T Sept. 13, 2010 Reply Comments, 
WC Docket No. 10-132 at 1-2; CTIA Nov. 14, 2008 Comments, WC Docket No. 08-190 at 3-4.
212 See, e.g., Communications Workers of America Aug. 13, 2010 Comments, WC Docket No. 10-132 at 5-8; Texas 
Office of Public Utility Counsel Nov. 14, 2008 Comments, WC Docket No. 08-190.  The complete data definitions 
for the most recent (2009) ARMIS 43-05 and 43-06 reports are available on the Commission website at 
http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/armis/instructions/2009/definitions05.htm#gen and 
http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/armis/instructions/2009/definitions06.htm#gen, respectively.
213 California PUC Nov. 14, 2008 Comments, WC Docket No. 08-190 at 4.
214 See, e.g., Michigan PSC Nov. 14, 2008 Comments, WC Docket No. 08-190; Free Press Nov. 16, 2008 
Comments, WC Docket No. 08-190 at 6-7.
215 See, e.g., Satellite Industry Association Nov. 14, 2008 Comments, WC Docket No. 08-190.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
34
on what metrics should be used to assess broadband network service quality and customer satisfaction.216  
How would the Commission measure network downtime?  Should downtime reports include specific 
locations of outages and the number of customer-hours relating to the outage?  Should the Commission 
collect packet loss, latency, and jitter data?  How can it do so in a meaningful way; and over what 
geographic area would such a collection have meaning?  Should the Commission collect data on mobile and 
fixed traffic volume and network congestion, and if so, how should those metrics be specified?  Over what 
geographic area is such a collection meaningful, and what measure of traffic is most meaningful?
99. We note that the recently adopted Open Internet Order requires broadband providers to 
publicly disclose the network management practices and performance characteristics of their broadband 
Internet access services.  Are these disclosures adequate to satisfy any need the Commission may have for 
service quality data?  If Form 477 were used to collect information regarding network management 
practices or performance characteristics, would the benefits outweigh the burdens?217
5. Ownership and Contact Information
100. We seek comment on whether ownership and contact information are necessary to fulfill 
one or more of the purposes discussed above, including reducing waste, fraud, and abuse and increasing 
accountability in our universal service programs by simplifying the process of determining the total amount 
of public support received by each recipient regardless of corporate structure; ensuring public safety by 
providing a means for Commission staff to contact network operations centers rapidly in the event of an 
emergency; and monitoring telephone and broadband competition by revealing whether service providers 
with overlapping service footprints are in fact under common ownership or control.
101. Currently, we permit Form 477 filers to consolidate data for multiple operations within a 
state on a single submission.218 We also permit filers to determine the organizational level at which they 
submit their filings.219 For example, a parent or holding company may file on behalf of its subsidiaries or 
the subsidiaries may file their own Form 477.220 This provides filers with significant flexibility in how they 
submit data on Form 477, but may not provide the Commission with a sufficiently detailed picture of the 
markets for which data are reported.  
102. We seek comment on whether we should revise the Form 477 to collect additional 
ownership information and related data.  Would additional ownership information help inform the 
Commission’s overall understanding of the broadband ecosystem?  In particular, would additional or 
different ownership data help us understand the interrelationships among the data on services and thereby 
improve our ability to evaluate markets and report to the public?  Given the importance of broadband 
competition, would the benefit to the Commission of understanding the relationships between companies 
that appear to be providing competitive services in a particular area outweigh any burden of producing such 
information?  
103. We also seek comment on the most effective and least burdensome means of collecting 
  
216 See, e.g., New America Aug. 13, 2010 Comments, WC Docket No. 10-132, Attach. at 12 (suggesting that service 
quality information could consist of performance and customer service statistics such as average speeds up/down, 
average latency, jitter, dropped packets, uptime, service outages, and customer equipment failures).
217 See, e.g., Reply Comments of Google, WC Docket No. 10-132 at 7-8 (filed Sep. 13, 2010).  Under Google’s 
proposal, relevant network management practices include traffic prioritization, traffic blocking or throttling, 
processes to address traffic congestion such as usage download or upload restrictions, content/message examination 
processes (e.g., deep packet inspection), and traffic routing processes that are based on sender/receiver or type of 
traffic.
218 FCC Form 477 Instructions at 4. 
219 Id.
220 Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
35
additional ownership data.  One option could be to require filers to report data such as that collected on 
FCC Form 602 for wireless carriers, which collects all of a filer’s “disclosable interest holders.”221 Would 
such an approach be necessary to enable us to evaluate ultimate ownership of, and common control among, 
filers, or would a more limited dataset be sufficient?  Should we require the submission of data on any 
branding used in the marketing or provision of service?  If we require the submission of additional 
ownership information, should we also collect other reporting identifiers the filers use in making 
submissions to the Commission, such as the Physical System ID (PSID) used by the Media Bureau for cable 
systems?  These and other measures might allow the Commission more easily to evaluate the actual number 
of providers offering services in a given area and to report non-confidential information about carriers by 
the names by which most consumers know them.  Are there are ancillary data that would be helpful to 
include on consumer-facing resources, such as the national broadband inventory map?222 Would it be 
useful, for example, to make available a provider’s website address and other non-confidential data?  
Should entities that file report their FCC Registration Number (FRN) and Universal Service Administrative 
Company Study Area Code (SAC)?
104. We also seek comment on revising Form 477 to collect contact information for use in 
emergency situations.  The Commission maintains a voluntary reporting system, the Disaster Information 
Reporting System (DIRS) that facilitates contact with carriers in emergencies.  The Commission also 
maintains a number of databases that include contact information for other purposes.  There is, however, no 
structured, mandatory collection of contact information in place specifically for use in emergencies 
affecting telephone or broadband networks.  As a mandatory, recurring filing by providers of telephone and 
broadband service, Form 477 may be a particularly effective vehicle for collecting emergency-contacts data 
that are comprehensive and current, with a relatively small burden on filers.  We seek comment on whether 
we should revise Form 477 to collect data of this type and, if so, what data would best facilitate emergency 
communications with providers.  Would a telephone number and email address for each provider’s Network 
Operations Center or equivalent be sufficient?  Would the current six-month cycle for filing Form 477 be 
frequent enough to ensure that information was current?  Are there any additional steps the Commission 
should take to collect data of this type?
6. Other Data
105. Stakeholders have periodically suggested that the Commission collect other types of data 
via Form 477.  MMTC, for example, suggests that the Commission collect via Form 477 “socioeconomic 
data,” “social metrics,” data to assess socially and economically disadvantaged businesses and minority or 
woman-owned business entities, and data on hardware and software availability in underserved areas.223  
What other data should the Commission collect via Form 477 in support of the purposes identified in 
section III above?  Commenters should explain the purpose for which the Commission would collect such 
data, the legal authority for the collection, and the extent to which the benefits outweigh the burdens of 
collecting it.
106. We also note that there are some alternate geographic areas relevant to Commission 
analysis that cannot be re-created by aggregating even the smallest census geographies.  Such alternate 
areas include, for example, wire centers or study areas.  Information about what alternate areas are 
associated with each reported geography (i.e., the geography reported with one or more of the possible 
collections described above) would assist in any analysis related to those areas.  We seek comment on the 
burden to provide information about these alternate geographic areas on those reporting data.
  
221 FCC, FORM 602, INFORMATION AND INSTRUCTIONS at 5 (2007), available at
http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form602/602.pdf.
222 See supra Section II.B.2.b.
223 MMTC Aug. 13, 2010 Comments, WC Docket No. 10-123 at 12-13.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
36
V. LEGAL ISSUES
A. Authority
107. The Commission has previously noted it must collect data on the provision of voice and 
broadband services to fulfill numerous statutory obligations.224 For example, the Telecommunications Act 
of 1996 required the Commission to open all telecommunications markets to competition, and to assess the 
availability of broadband services.225 The Form 477 program collects data that are “a critical precursor” to 
the Commission’s ability to fulfill these directives.226 Form 477 also enables us to fulfill our obligation to 
reduce government regulation wherever possible,227 by providing “a factual basis to evaluate the nature and 
impact of our existing regulation and, in particular, to identify areas where competition has developed 
sufficiently to justify deregulation.”228 Many other statutory obligations cannot be implemented without the 
collection of data about the deployment and adoption of communications technologies and the state of 
relevant marketplaces.229  For example, the BDIA requires the Commission to collect comparative data 
reflecting the extent of broadband service capability in other countries, and data for the United States, to 
inform its annual consideration of whether broadband is being deployed to all Americans on a reasonable 
and timely basis.230 We believe our authority to collect the proposed additional data derives from these 
statutory obligations, as well as additional grants of authority in the Act, including those in sections 4(i), 
4(k), 218 and 403.231 We invite comment on this conclusion.
B. Disclosure
108. The Commission has always recognized that the Form 477 broadband and local telephone 
service data it collects can be of significant value not only to the Commission, but also to the states and to 
the public.232 In establishing and administering the Form 477 collection, however, the Commission has also 
been cognizant of the potential sensitivity of the data collected and has limited their disclosure.233  
109. We note that the Commission is reviewing its data dissemination practices in connection 
with the Data Innovation Initiative.234 How can we best provide stakeholders with useful data while 
protecting filers’ legitimate confidentiality interests?  Should the Commission retain the simple check box 
  
224 See section III, supra; see, e.g., Price Cap Order, 5 FCC Rcd at 6827-31, paras. 332-64; 2000 Data Gathering 
Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 7718-20, paras. 2-5, 7723-24, para. 12; 2004 Broadband Data Gathering Order, 19 FCC Rcd 
at 22343, para. 6, 22345, para. 9, 22350-51, para. 19; 2008 Broadband Data Gathering Order and Further Notice, 
23 FCC Rcd at 9692, para. 1, 9694, para. 8.
225 See 47 U.S.C. §§ 251, 252, 257, 271, 1302; Joint Statement of Managers, S. Conf. Rep. No. 104-230, 104th 
Cong., 2d Sess., at 1 (1996).
226 2000 Data Gathering Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 7719, para. 2.
227 See 47 U.S.C. §§ 160(b), 161(a)(2).
228 2000 Data Gathering Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 7720, para. 5.
229 See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(k), 154(o), 201, 202, 211, 218-20, 254, 256, 301, 309.  See generally Comcast, 600 
F.3d at 659 (“We readily accept that certain assertions of Commission authority could be ‘reasonably ancillary’ to 
the Commission's statutory responsibility to issue a report to Congress.  For example, the Commission might impose 
disclosure requirements on regulated entities in order to gather data needed for such a report.”).
230 BDIA § 103(b); 47 U.S.C. 1303(b).
231 See 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 154(k), 218, and 403.
232 2000 Data Gathering Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 7727-28, 7758, paras. 16, 87.
233 See generally id. at 7757-61, paras. 86-94. 
234 Press Release, FCC Launches Data Innovation Initiative (rel. Jun. 29, 2010), available at
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-299269A1.pdf.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
37
on the FCC Form 477 that filers can use to request confidential treatment for all data submitted on that 
form?  Are there classes of information that should always be considered public, and, therefore, not be 
granted confidential treatment?  For example, given that SBDD data will be public, are there any reasons to 
accord confidential treatment to deployment data collected by the Commission?  Are there circumstances 
where data submitted to the Commission should be held confidential, but aggregations of those data be 
made public, as is currently the case with subscription information?235 Once deemed confidential, should 
data always be confidential, or does the passage of time diminish the commercial sensitivity of certain types 
of data?236 When data are given confidential treatment, should the Commission establish a program to 
allow researchers access to those data under certain conditions?237 How would such a program be 
administered?
C. Privacy
110. We seek comment on any privacy concerns that may arise from the reporting of address-
level data.  We note that the privacy-based limitations on the government’s access to customer information 
in Title II of ECPA,238 and the privacy provisions of the Cable Act,239 may be implicated by collection of 
address-level subscribership data.  We therefore seek comment on ways the Commission could alleviate any 
privacy concerns while complying with all applicable laws. 
111. We also seek comment on whether the Commission could establish a registry or database 
through which consumers could themselves share data with the Commission or choose to have their 
providers share data with the Commission.  What would be the benefits and drawbacks of such a registry, 
and how could it be set up both to get useful data and to minimize the burden on consumers and reporting 
entities?  Should consumers provide information directly to the Commission, or through reporting entities 
that must gain consumer consent?  If the latter, what steps could the Commission take to ensure that 
consumers have provided consent?  How could the Commission address any other privacy issues, and any 
other legal impediments to the creation and maintenance of such a registry?
112. We note that the presence or absence of a network at a particular address does not 
provide any subscriber-specific information.  We seek comment, however, on whether any privacy concerns 
would arise if providers were required to report deployment data at the address level.  
VI. OTHER ISSUES
A. Tribal Lands
113. The National Broadband Plan identifies the importance of improving data on Tribal 
lands, and recommends that the Commission “identify methods for collecting and reporting broadband 
information that is specific to Tribal lands, working with Tribes to ensure that any information collected is 
  
