Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as Amended by the Broadband Data Improvement Act ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) GN Docket No. 11-121 EIGHTH BROADBAND PROGRESS REPORT Adopted: August 14, 2012 Released: August 21, 2012 By the Commission: Chairman Genachowski and Commissioners Clyburn and Rosenworcel issuing separate statements; Commissioners McDowell and Pai dissenting and issuing separate statements. TABLE OF CONTENTS Para. I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 1 II. BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................................... 8 III. BENCHMARKING BROADBAND ................................................................................................... 18 IV. STATUS OF BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT AND AVAILABILITY............................................ 26 A. Broadband “Deployment” and “Availability” Are Broader Than Physical Deployment .............. 27 B. Technologies and Data Sources Included ...................................................................................... 28 C. Broadband Deployment Estimates................................................................................................. 44 1. Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark .................. 45 2. Rural Areas Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark................. 47 3. Tribal Lands Without Access to Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark ......................... 49 4. U.S. Territories Without Access to Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark..................... 55 5. Americans Without Access Between June 2010 to June 2011................................................ 57 6. Broadband Deployment By Technology ................................................................................. 59 7. Section 706 Fixed Broadband Deployment Map .................................................................... 61 8. Demographic Analysis of the Areas Without Access to Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark............................................................................................................................... 62 a. Demographics Required by Statute of the Unserved Areas (Population, Population Density, and Per Capita Income) .................................................................... 67 b. Demographics of Non-Urban Areas ................................................................................. 69 c. Demographics of Tribal Lands ......................................................................................... 71 d. Other Demographic Measures (Median Household Income, Poverty Rate, Education, and Race) ........................................................................................................ 73 (i) All Americans............................................................................................................. 74 (ii) Americans Residing in Non-Urban Areas .................................................................. 76 (iii) Americans Residing on Federally Recognized Tribal Lands ..................................... 78 e. Graphical Representation of the Relationship Between Broadband Deployment and Demographic Characteristics ..................................................................................... 80 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 2 (i) Broadband Deployment Increases with Median Household Incomes ........................ 81 (ii) Broadband Deployment Increases with Population Density ...................................... 83 9. Mobile Deployment and Trends.............................................................................................. 85 10. Section 706 Mobile Deployment Map..................................................................................... 91 11. Next Generation Broadband Services...................................................................................... 92 D. Broadband Adoption ...................................................................................................................... 94 1. Broadband Adoption Rates Between June 2010 and June 2011 ............................................. 97 2. Broadband Adoption Rates in the U.S. Compared to Adoption Rates in Non-Urban Areas........................................................................................................................................ 99 3. Broadband Adoption Rates in the U.S. Compared to Adoption Rates on Tribal Lands........ 103 4. Broadband Adoption Rates in the U.S. Compared to Adoption Rates in the U.S. Territories .............................................................................................................................. 107 5. Distribution of County Level Broadband Adoption Rates .................................................... 111 a. Graphical Representation of the Relationship Between Adoption Rate and Demographic Characteristics .......................................................................................... 113 (i) Adoption Rate Increases with Median Household Income ...................................... 114 (ii) Adoption Rate for Broadband Increases with Population Density........................... 115 E. International Broadband Service Capability ................................................................................ 117 F. Other Indicators of Availability to All Americans....................................................................... 119 1. Home Broadband Adoption................................................................................................... 120 2. Measuring Broadband America Reports Found that Residential Wireline Broadband Services Deliver Quality Service and Speeds Reasonably Commensurate with Advertised Offerings ............................................................................................................. 123 3. Elementary and Secondary Schools May Lack a Sufficient Level of Broadband Service ................................................................................................................................... 131 G. Broadband Is Not Yet Being Deployed to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion......................................................................................................................................... 135 V. REMOVING BARRIERS TO INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT & PROMOTING COMPETITION ................................................................................................................................. 139 VI. ORDERING CLAUSE....................................................................................................................... 157 APPENDIX A—Commenters APPENDIX B—Data Sources and Definitions APPENDIX C—Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by State APPENDIX D—Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County APPENDIX E—Tribal Lands Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by State APPENDIX F—Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark on Certain Tribal Lands APPENDIX G—Overall Fixed Broadband Deployment Rates by State APPENDIX H—Overall Fixed Broadband Adoption Rates by State APPENDIX I—Section 706 Fixed Broadband Deployment Map APPENDIX J—Section 706 Mobile Deployment Map APPENDIX K—Commission’s Report on Internet Access Services: Status as of June 30, 2011 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 3 I. INTRODUCTION 1. This is the Commission’s Eighth Broadband Progress Report issued under section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.1 Section 706 requires the Commission to determine and report annually on “whether advanced telecommunications capability [(ATC)] is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.”2 Over the past year, the private and public sectors have taken significant and substantial steps to accelerate the deployment and availability of broadband; all the while, the utility of and demand for broadband continue to grow as Americans find benefits in devices, applications, and services that use broadband in their homes, schools, businesses, and on the road. The Commission adopted transformative changes to the high-cost universal service program to propel deployment of broadband networks and initiated a Lifeline pilot to promote broadband adoption by low- income Americans. Implementation of these changes is underway. But as of now, our analysis of the best data available—the data collected by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) for the National Broadband Map—shows that approximately 19 million Americans live in areas still unserved by terrestrial-fixed broadband.3 For these and other reasons, we must conclude that broadband is not yet being deployed “to all Americans” in a reasonable and timely fashion. 2. The efforts to bring broadband to all Americans are significant, and wireless and wireline broadband providers have made great progress. These providers invest tens of billions of dollars annually in the networks that make broadband possible, and since the 1996 Act, they are reported to have invested more than $1 trillion dollars combined.4 In addition to various wireline broadband providers offering faster speeds with new technologies, mobile wireless providers have made substantial progress in upgrading their networks with higher-speed technologies and expanding coverage by these technologies so they reach a greater number of Americans and cover more of our country.5 3. These industry efforts are complemented by the efforts of the Commission, and other federal, state, and local actors, to expand broadband access. Of particular note, in October 2011, the Commission adopted transformative changes to the high-cost universal service program in the USF/ICC Transformation Order.6 This comprehensive overhaul established a framework to bring broadband to 1 47 U.S.C. § 1302. Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, § 706, 110 Stat. 56, 153 (1996) (1996 Act), as amended in relevant part by the Broadband Data Improvement Act (BDIA), Pub. L. No. 110-385, 122 Stat. 4096 (2008), is now codified in Title 47, Chapter 12 of the United States Code. See 47 U.S.C. § 1301 et seq. 2 Id. § 1302. For purposes of this report, we use the term ATC synonymously with the term “broadband.” 3 See infra Section IV.C.1. 4 See AT&T Comments at 1–2 (adding that broadband deployment and investment—in both wireline and wireless technologies—continue to be robust, even as the economy overall languishes); MetroPCS Comments at 9; USTelecom Comments at iii, 5; see also Announcement of Members on Open Internet Advisory Committee, GN Docket No. 09-191, WC Docket No. 07-52, Public Notice, 27 FCC Rcd 5779 (2012) (stating that in 2011, investment in wireline and wireless network infrastructure rose 24 percent and citing to TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION, TIA’S 2012 ICT MARKET REVIEW AND FORECAST 1–3 (2012)); 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. 10-133, Fifteenth Report, 26 FCC Rcd 9664, 9791, para. 207 (2011) (Fifteenth Mobile Wireless Competition Report), available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-103A1_Rcd.pdf. 5 Fifteenth Mobile Wireless Competition Report, 26 FCC Rcd 9664, 9735–40, paras. 108–15. 6 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 on Universal Service; Lifeline and Link-Up; Universal Service Reform— (continued….) Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 4 millions of Americans over the coming years, and set the country on a path to universal availability of fixed and mobile communication networks capable of providing voice and broadband services where people live, work, and travel within a decade. The Commission also revised the universal service Lifeline program to advance the affordability of broadband for Americans.7 Among other things, the Commission adopted a goal of ensuring broadband availability for low-income Americans, clarified that consumers may apply their Lifeline discount to bundled offerings that include broadband, and established a “Broadband Pilot Program.”8 4. The Commission has taken numerous steps to implement the reforms in both the USF/ICC Transformation Order and Lifeline Reform and Modernization Order. For example, the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) announced support amounts for the first phase of the Connect America Fund to spur immediate new broadband buildout on April 25, 2012 and on July 24, 2012, and a number of carriers committed to use over $110 million to deploy broadband to unserved areas in 37 states.9 The Bureau is also moving forward with the Broadband Pilot Program and issued a Public Notice on April 30, 2012 soliciting applications from eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs) to participate in the pilot and by the July 2, 2012 deadline received twenty four applications.10 In addition, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau is preparing for the auction—to take place on September 27—that will award one-time support to carriers that commit to provide 3G or better mobile voice and broadband services to unserved road miles across the country where Americans live, work, and travel.11 We are (Continued from previous page) Mobility Fund, WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 07-135, 05-337, 03-109, GN Docket No. 09-51, CC Docket Nos. 01-92, 96- 45, WT Docket No. 10-208, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 26 FCC Rcd 17663 (2011) (USF/ICC Transformation Order), available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11- 161A1_Rcd.pdf, pets. for review pending sub nom. In re FCC 11-161, No. 11-9900 (10th Cir. filed Dec. 8, 2011); Order on Reconsideration, 26 FCC Rcd 17633 (2011); Second Order on Reconsideration, 27 FCC Rcd 4648 (2012); Third Order on Reconsideration, 27 FCC Rcd 5622 (2012). 7 Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization; Lifeline and Link Up; Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service; Advancing Broadband Availability Through Digital Literacy Training, WC Docket Nos. 11-42, 03-109, 12- 23, CC Docket No. 96-45, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 27 FCC Rcd 6656 (2012) (Lifeline Reform and Modernization Order); see also infra Section II. 8 Lifeline Reform and Modernization Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 6660, para. 3. 9 See Press Release, FCC, FCC Kicks-Off “Connect America Fund” with Major Announcement: Nearly 400,000 Unserved Americans in Rural Communities in 37 States Will Gain Access to High-Speed Internet Within Three Years: Marks Beginning of Most Significant Public-Private Effort in History to Connect 19 Million Unserved Homes and Businesses by 2020 (WCB rel. July 25, 2012) (FCC Public-Private Effort Press Release) (noting the public-private effort to expand broadband to unserved Americans), available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-315413A1.pdf; Wireline Competition Bureau Announces Support Amounts for Connect America Fund Phase One Incremental Support, WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 05-337, Public Notice, 27 FCC Rcd 4203 (2012), available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12- 639A1.pdf. 10 See Wireline Competition Bureau Announces Application Procedures and Deadline for Applications to Participate in the Broadband Adoption Lifeline Pilot Program, WC Docket No. 11-42, Public Notice, 27 FCC Rcd 4840 (2012) (Lifeline Pilot Program Public Notice), available at http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0430/DA-12-683A1.pdf; see also Lifeline Reform and Modernization Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 6802–03, para. 341. By the July 2, 2012 deadline—and with one company receiving an extension deadline of July 9, 2012—the Bureau received 24 applications. 11 See Mobility Fund Phase I Auction Scheduled for September 27, 2012, Comment Sought on Competitive Bidding Procedures for Auction 901 and Certain Program Requirements, AU Docket No. 12-25, Public Notice, 27 FCC Rcd 530 (2012) (Mobility Fund Phase I Auction Public Notice), available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-121A1.pdf; Mobility Fund Phase I Auction Scheduled for September 27, 2012, AU Docket No. 12-25, Public Notice, 27 FCC Rcd 4725 (2012) (Mobility Fund Phase I Procedures Public Notice), available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-641A1_Rcd.pdf. Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 5 optimistic that as this implementation proceeds, broadband will increasingly be available to all Americans. 5. Nevertheless, this implementation work is far from complete, and new broadband deployments resulting from the USF/ICC Transformation Order have only just begun.12 Nineteen million Americans live where fixed broadband networks do not reach; 14.5 million of those live in rural America. Nearly a third of residents of Tribal lands lack access to fixed broadband networks. Only 40 percent of Americans that have the option to do so adopt fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark,13 citing barriers such as lack of affordability, lack of digital literacy, and a perception that the Internet is not relevant or useful to them.14 In addition, as many as 80 percent of E-rate-funded schools and libraries say their broadband connections do not fully meet their needs.15 And the available international broadband data, though not fully comparable to U.S. data, suggest that the United States may lag behind a number of other developed countries with regard to some broadband metrics, including universal availability, although the United States leads the world in other respects.16 Many of the unserved Americans live in areas where there is no business case to offer broadband, and where, until the reforms in the USF/ICC Transformation Order are more fully implemented, public efforts to extend broadband are unlikely to reach.17 6. As we implement these initiatives and contemplate others, we are mindful that technology 12 See Mississippi Business Journal Staff, FCC Reforms Prompt $53M Investment in State by AT&T, MISS. BUS. J., Mar. 13, 2012 (reporting that AT&T is investing $53 million, the vast majority of which will be used to enable broadband expansion throughout Mississippi, as a result of the Commission’s universal service fund reforms), available at http://msbusiness.com/2012/03/fcc-reforms-prompt-53m-investment-in-state-by-att/. 13 See infra tbl. 17. 14 See infra Section V. 15 47 U.S.C. § 1302(b) (stating the Commission’s inquiry must include “in particular, elementary and secondary schools and classrooms”); HARRIS INTERACTIVE, INC., on behalf of the FCC, 2010 E-RATE PROGRAM AND BROADBAND USAGE SURVEY: REPORT, 26 FCC Rcd 1 at 2 (2011) (FCC E-RATE SURVEY). As explained below, we lack comprehensive data regarding the actual level of broadband service in our nation’s elementary and secondary schools, nor is there record evidence showing what bandwidth or speeds are required by schools today. See infra Section IV.F.3. 16 See International Comparison Requirements Pursuant to the Broadband Data Improvement Act; International Broadband Data Report, IB Docket No. 10-171, GN Docket 11-121, Third Report, DA 12-1334 at para. 7 (IB rel. Aug. 21, 2012) (2012 International Broadband Data Report). Based on Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) data, the International Bureau found that United States ranks 7th (compared to 9th at the time of the previous report) for wireless (mobile) broadband penetration on a per capita basis, and ranks 15th (similar to Japan, Finland, and Canada) for wired (e.g., [digital subscriber line (DSL)] or cable) broadband penetration on a per capita basis. Id. para. 7. U.S. wired broadband adoption continues to lag behind such countries as South Korea, the United Kingdom, and Germany, but exceeds adoption rates in Israel, Australia, and the European Union average. Id. With respect to speeds, our review of data on average actual download speeds reported by a sample of consumers from 38 countries (including the United States and Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China), finds that the United States ranks 24th in average actual speeds purchased and experienced by consumers. Id. para. 8. The United States ranks 17th when based on a stratified sampling technique using weighted average actual download speed. Id. For the first time, the International Bureau took a close look at the broadband prices for both fixed and mobile service plans around the world, including detailed price information for mobile broadband plans, broken down by technology (e.g., smartphones, stick modems, and tablets) and found that U.S. prices for standalone fixed broadband are in the mid- level range in our 38 country survey, but are higher in higher speed tiers. Id. para. 9. The International Bureau also found that the prices per gigabytes (GB) of data for fixed broadband plans with usage limits and for smartphone data plans with usage limits are on the lower end of the countries we surveyed. Id. 17 See infra Section II. Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 6 does not stand still. Just as it was proved false that “[n]o one will need more than 637 kb of memory for a personal computer—640K ought to be enough for anybody,”18 we anticipate that what may be adequate today likely will not meet our needs in the future. From 1999 to 2010, the Commission considered service of 200 kilobits per second (kbps) in both directions adequate.19 In the 2010 Sixth Broadband Progress Report, the Commission took what it described as “the overdue step” of increasing the speed benchmark to 4 megabits per second (Mbps) download and 1 Mbps upload (4 Mbps/1 Mbps, or “speed benchmark”) to reflect that “network capabilities, consumer applications and expectations . . . have evolved in ways that demand increasing amounts of bandwidth.”20 The 2010 National Broadband Plan recommended that the Commission periodically reconsider the benchmark and, in addition, set a goal of 100 million U.S. homes having affordable access to actual download speeds of at least 100 Mbps and actual upload speeds of at least 50 Mbps by 2020, to create the world’s most attractive market for broadband applications, devices, and infrastructure.21 Broadband is a transformative infrastructure,22 and Americans increasingly are using broadband at home and on their smartphones and tablet computers everywhere they go—at home, school, work, and travel. The market, in turn, has responded to these needs. Recent trends show providers offering much higher speeds: Verizon is offering up to 300 Mbps/65 Mbps for FiOS,23 while CenturyLink is offering up to 40 Mbps/5 Mbps.24 In May 2012, Comcast raised the monthly data limit for its subscribers to 300 GB, up from 250 GB.25 According to industry reports, DOCSIS 3.0, which is capable of 100 Mbps speeds and even higher speeds, has been deployed to 82% of U.S. households.26 On the mobile front, change is accelerating. Providers have continued to expand their 18 L. Gordon Crovitz, Editorial, Technology Predictions Are Mostly Bunk, WALL ST. J., Dec. 27, 2009 (quoting prediction of Bill Gates in 1981), available at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704039704574616401913653862.html. 19 See Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Amended by the Broadband Data Improvement Act, GN Docket Nos. 09-137, 09- 51, Report, 25 FCC Rcd 9556, 9558, para. 4 (2010) (2010 Sixth Broadband Progress Report). 