235 See 2000 Data Gathering Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 7759, para. 89 (“[W]e agree with those commenters who 
suggest that we can aggregate much of the data [for which confidentiality is sought] – for example, by carrier class 
and to the state level – so that it does not identify the individual provider in our regularly published reports.”).  The 
Industry Analysis and Technology Division of the Wireline Competition Bureau regularly publishes an analysis of 
the Form 477 data.  See, e.g., December 2010 Internet Access Services Report, n.101.
236 In 2004, the Commission considered but decided not to adopt a different approach for maintaining the 
confidentiality of historical data.  See 2004 Broadband Data Gathering Order, 19 FCC Rcd 22352, para. 24.
237 The NBP recommends implementing a process making confidential data available to academic researchers and 
others, subject to appropriate restrictions.  See NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 43-44.  The Wireline Competition 
Bureau has also sought comment on a request to review Form 477 data and related issues.  See Comment Sought on 
Free Press Request to Review Form 477 Data and Request for Protective Order, WC Docket No. 10-75, Public 
Notice, 25 FCC Rcd 2704 (2010). 
238 SCA, 18 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq.
239 47 U.S.C. § 551 et seq.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
38
accurate and useful.”240 The Commission’s rules identify federally recognized Tribal lands and define them 
for particular purposes, such as the eligibility and delivery requirements for universal service support 
programs.241 The Commission’s definition of Tribal lands identifies the boundaries of land holdings of 
federally recognized American Indian Tribal and Alaska Native Village government entities.  We 
acknowledge that American Indian and Alaska Native areas defined as “Native Home Lands” by the U.S. 
Census Bureau for census taking purposes242 encompass areas both within and beyond areas defined as 
Tribal Lands in the Commission’s rules.  Tribal leaders have asked that we consider disaggregating our 
analysis of the Census Bureau’s “Native Home Land” areas, in part to allow for a more accurate assessment 
of broadband deployment in the Tribal Lands areas defined under the Commission’s rules.243  In the Seventh 
Broadband Deployment NOI, we sought comment on how to more accurately report data concerning the 
lands of federally recognized American Indians Tribes and Alaska Native Villages, as well as Native
Hawaiian Home Lands.244 Native Hawaiian Home Lands may also be able to be more accurately analyzed, 
as they are located exclusively within the state of Hawaii.
114. We seek comment on our analysis of broadband deployment and availability on federally 
recognized Tribal lands and how we could improve and refine this analysis. We also seek comment on 
analysis of broadband deployment and availability on Native Hawaiian Home Lands.  We note that sources 
of such data may presently exist within the U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Department of the Interior, 
and from Tribal Government entities.  We seek comment on whether there are other sources of data that 
would help the Commission better understand and analyze the nature of broadband deployment and 
availability on Tribal Lands and Native Hawaiian Home Lands.
B. International Data
115. As discussed above, the BDIA requires the Commission to include an international 
comparison in its annual broadband deployment report.245 The International Bureau has released its first 
International Broadband Data Report, which presented data and information on international broadband 
  
240 See NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 185.  
241 “Tribal lands” include any federally recognized Indian tribe’s reservation, pueblo or colony, including former 
reservations in Oklahoma, Alaska Native regions established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlements Act 
(85 Stat. 688), and Indian Allotments, see 47 C.F.R. § 54.400(e) as well as Hawaiian Home Lands, areas held in 
trust for native Hawaiians by the state of Hawaii, pursuant to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920, Act July 
9, 1921, 42 Stat. 108, et seq., as amended.
242 See U.S. Census Bureau, GEOGRAPHIC AREAS REFERENCE MANUAL, CHAPTER 5, available at
http://www.census.gov/geo/www/garm.html.
243 In the 2010 Sixth Broadband Deployment Report, we found that only 12.5% of all households on Native 
Homeland areas subscribe to a broadband service faster than dialup compared to 56% of all households nationwide.  
2010 Sixth Broadband Deployment Report, 25 FCC Rcd at 9572, para. 25.  If we instead designated a county as a 
Native Homeland area solely by whether at least 50% of the land mass is designated by the Census Bureau as 
American Indian Area/Alaska Native Area/Hawaiian Homeland, we would have found similar levels of unserved 
Americans. Id. We note that our analysis assumes that the geographic areas designated as Native Home Lands did 
not significantly change since the 2000 Census. Id. at 9572, n.105. We note also that the NATIONAL BROADBAND 
PLAN recognizes that “[a]vailable data, which are sparse, suggest that less than 10% of residents on Tribal lands 
have broadband available…[but], as the FCC has previously observed, [b]y virtually any measure, communities on 
Tribal lands have historically had less access to telecommunications services than any other segment of the 
population.” NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 152, Box 8-4, Broadband on Tribal Lands (citations omitted).
244 Seventh Broadband Deployment NOI, 25 FCC Rcd at 11371, para. 37.
245 See Section II.B.1.a, supra.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
39
service capability, advertised prices or broadband services, community-level data, and information about 
the broadband market and broadband regulations in various nations.246
116. To conduct a rigorous comparison of the factors that affect broadband deployment in the 
U.S. and abroad, it is necessary to have comparable, detailed, and geographically disaggregated data.  We 
therefore seek comment on how and whether revisions to the Form 477 program would facilitate comparing 
the U.S. broadband market to other countries.  To what extent would revisions facilitate comparisons 
between the U.S. and other countries on the basis of a population’s income (and variations in income),
education (and variations in education), computer literacy, residential computer ownership, household size, 
and other factors?  Should the Form 477 program be modified to collect data on the costs of deploying 
broadband, including as a function of population density at a geographically disaggregated level?  Should 
the program be modified to collect data on alternative broadband technologies more prevalent in other 
countries?  Should the program allow for or enable an assessment of the number of providers that offer 
alternative forms of broadband and the advertised and actual speeds that providers offer in local geographic 
areas?  Are there modifications to the subscription data we currently collect that would make those data 
more suitable for international comparisons?  Where U.S. providers offer multiple service packages, should 
the Commission collect data about the speeds and other service characteristics of these packages?  Would 
information on actual data usage be useful, as well as data on the applications that residential consumers 
use, such as VoIP services?  Finally, would the collection of pricing data facilitate comparisons with 
offerings in other countries?
VII. PROCEDURAL MATTERS
A. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis
117. This document contains proposed new or modified information collection requirements.  
The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public 
and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection requirements 
contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13.  In 
addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 
3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how we might further reduce the information collection burden 
for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
118. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended, the Commission has 
prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) for this further notice of proposed rulemaking, of 
the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules 
proposed in this further notice of proposed rulemaking.  The IRFA is in the Appendix to this item.  Written 
public comments are requested on this IRFA.  Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and 
must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the further notice of proposed rulemaking.  The 
Commission will send a copy of the notice of proposed rulemaking, including this IRFA, to the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA.  In addition, the notice of proposed rulemaking and IRFA (or summaries 
thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
  
246 The International Bureau has gathered:  (1) information for actual prices advertised to consumers for broadband 
services in different parts of the world from the websites of competitive and new entrant broadband providers; (2) 
community-level data and information from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development 
(OECD), broadband adoption data from the European Commission’s regional data, and other data from individual 
government agencies, either through the national statistical agency or the communications ministry and/or regulator; 
and (3) information about the broadband market and broadband regulations in various countries around the world.  
International Comparison Requirements Pursuant to the Broadband Data Improvement Act, International 
Broadband Data Report, First Report, GN Docket No. 09-47, DA 10-1348 25 FCC Rcd 11963 (2010).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
40
C. Ex Parte Presentations
119. This proceeding shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with 
the Commission's ex parte rules.  Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda 
summarizing the presentations must contain summaries of the substance of the presentations and not merely 
a listing of the subjects discussed.  More than a one or two sentence description of the views and arguments 
presented is generally required.  Other requirements pertaining to oral and written presentations are set forth 
in section 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules.
D. Comment Filing Procedures
120. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR §§ 1.415, 1.419, 
interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page 
of this document.  All pleadings are to reference WC Docket No. 11-10.  Comments may be filed using:  (1) 
the Commission’s Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government’s eRulemaking 
Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies.
o Electronic Filers:  Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing 
the ECFS:  http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
o Paper Filers:  Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of 
each filing.  If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this 
proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or 
rulemaking number.
121. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or 
by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail.  All filings must be addressed to the Commission’s 
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
122. All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission’s Secretary 
must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th Street, S.W., Room TW-A325, Washington, D.C. 
20554.  All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners.  Any envelopes must be 
disposed of before entering the building. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.  Commercial overnight 
mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton 
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.  U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be 
addressed to 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington D.C. 20554.
123. People with Disabilities:  To request materials in accessible formats for people with 
disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (tty).
124. Parties should send a copy of each filing to the Competition Policy Division, Wireline 
Competition Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20554, 
or by e-mail to CPDcopies@fcc.gov.  Parties shall also serve one copy with the Commission’s copy 
contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW, Room CY-B402, 
Washington, D.C. 20554, (202) 488-5300, or via e-mail to fcc@bcpiweb.com.
125. Filings and comments will be available for public inspection and copying during regular 
business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room CY-
A257, Washington, D.C. 20554.  They may also be purchased from the Commission’s duplicating 
contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room CY-B402, Washington, 
D.C. 20554, telephone: (202) 488-5300, fax: (202) 488-5563, or via e-mail www.bcpiweb.com.
E. Contact Persons
126. For further information about this rulemaking proceeding, please contact Jeremy Miller, 
Industry Analysis and Technology Division, Wireline Competition Bureau at (202) 418-0940.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
41
VIII. ORDERING CLAUSES
127. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 1-5, 10, 11, 201-205, 211, 214, 
215, 218-220, 251-271, 301, 303, 304, 307, 309, 316, 332, 403, 409, 502, and 503 of the Communications 
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-155, 161, 201-205, 211, 214, 215, 218-220, 251-271, 301, 303, 
304, 307, 309, 316, 332, 403, 409, 502, and 503, section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. 1302, and section 102 of the Broadband Data Improvement Act, 47 U.S.C. § 1303, this 
Notice, with all attachments, IS ADOPTED.
128. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission’s Consumer and Governmental 
Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Report and Order and the 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and the Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.  
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch 
Secretary
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
42
APPENDIX
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),1 the Commission 
has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities from the policies and rules proposed in this Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (Notice).  The Commission requests written public comment on this IRFA. Comments must be 
identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the Notice provided 
on the first page of the Notice. The Commission will send a copy of the Notice, including this IRFA, to the 
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).2 In addition, the Notice and 
IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.3
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules 
2. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission considers whether and how to reform 
the Form 477 data program, which serves as the Commission’s primary tool for collecting broadband and 
local telephone data.  After more than a decade of rapid innovation in the market for broadband and 
telephone services, the Commission believes it is time to consider whether modifying Form 477 will better 
serve the current and future needs of the Commission, Congress, consumers, and other stakeholders.  Such 
reform seeks to improve the Commission’s ability to carry out its duties under the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended (the Act),4 and is an important part of the Commission’s larger initiative to modernize 
and streamline how the Commission collects, uses, and disseminates data.  Specifically, the Commission 
seeks comment on five categories of data that may be necessary to collect: (1) deployment, (2) subscription, 
(3) price, (4) service quality, and (5) ownership and contact information.  The Commission also seeks 
comment on whether there are other types of data necessary for the Commission to complete its mandates.  
3. For these categories of data, the Commission identifies the purposes for which data may be 
needed, and seeks comment on the specifics of certain approaches to collecting data.  For example, the 
Commission seeks comment on whether the Commission should use Form 477 to collect price data, which 
could help accomplish several purposes, including modernizing the universal service program to support 
broadband.
4. In addition, the Commission also seeks comment on whether service quality and customer 
satisfaction data may be necessary for several purposes, including increasing accountability in the 
Commission’s universal service programs, ensuring public safety, promoting broadband deployment, and 
protecting consumers.  The Commission then identifies certain metrics that could be collected, such as data 
regarding the number of trouble reports that customers make regarding network performance, and seeks 
comment.
5. The Commission also seeks comment on collecting ownership and contact information in order 
to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse in universal service programs and for other purposes.
6. The Commission also seeks comment on the extent to which technological tools and use of 
commercial and publicly available data can reduce the burden of producing information.  The Commission 
also seeks comment on how to streamline the process in collecting the data it needs to inform its 
policymaking processes while minimizing the production burden on providers and the processing burden on 
  
1 See 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. §§ 601-12, has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).
2 See 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).
3 Id.
4 Communications Act of 1934, Pub. L. No. 73-416, 48 Stat. 1064 (codified, as amended, at 47 U.S.C. § 151 et 
seq.).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
43
the Commission.
B. Legal Basis
7. The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to the Notice is contained in sections 
1-5, 10, 11, 201-205, 211, 214, 215, 218-220, 251-271, 301, 303, 304, 307, 309, 316, 332, 403, 409, 502, 
and 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-155, 161, 201-205, 211, 214, 
215, 218-220, 251-271, 301, 303, 304, 307, 309, 316, 332, 403, 409, 502, and 503, section 706 of the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 1302, and section 102 of the Broadband Data 
Improvement Act, 47 U.S.C. § 1303.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Rules Will 
Apply
8. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where feasible, an estimate of, the 
number of small entities that may be affected by the rules adopted herein.5 The RFA generally defines the 
term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and 
“small governmental jurisdiction.”6 In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the 
term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act.7 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).8
1. Wireline Providers
9. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (Incumbent LECs).  Neither the Commission nor the SBA 
has developed a small business size standard specifically for incumbent local exchange services.  The 
appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers.  Under 
that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.9 Census Bureau data for 
2007, which now supersede data from the 2002 Census, show that there were 3,188 firms in this category 
that operated for the entire year.  Of this total, 3,144 had employment of 999 or fewer, and 44 firms had had 
employment of 1000 or more. According to Commission data, 1,307 carriers reported that they were 
incumbent local exchange service providers.10 Of these 1,307 carriers, an estimated 1,006 have 1,500 or 
fewer employees and 301 have more than 1,500 employees.11 Consequently, the Commission estimates that 
most providers of local exchange service are small entities that may be affected by the rules and policies 
proposed in the Notice. Thus under this category and the associated small business size standard, the 
majority of these incumbent local exchange service providers can be considered small providers.12
  
5 5 U.S.C. § 604(a)(3).
6 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).
7 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small-business concern” in the Small Business 
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 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.”
8 15 U.S.C. § 632.
9 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.
10 See Trends in Telephone Service, Federal Communications Commission, Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry 
Analysis and Technology Division at Table 5.3 (Sept. 2010) (Trends in Telephone Service).
11 See id.
12 See http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-geo_id=&-_skip=600&-
ds_name=EC0751SSSZ5&-_lang=en.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
44
10. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (Competitive LECs), Competitive Access Providers 
(CAPs), Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and Other Local Service Providers.  Neither the Commission 
nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for these service providers.  The 
appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers.  Under 
that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.13 .  Census Bureau data for 
2007, which now supersede data from the 2002 Census, show that there were 3,188 firms in this category 
that operated for the entire year.  Of this total, 3,144 had employment of 999 or fewer, and 44 firms had had 
employment of 1,000 employees or more.  Thus under this category and the associated small business size 
standard, the majority of these Competitive LECs, CAPs, Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and Other 
Local Service Providers can be considered small entities.14.   According to Commission data, 1,442 carriers 
reported that they were engaged in the provision of either competitive local exchange services or 
competitive access provider services.15 Of these 1,442 carriers, an estimated 1,256 have 1,500 or fewer 
employees and 186 have more than 1,500 employees.16 In addition, 17 carriers have reported that they are 
Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and all 17 are estimated to have 1,500 or fewer employees.17 In addition, 
72 carriers have reported that they are Other Local Service Providers.18 Of the 72, seventy have 1,500 or 
fewer employees and two have more than 1,500 employees.19 Consequently, the Commission estimates that 
most providers of competitive local exchange service, competitive access providers, Shared-Tenant Service 
Providers, and Other Local Service Providers are small entities that may be affected by rules adopted 
pursuant to the Notice. 
11. Interexchange Carriers.  Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business 
size standard specifically for providers of interexchange services.  The appropriate size standard under SBA 
rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers.  Under that size standard, such a business is 
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.20  .  Census Bureau data for 2007, which now supersede data from 
the 2002 Census, show that there were 3,188 firms in this category that operated for the entire year.  Of this 
total, 3,144 had employment of 999 or fewer, and 44 firms had had employment of 1,000 employees or 
more.  Thus under this category and the associated small business size standard, the majority of these 
Interexchange carriers can be considered small entities.21. According to Commission data, 359 companies 
reported that their primary telecommunications service activity was the provision of interexchange 
services.22 Of these 359 companies, an estimated 317 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 42 have more 
than 1,500 employees.23 Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of interexchange 
service providers are small entities that may be affected by rules adopted pursuant to the Notice. 
12. Operator Service Providers (OSPs).  Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a 
  
13 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.
14 See http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-geo_id=&-_skip=600&-
ds_name=EC0751SSSZ5&-_lang=en
15 See Trends in Telephone Service at Table 5.3.
16 See id.
17 See id.
18 See id.
19 See id.
20 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.
21 See http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-geo_id=&-_skip=600&-
ds_name=EC0751SSSZ5&-_lang=en.
22 See Trends in Telephone Service at Table 5.3.
23 See id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
45
small business size standard specifically for operator service providers.  The appropriate size standard under 
SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers.  Under that size standard, such a 
business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.24 Under that size standard, such a business is small if it 
has 1,500 or fewer employees.25  .  Census Bureau data for 2007, which now supersede data from the 2002 
Census, show that there were 3,188 firms in this category that operated for the entire year.  Of this total, 
3,144 had employment of 999 or fewer, and 44 firms had had employment of 1,000 employees or more.  
Thus under this category and the associated small business size standard, the majority of these 
Interexchange carriers can be considered small entities.26.According to Commission data, 33 carriers have 
reported that they are engaged in the provision of operator services.  Of these, an estimated 31 have 1,500 
or fewer employees and 2 have more than 1,500 employees.27 Consequently, the Commission estimates that 
the majority of OSPs are small entities that may be affected by our proposed action.
13. Local Resellers.  The SBA has developed a small business size standard for the category of 
Telecommunications Resellers.  Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 
employees.28 Census data for 2007 show that 1,523 firms provided resale services during that year. Of that 
number, 1,522 operated with fewer than 1000 employees and one operated with more than 1,000.29 Thus 
under this category and the associated small business size standard, the majority of these local resellers can 
be considered small entities. According to Commission data, 213 carriers have reported that they are 
engaged in the provision of local resale services.30 Of these, an estimated 211 have 1,500 or fewer 
employees and two have more than 1,500 employees.31 Consequently, the Commission estimates that the 
majority of local resellers are small entities that may be affected by rules adopted pursuant to the Notice. 
14. Toll Resellers.  The SBA has developed a small business size standard for the category of 
Telecommunications Resellers.  Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 
employees.32 Census data for 2007 show that 1,523 firms provided resale services during that year. Of that 
number, 1,522 operated with fewer than 1000 employees and one operated with more than 1,000.33 Thus 
under this category and the associated small business size standard, the majority of these resellers can be 
considered small entities. According to Commission data,34 881 carriers have reported that they are engaged 
in the provision of toll resale services.  Of these, an estimated 857 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 24 
have more than 1,500 employees.  Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of toll 
resellers are small entities that may be affected by our action.  
15. Payphone Service Providers (PSPs).  Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a 
small business size standard specifically for payphone services providers.  The appropriate size standard 
  
24 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.
25 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.
26 See http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-geo_id=&-_skip=600&-
ds_name=EC0751SSSZ5&-_lang=en.
27 TRENDS IN TELEPHONE SERVICE, tbl. 5.3.
28 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517911.
29 http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-_skip=800&-ds_name=EC0751SSSZ5&-
_lang=en.
30 See Trends in Telephone Service at Table 5.3.  
31 See id.
32 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517911.
33 See http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-_skip=800&-ds_name=EC0751SSSZ5&-
_lang=en
34 TRENDS IN TELEPHONE SERVICE, tbl. 5.3.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
46
under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers.  Under that size standard, such a 
business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.35  Census Bureau data for 2007, which now supersede 
data from the 2002 Census, show that there were 3,188 firms in this category that operated for the entire
year.  Of this total, 3,144 had employment of 999 or fewer, and 44 firms had had employment of 1,000 
employees or more.  Thus under this category and the associated small business size standard, the majority 
of these PSPs  can be considered small entities.36.According to Commission data,37 657 carriers have 
reported that they are engaged in the provision of payphone services.  Of these, an estimated 653 have 1,500 
or fewer employees and four have more than 1,500 employees.  Consequently, the Commission estimates 
that the majority of payphone service providers are small entities that may be affected by our action.
16. Prepaid Calling Card Providers.  Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small 
business size standard specifically for prepaid calling card providers.  The appropriate size standard under 
SBA rules is for the category Telecommunications Resellers.  Under that size standard, such a business is 
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.38 Census data for 2007 show that 1,523 firms provided resale 
services during that year. Of that number, 1,522 operated with fewer than 1000 employees and one operated 
with more than 1,000.39 Thus under this category and the associated small business size standard, the 
majority of these prepaid calling card providers can be considered small entities. According to Commission 
data, 193 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of prepaid calling cards.40 Of these, 
an estimated all 193 have 1,500 or fewer employees and none have more than 1,500 employees.41  
Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of prepaid calling card providers are small 
entities that may be affected by rules adopted pursuant to the Notice.
17. 800 and 800-Like Service Subscribers.42 Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a 
small business size standard specifically for 800 and 800-like service (“toll free”) subscribers.  The 
appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Telecommunications Resellers.  Under that 
size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.43 Census data for 2007 show that 
1,523 firms provided resale services during that year. Of that number, 1,522 operated with fewer than 1000 
employees and one operated with more than 1,000.44 Thus under this category and the associated small 
business size standard, the majority of resellers in this classification can be considered small entities. To 
focus specifically on the number of subscribers than on those firms which make subscription service 
available, the most reliable source of information regarding the number of these service subscribers appears 
to be data the Commission collects on the 800, 888, 877, and 866 numbers in use.45 According to our data, 
at of September 2009, the number of 800 numbers assigned was 7,860,000;  the number of 888 numbers 
  
35 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.
36 See http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-geo_id=&-_skip=600&-
ds_name=EC0751SSSZ5&-_lang=en.
37 TRENDS IN TELEPHONE SERVICE, tbl. 5.3.
38 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517911.
39 See http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-_skip=800&-ds_name=EC0751SSSZ5&-
_lang=en.
40 See Trends in Telephone Service at Table 5.3.
41 See id.
42 We include all toll-free number subscribers in this category, including those for 888 numbers.
43 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517911.
44 See http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-_skip=800&-ds_name=EC0751SSSZ5&-
_lang=en.
45 Trends in Telephone Service at Tables 18.4, 18.5, 18.6, 18.7. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
47
assigned was 5,888,687; the number of 877 numbers assigned was 4, 721,866; and the number of 866 
numbers assigned was 7, 867,736.  The Commission does not have data specifying the number of these 
subscribers that are not independently owned and operated or have more than 1,500 employees, and thus are 
unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of toll free subscribers that would qualify 
as small businesses under the SBA size standard.  Consequently, the Commission estimates that there are 
7,860.000  or fewer small entity 800 subscribers; 5,888,687 or fewer small entity 888 subscribers; 
4,721,866 or fewer small entity 877 subscribers; and 7,867,736 or fewer small entity 866 subscribers.
2. Wireless Carriers and Service Providers
18. Below, for those services subject to auctions, the Commission notes that, as a general matter, 
the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not 
necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service.  Also, the Commission does not 
generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust 
enrichment issues are implicated.
19. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite).  Since 2007, the Census Bureau has 
placed wireless firms within this new, broad, economic census category.46  Prior to that time, such firms 
were within the now-superseded categories of “Paging” and “Cellular and Other Wireless 
Telecommunications.”47 Under the present and prior categories, the SBA has deemed a wireless business to 
be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.48  For the category of Wireless Telecommunications Carriers 
(except Satellite), Census data for 2007, which supersede data contained in the 2002 Census, show that 
there were 1,383 firms that operated that year.49 Of those 1,383, 1,368 had fewer than 100 employees, and 
15 firms had more than 100 employees. Thus under this category and the associated small business size 
standard, the majority of firms can be considered small. Similarly, according to Commission data, 413 
carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless telephony, including cellular service, 
Personal Communications Service (PCS), and Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) Telephony services.50 Of 
these, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 152 have more than 1,500 employees.51  
Consequently, the Commission estimates that approximately half or more of these firms can be considered 
small. Thus, using available data, we estimate that the majority of wireless firms can be considered small.  
20. Wireless Communications Services.  This service can be used for fixed, mobile, radiolocation, 
and digital audio broadcasting satellite uses.  The Commission defined “small business” for the wireless 
communications services (WCS) auction as an entity with average gross revenues of $40 million for each of 
the three preceding years, and a “very small business” as an entity with average gross revenues of $15 
million for each of the three preceding years.52 The SBA has approved these definitions.53 The 
  