20 Id. 21 OMNIBUS BROADBAND INITIATIVE (OBI), FCC, CONNECTING AMERICA: THE NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN, GN Docket No. 09-51 at 9 (2010) (2010 NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN). 22 Reed Hundt, Commentary, Abundanomics: The Politics of Plentitude, DETROIT NEWS, June 28, 2012, available at http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120628/OPINION01/206280328. 23 See, e.g., VERIZON, INTERNET OFFERS, http://www.buyverizon.com/fios-internet.aspx (offering up to 300 Mbps/65 Mbps). 24 CENTURYLINK, HIGH-SPEED INTERNET/DSL SERVICE OFFERS, http://www.centurylink.com/home/internet/ (offering up to 40 Mbps/5 Mbps). Comcast may double the speed of its $39.95 monthly Economy high-speed Internet tier from 1.5 Mbps to 3 Mbps, following plans to increase the speed of the broadband package. See Steve Donahue, Comcast May Double Speed of Economy High-Speed Internet Tier, FIERCECABLE, Feb. 1, 2012, available at http://www.fiercecable.com/story/comcast-may-double-speed-economy-high-speed-internet-tier/2012-02-01. 25 Since 2008, Comcast has had a 250 GB monthly data usage threshold on residential accounts and has temporarily suspended its caps in nontest markets. See Comcast Announcement Regarding An Amendment to Our Acceptable Use Policy, http://xfinity.comcast.net/terms/network/amendment/; Cathy Avgiris, Comcast to Replace Usage Cap With Improved Data Usage Management Approaches, COMCASTVOICES (BLOG) (May 17, 2012), http://blog.comcast.com/2012/05/comcast-to-replace-usage-cap-with-improved-data-usage-management- approaches.html. 26 NCTA, INDUSTRY DATA (NCTA DOCSIS DEPLOYMENT), http://www.ncta.com/Statistics.aspx; see also Press Release, Comcast, Comcast Doubles Speeds of Two Xfinity Internet Speed Tiers at No Additional Cost to Customers (July 24, 2012) (announcing plans to offer a 305 Mbps/65 Mbps service) (Comcast Press Release), available at http://www.comcast.com/About/PressRelease/PressReleaseDetail.ashx?PRID=1205&SCRedirect=true. Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 7 coverage,27 but are also deploying new, faster, and more spectrally-efficient mobile network technologies, most notably Long Term Evolution (LTE), which offers advertised download speeds as high as 5–12 Mbps.28 In the summer of 2010, there was no LTE deployment in the United States.29 Just 18 months later, in January 2012, three mobile wireless providers had launched LTE networks,30 and best available estimates are that these LTE networks (combined) covered 211 million people.31 7. The evolution of the market must inform the Commission’s ongoing assessment of broadband deployment just as it informs the industry’s own efforts. In this report, we assess our nation’s progress to date using the existing speed benchmark of 4 Mbps/1 Mbps. At the same time, we also provide extensive new data on the deployment of mobile services and on the availability of next- generation, very high speed networks.32 We will explore in the next Inquiry whether to update our speed benchmark. The Inquiry will also consider whether and how to incorporate mobility as an essential element of “advanced telecommunications capability”33 in light of the Commission’s decision in the 27 Best available estimates of mobile broadband coverage by 3G or better technologies (including CDMA EV-DO, EV-DO Rev. A, WCDMA/HSPA, HSPA+, mobile WiMAX, and LTE) indicate growth from 98.1% of the U.S. population in November 2009 to 99.4% in January 2012. 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, 25 FCC Rcd 11407, 11487–88, para. 122 (2010), available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-81A1_Rcd.pdf (Nov. 2009 figure); Commission estimates based on census block analysis of Mosaik CoverageRight coverage maps, January 2012, with population data are from the 2010 Census (Jan. 2012 figure). In addition, the percentage of the population covered by at least four mobile broadband providers increased from 58 percent to 79 percent during that period. Id. at 11449, tbl. 7 (Nov. 2009 figure); Commission estimates based on census block analysis of Mosaik CoverageRight coverage maps, January 2012, with population data are from the 2010 Census (Jan. 2012 figure). 28 Fifteenth Mobile Wireless Competition Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 9736–37, para. 109; VERIZON WIRELESS, NETWORK FACTS, http://aboutus.vzw.com/bestnetwork/network_facts.html. 29 Fifteenth Mobile Wireless Competition Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 9736, 9743, tbls. 11, 13. 30 See id. at 9736–37, 9740, paras. 109, 115 (Verizon Wireless and MetroPCS); Press Release, AT&T, 4G LTE from AT&T Available in Chicago (Sept. 19, 2011), available at http://www.att.com/gen/press- room?pid=21165&cdvn=news&newsarticleid=32813. 31 The Commission estimates based on census block analysis of Mosaik CoverageRight coverage maps, January 2012. Population data are from the 2010 Census. 32 The benchmark we adhere to in this report refers to actual speeds, not advertised or “up to” speeds. We rely on SBI Data to estimate fixed broadband deployment. See infra Section IV.B. The SBI Data provide information about areas where broadband has been deployed and the maximum advertised speed that a broadband service provider can deliver within a typical service interval (7 to 10 business days). See Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as Amended by the Broadband Data Improvement Act, GN Docket No. 10-159, Seventh Broadband Progress Report and Order on Reconsideration, 26 FCC Rcd 8008, 8078, para. 1, App. F (2011) (2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report). As we explained in the last report, the SBI Data on advertised speed may not accurately represent consumers’ actual broadband speed. See id. at 8083–85, paras. 16–19, App. F. As explained below, in the First Measuring Broadband America Report, among other things, the report established for the first time that the majority of residential wireline broadband consumers are receiving performance close to the level advertised by their providers. See infra Section IV.F.2; OFFICE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY & CONSUMER AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS BUREAU, FCC, MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA: A REPORT ON CONSUMER WIRELINE BROADBAND PERFORMANCE IN THE U.S. 4 (2011) (FIRST MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA REPORT), available at http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/measuringbroadbandreport/Measuring_U.S._-_Main_Report_Full.pdf. 33 47 U.S.C. § 1302(d)(1) (defining advanced telecommunications capability). Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 8 USF/ICC Transformation Order to set universal access to mobile broadband as a distinct universal service goal, and whether to incorporate an evaluation of next-generation high speed services in the Commission’s evaluation of broadband deployment.34 The Commission recently identified hundreds of thousands of unserved road miles in census blocks lacking 3G or better wireless service for purposes of Mobility Fund Phase I.35 In the next Inquiry, we will also consider how best to assess mobile broadband coverage and whether the Commission should similarly analyze mobile deployment by examining road miles as it is doing for Phase I of the Mobility Fund.36 In addition, we expect to consider whether our broadband benchmark or benchmarks should incorporate standards regarding latency and capacity,37 which the USF/ICC Transformation Order recognized as critical components for evaluating broadband service quality.38 Each year, we must examine whether Americans have access to “high-speed, switched, broadband telecommunications capability that enables users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications using any technology.”39 Market offerings, and consumer demand, continue to expand and change, and our evaluation under section 706 necessarily should reflect those developments. II. BACKGROUND 8. Section 706(b) requires the Commission annually to “initiate a notice of inquiry concerning the availability of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans (including, in particular, elementary and secondary schools and classrooms).”40 In conducting this inquiry, the Commission must “determine whether advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.”41 The Commission must also provide “[d]emographic information for unserved areas,”42 and an international comparison in its annual broadband report.43 If the Commission finds that broadband is not being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion, the Commission “shall take immediate action to accelerate deployment of such capability by removing barriers to infrastructure investment and by promoting competition in the telecommunications 34 See USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 17667, 17696–702, paras. 1, 90–104. Our last inquiry was released in August 2011 and the USF/ICC Transformation Order was released in November 2011. See Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as Amended by the Broadband Data Improvement Act; A National Broadband Plan for Our Future, GN Docket No. 11-121, Notice of Inquiry, 26 FCC Rcd 11800 (2011) (Eighth Broadband Notice of Inquiry). 35 See Mobility Fund Phase I Procedures Public Notice (identifying road miles in unserved census blocks eligible for Mobility Fund Phase I support). This Public Notice and related information are available on the Auction 901 web page at http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/901/. 36 USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 17783, para. 330; see also Mobility Fund Phase I Procedures Public Notice. 37 See USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 17696–702, paras. 90–104. 38 See id. at 17667–70, 17672, 17674, 17696–705, 17771–825, paras. 1, 3–5, 8, 10, 17, 28, 90–108, 295–497. 39 47 U.S.C. § 1302(d)(1). 40 47 U.S.C. § 1302(b). In 2008, the BDIA required the Commission to publish its reports “annually” instead of “regularly.” BDIA § 103(a)(1), 122 Stat. at 4096; 47 U.S.C. § 1302(b). 41 47 U.S.C. § 1302(b). 42 Id. § 1302(c). 43 Id. § 1303(b). Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 9 market.”44 9. Previous Broadband Progress Reports. This is the Eighth Broadband Progress Report since Congress enacted section 706.45 Following legislation emphasizing the importance of broadband,46 the Commission found, in the last two broadband reports, that broadband was not being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.47 In the 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, based on data reported as of June 30, 2010, the Commission found that as many as 26 million Americans live in areas unserved by broadband.48 The Commission further observed that “[m]any of these Americans live in areas where there is no business case to offer broadband, and where existing public efforts to extend broadband are unlikely to reach; they have no immediate prospect of being served, despite the growing costs of digital exclusion.”49 The Commission also determined that availability encompasses more than physical deployment of broadband networks, and thus the assessment should include factors such as broadband cost, quality, and adoption by consumers.50 The Commission concluded that the evidence regarding such factors “provide[s] further indication that broadband is not being reasonably and timely deployed and is not available to all Americans.”51 10. Actions Taken Subsequent to the 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report. As explained above, the Commission has taken significant steps since the last report to promote broadband through the Commission’s recent USF/ICC Transformation Order.52 11. USF/ICC Transformation Order. On October 27, 2011, the Commission adopted the USF/ICC Transformation Order that comprehensively reforms and modernizes the universal service system to ensure the universal availability of fixed and mobile communication networks capable of providing voice and broadband services where people live, work, and travel.53 Relevant to this report, the USF/ICC Transformation Order represents a significant policy step to connect all Americans to 44 Id. § 1302(b). 45 As required by section 706(b), on August 5, 2011, we initiated an inquiry to fulfill our annual responsibility of examining broadband deployment and availability. See Eighth Broadband Notice of Inquiry; 47 U.S.C. § 1302(b). 46 Congress amended section 706 of the 1996 Act in 2008 finding that broadband “has resulted in enhanced economic development and public safety for communities across the Nation, improved health care and educational opportunities, and a better quality of life for all Americans.” 47 U.S.C. § 1301(1); see also, e.g., id. § 1301(2) (“Continued progress in the deployment and adoption of broadband technology is vital to ensuring that our Nation remains competitive and continues to create business and job growth.”); id. § 1305(k)(2) (directing the Commission to develop a National Broadband Plan that would “seek to ensure that all people of the United States have access to broadband capability”). 47 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8009, para. 1; Sixth Broadband Progress Report, 25 FCC Rcd at 9558, para. 2. The first five reports concluded that, even though certain groups of Americans were not receiving timely access to broadband, broadband deployment “overall” was reasonable and timely during that period. See Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as Amended by the Broadband Data Improvement Act; A National Broadband Plan for Our Future, GN Docket Nos. 09-51, 09-137, Notice of Inquiry, 24 FCC Rcd 10505, 10508–10, paras. 5–9 (2009) (summarizing the five prior broadband reports). 48 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8009, para. 1. 49 See id. (citing 2010 NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN). 50 Id. at 8020–21, paras. 18–20. 51 Id. at 8010, para. 2. 52 See supra at paras. 3–4; see also USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 17709, para. 115. 53 USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 17667, para. 1. Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 10 broadband by accelerating deployment of modern communications networks.54 The USF/ICC Transformation Order is expected to help connect millions of unserved Americans to high-speed Internet and voice service over the next six years.55 The order establishes the Connect America Fund, which relies on incentive-based, market-driven policies, including competitive bidding, to distribute universal service funds as efficiently and effectively as possible to make broadband available to homes, businesses, and community anchor institutions in areas that do not, or would not otherwise, have broadband.56 The Bureau announced support amounts for the first phase of the Connect America Fund to spur immediate new broadband buildout on April 25, 2012 and on July 24, 2012, and a number of carriers committed to use over $110 million to deploy broadband to unserved areas in 37 states.57 The USF/ICC Transformation Order also explains that the next phase of the reforms will use a combination of a forward-looking broadband cost model and competitive bidding to efficiently disburse ongoing support for the deployment of networks providing both voice and broadband service. The Bureau is actively engaged in developing this phase of the reform and, most recently on June 8, 2012, sought comment on model design and data inputs.58 We expect that these reforms will expand broadband availability to millions more unserved Americans. 12. The USF/ICC Transformation Order also established a universal service support mechanism dedicated exclusively to mobile services—the Mobility Fund.59 The Commission has allocated financial support to expand mobile broadband nationwide.60 Phase I of the Mobility Fund will provide up to $300 million in one-time support to address gaps in mobile services by supporting the build-out of current- and next-generation mobile networks in areas where these networks are unavailable.61 This support will be awarded by reverse auction with the objective of maximizing the coverage of road miles in eligible unserved areas within the established budget.62 The Phase I auction is scheduled to take place on September 27, 2012.63 In addition, the Commission has designated $50 million for Mobility Fund Phase I support exclusively for Tribal lands (Tribal Mobility Fund), which will 54 Press Release, FCC, FCC Releases ‘Connect America Fund’ Order to Help Expand Broadband, Create Jobs, Benefit Consumers (Nov. 18, 2011), available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC- 311095A1.pdf. 55 Id. 56 See FCC, CONNECT AMERICA FUND & INTERCARRIER COMPENSATION REFORM ORDER, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (2011) (USF/ICC EXECUTIVE SUMMARY), available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC- 310692A1.pdf. 57 See FCC Public-Private Effort Press Release. 58 See Wireline Competition Bureau Seeks Comment on Model Design and Data Inputs for Phase II of the Connect America Fund, WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 05-337, Public Notice, 27 FCC Rcd 6147 (2012), available at http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0608/DA-12-911A1.pdf. 59 USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 17771–825, paras. 295–497. 60 Id. 61 Id. See Mobility Fund Phase I Auction Public Notice; Mobility Fund Phase I Procedures Public Notice. This auction will be the first to award high-cost universal service support through reverse competitive bidding envisioned by the USF/ICC Transformation Order, awarding one-time support to carriers that commit to provide 3G or better mobile voice and broadband services in areas where such services are unavailable, without exceeding the budget of $300 million. 62 USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 17781–83, paras. 322–28. 63 Mobility Fund Phase I Auction Public Notice. Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 11 be awarded by auction in 2013.64 Phase II of the Mobility Fund will provide $500 million annually for ongoing support of mobile services.65 The Commission sought comment on the details for Mobility Fund Phase II in a further notice adopted in the USF/ICC Transformation Order.66 13. The USF/ICC Transformation Order also phases down certain regulated charges for the exchange of traffic among carriers—known as intercarrier compensation—and transitions specified rates previously set, via one of several complex methodologies, to a simplified, uniform bill-and-keep methodology, which over time will reduce hidden subsidies on consumers’ bills. This reduction will increase efficiency and eliminate impediments to the deployment of broadband networks.67 Intercarrier compensation reform will provide benefits to all Americans through improved service and lower costs as consumers increasingly shift from traditional telephone service68 to alternatives, including Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), mobile calling and texting, and email.69 14. Additional Commission Initiatives. In addition to the USF/ICC Transformation Order, we briefly summarize initiatives since the last report designed to accelerate broadband availability that include, but are not limited to:70 · Measuring Broadband Performance. On August 2, 2011, the Commission released the First 64 USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 17819, para. 481; Mobility Fund Phase I Procedures Public Notice. 65 Id. at 17824, para. 494. Up to $100 million of this amount annually is designated for support to Tribal lands. Id. 66 Id. at 18069–85, paras. 1121–88. 67 Id. at 17904–14, paras. 736–59. These reforms will apply the bill-and-keep framework to terminating access and some transport traffic. The Commission seeks comment in portions of the further notice in the USF/ICC Transformation Order on the transition and recovery for originating switched access and for certain common and dedicated transport rate elements. Id. at 17873, 18109–20, paras. 653, 1297–1325. 68 On December 6, 2011 and December 14, 2011, the Commission held public workshops to examine the transition from the public switched telephone network (PSTN) to new technologies including, among other things, how to continue reliability, accessibility, and ubiquity in the PSTN even as the market shifts away from PSTN services to other technologies. Through these workshops, the Commission sought input on the technical, economic, and policy issues that must be addressed to minimize disruption during this transition. See FCC Workshops on the Telephone Network in Transition, Public Notice, 26 FCC Rcd 16354 (2011), available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1958A1_Rcd.pdf. 69 USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 17872–956, paras. 648–846. The USF/ICC Transformation Order adopts rules for a measured, gradual transition to a bill-and-keep methodology for terminating switched access rates and adopts a recovery mechanism to provide carriers with certain and predictable revenue streams. Id. at 17873, para. 651. 70 In addition to the initiatives listed herein, the Commission has been active in reexamining its rules applicable to various technologies focusing on the availability of ATC to all Americans. For example, on December 15, 2011, the Commission continued its reexamination of the fundamentals of its video relay services rules, including setting forth proposals to improve the structure and efficiency of the program and promoting residential broadband adoption by low-income Americans with disabilities. See Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program; Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CG Docket Nos. 10-51, 03-123, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 26 FCC Rcd 17367, 17369, 17375, 17385, paras. 1, 11, 29–30 (2011). On October 24, 2011, the Commission fundamentally affirmed its rules for Access Broadband over Power Line (Access BPL) systems and also modified certain rules designed to balance between the dual objectives of providing for Access BPL technology that has potential applications for broadband and Smart Grid while protecting incumbent radio services against harmful interference. See Amendment of Part 15 Regarding New Requirements and Measurement Guidelines for Access Broadband Over Power Line Systems Carrier Current Systems, Including Broadband Over Power Line Systems, ET Docket Nos. 04-37, 03-104, Second Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 15712, 15713, para. 1 (2011). Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 12 Measuring Broadband America Report,71 which presented the results of the first nationwide study of broadband performance to the home, using measurement technology deployed in the consumer’s home.72 Among other things, the report established for the first time that the majority of residential wireline broadband consumers are receiving performance close to the level advertised by their providers.73 On July 19, 2012, the Commission released the Second Measuring Broadband America Report.74 The Commission found “striking across-the-board improvements on key metrics underlying user performance.”75 In particular, the Commission found that ISP promises of performance are more accurate, ISPs are more consistent in their ability to deliver advertised speeds, and consumers are subscribing to faster speed tiers and receiving faster speeds.76 · Wireless Backhaul Reform. On August 9, 2011, the Commission made available new spectrum, covering almost two-thirds of the U.S. landmass, for microwave wireless backhaul facilities.77 These facilities are an essential component of many broadband networks, particularly mobile wireless networks.78 Continuing its reform of rules governing use of microwave frequencies for wireless backhaul as part of the FCC’s Broadband Acceleration Initiative, on August 3, 2012, the Commission released an order that permits fixed microwave operators to use smaller antennas in certain microwave bands, which can result in significant cost savings to operators.79 71 See generally FIRST MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA REPORT. 72 The First Measuring Broadband America Report was the culmination of a year-long effort involving the cooperation of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) representing 86 percent of all residential wireline broadband consumers in the United States to measure broadband performance to the homes of a representative sampling of thousands of volunteers. Id. at 3. Individual tests were performed on each volunteer’s broadband service. Id. The report found that “[f]or most participating broadband providers, actual download speeds are substantially closer to advertised speeds than was found in data from early 2009 and discussed in a subsequent FCC white paper, though performance can vary significantly by technology and specific provider.” Id. at 4; see also OBI, BROADBAND PERFORMANCE (OBI Technical Paper No. 4, 2010) (2010 OBI BROADBAND PERFORMANCE) (providing a prior effort to determine advertised versus actual broadband speeds delivered to the home), available at http://download.broadband.gov/plan/fcc-omnibus-broadband-initiative-(obi)-technical-paper-broadband- performance.pdf. 73 The First Measuring Broadband America Report also identified ISPs that fell short of advertised speeds. FIRST MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA REPORT at 4. A few months after the report was released, the FCC noticed a significant improvement by a major ISP and announced the results in a blog post. FCC Announces Commencement of 2012 Measuring Broadband America Performance Study of Residential Broadband Service in the United States, Public Notice, 27 FCC Rcd 1680 (2012) (2012 Measuring Broadband Public Notice). 74 OFFICE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY & CONSUMER AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS BUREAU, FCC, 2012 MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA JULY REPORT: A REPORT ON CONSUMER WIRELINE BROADBAND PERFORMANCE IN THE U.S. 4 (2011) (SECOND MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA REPORT), available at http://transition.fcc.gov/cgb/measuringbroadbandreport/2012/Measuring-Broadband-America.pdf. 75 Id. at 4. 76 Id. at 4–5. 77 Amendment of Part 101 of the Commission’s Rules to Facilitate the Use of Microwave for Wireless Backhaul and Other Uses and to Provide Additional Flexibility to Broadcast Auxiliary Service and Operational Fixed Microwave Licensees; Petition for Rulemaking filed by Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition to Amend Part 101 of the Commission’s Rules to Authorize 60 and 80 MHz Channels in Certain Bands for Broadband Communications, WT Docket No. 10-153, RM-11602, Report and Order, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and Memorandum Opinion and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 11614 (2011) (2011 Wireless Backhaul Report and Order). 78 Id. at 11615, para. 1. 79 Amendment of Part 101 of the Commission’s Rules to Facilitate the Use of Microwave for Wireless Backhaul and (continued….) Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 13 · Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA) Implementation.80 Congress enacted the CVAA to ensure that the 54 million Americans with disabilities have access to the modern and innovative communications technologies of the 21st century, including Internet and digital technologies that use broadband.81 The Commission has completed the following broadband-related CVAA rulemakings and actions, among others: o Accessibility Clearinghouse and Accessibility and Innovation Initiative (A&I Initiative). The A&I Initiative, launched on July 26, 2010, promotes collaborative problem-solving among stakeholders on accessibility solutions, such as accessible applications for mobile phones and websites, to enable people with disabilities to reap the full benefit of broadband communication technologies.82 In October 2011, the Commission also launched the Accessibility Clearinghouse, a web-based repository of information about accessibility solutions for telecommunications and advanced communications services and equipment, and for Internet browsers on mobile phones.83 o Advanced Communications Services (ACS). On October 7, 2011, the Commission adopted rules requiring ACS providers and equipment manufacturers to ensure that their services and equipment are accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, if achievable.84 Under the rules, ACS includes electronic messaging, non-interconnected VoIP, and other broadband-related communication services. o Closed Captioning over Internet Protocol. On January 12, 2012, the Commission adopted rules requiring the provision of closed captioning on video programming delivered using Internet protocol when such programming was first published or (Continued from previous page) Other Uses and to Provide Additional Flexibility to Broadcast Auxiliary Service and Operational Fixed Microwave Licensees; Petition for Rulemaking filed by Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition to Amend Part 101 of the Commission’s Rules to Authorize 60 and 80 MHz Channels in Certain Bands for Broadband Communications, WT Docket No. 10-153, RM-11602, Second Report and Order, Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Second Notice of Inquiry, Order on Reconsideration, and Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 12-37 (rel. Aug. 3, 2012) (2012 Wireless Backhaul Second Report and Order), available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-87A1.pdf. 80 CVAA, Pub. L. No. 111-260, 124 Stat. 2751 (2010) (as codified in various sections of 47 U.S.C.); Pub. L. No. 11- 265, 124 Stat. 2795 (2010) (technical amendments to the CVAA). 81 Id. A study from Pew Internet found that only 41 percent of Americans with disabilities, however, have broadband access at home compared to the national average of 69 percent. SUSANNAH FOX, PEW INTERNET, AMERICANS LIVING WITH DISABILITY AND THEIR TECHNOLOGY PROFILE 3 (2011), available at http://pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2011/PIP_Disability.pdf, cited in Implementation of Sections 716 and 717 of the Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010; Amendments to the Commission’s Rules Implementing Sections 255 and 251(a)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the Telecommunications Act of 1996; Accessible Mobile Phone Options for People Who Are Blind, Deaf-Blind, or Have Low Vision, CG Docket Nos. 10-213, 10-145, WT Docket No. 96- 198, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 26 FCC Rcd 14557, 14560, para. 3 (2011) (ACS Order). Both Congress and the Commission have recognized that this gap must be closed in order to afford persons with disabilities to share fully in the economic, social, and civic benefits of broadband. See ACS Order. 26 FCC Rcd at 14561, para. 5. 82 See BROADBAND.GOV, ACCESSIBILITY AND INNOVATION INITIATIVE, http://www.broadband.gov/accessibilityandinnovation/. 83 See FCC, ACCESSIBILITY CLEARINGHOUSE, http://apps.fcc.gov/accessibilityclearinghouse/. 84 See generally ACS Order, 26 FCC Rcd 14557. Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 14 exhibited on television with captions.85 These rules will ensure that programs delivered over broadband networks are accessible to individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing. o National Deaf-Blind Equipment Distribution Program. On July 1, 2012, the Commission launched a pilot program to provide up to $10 million of support to entities that distribute equipment designed to make telecommunications, Internet access, and advanced communications services accessible to low-income individuals who are deaf-blind.86 · Open Internet. On December 21, 2010, the Commission adopted the Open Internet Order, which supports the Internet’s virtuous cycle of investment and innovation by providing greater clarity and certainty regarding the continued freedom and openness of the Internet.87 The rules adopted in this order, which became effective on November 20, 2011,88 create a framework that aims to ensure the Internet remains an open platform in the coming years—one characterized by free markets and free speech—and one that continues to enable consumer choice, end-user control, competition through low barriers to entry, and the freedom to innovate without permission.89 Edge providers90—many of which are small businesses and individual entrepreneurs—have relied on this openness to innovate new services such as those used with Internet-based smartphones and other wireless devices.91 The “app economy” has experienced tremendous growth since 2010 and now accounts for nearly half a million jobs.92 The increase in new uses of the network 85 Closed Captioning of Internet Protocol-Delivered Video Programming: Implementation of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, MB Docket No. 11-154, Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd 787 (2012). 86 Commission Announces Entities Certified to Participate in the National Deaf-Blind Equipment Distribution Program, DA 12-1050 (rel. July 2, 2012); Implementation of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, Section 105, Relay Services for Deaf-Blind Individuals, CG Docket No. 10-210, Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 5640 (2011). 87 See generally Preserving the Open Internet; Broadband Industry Practices, GN Docket No. 09-191, WC Docket No. 07-52, Report and Order, 25 FCC Rcd 17905 (2010) (Open Internet Order), available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201A1_Rcd.pdf. 88 Preserving the Open Internet, 76 Fed. Reg. 59192 (Sept. 23, 2011), available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-09-23/pdf/2011-24259.pdf. 89 See Open Internet Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 17908, para. 10. 90 Id. at 17907, para. 4 n.2 (explaining the term “edge provider” is used to refer to content, application, service, and device providers, because they generally operate at the edge rather than the core of the network). 91 MICHAEL MANDEL, TECHNET, WHERE THE JOBS ARE: THE APP ECONOMY 1 (Feb. 7, 2012) (MICHAEL MANDEL APP ECONOMY), available at http://www.technet.