46 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, “517210 Wireless Telecommunications Categories (Except 
Satellite)”; http://www.census.gov/naics/2007/def/ND517210.HTM#N517210.
47 U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, “517211 Paging”; 
http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF517.HTM.; U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, “517212 
Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications”; http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF517.HTM.
48 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517210 (2007 NAICS).  The now-superseded, pre-2007 C.F.R. citations were 
13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS codes 517211 and 517212 (referring to the 2002 NAICS).
49 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census, Sector 51, 2007 NAICS code 517210 (rel. Oct. 20, 2009), 
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-_skip=700&-
ds_name=EC0751SSSZ5&-_lang=en.
50 See Trends in Telephone Service at Table 5.3.
51 See id.
52 Amendment of the Commission’s Rules to Establish Part 27, the Wireless Communications Service (WCS), GN 
Docket No. 96-228, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 10785, 10879, para. 194 (1997).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
48
Commission auctioned geographic area licenses in the WCS service.  In the auction, which commenced on 
April 15, 1997 and closed on April 25, 1997, seven bidders won 31 licenses that qualified as very small 
business entities, and one bidder won one license that qualified as a small business entity.
21. Common Carrier Paging.  The SBA considers paging to be a wireless telecommunications 
service and classifies it under the industry classification Wireless Telecommunications Carriers(except 
satellite) . Under that classification, the applicable size standard is that a business is small if it has 1,500 or 
fewer employees. For the general category of Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite), 
Census data for 2007, which supersede data contained in the 2002 Census, show that there were 1,383 firms 
that operated that year.54 Of those 1,383, 1,368 had fewer than 100 employees, and 15 firms had more than 
100 employees. Thus under this category and the associated small business size standard, the majority of 
firms can be considered small.55 The 2007 census   also contains data for  the specific category of  “Paging” 
“that is classified under the seven-number NAICs code 5172101.56According to Commission data, 291 
carriers have reported that they are engaged in Paging or Messaging Service. Of these, an estimated 289 
have 1,500 or fewer employees, and 2 have more than 1,500 employees.57 Consequently, the Commission 
estimates that the majority of paging providers are small entities that may be affected by our action.  In 
addition, in the Paging Third Report and Order, the Commission developed a small business size standard 
for “small businesses” and “very small businesses” for purposes of determining their eligibility for special 
provisions such as bidding credits and installment payments.58 A “small business” is an entity that, together 
with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the 
preceding three years.  Additionally, a “very small business” is an entity that, together with its affiliates and 
controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not more than $3 million for the preceding three 
years.59 The SBA has approved these small business size standards.60 An auction of Metropolitan 
Economic Area licenses commenced on February 24, 2000, and closed on March 2, 2000.61 Of the 985 
licenses auctioned, 440 were sold.  Fifty-seven companies claiming small business status won.
22. Wireless Telephony.  Wireless telephony includes cellular, personal communications services, 
and specialized mobile radio telephony carriers.  As noted, the SBA has developed a small business size 
(Continued from previous page)    
53 See Letter from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, SBA, to Amy Zoslov, Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis 
Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC (filed Dec. 2, 1998) (Alvarez Letter 1998).
54 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census, Sector 51, 2007 NAICS code 517210 (rel. Oct. 20, 2009), 
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-_skip=700&-
ds_name=EC0751SSSZ5&-_lang=en.
55 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
56 See http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-_skip=700&-ds_name=EC0751SSSZ5&-
_lang=en  In this specific category, there were 248 firms that operated for the entire year in 2007.. Of that number 
247 operated with fewer than 100 employees and one(1) operated with more than 1000 employees. Based on this 
classification and the associated size standard, the majority of paging firms must be considered small.
57 See Trends in Telephone Service at Table 5.3.
58 Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission’s Rules to Provide for the Use of the 220-222 MHz Band by the Private 
Land Mobile Radio Service, PR Docket No. 89-552, GN Docket No. 93-252, PP Docket No. 93-253, Third Report 
and Order and Fifth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 12 FCC Rcd 10943, 11068-70, paras. 291-295 (1997) (220 
MHz Third Report and Order).
59 See Letter to Amy Zoslov, Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications 
Bureau, FCC, from A. Alvarez, Administrator, SBA (Dec. 2, 1998).
60 Revision of Part 22 and Part 90 of the Commission’s Rules to Facilitate Future Development of Paging Systems, 
WT Docket No. 96-18, PR Docket No. 93-253, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration and Third 
Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 10030, paras. 98-107 (1999).  
61 Id. at 10085, para. 98.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
49
standard for Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite).62 Under the SBA small business size 
standard, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.63 Census data for 2007, which supersede 
data contained in the 2002 Census, show that there were 1,383 firms that operated that year.64 Of those 
1,383, 1,368 had fewer than 100 employees, and 15 firms had more than 100 employees. Thus under this 
category and the associated small business size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small 
According to Trends in Telephone Service data, 434 carriers reported that they were engaged in wireless 
telephony.65 Of these, an estimated 222 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 212 have more than 1,500 
employees.66 Therefore, approximately half of these entities can be considered small.  Similarly, according 
to Commission data, 413 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless telephony, 
including cellular service, Personal Communications Service (PCS), and Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) 
Telephony services.67 Of these, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 152 have more than 
1,500 employees.68 Consequently, the Commission estimates that approximately half or more of these 
firms can be considered small. Thus, using available data, we estimate that the majority of wireless firms 
can be considered small.  
23. Broadband  Personal Communications Service. The broadband personal communications 
services (PCS) spectrum is divided into six frequency blocks designated A through F, and the Commission 
has held auctions for each block.  The Commission initially defined a “small business” for C- and F-Block 
licenses as an entity that has average gross revenues of $40 million or less in the three previous calendar 
years.69 For F-Block licenses, an additional small business size standard for “very small business” was 
added and is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates, has average gross revenues of not more 
than $15 million for the preceding three calendar years.70 These small business size standards, in the 
context of broadband PCS auctions, have been approved by the SBA.71 No small businesses within the 
SBA-approved small business size standards bid successfully for licenses in Blocks A and B.  There were 
90 winning bidders that claimed small business status in the first two C-Block auctions.  A total of 93 
bidders that claimed small business status won approximately 40 percent of the 1,479 licenses in the first 
auction for the D, E, and F Blocks.72 On April 15, 1999, the Commission completed the reauction of 347 C-
, D-, E-, and F-Block licenses in Auction No. 22.73 Of the 57 winning bidders in that auction, 48 claimed 
  
62 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
63 Id.
64 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census, Sector 51, 2007 NAICS code 517210 (rel. Oct. 20, 2009), 
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-_skip=700&-
ds_name=EC0751SSSZ5&-_lang=en. 
65 TRENDS IN TELEPHONE SERVICE, tbl. 5.3.
66 Id.
67 See Trends in Telephone Service at Table 5.3.
68 See id.
69 See Amendment of Parts 20 and 24 of the Commission’s Rules – Broadband PCS Competitive Bidding and the 
Commercial Mobile Radio Service Spectrum Cap; Amendment of the Commission’s Cellular/PCS Cross-Ownership 
Rule; WT Docket No. 96-59, GN Docket No. 90-314, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 7824, 7850–52, paras. 57–60 
(1996) (“PCS Report and Order”); see also 47 C.F.R. § 24.720(b).
70 See PCS Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 7852, para. 60.
71 See Alvarez Letter 1998.
72 See Broadband PCS, D, E and F Block Auction Closes, Public Notice, Doc. No. 89838 (rel. Jan. 14, 1997).
73 See C, D, E, and F Block Broadband PCS Auction Closes, Public Notice, 14 FCC Rcd 6688 (WTB 1999).  Before 
Auction No. 22, the Commission established a very small standard for the C Block to match the standard used for F 
Block.  Amendment of the Commission’s Rules Regarding Installment Payment Financing for Personal 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
50
small business status and won 277 licenses.
24. On January 26, 2001, the Commission completed the auction of 422 C and F Block Broadband 
PCS licenses in Auction No. 35.  Of the 35 winning bidders in that auction, 29 claimed small business 
status.74 Subsequent events concerning Auction 35, including judicial and agency determinations, resulted 
in a total of 163 C and F Block licenses being available for grant.  On February 15, 2005, the Commission 
completed an auction of 242 C-, D-, E-, and F-Block licenses in Auction No. 58.  Of the 24 winning bidders 
in that auction, 16 claimed small business status and won 156 licenses.75 On May 21, 2007, the 
Commission completed an auction of 33 licenses in the A, C, and F Blocks in Auction No. 71.76 Of the 12 
winning bidders in that auction, five claimed small business status and won 18 licenses.77 On August 20, 
2008, the Commission completed the auction of 20 C-, D-, E-, and F-Block Broadband PCS licenses in 
Auction No. 78.78 Of the eight winning bidders for Broadband PCS licenses in that auction, six claimed 
small business status and won 14 licenses.79
25. Narrowband Personal Communications Services.  To date, two auctions of narrowband 
personal communications services (PCS) licenses have been conducted.  For purposes of the two auctions 
that have already been held, “small businesses” were entities with average gross revenues for the prior three 
calendar years of $40 million or less.  Through these auctions, the Commission has awarded a total of 41 
licenses, out of which 11 were obtained by small businesses.  To ensure meaningful participation of small 
business entities in future auctions, the Commission has adopted a two-tiered small business size standard 
in the Narrowband PCS Second Report and Order.80 A “small business” is an entity that, together with 
affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues for the three preceding years of not more than 
$40 million.  A “very small business” is an entity that, together with affiliates and controlling interests, has 
average gross revenues for the three preceding years of not more than $15 million.  The SBA has approved 
these small business size standards.81  
26. 220 MHz Radio Service – Phase I Licensees.  The 220 MHz service has both Phase I and Phase 
II licenses.  Phase I licensing was conducted by lotteries in 1992 and 1993.  There are approximately 1,515 
such non-nationwide licensees and four nationwide licensees currently authorized to operate in the 220 
MHz band.  The Commission has not developed a small business size standard for small entities specifically 
applicable to such incumbent 220 MHz Phase I licensees.  To estimate the number of such licensees that are 
small businesses, the Commission applies the small business size standard under the SBA rules applicable. 
(Continued from previous page)    
Communications Services (PCS) Licensees, WT Docket No. 97-82, Fourth Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15743, 
15768, para. 46 (1998).
74 See C and F Block Broadband PCS Auction Closes; Winning Bidders Announced, Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 
2339 (2001).
75 See Broadband PCS Spectrum Auction Closes; Winning Bidders Announced for Auction No. 58, Public Notice, 20 
FCC Rcd 3703 (2005).
76 See Auction of Broadband PCS Spectrum Licenses Closes; Winning Bidders Announced for Auction No. 71, 
Public Notice, 22 FCC Rcd 9247 (2007).
77 Id.
78 See Auction of AWS-1 and Broadband PCS Licenses Closes; Winning Bidders Announced for Auction 78, Public 
Notice, 23 FCC Rcd 12749 (WTB 2008).
79 Id.
80 Amendment of the Commission’s Rules to Establish New Personal Communications Services, Narrowband PCS, 
GEN Docket No. 90-314, ET Docket No. 92-100, PP Docket No. 93-253, Second Report and Order and Second 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 15 FCC Rcd 10456 (2000).
81 See Letter to Amy Zoslov, Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications 
Bureau, FCC, from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, SBA (Dec. 2, 1998).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
51
The  SBA has deemed a wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.82  For this service, 
the SBA uses the category of Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). Census data for 
2007, which supersede data contained in the 2002 Census, show that there were 1,383 firms that operated 
that year.83 Of those 1,383, 1,368 had fewer than 100 employees, and 15 firms had more than 100 
employees. Thus under this category and the associated small business size standard, the majority of firms 
can be considered small.
27. 220 MHz Radio Service – Phase II Licensees.  The 220 MHz service has both Phase I and 
Phase II licenses.  The Phase II 220 MHz service is a new service, and is subject to spectrum auctions.  In 
the 220 MHz Third Report and Order, the Commission adopted a small business size standard for “small” 
and “very small” businesses for purposes of determining their eligibility for special provisions such as 
bidding credits and installment payments.84 This small business size standard indicates that a “small 
business” is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues 
not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years.85 A “very small business” is an entity that, together 
with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that do not exceed $3 million for 
the preceding three years.  The SBA has approved these small business size standards.86 Auctions of Phase 
II licenses commenced on September 15, 1998, and closed on October 22, 1998.87 In the first auction, 908 
licenses were auctioned in three different-sized geographic areas: three nationwide licenses, 30 Regional 
Economic Area Group (EAG) Licenses, and 875 Economic Area (EA) Licenses.  Of the 908 licenses 
auctioned, 693 were sold.  Thirty-nine small businesses won licenses in the first 220 MHz auction.  The 
second auction included 225 licenses: 216 EA licenses and 9 EAG licenses.  Fourteen companies claiming 
small business status won 158 licenses.88  
28. 800 MHz and 900 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio Licenses.  The Commission awards small 
business bidding credits in auctions for Specialized Mobile Radio (“SMR”) geographic area licenses in the 
800 MHz and 900 MHz bands to entities that had revenues of no more than $15 million in each of the three 
previous calendar years.89 The Commission awards very small business bidding credits to entities that had 
revenues of no more than $3 million in each of the three previous calendar years.90 The SBA has approved 
these small business size standards for the 800 MHz and 900 MHz SMR Services.91 The Commission has 
held auctions for geographic area licenses in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands.  The 900 MHz SMR 
auction was completed in 1996.92 Sixty bidders claiming that they qualified as small businesses under the 
  
82 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517210 (2007 NAICS).  The now-superseded, pre-2007 C.F.R. citations were 
13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS codes 517211 and 517212 (referring to the 2002 NAICS).
83 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census, Sector 51, 2007 NAICS code 517210 (rel. Oct. 20, 2009), 
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-_skip=700&-
ds_name=EC0751SSSZ5&-_lang=en.
84 220 MHz Third Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 11068-70, at paras. 291-95.
85 Id. at 11068-70, para. 291.
86 See letter to D. Phythyon, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC, from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, 
SBA (Jan. 6, 1998).
87 See generally 220 MHz Service Auction Closes, Public Notice, 14 FCC Rcd 605 (1998).
88 Phase II 220 MHz Service Spectrum Auction Closes, Public Notice, 14 FCC Rcd 11218 (1999).
89 47 C.F.R. §§ 90.810, 90.814(b), 90.912.
90 47 C.F.R. §§ 90.810, 90.814(b), 90.912.
91 See Alvarez Letter 1999.  
92 “FCC Announces Winning Bidders in the Auction of 1,020 Licenses to Provide 900 MHz SMR in Major Trading 
Areas: Down Payments due April 22, 1996, FCC Form 600s due April 29, 1996,” Public Notice, 11 FCC Rcd 18599 
(WTB 1996).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
52
$15 million size standard won 263 geographic area licenses in the 900 MHz SMR band.93 The 800 MHz 
SMR auction for the upper 200 channels was conducted in 1997.  Ten bidders claiming that they qualified 
as small businesses under the $15 million size standard won 38 geographic area licenses for the upper 200 
channels in the 800 MHz SMR band.94 A second auction for the 800 MHz band was conducted in 2002 and 
included 23 BEA licenses.  One bidder claiming small business status won five licenses.95
29. The auction of the 1,053 800 MHz SMR geographic area licenses for the General Category 
channels was conducted in 2000.  Eleven bidders won 108 geographic area licenses for the General 
Category channels in the 800 MHz SMR band qualified as small businesses under the $15 million size 
standard.96 In an auction completed in 2000, a total of 2,800 Economic Area licenses in the lower 80 
channels of the 800 MHz SMR service were awarded.97 Of the 22 winning bidders, 19 claimed small 
business status and won 129 licenses.  Thus, combining all three auctions, 40 winning bidders for 
geographic licenses in the 800 MHz SMR band claimed status as small business.
30. In addition, there are numerous incumbent site-by-site SMR licensees and licensees with 
extended implementation authorizations in the 800 and 900 MHz bands.  We do not know how many firms 
provide 800 MHz or 900 MHz geographic area SMR pursuant to extended implementation authorizations, 
nor how many of these providers have annual revenues of no more than $15 million.  One firm has over $15 
million in revenues.  In addition, we do not know how many of these firms have 1500 or fewer employees.98  
We assume, for purposes of this analysis, that all of the remaining existing extended implementation 
authorizations are held by small entities, as that small business size standard is approved by the SBA.
31. 700 MHz Guard Band Licensees.  In 2000, in the 700 MHz Guard Band Order, the Commission 
adopted size standards for “small businesses” and “very small businesses” for purposes of determining their 
eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and installment payments.99 A small business in 
this service is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross 
revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years.100 Additionally, a very small business is 
an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not 
more than $15 million for the preceding three years.101 SBA approval of these definitions is not required.102  
An auction of 52 Major Economic Area licenses commenced on September 6, 2000, and closed on 
September 21, 2000.103 Of the 104 licenses auctioned, 96 licenses were sold to nine bidders.  Five of these 
  
93 Id.
94 See “Correction to Public Notice DA 96-586 ‘FCC Announces Winning Bidders in the Auction of 1020 Licenses 
to Provide 900 MHz SMR in Major Trading Areas,’” Public Notice, 11 FCC Rcd 18,637 (WTB 1996).
95 See “Multi-Radio Service Auction Closes,” Public Notice, 17 FCC Rcd 1446 (WTB 2002).
96 See “800 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) Service General Category (851-854 MHz) and Upper Band 
(861-865 MHz) Auction Closes; Winning Bidders Announced,” Public Notice, 15 FCC Rcd 17162 (WTB 2000).
97 See “800 MHz SMR Service Lower 80 Channels Auction Closes; Winning Bidders Announced,” Public Notice,
16 FCC Rcd 1736 (WTB 2000).
98 See generally 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
99 See Service Rules for the 746–764 MHz Bands, and Revisions to Part 27 of the Commission’s Rules, WT Docket 
No. 99-168, Second Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 5299 (2000) (746–764 MHz Band Second Report and Order).
100 See 746–764 MHz Band Second Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 5343, para. 108.
101 See id.
102 See id. at 5343, para. 108 n.246 (for the 746–764 MHz and 776–794 MHz bands, the Commission is exempt from 
15 U.S.C. § 632, which requires Federal agencies to obtain SBA approval before adopting small business size 
standards).
103 See 700 MHz Guard Bands Auction Closes:  Winning Bidders Announced, Public Notice, 15 FCC Rcd 18026 
(WTB 2000).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
53
bidders were small businesses that won a total of 26 licenses.  A second auction of 700 MHz Guard Band 
licenses commenced on February 13, 2001, and closed on February 21, 2001.  All eight of the licenses 
auctioned were sold to three bidders.  One of these bidders was a small business that won a total of two 
licenses.104
32. Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service.  The Commission has previously used the SBA’s small 
business size standard applicable to Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite), i.e., an entity 
employing no more than 1,500 persons.105 There are approximately 100 licensees in the Air-Ground 
Radiotelephone Service, and under that definition, the Commission estimates that almost all of them qualify 
as small entities under the SBA definition.  For purposes of assigning Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service 
licenses through competitive bidding, the Commission has defined “small business” as an entity that, 
together with controlling interests and affiliates, has average annual gross revenues for the preceding three 
years not exceeding $40 million.106 A “very small business” is defined as an entity that, together with 
controlling interests and affiliates, has average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not 
exceeding $15 million.107 These definitions were approved by the SBA.108 In May 2006, the Commission 
completed an auction of nationwide commercial Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service licenses in the 800 
MHz band (Auction No. 65).  On June 2, 2006, the auction closed with two winning bidders winning two 
Air-Ground Radiotelephone Services licenses.  Neither of the winning bidders claimed small business 
status.
33. Rural Radiotelephone Service.  The Commission has not adopted a size standard for small 
businesses specific to the Rural Radiotelephone Service.109 A significant subset of the Rural 
Radiotelephone Service is the Basic Exchange Telephone Radio System (BETRS).110 The Commission 
uses the SBA’s small business size standard applicable to “Cellular and Other Wireless 
Telecommunications,” i.e., an entity employing no more than 1,500 persons.111 There are approximately 
1,000 licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone Service, and the Commission estimates that there are 1,000 or 
fewer small entity licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone Service that may be affected by the rules and 
policies adopted herein.
34. Aviation and Marine Radio Services.  Small businesses in the aviation and marine radio 
services use a very high frequency (VHF) marine or aircraft radio and, as appropriate, an emergency 
position-indicating radio beacon (and/or radar) or an emergency locator transmitter.  The Commission has 
not developed a small business size standard specifically applicable to these small businesses.  For purposes 
of this analysis, the Commission uses the SBA small business size standard for the category Wireless 
Telecommunications Carriers(except satellite),” which is 1,500 or fewer employees.112 Census data for 
  
104 See 700 MHz Guard Bands Auction Closes: Winning Bidders Announced, Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 4590 
(WTB 2001).
105 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS codes 517210.
106 Amendment of Part 22 of the Commission’s Rules to Benefit the Consumers of Air-Ground Telecommunications 
Services, Biennial Regulatory Review—Amendment of Parts 1, 22, and 90 of the Commission’s Rules, Amendment of 
Parts 1 and 22 of the Commission’s Rules to Adopt Competitive Bidding Rules for Commercial and General 
Aviation Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service, WT Docket Nos. 03-103, 05-42, Order on Reconsideration and Report 
and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 19663, paras. 28–42 (2005).
107 Id.
108 See Letter from Hector V. Barreto, Administrator, SBA, to Gary D. Michaels, Deputy Chief, Auctions and 
Spectrum Access Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC (filed Sept. 19, 2005).
109 The service is defined in section 22.99 of the Commission’s Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 22.99.
110 BETRS is defined in sections 22.757 and 22.759 of the Commission’s Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 22.757 and 22.759.
111 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
112 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
54
2007, which supersede data contained in the 2002 Census, show that there were 1,383 firms that operated 
that year.113 Of those 1,383, 1,368 had fewer than 100 employees, and 15 firms had more than 100 
employees. Thus under this category and the associated small business size standard, the majority of firms 
can be considered small. Additionally, the Commission notes that most applicants for recreational licenses 
in this category of wireless service  are individuals.  Approximately 581,000 ship station licensees and 
131,000 aircraft station licensees operate domestically and are not subject to the radio carriage requirements 
of any statute or treaty.  For purposes of our evaluations in this analysis, the Commission estimates that 
there are up to approximately 712,000 licensees that are small businesses (or individuals) under the SBA 
standard.  In addition, between December 3, 1998 and December 14, 1998, the Commission held an auction 
of 42 VHF Public Coast licenses in the 157.1875-157.4500 MHz (ship transmit) and 161.775-162.0125 
MHz (coast transmit) bands.  For purposes of the auction, the Commission defined a “small” business as an 
entity that, together with controlling interests and affiliates, has average gross revenues for the preceding 
three years not to exceed $15 million dollars.  In addition, a “very small” business is one that, together with 
controlling interests and affiliates, has average gross revenues for the preceding three years not to exceed $3 
million dollars.114 There are approximately 10,672 licensees in the Marine Coast Service, and the 
Commission estimates that almost all of them qualify as “small” businesses under the above special small 
business size standards.  
35. Fixed Microwave Services.  Microwave services include common carrier,115 private-operational 
fixed,116 and broadcast auxiliary radio services.117 They also include the Local Multipoint Distribution 
Service (LMDS),118 the Digital Electronic Message Service (DEMS),119 and the 24 GHz Service,120 where 
licensees can choose between common carrier and non-common carrier status.121 The Commission has not 
yet defined a small business with respect to microwave services.  For purposes of the IRFA, the 
Commission will use the SBA’s definition applicable to Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except 
satellite)—i.e., an entity with no more than 1,500 persons is considered small.122 For the category of 
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite), Census data for 2007, which supersede data 
contained in the 2002 Census, show that there were 1,383 firms that operated that year.123 Of those 1,383, 
  
113 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census, Sector 51, 2007 NAICS code 517210 (rel. Oct. 20, 2009), 
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-_skip=700&-
ds_name=EC0751SSSZ5&-_lang=en.
114 Amendment of the Commission’s Rules Concerning Maritime Communications, PR Docket No. 92-257, Third 
Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 19853 (1998).
115 See 47 C.F.R. Part 101, Subparts C and I.
116 See 47 C.F.R. Part 101, Subparts C and H.
117 Auxiliary Microwave Service is governed by Part 74 of Title 47 of the Commission’s Rules.  See 47 C.F.R. Part 
74.  Available to licensees of broadcast stations and to broadcast and cable network entities, broadcast auxiliary 
microwave stations are used for relaying broadcast television signals from the studio to the transmitter, or between 
two points such as a main studio and an auxiliary studio.  The service also includes mobile TV pickups, which relay 
signals from a remote location back to the studio.
118 See 47 C.F.R. Part 101, Subpart L.
119 See 47 C.F.R. Part 101, Subpart G.
120 See id.
121 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 101.533, 101.1017.
122 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
123 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census, Sector 51, 2007 NAICS code 517210 (rel. Oct. 20, 2009), 
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-_skip=700&-
ds_name=EC0751SSSZ5&-_lang=en.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
55
1,368 had fewer than 100 employees, and 15 firms had more than 100 employees. Thus under this category 
and the associated small business size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small. The 
Commission notes that the number of firms does not necessarily track the number of licensees.  The 
Commission estimates that virtually all of the Fixed Microwave licensees (excluding broadcast auxiliary 
licensees) would qualify as small entities under the SBA definition.
36. Offshore Radiotelephone Service.  This service operates on several UHF television broadcast 
channels that are not used for television broadcasting in the coastal areas of states bordering the Gulf of 
Mexico.124 There are presently approximately 55 licensees in this service.  The Commission is unable to 
estimate at this time the number of licensees that would qualify as small under the SBA’s small business 
size standard  for the category of Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). Under that 
standard.125 Under that SBA small business size standard, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 
employees.126  Census data for 2007, which supersede data contained in the 2002 Census, show that there 
were 1,383 firms that operated that year.127 Of those 1,383, 1,368 had fewer than 100 employees, and 15 
firms had more than 100 employees. Thus under this category and the associated small business size 
standard, the majority of firms can be considered small. 
37. 32.39 GHz Service.  The Commission created a special small business size standard for 39 GHz 
licenses – an entity that has average gross revenues of $40 million or less in the three previous calendar 
years.128 An additional size standard for “very small business” is:  an entity that, together with affiliates, has 
average gross revenues of not more than $15 million for the preceding three calendar years.129 The SBA has 
approved these small business size standards.130 The auction of the 2,173 39 GHz licenses began on April 
12, 2000 and closed on May 8, 2000.  The 18 bidders who claimed small business status won 849 licenses.  
Consequently, the Commission estimates that 18 or fewer 39 GHz licensees are small entities that may be 
affected by our action.
38. Wireless Cable Systems.  Broadband Radio Service and Educational Broadband Service.  
Broadband Radio Service systems, previously referred to as Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS) and 
Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service (MMDS) systems, and “wireless cable,” transmit video 
programming to subscribers and provide two-way high speed data operations using the microwave 
frequencies of the Broadband Radio Service (BRS) and Educational Broadband Service (EBS) (previously 
referred to as the Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS)).131 In connection with the 1996 BRS 
auction, the Commission established a small business size standard as an entity that had annual average
gross revenues of no more than $40 million in the previous three calendar years.132 The BRS auctions 
  
124 This service is governed by Subpart I of Part 22 of the Commission’s Rules.  See 47 C.F.R. §§ 22.1001-22.1037.
125 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
126 Id. 
127 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census, Sector 51, 2007 NAICS code 517210 (rel. Oct. 20, 2009), 
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-_skip=700&-
ds_name=EC0751SSSZ5&-_lang=en.
128 See Amendment of the Commission’s Rules Regarding the 37.0-38.6 GHz and 38.6-40.0 GHz Bands, ET Docket 
No. 95-183, PP Docket No. 93-253, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 18600 (1998).
129 Id.
130 See Letter to Kathleen O’Brien Ham, Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis Division, Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau, FCC, from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, SBA (Feb. 4, 1998).
131 Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 of the Commission’s Rules with Regard to Filing Procedures in the Multipoint 
Distribution Service and in the Instructional Television Fixed Service and Implementation of Section 309(j) of the 
Communications Act—Competitive Bidding, MM Docket No. 94-131, PP Docket No. 93-253, Report and Order, 10 
FCC Rcd 9589, 9593, para. 7 (1995).
132 47 C.F.R. § 21.961(b)(1).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
56
resulted in 67 successful bidders obtaining licensing opportunities for 493 Basic Trading Areas (BTAs).  Of 
the 67 auction winners, 61 met the definition of a small business.  BRS also includes licensees of stations 
authorized prior to the auction.  At this time, we estimate that of the 61 small business BRS auction 
winners, 48 remain small business licensees.  In addition to the 48 small businesses that hold BTA 
authorizations, there are approximately 392 incumbent BRS licensees that are considered small entities.133  
After adding the number of small business auction licensees to the number of incumbent licensees not 
already counted, we find that there are currently approximately 440 BRS licensees that are defined as small 
businesses under either the SBA or the Commission’s rules.  In 2009, the Commission conducted Auction 
86, the sale of 78 licenses in the BRS areas.134 The Commission offered three levels of bidding credits: (i) a 
bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues that exceed $15 million and do not exceed $40 million 
for the preceding three years (small business) will receive a 15 percent discount on its winning bid; (ii) a 
bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues that exceed $3 million and do not exceed $15 million 
for the preceding three years (very small business) will receive a 25 percent discount on its winning bid; 
and (iii) a bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues that do not exceed $3 million for the 
preceding three years (entrepreneur) will receive a 35 percent discount on its winning bid.135 Auction 86 
concluded in 2009 with the sale of 61 licenses.136 Of the ten winning bidders, two bidders that claimed 
small business status won 4 licenses; one bidder that claimed very small business status won three licenses; 
and two bidders that claimed entrepreneur status won six licenses.
39. In addition, the SBA’s Cable Television Distribution Services small business size standard is 
applicable to EBS.  There are presently 2,032 EBS licensees.  All but 100 of these licenses are held by 
educational institutions.  Educational institutions are included in this analysis as small entities.137 Thus, we 
estimate that at least 1,932 licensees are small businesses.  Since 2007, Cable Television Distribution 
Services have been defined within the broad economic census category of Wired Telecommunications 
Carriers; that category is defined as follows:  “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in 
operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for 
the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired telecommunications networks. 
Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies.”138 . For 
these services, the Commission uses the SBA small business size standard for the category “Wireless 
Telecommunications Carriers(except satellite),” which is 1,500 or fewer employees.139 To gauge small 
business prevalence for these cable services we must, however, use the most current census data. Census 
data for 2007, which supersede data contained in the 2002 Census, show that there were 1,383 firms that 
  