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/TechNet-App-Economy-Jobs- Study.pdf; see Open Internet Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 17910–11, para. 13. Streaming video and cloud computing are other examples of edge providers creating new services that contribute to the Internet’s virtuous cycle of innovation and investment. 92 MICHAEL MANDEL APP ECONOMY at 1; see also DELOITTE, TRENDS IN VENTURE CAPITAL: STATE OF THE IPO MARKET 19 (June 22, 2011) (noting that nearly 65 percent of venture capitalists predict that investment in new media and social networking will rise over the next five years), available at http://www.nvca.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=753&Itemid=93; Press Release, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and National Venture Capital Association, Annual Venture Investment Dollars Increase 22% Over Prior Year, According to the MoneyTree Report (Jan. 20, 2012) (noting that, in 2011, Internet- specific companies attracted nearly $7 billion in venture capital funding, a 68 percent increase in dollars and 24 percent increase in deals from 2010), available at https://www.pwcmoneytree.com/MTPublic/ns/moneytree/filesource/exhibits/11Q4MTPressrelease.pdf. Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 15 corresponds with an increase in home broadband adoption and smartphone ownership,93 which leads to further network improvements and infrastructure investment, and that spurs yet further innovative uses.94 · Modernizing Lifeline. On January 31, 2012, the Commission modernized the USF’s Lifeline Program, which ensures the availability of communications to low-income Americans. Among other things, the Commission adopted a goal of ensuring the availability of broadband service for low-income Americans, clarified that consumers may apply their Lifeline discount to bundled offerings that include broadband, and established a “Broadband Pilot Program.”95 The pilot will be an 18-month program and will allocate up to $25 million to test and determine how Lifeline can best be used to increase broadband adoption among Lifeline-eligible consumers.96 The Bureau issued a Public Notice on April 30, 2012 soliciting applications from ETCs to participate in the pilot and received a number of applications by the July 2, 2012 deadline.97 · VoIP Outage Reporting Requirements. On February 21, 2012, the Commission extended the outage reporting requirements contained in Part 4 of the Commission’s Rules—previously only applicable to legacy telecommunications services—to interconnected VoIP services (typically provided over broadband networks).98 The Commission reported that, as of December 31, 2010, 31 percent of the more than 87 million residential telephone subscriptions in the United States were provided by interconnected VoIP providers—an increase of 21 percent (from 22.4 million to 27.1 million residential lines) in the last year.99 The Commission continues to evaluate whether to extend outage reporting requirements to broadband Internet service providers.100 · Advanced Wireless. On March 21, 2012, the Commission took steps to free up 40 megahertz of spectrum in the 2 GHz band spectrum for mobile broadband by proposing to remove rules that 93 See infra tbl. 17 (showing an increase in fixed home broadband adoption across three analyzed speed tiers from June 2010 to June 2011); Open Internet Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 17910–11, para. 14; AARON SMITH, PEW INTERNET, 46% OF AMERICAN ADULTS ARE SMARTPHONE OWNERS: SMARTPHONE USERS NOW OUTNUMBER USERS OF MORE BASIC MOBILE PHONES WITHIN THE NATIONAL ADULT POPULATION 2 (2012) (2012 PEW SMARTPHONE SURVEY), available at http://pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2012/Smartphone%20ownership%202012.pdf; America’s New Mobile Majority: A Look at Smartphone Owners in the U.S., NIELSENWIRE (BLOG), May 7, 2012 (NIELSENWIRE SMARTPHONE OWNERS), http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/?p=31688 (finding that over 50% of mobile subscribers have a smartphone); see also US REMAINS AT FOREFRONT OF LTE SERVICE ADOPTION, TELEGEOGRAPHY (Mar. 15, 2012) (finding that the United States leads the world in 4G adoption), available at http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2012/03/15/us-remains-at-forefront-of-lte-service- adoption/. 94 See Open Internet Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 17910, para. 14. 95 Lifeline Reform and Modernization Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 6660, para. 3. 96 Id. at 6802–03, para. 341. 97 See Lifeline Pilot Program Public Notice, 27 FCC Rcd 4840; see also Lifeline Reform and Modernization Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 6802–03, para. 341. 98 Proposed Extension of Part 4 of the Commission’s Rules Regarding Outage Reporting to Interconnected Voice Over Internet Protocol Service Providers and Broadband Internet Service Providers, PS Docket No. 11-82, Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd 2650 (2012), available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12- 22A1_Rcd.pdf. Collecting these data will help the Commission help ensure the Nation’s 9-1-1 systems are as reliable and resilient as possible and also allow us to monitor compliance with the statutory 9-1-1 obligations of interconnected VoIP service providers. Id. at 2651, para. 1. 99 Id. at 2700–01, App. B para. 3. 100 Id. at 2656, para. 9 (determining that this issue “deserves further study”). Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 16 have limited this spectrum to satellite use. 101 This effort is consistent with the National Broadband Plan’s recommendation and reflects the Commission’s commitment to allow flexible use of spectrum, to allocate large blocks of contiguous spectrum, and to make spectrum available in bands that are internationally harmonized.102 · Incentive Auctions. On April 27, 2012, in response to the recently enacted Spectrum Act,103 the Commission took preliminary steps toward making a portion of the UHF and VHF frequency bands (U/V bands) currently used by the broadcast television service available for new uses, while also preserving the integrity of the television broadcast service.104 The spectrum to be repurposed will serve to further address this nation’s growing demand for wireless broadband services, promote ongoing innovation and investment in mobile communications, and help to ensure that the United States keeps pace with the global wireless revolution.105 · International Data Collection. Today, in the 2012 International Broadband Data Report, the International Bureau provided an update on steps the Commission is taking to obtain better, more globally standardized broadband data in order to help the Commission better meet its statutory obligations under section 706.106 The International Bureau recognized the need for better international data but also noted the Commission’s recent efforts to improve the available data, both domestically and internationally.107 To further this goal, in October 2011, for example, the Commission hosted a two-day OECD broadband metrics workshop in Washington, D.C. focusing on the need to standardize terms, benchmarks and indicators, and data collection and reporting tools/methods employed by the OECD and member countries.108 Ofcom, the U.K. regulator for communication services, hosted an OECD follow-up workshop in London in June 2012.109 15. Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) and Broadband Initiatives Program (BIP). Recognizing the unique difficulties in deploying broadband to rural areas and Tribal lands, in 2009, Congress allocated approximately $7 billion in grants and loans to expand broadband deployment and adoption in unserved and underserved areas through NTIA’s Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) and Rural Utilities Service’s (RUS’s) Broadband Initiatives Program 101 See Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz Bands, Fixed and Mobile Services in the Mobile Satellite Service Bands at 1525-1559 MHz and 1626.5-1660.5 MHz, 1610-1626.5 MHz and 2483.5-2500 MHz, and 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz, Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in the 1915-1920 MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz and 2175-2180 MHz Bands, ET Docket No. 10- 142, WT Docket Nos. 04-356, 12-70, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry, 27 FCC Rcd 3561 (2012) (Wireless Services in 2000-2020 MHz NPRM and NOI), available at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-32A1.pdf. 102 Id. at 3567, para. 11. 103 See Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-96, § 6102, 126 Stat. 156, 205 (2012) (Middle Class Tax Relief Act), available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-112publ96/pdf/PLAW- 112publ96.pdf. 104 Innovation in the Broadcast Television Bands: Allocations, Channel Sharing and Improvements to VHF, ET Docket No. 10-235, Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd 4616 (2012) (Incentive Auctions Order), available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-45A1.pdf. 105 Id. at 4617, para. 1. 106 See 2012 International Broadband Data Report para. 11. 107 Id. paras. 22, 39. 108 Id. para. 40. 109 Id. para. 42. Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 17 (BIP).110 Now that all the funds have been dedicated to projects that will bring robust broadband to unserved and underserved areas of the country, we are beginning to see the impact of the investment.111 NTIA invested approximately $4 billion in BTOP projects resulting in deployment of 45,196 new or upgraded network miles across the country,112 connection and/or improved service for more than 2,211 community anchor institutions,113 and indications that the projects led 259,446 households to subscribe to broadband services.114 While their projects are ongoing, BTOP recipients have already entered into nearly 400 interconnection agreements with third-party providers to leverage or interconnect with their networks.115 RUS has funded $3.5 billion in BIP projects that will bring broadband service to an additional 2.8 million households, reaching nearly 7 million people, 360,000 businesses, and 30,000 110 The BIP and BTOP Programs are authorized by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. See American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115, 128 (Recovery Act); see also RUS, ABOUT THE RECOVERY ACT BIP, http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/utp_bip.html (ABOUT THE RECOVERY ACT BIP) (explaining RUS’s BIP Program); NTIA, BROADBAND TECHNOLOGY OPPORTUNITIES PROGRAM (BTOP) QUARTERLY PROGRAM STATUS REPORT at 1 (March 2012) (2012 NTIA’S BTOP QUARTERLY REPORT) (explaining NTIA’s BTOP Program), available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/12th-btop-quarterly- congressional-report-march-2012.pdf. In 2009, the Recovery Act allocated $2.5 billion for RUS’s BIP program and $4.7 billion in grants for NTIA’s BTOP program, for a total of $7.2 billion in budget authority. See Recovery Act, 123 Stat. at 118, 128. RUS used its $2.5 billion allocation for both grants and loans. On August 10, 2010, Congress rescinded $302 million from NTIA’s BTOP Program, reducing NTIA’s funding to approximately $4.4 billion equaling in total, approximately $6.9 billion. See Pub. L. No. 111-226, § 302, 124 Stat. 2389, 2404 (2010); see also 2012 NTIA’S BTOP QUARTERLY REPORT at 1. According to RUS, it may award and obligate funds in excess of its budget authority when it makes loans. Therefore, RUS notes, the total investment under the BIP and BTOP exceeds $7 billion. See GAO, GAO-11-371T, Recovery Act: BROADBAND PROGRAMS AWARDS AND RISKS TO OVERSIGHT 2–3 (Feb. 10, 2011) (“RUS awarded funds to 320 projects, including more than $2.3 billion for grants and about $87 million for loans. According to RUS, the budget authority of $87 million for loans supports almost $1.2 billion in total loans, and a combined loan and grant award amount of more than $3.5 billion.”). 