133 47 U.S.C. § 309(j).  Hundreds of stations were licensed to incumbent MDS licensees prior to implementation of 
Section 309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 309(j).  For these pre-auction licenses, the 
applicable standard is SBA’s small business size standard of 1500 or fewer employees.
134 Auction of Broadband Radio Service (BRS) Licenses, Scheduled for October 27, 2009, Notice and Filing 
Requirements, Minimum Opening Bids, Upfront Payments, and Other Procedures for Auction 86, Public Notice, 24 
FCC Rcd 8277 (2009).
135 Id. at 8296.
136 Auction of Broadband Radio Service Licenses Closes, Winning Bidders Announced for Auction 86, Down 
Payments Due November 23, 2009, Final Payments Due December 8, 2009, Ten-Day Petition to Deny Period, 
Public Notice, 24 FCC Rcd 13572 (2009).
137 The term “small entity” within SBREFA applies to small organizations (nonprofits) and to small governmental 
jurisdictions (cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, and special districts with populations of 
less than 50,000).  5 U.S.C. §§ 601(4)–(6).  We do not collect annual revenue data on EBS licensees.
138 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, “517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers,” (partial 
definition), www.census.gov/naics/2007/def/ND517110.HTM#N517110.
139 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
57
operated that year.140 Of those 1,383, 1,368 had fewer than 100 employees, and 15 firms had more than 100 
employees.  Thus under this category and the associated small business size standard, the majority of firms 
can be considered small. The Commission notes that the Census’ use the classifications “firms” does not 
track the  number of “licenses”.
40. In the 1998 and 1999 LMDS auctions,141 the Commission defined a small business as an entity 
that has annual average gross revenues of less than $40 million in the previous three calendar years.142  
Moreover, the Commission added an additional classification for a “very small business,” which was 
defined as an entity that had annual average gross revenues of less than $15 million in the previous three 
calendar years.143 These definitions of “small business” and “very small business” in the context of the 
LMDS auctions have been approved by the SBA.144 In the first LMDS auction, 104 bidders won 864 
licenses.  Of the 104 auction winners, 93 claimed status as small or very small businesses.  In the LMDS re-
auction, 40 bidders won 161 licenses.  Based on this information, the Commission believes that the number 
of small LMDS licenses will include the 93 winning bidders in the first auction and the 40 winning bidders 
in the re-auction, for a total of 133 small entity LMDS providers as defined by the SBA and the 
Commission’s auction rules.
41. 218-219 MHz Service.  The first auction of 218-219 MHz spectrum resulted in 170 entities 
winning licenses for 594 Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) licenses.  Of the 594 licenses, 557 were won 
by entities qualifying as a small business.  For that auction, the small business size standard was an entity 
that, together with its affiliates, has no more than a $6 million net worth and, after federal income taxes 
(excluding any carry over losses), has no more than $2 million in annual profits each year for the previous 
two years.145 In the 218-219 MHz Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order, the 
Commission established a small business size standard for a “small business” as an entity that, together with 
its affiliates and persons or entities that hold interests in such an entity and their affiliates, has average 
annual gross revenues not to exceed $15 million for the preceding three years.146 A “very small business” is 
defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates and persons or entities that hold interests in such an 
entity and its affiliates, has average annual gross revenues not to exceed $3 million for the preceding three 
years.147 These size standards will be used in future auctions of 218-219 MHz spectrum.
42. 24 GHz – Incumbent Licensees.  This analysis may affect incumbent licensees who were 
relocated to the 24 GHz band from the 18 GHz band, and applicants who wish to provide services in the 24 
GHz band.  For this service, the Commission uses the SBA small business size standard for the category 
“Wireless Telecommunications Carriers(except satellite),” which is 1,500 or fewer employees.148 To gauge 
  
140 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census, Sector 51, 2007 NAICS code 517210 (rel. Oct. 20, 2009), 
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-_skip=700&-
ds_name=EC0751SSSZ5&-_lang=en.
141 The Commission has held two LMDS auctions:  Auction 17 and Auction 23.  Auction No. 17, the first LMDS 
auction, began on February 18, 1998, and closed on March 25, 1998.  (104 bidders won 864 licenses.)  Auction No. 
23, the LMDS re-auction, began on April 27, 1999, and closed on May 12, 1999.  (40 bidders won 161 licenses.)
142 See LMDS Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 12545.
143 Id.
144 See Letter to Daniel Phythyon, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (FCC) from A. Alvarez, 
Administrator, SBA (January 6, 1998).
145 Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act – Competitive Bidding, PP Docket No. 93-253, 
Fourth Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 2330 (1994).
146 Amendment of Part 95 of the Commission’s Rules to Provide Regulatory Flexibility in the 218-219 MHz Service, 
WT Docket No. 98-169, Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 1497 (1999).
147 Id.
148 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
58
small business prevalence for these cable services we must, however, use the most current census data. 
Census data for 2007, which supersede data contained in the 2002 Census, show that there were 1,383 firms 
that operated that year.149 Of those 1,383, 1,368 had fewer than 100 employees, and 15 firms had more than 
100 employees.  Thus under this category and the associated small business size standard, the majority of 
firms can be considered small. The Commission notes that the Census’ use of the classifications“ firms” 
does not track the  number of “licenses”. The Commission believes that there are only two licensees in the 
24 GHz band that were relocated from the 18 GHz band, Teligent150 and TRW, Inc.  It is our understanding 
that Teligent and its related companies have less than 1,500 employees, though this may change in the 
future.  TRW is not a small entity.  Thus, only one incumbent licensee in the 24 GHz band is a small 
business entity.
43. 24 GHz – Future Licensees.  With respect to new applicants in the 24 GHz band, the small 
business size standard for “small business” is an entity that, together with controlling interests and affiliates, 
has average annual gross revenues for the three preceding years not in excess of $15 million.151 “Very small 
business” in the 24 GHz band is an entity that, together with controlling interests and affiliates, has average 
gross revenues not exceeding $3 million for the preceding three years.152 The SBA has approved these 
small business size standards.153 These size standards will apply to the future auction, if held. 
3. Satellite Service Providers
44. Satellite Telecommunications Providers.  Two economic census categories address the satellite 
industry.  The first category has a small business size standard of $15 million or less in average annual 
receipts, under SBA rules.154 The second has a size standard of $25 million or less in annual receipts.155  
45. The category of Satellite Telecommunications “comprises establishments primarily engaged in 
providing telecommunications services to other establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting 
industries by forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of satellites or reselling 
satellite telecommunications.”156 Census Bureau data for 2007 show that 512 Satellite Telecommunications 
firms that operated for that entire year..157 Of this total, 464 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, 
and 18 firms had receipts of $10 million to $24,999,999.158 Consequently, the Commission estimates that 
  
149 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census, Sector 51, 2007 NAICS code 517210 (rel. Oct. 20, 2009), 
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-_skip=700&-
ds_name=EC0751SSSZ5&-_lang=en.
150 Teligent acquired the DEMS licenses of FirstMark, the only licensee other than TRW in the 24 GHz band whose 
license has been modified to require relocation to the 24 GHz band.
151 Amendments to Parts 1, 2, 87 and 101 of the Commission’s Rules to License Fixed Services at 24 GHz, WT 
Docket No. 99-327, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 16934, 16967 at para. 77 (2000); see also 47 C.F.R. 
§ 101.538(a)(2).
152 Amendments to Parts 1, 2, 87 and 101 of the Commission’s Rules to License Fixed Services at 24 GHz, WT 
Docket No. 99-327, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 16934, 16967 at para. 77 (2000); see also 47 C.F.R. § 
101.538(a)(1).
153 See Letter to Margaret W. Wiener, Deputy Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis Division, Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau, FCC, from Gary M. Jackson, Assistant Administrator, SBA (July 28, 2000).
154 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517410.
155 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517919.
156 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, “517410 Satellite Telecommunications.”
157 See http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-_skip=900&-ds_name=EC0751SSSZ4&-
_lang=en. 
158 See http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-_skip=900&-ds_name=EC0751SSSZ4&-
_lang=en
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
59
the majority of Satellite Telecommunications firms are small entities that might be affected by our action.
46. The second category, i.e. “All Other Telecommunications” comprises “establishments primarily 
engaged in providing specialized telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications 
telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes establishments primarily engaged in 
providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities connected with one or more terrestrial systems 
and capable of transmitting telecommunications to, and receiving telecommunications from, satellite 
systems. Establishments providing Internet services or voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) services via 
client-supplied telecommunications connections are also included in this industry.”159 For this category, 
Census Bureau data for 2007 show that there were a total of 2,383 firms that operated for the entire year.160  
Of this total, 2,347 firms had annual receipts of under $25 million and 12  firms had annual receipts of $25 
million to $49, 999,999.161 Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of All Other 
Telecommunications firms are small entities that might be affected by our action.
4. Cable and OVS Operators
47. Because section 706 requires us to monitor the deployment of broadband regardless of 
technology or transmission media employed, the Commission anticipates that some broadband service 
providers may not provide telephone service.  Accordingly, the Commission describes below other types of 
firms that may provide broadband services, including cable companies, MDS providers, and utilities, among 
others.
48. Cable and Other Program Distributors.  Since 2007, these services have been defined within 
the broad economic census category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers; that category is defined as 
follows:  “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to 
transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, 
sound, and video using wired telecommunications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a 
single technology or a combination of technologies.”162 The SBA has developed a small business size 
standard for this category, which is:  all such firms having 1,500 or fewer employees.  Census data for 2007, 
which supersede data contained in the 2002 Census, show that there were 1,383 firms that operated that 
year.163 Of those 1,383, 1,368 had fewer than 100 employees, and 15 firms had more than 100 employees.  
Thus under this category and the associated small business size standard, the majority of such firms can be 
considered small. 
49. Cable Companies and Systems.  The Commission has also developed its own small business 
size standards, for the purpose of cable rate regulation.  Under the Commission’s rules, a “small cable 
company” is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers, nationwide.164  Industry data indicate that, of 1,076 
  
159 See http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=517919&search=2007%20NAICS%20Search
160 U.S. Censhttp://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-_skip=900&-
ds_name=EC0751SSSZ4&-_lang=en .
161 See http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-_skip=900&-ds_name=EC0751SSSZ4&-
_lang=en .
162 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, “517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers,” (partial 
definition), http://www.census.gov/naics/2007/def/ND517110.HTM#N517110 (last visited Oct. 21, 2009).
163 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census, Sector 51, 2007 NAICS code 517210 (rel. Oct. 20, 2009), 
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-_skip=700&-
ds_name=EC0751SSSZ5&-_lang=en.
164 47 C.F.R. § 76.901(e).  The Commission determined that this size standard equates approximately to a size 
standard of $100 million or less in annual revenues.  Implementation of Sections of the 1992 Cable Act: Rate 
Regulation, Sixth Report and Order and Eleventh Order on Reconsideration, 10 FCC Rcd 7393, 7408 (1995).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
60
cable operators nationwide, all but eleven are small under this size standard.165  In addition, under the 
Commission’s rules, a “small system” is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers.166  Industry 
data indicate that, of 7,208 systems nationwide, 6,139 systems have under 10,000 subscribers, and an 
additional 379 systems have 10,000–19,999 subscribers.167  Thus, under this second size standard, most 
cable systems are small.
50. Cable System Operators.  The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, also contains a size 
standard for small cable system operators, which is “a cable operator that, directly or through an affiliate, 
serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with 
any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed $250,000,000.”168  The 
Commission has determined that an operator serving fewer than 677,000 subscribers shall be deemed a 
small operator, if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual revenues of all its affiliates, do 
not exceed $250 million in the aggregate.169  Industry data indicate that, of 1,076 cable operators 
nationwide, all but ten are small under this size standard.170  We note that the Commission neither requests 
nor collects information on whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual 
revenues exceed $250 million,171 and therefore we are unable to estimate more accurately the number of 
cable system operators that would qualify as small under this size standard.
51. Open Video Services.  Open Video Service (OVS) systems provide subscription services.172 The 
open video system (“OVS”) framework was established in 1996, and is one of four statutorily recognized 
options for the provision of video programming services by local exchange carriers.173 The OVS 
framework provides opportunities for the distribution of video programming other than through cable 
systems. Because OVS operators provide subscription services,174 OVS falls within the SBA small business 
size standard covering cable services, which is “Wired Telecommunications Carriers.”175 The SBA has 
developed a small business size standard for this category, which is: all such firms having 1,500 or fewer 
employees.  To gauge small business prevalence for the OVS service, the Commission relies on data 
currently available from the U.S. Census for the year 2007.  According to that source, there were 3,188 
firms that in 2007 were Wired Telecommunications Carriers.  Of these, 3,144 operated with less than 1,000 
employees, and 44 operated with more than 1,000 employees.  However, as to the latter 44 there is no data 
available that shows how many operated with more than 1,500 employees.  Based on this data, the majority 
  
165 See BROADCASTING & CABLE YEARBOOK 2006, at A-8, C-2 (Harry A. Jessell ed., 2005) (data current as of 
June 30, 2005); TELEVISION & CABLE FACTBOOK 2006, at D-805 to D-1857 (Albert Warren ed., 2005).
166 47 C.F.R. § 76.901(c).
167 TELEVISION & CABLE FACTBOOK 2006, at F-2 (Albert Warren ed., 2005) (data current as of Oct. 2005).  The data 
do not include 718 systems for which classifying data were not available.
168 47 U.S.C. § 543(m)(2); see 47 C.F.R. § 76.901(f) & nn. 1–3.
169 47 C.F.R. § 76.901(f); see Public Notice, FCC Announces New Subscriber Count for the Definition of Small 
Cable Operator, 16 FCC Rcd 2225 (Cable Services Bureau 2001).
170 See BROADCASTING & CABLE YEARBOOK 2006, at A-8, C-2 (Harry A. Jessell ed., 2005) (data current as of June 
30, 2005); TELEVISION & CABLE FACTBOOK 2006, at D-805 to D-1857 (Albert Warren ed., 2005).
171 The Commission does receive such information on a case-by-case basis if a cable operator appeals a local 
franchise authority’s finding that the operator does not qualify as a small cable operator pursuant to § 76.901(f) of 
the Commission’s rules.  See 47 C.F.R. § 76.909(b).
172 See 47 U.S.C. § 573.
173 47 U.S.C. § 571(a)(3)-(4). See 13th Annual Report, 24 FCC Rcd at 606, ¶ 135.
174 See 47 U.S.C. § 573.
175 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, “517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers”; 
http://www.census.gov/naics/2007/def/ND517110.HTM#N517110.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
61
of these firms can be considered small.176 In addition, we note that the Commission has certified some OVS 
operators, with some now providing service.177 Broadband service providers (“BSPs”) are currently the 
only significant holders of OVS certifications or local OVS franchises.178 The Commission does not have 
financial or employment information regarding the entities authorized to provide OVS, some of which may 
not yet be operational. Thus, at least some of the OVS operators may qualify as small entities. The 
Commission further notes that it has certified approximately 45 OVS operators to serve 75 areas, and some 
of these are currently providing service.179 Affiliates of Residential Communications Network, Inc. (RCN) 
received approval to operate OVS systems in New York City, Boston, Washington, D.C., and other areas.  
RCN has sufficient revenues to assure that they do not qualify as a small business entity.  Little financial 
information is available for the other entities that are authorized to provide OVS and are not yet operational.  
Given that some entities authorized to provide OVS service have not yet begun to generate revenues, the 
Commission concludes that up to 44 OVS operators (those remaining) might qualify as small businesses 
that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein.
5. Electric Power Generation, Transmission and Distribution
52. Electric Power Generators, Transmitters, and Distributors.  The Census Bureau defines an 
industry group comprised of “establishments, primarily engaged in generating, transmitting, and/or 
distributing electric power.  Establishments in this industry group may perform one or more of the 
following activities:  (1) operate generation facilities that produce electric energy; (2) operate transmission 
systems that convey the electricity from the generation facility to the distribution system; and (3) operate 
distribution systems that convey electric power received from the generation facility or the transmission 
system to the final consumer.”180 The SBA has developed a small business size standard for firms in this 
category:  “A firm is small if, including its affiliates, it is primarily engaged in the generation, transmission, 
and/or distribution of electric energy for sale and its total electric output for the preceding fiscal year did not 
exceed 4 million megawatt hours.”181 According to Census Bureau data for 2007, there were 1,525 firms in 
this category that operated for the entire year182.  Census data do not track electric output and we have not 
determined how many of these firms fit the SBA size standard for small, with no more than 4 million 
megawatt hours of electric output.  Consequently, we estimate that 1,525 or fewer firms may be considered 
small under the SBA small business size standard.
6. Internet Service Providers, Web Portals and Other Information Services
53. In 2007, the SBA recognized two new small business, economic census categories.  They are 
(1) Internet Publishing and Broadcasting and Web Search Portals,183 and (2) All Other Information 
Services.184  
  
176 See http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-geo_id=&-_skip=600&-
ds_name=EC0751SSSZ5&-_lang=en.
177 A list of OVS certifications may be found at http://www.fcc.gov/mb/ovs/csovscer.html.
178 See 13th Annual Report, 24 FCC Rcd at 606-07, ¶ 135. BSPs are newer firms that are building state-of-the-art, 
facilities-based networks to provide video, voice, and data services over a single network.
179 See http://www.fcc.gov/mb/ovs/csovscer.html (current as of February 2007).
180 U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, “2211 Electric Power Generation, Transmission and 
Distribution,” http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF221.HTM (last visited Oct. 21, 2009).
181 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS codes 221111, 221112, 221113, 221119, 221121, 221122, n. 1.
182 See http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-ds_name=EC0722SSSZ4&-_lang=en.
183 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 519130 (establishing a $500,000 revenue ceiling).
184 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 519190 (establishing a $6.5 million revenue ceiling).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
62
54.  Internet Service Providers.  The 2007 Economic Census places these firms, whose services 
might  include voice over Internet protocol (VoIP), in either of two categories, depending on whether the 
service is provided over the provider’s own telecommunications facilities (e.g., cable and DSL ISPs), or 
over client-supplied telecommunications connections (e.g., dial-up ISPs).  The former are within the 
category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers,185 which has an SBA small business size standard of 1,500 
or fewer employees.186 These are also labeled “broadband.” The latter are within the category of All Other 
Telecommunications,187 which has a size standard of annual receipts of $25 million or less.188 These are 
labeled non-broadband.  
55. The most current Economic Census data for all such firms are 2007 data, which are detailed 
specifically for ISPs within the categories above.  For the first category, the data show that 396 firms 
operated for the entire year, of which 159 had nine or fewer employees.189 For the second category, the data 
show that  1,682 firms operated for the entire year. 190 Of those, 1,675 had annual receipts below $25 
million per year, and an additional two had receipts of between $25 million and $ 49,999,999.  
Consequently, we estimate that the majority of ISP firms are small entities.
56. Internet Publishing and Broadcasting and Web Search Portals. This industry comprises 
establishments primarily engaged in 1) publishing and/or broadcasting content on the Internet exclusively or 
2) operating Web sites that use a search engine to generate and maintain extensive databases of Internet 
addresses and content in an easily searchable format (and known as Web search portals). The publishing 
and broadcasting establishments in this industry do not provide traditional (non-Internet) versions of the 
content that they publish or broadcast. They provide textual, audio, and/or video content of general or 
specific interest on the Internet exclusively. Establishments known as Web search portals often provide 
additional Internet services, such as e-mail, connections to other web sites, auctions, news, and other limited 
content, and serve as a home base for Internet users. 191 The SBA has developed a small business size 
standard for this category; that size standard is 500 employees192. Less than 500 employees is considered 
small.193 According to Census Bureau data for 2007,  there were 2,705 firms that provided one or more of 
these services for that entire year. Of these, 2,682 operated with less than 500 employees and 13 operated 
with 500 to 999 employees.194 Consequently, we estimate that the majority of these firms are small entities 
that may be affected by our action.  
57. Data Processing, Hosting, and Related Services.  This industry comprises establishments 
primarily engaged in providing infrastructure for hosting or data processing services. These establishments 
  
185 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, “517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers”; 
http://www.census.gov/naics/2007/def/ND517110.HTM#N517110.   
186 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.
187 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, “517919 All Other Telecommunications”; 
http://www.census.gov/naics/2007/def/ND517919.HTM#N517919.  
188 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517919 (updated for inflation in 2008).
189 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census, Subject Series:  Information, “Establishment and Firm Size,” 
NAICS code 5171103 (released Nov. 19, 2010) (employment size).  The data show only two categories within the 
whole:  the categories for 1-4 employees and for 5-9 employees.
190 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census, Subject Series:  Information, “Establishment and Firm Size,” 
NAICS code 5179191 (released Nov. 19, 2010) (receipts size).
191 See http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=519130&search=2007%20NAICS%20Search
192 See http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf
193 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 519130.
194 See http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-_skip=1000&-
ds_name=EC0751SSSZ5&-_lang=en
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
63
may provide specialized hosting activities, such as web hosting, streaming services or application hosting; 
provide application service provisioning; or may provide general time-share mainframe facilities to clients. 
Data processing establishments provide complete processing and specialized reports from data supplied by 
clients or provide automated data processing and data entry services.195  The SBA has developed a small 
business size standard for this category; that size standard is $25 million or less in average annual 
receipts.196 According to Census Bureau data for 2007, there were 8,060 firms in this category that operated 
for the entire year.197 Of these, 6,726 had annual receipts of under $25 million, and 155 had receipts 
between $25 million and $49,999,999 million.198 Consequently, we estimate that the majority of these 
firms are small entities that may be affected by our action.
58. All Other Information Services.  “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in 
providing other information services (except new syndicates and libraries and archives).”199 Our action 
pertains to interconnected VoIP services, which could be provided by entities that provide other services 
such as email, online gaming, web browsing, video conferencing, instant messaging, and other, similar IP-
enabled services.  The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category; that size 
standard is $7.0 million or less in average annual receipts.200 According to Census Bureau data for 2007, 
there were 367 firms in this category that operated for the entire year.201 Of these,  334 had annual receipts 
of under $5 million, and an additional 11 firms had receipts of between $5 million and $9,999,999.202  
Consequently, we estimate that the majority of these firms are small entities that may be affected by our 
action.  
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements for Small Entities
59. In the Notice, the Commission proposes additional or modified information collections that 
would impose further reporting and recordkeeping requirements on current Form 477 filers, including small 
entities.  Specifically, the Notice invites comment on whether and how the Commission could collect data 
on the following additional or modified categories of data: (1) deployment, (2) subscription, (3) price, (4) 
service quality, and (5) ownership and contact information.  The Commission also seeks comment on 
whether to collect “other data” such as socioeconomic and social metrics data to assess socially and 
economically disadvantaged parties.  The Commission seeks further comment on the extent to which 
technological tools and use of commercial and publicly available data can reduce the burden of producing 
information.  The Commission also seeks comment on how to streamline the process in collecting the data 
the Commission needs to inform its policymaking processes while minimizing the production burden on 
providers and the processing burden on the Commission.  The Commission invites comments on the merits 
  
196 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 518210.
197 See http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-_skip=1000&-
ds_name=EC0751SSSZ4&-_lang=en . 
198 See http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-_skip=1000&-
ds_name=EC0751SSSZ4&-_lang=en
199 U.S. Census Bureau, “2002 NAICS Definitions:  519190 All Other Information Services”; 
http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF519.HTM.
200 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 519190. See also
http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf.
201 See http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-_skip=1200&-
ds_name=EC0751SSSZ4&-_lang=en.
202 See http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-_skip=1100&-
ds_name=EC0751SSSZ4&-_lang=en.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
64
and methodologies of such data collections to include suggestions and discussions of other alternatives not 
specifically discussed in the Notice that would meet the objectives of the Notice but would impose lesser 
burdens on smaller entities.
60. Based on these questions, the Commission anticipates that a record will be developed 
concerning actual burden and alternative ways in which the Commission could lessen the burden on small 
entities of obtaining improved data about broadband deployment and availability throughout the nation.
E. Steps Taken to Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 
Significant Alternatives Considered
61. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in 
reaching its proposed approach, which may include (among others) the following four alternatives: (1) the 
establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the 
resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or 
reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, 
standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.203
62. In particular, the Commission seeks comment on whether it would be less burdensome for 
providers to submit address-level data with respect to the deployment and availability of services.  The 
Commission also seeks comment on other ways that the Commission can ease the burden on small- and 
medium-sized providers.
63. Based on these questions, and the alternatives the Commission has discussed, the Commission 
anticipates that the record will be developed concerning alternative ways in which the Commission could 
lessen the burden on small entities of obtaining improved data about broadband.  The Commission 
welcomes proposals of alternatives from any of the approaches as described in Section A, supra.
F. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the Proposed Rules
64. None.
  
203 5 U.S.C. § 603(c).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
65
STATEMENT OF
CHAIRMAN JULIUS GENACHOWSKI
Re:  Modernizing the FCC Form 477 Data Program, WC Docket No. 11-10; 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; Service Quality, Customer Satisfaction, Infrastructure and Operating Data 
Gathering, WC Docket No. 08-190; Review of Wireline Competition Bureau Data Practices, WC 
Docket No. 10-132.
Re:  Review Of Wireline Competition Bureau Data Practices, WC Docket No. 10-132; 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, 
CC Docket Nos. 95-20, 98-10.
Commission policymaking is only as good as the facts and data on which our decisions are based.  
That’s why data reform has been an important priority since I arrived here as Chairman.  It’s why it’s vital 
that the Commission collects the data it needs to do its job and serve the public, why the Commission 
shouldn’t waste resources collecting data it doesn’t need, and why, wherever possible, we should use 
modern technology to increase the benefits of data collection and reduce the burdens.
It was with these principles in mind that I appointed Mary Beth Richards as Special Counsel for 
FCC Reform as one of my very first actions, and charged her and our FCC Reform Team, including Chief 
of our Office of Strategic Planning Paul de Sa, our new Chief Data Officer Greg Elin and the new data 
officers in the bureaus and offices, Managing Director Steven VanRoekel, and General Counsel Austin 
Schlick with conducting an agency-wide data review.  This Data Innovation Initiative is a comprehensive 
effort to modernize and streamline how we collect, use, and disseminate data.
I am very pleased that in the first phase of the reform team’s review, staff has identified 20 
discrete data collections to target for elimination.  These are collections that once made sense, but appear 
to have become unnecessary as technology, markets, and policies have evolved.  Today, we are formally 
proposing the elimination of two of these—the comparably efficient interconnection and open network 
architecture reporting obligations—and I am instructing the FCC Reform Team and our data officers to 
move forward on the other 18, while continuing their agency-wide data review.
I’m also pleased to announce that today the Wireline Competition Bureau will be eliminating a 
separate outdated reporting requirement imposed on a carrier more than 20 years ago.  That collection 
was imposed for reasons that no longer justify the costs it imposes on the carrier, or on the Commission.
We approach the review we launch today—of one of the FCC’s most important data-gathering 
tools, Form 477—in the same spirit of efficient, effective governance.  Since 2000, the FCC has relied on 
data gathered through Form 477 to inform its policies relating to voice and broadband services.  In 2004 
and in 2008, the Commission made modifications to parts of the Form 477 program in order to collect 
more information.
And now—in view of ongoing changes in technology and the marketplace, and questions raised 
about the existing Form—we ask stakeholders to help us take a comprehensive look at the Form 477 
program and update its design to answer today’s questions, not yesterday’s.  This review—another 
recommendation of the National Broadband Plan—will help us fulfill important statutory obligations, 
including promoting broadband in unserved areas, promoting competition, and ensuring public safety.  It 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
66
will also ensure that we don’t collect voice and broadband data that we no longer need.
These data efforts are just part of the FCC Reform Team’s larger initiative to remove regulatory 
barriers to a thriving broadband economy.  In the last year, the Commission has taken a number of actions 
to deliver on this goal, including expediting licensing of spectrum that can be used for broadband 
services; lifting restrictions on some mobile satellite spectrum that can be used for broadband; setting 
limits on how long localities can take to approve or deny tower sharing requests; significantly 
streamlining the E-Rate program’s application forms; and making it easier for radio stations to certify 
compliance with our rules.  
A few weeks ago, as part of this effort, we launched our biennial review of the FCC’s 
telecommunications regulations to determine which of our regulations are no longer necessary due to 
competition.  Tomorrow we will be hosting a conference with leaders from across the broadband 
marketplace to identify further opportunities to remove regulatory barriers to broadband buildout.  And 
there is more to come, particularly when it comes to using technology to promote FCC reform and 
improved interaction with the public.  
All of these efforts are in line with the President’s recent executive order to ensure that our 
regulatory systems “use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory 
ends” in order to “promot[e] economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation.”  As I 
informed senior staff last week, I expect the FCC to perform its responsibilities consistent with the 
principles in the executive order.
In the months ahead, we will continue to look for opportunities to use modern technology and 
common sense to help make the FCC a model of excellence in government.  I thank the data reform team 
for the important reforms it has already identified.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
67
CONCURRING STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS
Re:  Modernizing the FCC Form 477 Data Program, WC Docket No. 11-10; 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; Service Quality, Customer Satisfaction, Infrastructure and Operating Data 
Gathering, WC Docket No. 08-190; Review of Wireline Competition Bureau Data Practices, WC 
Docket No. 10-132.
Gathering good data—an issue near and dear to this Commissioner’s heart, as I know it is to the 
Chairman’s—is critical to the FCC’s ability to do its job. For far too many years, we moved away from 
this responsibility, relying less on our own analysis and substituting limited commercial data for our 
own. Certainly we should be smart, sparing and efficient about the information we collect to avoid undue 
burdens. But the public interest must always be our lodestar in these considerations. Consumers are 
certainly my first and foremost concern, but markets, too, rely on credible and reliable government data. 
How can a country dig its way out of a recession without solid economic indicators like unemployment 
numbers and GDP? As I’ve said before, if federal and state governments decided tomorrow to stop 
gathering data and regulating how it is reported, the U.S. economy would screech to a halt.
If we want the Internet economy to continue to drive growth and opportunity in this country, we 
must have regular, systematic reporting of high-quality broadband data. How will we know where to 
invest scarce public resources if we don’t know with any meaningful specificity where broadband is 
deployed? How can innovators and investors make informed decisions with regard to new technologies 
and applications if we don’t know the broadband speed that American consumers are actually getting?
Without understanding the value proposition broadband offers—that is, the price per bit—how can we 
promote its adoption and ensure that no American is on the wrong side of the digital divide? 
These are not new questions before the Commission. We have asked many of them twice before.
In 2008, I concurred with the Commission’s further notice on many of these questions because I believed 
it was time then for a final Order detailing the kinds and amounts of data the Commission needs to protect 
American consumers. While I am more optimistic now that we will get action soon, consistency compels 
me to concur this time, too, on the first Notice before us today, the Form 477 NPRM. I look forward to 
the third time being the charm with a final Order in the very near term.
I vote to approve the second Notice, an NPRM proposing the elimination of legacy reporting 
obligations stemming from the Computer Inquiries. The Commission has already relieved carriers of the 
underlying obligations, partly through a controversial and altogether untidy “deemed granted” 
forbearance process. The original idea had been acquiring data to maintain competition. The forbearance 
process under two previous Commissions was tragically aimed at getting rid of both.
The history behind this item, though, begs a different question—not whether we are collecting 
data irrelevant to the Commission, but whether we have all the new data the Commission needs to 
understand what is going on in the world of business, technology and consumer information. I freely 
admit that the particular information here may be a vestige of a bygone era, but I only want to emphasize 
that ridding ourselves of unneeded data requirements is actually less important than guaranteeing we have 
the data we need.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
68
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER ROBERT M. McDOWELL
Re:  Modernizing the FCC Form 477 Data Program, WC Docket No. 11-10; 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; Service Quality, Customer Satisfaction, Infrastructure and Operating Data 
Gathering, WC Docket No. 08-190; Review of Wireline Competition Bureau Data Practices, WC 
Docket No. 10-132.
Re: Review Of Wireline Competition Bureau Data Practices, WC Docket No. 10-132; 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, 
CC Docket Nos. 95-20, 98-10.
Many thanks to Mary Beth Richards and Greg Elin for your presentation. Your dedicated work 
in conducting a comprehensive review of the Commission's data collection obligations is appreciated. I 
wholeheartedly support reducing the Commission's regulatory burdens wherever possible, 
including eliminating certain reporting requirements. I am encouraged to hear that your team has already 
targeted 20 collections to discontinue soon.
In that spirit, I support the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking which proposes to eliminate the 
Commission's remaining Computer III requirements.  Due to various reforms over the years, collection of 
this information may no longer be necessary, and it does not appear that the Commission relies on this 
data in its decision making process. In short, collection of this data is likely antiquated and burdensome.  
I commend the Chairman for taking this step to clear unnecessary regulatory underbrush.
In addition, I support the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking which seeks to modernize the FCC 
Form 477 Data Program. Given that the Form 477 process has not been reformed in more than 10 years, 
initiating this proceeding will hopefully result in a more efficient and effective program. It is important 
for the FCC to obtain appropriate and relevant data to help us make informed decisions, and this 
rulemaking will open the dialogue on this topic. However, we must ensure that we have adequate legal 
authority to require the collection of the information discussed in this notice. As such, I was encouraged 
that the Chairman agreed to ask about our legal authority throughout this rulemaking.
I am hesitant, however, about the section of the notice which discusses whether the FCC should 
collect broadband pricing information. Although such efforts may have the best of intentions, I am 
concerned that if the FCC ultimately decides that it should collect broadband pricing information, the 
process could lay the foundation for the FCC to engage in rate regulation of broadband Internet services 
in the future.  I hope that doesn’t happen.  I will be interested to learn more about others’ perspectives 
during the comment cycle. In sum, I do support our effort to modernize this process but we must be 
wary that we aren't taking one step forward and two steps back by reducing data collection requirements 
in some areas, but then imposing new and unnecessary burdens in other areas.
I thank Sharon Gillett and her team for their long hours working on these two notices, and I look 
forward to reviewing the record and working with my colleagues and stakeholders on these proceedings.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
69
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER MIGNON L. CLYBURN
Re: Modernizing the FCC Form 477 Data Program, WC Docket No. 11-10; 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; Service Quality, Customer Satisfaction, Infrastructure and Operating Data 
Gathering, WC Docket No. 08-190; Review of Wireline Competition Bureau Data Practices, WC 
Docket No. 10-132.
Re: Review Of Wireline Competition Bureau Data Practices, WC Docket No. 10-132; 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, 
CC Docket Nos. 95-20, 98-10.
Good policy must be informed by complete, accurate, and relevant information.  We should be 
mindful, however, that the collection of data for accurate analysis occupies the resources of both industry 
and the Commission, and that ultimately, consumers and taxpayers are the ones who pay.  Accordingly, it 
is appropriate for the FCC to periodically review the need for the information it requests.  Where 
currently collected data is no longer relevant for the benefit of Congress, the Commission, or consumers, 
we should begin proceedings to explore the elimination of that information, as we do today, with respect 
to the CEI/ONA data.  
Of course, to the extent that data from industry is required so that we can fulfill our statutory 
obligations, then it is important that we ensure that the information we obtain is sufficient for us to do so.  
As such, it is important to periodically assess whether the data we are collecting, relays the information 
we need to make good policy choices and to issue reports required by statute.  With respect to the 
information we collect on the Form 477, which we use as our primary tool for analyzing the status of 
local telephone and broadband networks and services, I support the Notice’s consideration of 
modifications to the types of data reported on the Form.  As the Notice describes, our various duties to 
promote policies that ensure universal service, public safety, a competitive communications marketplace, 
and the reasonable and timely deployment of broadband networks, require that we have the data necessary 
to make informed decisions, and issue knowledgeable reports, just as Congress intended.  
I believe it is appropriate for us to revisit the type of data we seek on the Form 477, given that 
both a GAO Report and the National Broadband Plan found that the data was insufficient, and limits our 
ability to fulfill certain of our policymaking and reporting duties.  Certainly, we must balance the need for 
information with the burden that data collection may have on industry.  The Notice recognizes this careful 
balance, by seeking guidance on the possible use and limitations of publicly available or third-party 
commercial data, to avoid such burdens on industry, including small businesses.  
I am pleased that we are exploring the use of additional broadband data, such as pricing 
information, so that we can better assess affordable and comparable prices.  As we consider explicitly 
supporting broadband networks and service in our USF/ICC Reform NPRM adopted today, it is important 
that we have the information necessary to determine whether rates in rural areas are comparable to rates 
in urban areas, so that we can assess whether we have met the goals of Section 254 for ensuring universal 
service.  Furthermore, the Broadband Data Improvement Act, requires that we compare pricing for 
broadband service with other countries; thus, the collection of pricing information may be necessary to 
fulfill that obligation.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
70
Finally, I am pleased that we are undertaking a significant effort to allow the public to access the 
data we collect, as well as our analysis of that information, through our website.  It is important that as we 
are informed, we use every tool at our disposal to inform the public.  
Many thanks are due to Mary Beth, Greg and the other data experts, for your work on our Data 
Innovation Initiative, as well as to the Wireline Competition Bureau for your work on the Form 477 and 
CEI/ONA Notices.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-14
71
STATEMENT OF 
COMMISSIONER MEREDITH ATTWELL BAKER
Re:  Modernizing the FCC Form 477 Data Program, WC Docket No. 11-10; 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; Service Quality, Customer Satisfaction, Infrastructure and Operating Data 
Gathering, WC Docket No. 08-190; Review of Wireline Competition Bureau Data Practices, WC 
Docket No. 10-132.
Re: Review Of Wireline Competition Bureau Data Practices, WC Docket No. 10-132; 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, 
CC Docket Nos. 95-20, 98-10.
I support the process to right-size our data collections and appreciate the comprehensive approach 
we are taking.  I also support the specific decision to review the narrowband Computer III CEI and ONA 
requirements.  This is an overdue and welcome step forward.  I hope we use the same standard – whether 
the Commission relies on a submission in the course of its normal decision-making – to make more 
proposals to eliminate or scale back other outdated data submissions.  
The Commission also proposes to potentially expand its data requirements associated with our 
broadband deployment reporting.  I welcome all efforts to ensure that we have reliable and accurate data 
to inform our decision-making.  In a number of places, the Notice proposes increases—potentially 
significant ones—in the type and scope of data gathering required.  In the spirit of the broader data 
initiative, I believe the Commission should act judiciously and answer a few threshold questions before 
expanding any of our data collection obligations:  What is the nexus between the data to be requested and 
our statutory responsibilities?  Is this new data integral to fulfilling a statutory responsibility?  Is the data 
gathering the best and least burdensome means to acquire the data? 
I appreciate that many of these questions are explicitly raised in the Notice, and welcome the 
Chairman’s recognition of the heavy burden well-intentioned data requests may have on industry.  I will 
be watching this proceeding closely with particular attention on proposals surrounding broadband pricing 
and customer satisfaction metrics.  Thank you.