111 Under RUS’s BIP Program, by September 30, 2010, there were 320 awards obligated that totaled $3.529 billion. See ABOUT THE RECOVERY ACT BIP. The total awards were 285 last-mile projects that total over $3 billion, the 12 middle-mile awards total $172.6 million, four satellite awards for $100 million, and 19 technical assistance awards for over $3.4 million in 45 states and one territory. Id. In March 2012, NTIA reported that it had invested approximately $4 billion in 233 BTOP projects benefitting every state, five territories, and the District of Columbia. 2012 NTIA’S BTOP QUARTERLY REPORT at 1. NTIA’s BTOP Program reports considerable progress during the last quarter regarding deployment. See id. at 2–3. NTIA indicates that it has reached 90 percent of its fiscal year 2012 goal to deploy 50,000 new or upgraded network miles across the country. Id. at 3. NTIA adds that recipients deployed more than 16,000 network miles during the past quarter, bringing the total number of miles to 45,196. Id. According to NTIA, through December 31, 2011, network deployment was underway in 47 states and territories. Id. NTIA has also invested in sustainable adoption programs. See NTIA, GRANTS AWARDED: SUSTAINABLE BROADBAND ADOPTION, http://www2.ntia.doc.gov/sustainableadoption. 112 2012 NTIA’S BTOP QUARTERLY REPORT at 3. For example, Northwest Open Access Network’s (NoaNet) expansion in the state of Washington is expected to promote affordable broadband access for approximately 380,000 households, 18,000 businesses, and 1,300 anchor institutions including government offices, public safety and medical centers, and schools. Id. Additionally, ComNet’s GigE PLUS Availability Coalition project in western Ohio is expected to provide more affordable broadband access in to 737,000 households, 165,000 businesses, and 2,900 institutions. Id. 113 Id. at 4. 114 Id. at 6. 115 Lawrence E. Strickling, Testimony Before the Committee on Energy and Commerce and Subcommittee on Communications Technology (May 16, 2012), available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtestimony/2012/testimony-assistant-secretary-strickling-broadband-loans-and-grants. Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 18 anchor institutions across more than 300,000 square miles.116 The BIP projects are expected to create more than 25,000 immediate and direct jobs.117 16. Additional USDA & RUS Programs. Additionally, RUS administers the substantially underserved trust area (SUTA) provisions of the 2008 Farm Bill.118 SUTA provides a pathway for Tribal communities to access the RUS telecommunications loan and grant programs more easily as a means for increasing the rate of deployment and adoption across all Tribal communities. RUS has proposed new rules under SUTA,119 and SUTA provisions authorize RUS to waive matching requirements, give projects on trust lands the highest funding priority, and authorize loans with interest rates as low as 2 percent.120 The USDA also continues to administer a variety of non-BIP loan and grant programs targeted specifically to communities and regions that have inadequate access to telecommunications and broadband service or investment capital.121 Projects financed under RUS’s Telecommunications Infrastructure Loan Program and Broadband Loan Program have provided broadband access to more than 3.6 million rural households, businesses, and community organizations.122 17. SBI Data. Since July 2009, NTIA, in coordination with the Commission, has been collecting data concerning where broadband is deployed across the nation as part of the State Broadband Initiative (SBI) Grant Program.123 The data collected as part of the SBI Grant Program helped populate a 116 Jonathan Adelstein, Testimony Before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs at 5 (Jun. 7, 2012), available at http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/SupportDocuments/rdCongTestimonyAdelsteinJune7-2012.pdf; see also USDA, BROADBAND INITIATIVES PROGRAM (BIP) AWARDS REPORT: ADVANCING BROADBAND: A FOUNDATION FOR STRONG RURAL COMMUNITIES at 3–4 (Jan. 2011) (2011 BIP AWARDS REPORT), available at http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/supportdocuments/RBBreport_V5ForWeb.pdf. More than 1 million K–12 students attend school within areas served by BIP awards (more than 3,300 schools in 44 states), and 600 rural healthcare facilities are served by BIP awards (facilities are located in 123 BIP served areas in 40 states). 2011 BIP AWARDS REPORT at 4. 117 Id. at 3. 118 Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-246, § 6105, 122 Stat. 923, 1196 (2008) (2008 Farm Bill); see also USDA RURAL DEVELOPMENT—PROGRAMS OVERVIEW, RURAL UTILITIES SERVICE, IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SUTA INITIATIVE (SUTA OVERVIEW), http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/suta.html. 119 Department of Agriculture, Rural Utilities Service, Substantially Underserved Trust Areas, 76 Fed. Reg. 63846 (Oct. 14, 2011) (to be codified at 7 C.F.R Pt. 1700). 120 See SUTA OVERVIEW. 121 See, e.g., Press Release, USDA, Agriculture Secretary Vilsack Announces Funding to Expand and Improve Broadband Services in Rural Areas (Nov. 14, 2011), available at http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentid=2011/11/0485.xml&navid=NEWS_RELEASE&navtype =RT&parentnav=LATEST_RELEASES&edeployment_action=retrievecontent; see also CHMN. JULIUS GENACHOWSKI, FCC, BRINGING BROADBAND TO RURAL AMERICA: UPDATE TO REPORT ON A RURAL BROADBAND STRATEGY, GN Docket No. 11-16, 26 FCC Rcd 8681, 8692–93, paras. 15–16 (2011) (2011 RURAL BROADBAND UPDATE), available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307877A1.pdf, attached to Chairman Genachowski Releases Update to 2009 Rural Broadband Report, GN Docket No. 11-16, Public Notice, 26 FCC Rcd 8680 (2011). 122 See Letter from R. Matthew Warner, Attorney Advisor, FCC, on behalf of the Rural Utilities Service, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 11-121, App. (Jul. 17, 2012), available at http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7021989631. 123 To comply with requirements under the BDIA and the Recovery Act, NTIA in July 2009 established the SBI Grant Program. See Department of Commerce, NTIA, State Broadband Data and Development Grant Program, Docket No. 0660-ZA29, Notice of Funds Availability, 74 Fed. Reg. 32545 (July 8, 2009) (NTIA State Mapping NOFA), available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/fr_broadbandmappingnofa_090708.pdf; Department of Commerce, NTIA, State Broadband Data and Development Grant Program, Docket No. 0660-ZA29, (continued….) Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 19 national broadband inventory map that was first made public in February 2011 and most recently updated March 2012.124 In accordance with the Recovery Act, this map allows consumers to determine broadband deployment in any region of the nation through a website that is interactive and searchable. As we did in last year’s 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, we rely on these data as key inputs into our analysis of broadband deployment and availability.125 III. BENCHMARKING BROADBAND 18. Section 706(d)(1) defines “advanced telecommunications capability” as “high-speed, switched, broadband telecommunications capability that enables users to originate and receive high- quality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications using any technology.”126 In each of the reports the Commission has conducted under section 706, it has relied on a speed benchmark for determining whether a service satisfies this statutory definition.127 In the 2010 Sixth Broadband Progress Report, the Commission updated this speed benchmark from 200 kbps in both directions128 to services that offer actual download (i.e., to the customer) speeds of at least 4 Mbps and actual upload (i.e., from the customer) speeds of at least 1 Mbps (4 Mbps/1 Mbps, or “speed benchmark”).129 19. In this report, we continue to rely upon this speed benchmark, which the Commission has used in the two most recent broadband reports.130 We find that this speed benchmark still reflects the (Continued from previous page) Notice of Funds Availability; Clarification, 74 Fed. Reg. 40569 (Aug. 12, 2009); see also NTIA, STATE BROADBAND INITIATIVE, http://www2.ntia.doc.gov/SBDD. 124 NATIONAL BROADBAND MAP, http://broadbandmap.gov/; Press Release, Moira Vahey, NTIA Unveils National Broadband Map and New Broadband Adoption Survey Results (Feb. 17, 2011) (NTIA National Broadband Plan Press Release), available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press- releases/2011/commerce%C3%A2%E2%82%AC%E2%84%A2s-ntia-unveils-national-broadband-map-and-new- broadband-adoption-survey; Anne Neville, New Data for the National Broadband Map (NATIONAL BROADBAND MAP) BLOG (Mar. 2, 2012), http://www.broadbandmap.gov/blog/2712/new-data-for-nbm/. 125 See infra Section IV.B; see also 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8017–18, 8078, para. 13, App. F. 126 47 U.S.C. § 1302(d)(1). 127 See 1999 First Broadband Progress Report, 14 FCC Rcd 2398, 2406, para. 20 (defining “broadband” as a service capable of supporting upstream and downstream speeds in excess of 200 kbps in the last mile); Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, CC Docket No. 98-146, Second Report, 15 FCC Rcd 20913, 20919–21, para. 10 (2000); Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, CC Docket No. 98-146, Report, 17 FCC Rcd 2844, 2850, para. 9 (2002); Availability of Advanced Telecommunications Capability in the United States, GN Docket No. 04-54, Fourth Report to Congress, 19 FCC Rcd 20540, 20551-52 (2004); Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, GN Docket No. 07-45, Fifth Report, 23 FCC Rcd 9615, 9616, para. 2 (2008); 2010 Sixth Broadband Progress Report, 25 FCC Rcd at 9563, para. 11; 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8019, para. 15. 128 See 2010 Sixth Broadband Progress Report, 25 FCC Rcd at 9559–64, paras. 5–10 (discussing the 200 kbps symmetrical standard). 129 Id. at 9563, para. 11. As discussed below, we believe the 3 Mbps/768 kbps tier in our SBI Data is the best proxy for 4 Mbps/1 Mbps for purposes of this report. See infra para. 29. 130 See 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8019, para. 15; 2010 Sixth Broadband Progress Report, 25 FCC Rcd at 9563, para. 11. The benchmark we adhere to in this report refers to actual speeds, not advertised or “up to” speeds. We rely on SBI Data to estimate fixed broadband deployment. The SBI Data provides information about areas where broadband has been deployed and the maximum advertised speed that a broadband service provider can deliver within a typical service interval (7 to 10 business days). See 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8078, App. F para. 1. As we explained in the last report, the SBI Data on advertised (continued….) Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 20 requirements in section 706(d)(1) and generally “enables users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications using any technology.”131 For instance, broadband service offering 4 Mbps/1 Mbps enables users to stream high-definition video and engage in basic video conferencing.132 Maintaining the speed benchmark from prior years also simplifies the measurement of progress from the prior two years.133 20. We are cognizant that demand changes over time. Usage trends are driving up demand for bandwidth and services, and users are attaching multiple Internet-enabled devices to a single, shared household broadband connection.134 The 2010 National Broadband Plan recommended the 4 Mbps/1 Mbps speed benchmark we are using for this report,135 but also recommended that the Commission should “review and reset” this benchmark every four years.136 We will seek comment on the broadband speed benchmark in the next Inquiry to ensure that our analysis keeps pace with evolving consumer demand and technologies.137 (Continued from previous page) speed may not accurately represent consumers’ actual broadband speed. Id. at 8083–85, App. F paras. 16–19. As explained above, First Measuring Broadband America Report, among other things, established for the first time that the majority of residential wireline broadband consumers are receiving performance close to the level advertised by their providers. See infra Section IV.F.2; FIRST MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA REPORT at 4. 131 47 U.S.C. § 1302(d)(1). 132 See 2010 OBI BROADBAND PERFORMANCE at 9 (listing types of online content and services and the broadband data rates required by that content or service); OFFICE OF ENGINEERING AND TECH. & CONSUMER AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS BUREAU, FCC, BROADBAND SPEED GUIDE (2011), available at http://www.fcc.gov/guides/broadband-speed-guide; see also FIRST MEASURING BROADBAND IN AMERICA REPORT at 6–7. 133 See infra Section IV.B; 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8019, para. 15 (stating that “[w]e continue to believe that the benefits of having a consistent yardstick to gauge progress in the broadband market outweigh any benefits that might be achieved by revising the threshold this year”); 2010 Sixth Broadband Progress Report, 25 FCC Rcd at 9565, para. 13 (adding that “[o]ur present goal in selecting a benchmark to measure broadband availability is one shared with prior Commissions: to ‘giv[e] us a relatively static point at which to gauge the progress and growth in the advanced services market from one Report to the next’”). For the reasons above, we decline to adopt any of the recommendations in the record to modify the broadband benchmark at this time. See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 24 (benchmark should be decreased from 4 Mbps/1 Mbps to 3 Mbps/768 kbps to reflect the fact that consumers are able to access the services they currently demand with less bandwidth); CTIA Comments at 18 (recommending that the Commission revise its definition of broadband to account for mobility); FTTH Council Comments at 5–6, 7–9 (suggesting that the Commission should adopt a “tiered-approach,” Minimum: 384 kbps/1.5 kbps, Average: 12 Mbps/2.5 Mbps, Maximum: 101 Mbps/20 Mbps, with 100 Mbps/50 Mbps to 100 Million Homes by 2020; measure peak hours as an appropriate measure of consumer demand; and consider the increase in cloud computing); NATOA Comments at 3 (urging the Commission to adopt a symmetric 10 Mbps at peak times). 134 OFFICE OF ENGINEERING AND TECH. & CONSUMER AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS BUREAU, FCC, HOUSEHOLD BROADBAND GUIDE (2011), available at http://www.fcc.gov/guides/household-broadband-guide; see also FTTH Council Comments at 8 (stating that the majority of families that have home wireless networks are now using them for multiple uses with multiple devices and more than 70 percent are doing so five to seven days a week). 135 See 2010 NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 135; see also 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8019, para. 15 n.86 (citing 2010 NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 135); 2010 Sixth Broadband Progress Report, 25 FCC Rcd at 9566, para. 15 n.64 (same). 136 See 2010 NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 135. 137 For instance, consumers are also beginning to want broadband to be “[a]lways on, always available—just like your electricity or water supplies—broadband is ready, steady, communication power.” See EBS, WHITEPAPER: THE BUSINESS BENEFITS OF BROADBAND 2, available at www.e-b- s.co.uk/_EBS2/File/TheBusinessBenefitsOfBroadband.pdf. There is evidence that consumers want to both access the Internet at home, as well as on the go. See John Horrigan, Broadband Adoption and Use in America 24 (OBI (continued….) Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 21 21. As discussed, the 2010 National Broadband Plan also recommended that the Commission set a goal of 100 million U.S. homes having affordable access to actual download speeds of at least 100 Mbps and actual upload speeds of at least 50 Mbps by 2020, to create the world’s most attractive market for broadband applications, devices, and infrastructure.138 In this report, we provide additional data about the availability of broadband at high speeds. In the Inquiry, we propose that the Commission identify multiple speed tiers in future reports to assess the country’s progress for our universalization goal, as well as additional goals—such as affordable access to 100 Mbps/50 Mbps to 100 million homes by 2020—to ensure that we remain forward thinking and are prepared to satisfy future needs as well as immediate demands. 22. In the USF/ICC Transformation Order, the Commission also considered latency and capacity as core characteristics that affect what consumers can do with their broadband service.139 Based on these characteristics, the Commission adopted minimum service standards for broadband networks on speed, latency, and capacity because they “reflect technical capabilities and user needs that are expected at this time to be suitable for today and the next few years.”140 The Commission required, as a condition of receiving federal high-cost universal service support, that all ETCs must provide “actual download and upload speeds, latency, and usage limits (if any) [that are] reasonably comparable to the typical speeds, latency, and usage limits (if any) of comparable broadband services in urban areas.”141 23. Latency is a measure of the time it takes for a packet of data to travel from one point to another in a network and often is measured by round-trip time in milliseconds. For example, real-time VoIP services can be supported with speeds as low as 100 kbps, but require low latency for users to converse normally.142 High-quality video, by contrast, can be delivered satisfactorily with somewhat higher latencies, but requires higher bandwidth. In the USF/ICC Transformation Order, the Commission found that “latency affects a consumer’s ability to use real-time applications, including interactive voice or video communication, over the network.”143 Based on this finding, the Commission required ETCs “to offer sufficiently low latency to enable use of real-time applications, such as VoIP” indicating that latency of less than 100 milliseconds would likely be sufficient.144 24. Capacity is the total volume of data sent and/or received by the end user over a period of time. It is often measured in gigabytes (GB) per month. The Commission also adopted specific minimum standards with respect to capacity. In the USF/ICC Transformation Order, the Commission noted that “a usage limit significantly below” many of the highest monthly data tiers currently offered by broadband providers (e.g., a 10 GB monthly data limit) would not be reasonably comparable to residential terrestrial fixed broadband in urban areas.145 25. As discussed in more detail below, the Commission’s decision to identify latency and (Continued from previous page) Working Paper No. 1, 2010) (Horrigan, Broadband Adoption and Use in America), available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296442A1.pdf. 138 See supra Section I; 2010 NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 9. 139 See USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 17696–702, paras. 90–104. 140 Id. at 17703, para. 106. 141 Id. at 17696, para. 91. 142 Id. at 17698, para. 96. 143 Id. 144 Id. 145 Id. at 17703, paras. 99–100. The Commission also noted that “250 GB appears to be reasonably comparable to major current urban broadband offerings.” Id. at 17698, para. 96. Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 22 capacity as core components of broadband service and to propose adopting specific minimum service standards for fixed-terrestrial broadband informs our treatment of mobile and satellite broadband services in this report. Because we did not seek comment on these issues in our last Broadband Progress Notice of Inquiry, however, we do not set specific latency or capacity minimums as part of our broadband benchmark at this time. In the next Inquiry, we will ask whether we should set such standards, and if so, how these benchmarks relate to our treatment of mobile and satellite service.146 IV. STATUS OF BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT AND AVAILABILITY 26. This section sets forth the results of our inquiry into the deployment and availability of broadband to all Americans. In section IV.A, we address the scope of our inquiry, as mandated by Congress. In section IV.B, we discuss the data used in this report to assess deployment and adoption. In section IV.C, we analyze SBI Data to identify regions that currently are not served by broadband and provide a demographic analysis of those unserved areas.147 In section IV.D, we discuss broadband adoption. In section IV.E, we discuss international broadband service capability. In section IV.F, we discuss availability to all Americans including home adoption rates and data regarding broadband at elementary and secondary schools. In section IV.G, we analyze the data and conclude that broadband is not yet “being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.”148 A. Broadband “Deployment” and “Availability” Are Broader Than Physical Deployment 27. As the Commission concluded in the 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, Congress intended the annual section 706(b) inquiries to be broader than a narrow examination of physical network deployment.149 We find no reason to depart from this conclusion and continue to interpret section 706 in the same manner for purposes of this report. Congress did not define the terms “deployment” and “availability” as used in section 706(b), but required the Commission to assess the availability of broadband, and then directed that specific findings be made regarding deployment.150 As explained in the last report, the legislative history further supports the view that Congress expects us to examine more than physical availability.151 Accordingly, our inquiry includes an assessment of a variety of factors indicative of broadband availability, such as broadband cost, quality, and adoption by consumers.152 B. Technologies and Data Sources Included 28. We base our assessment of broadband deployment upon the most comprehensive and geographically granular deployment data publicly available—the SBI Data—using the data collected as of 146 See generally 47 U.S.C. § 1302; see also infra Section IV.B. 147 47 U.S.C. § 1302(c). 148 Id. § 1302(b). 149 Id.; 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8020–21, paras. 18–20. 150 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8020–21, para. 18. 151 See id. at 8021, para. 19 (“The legislative history of section 706 further supports the view that Congress expects us to examine more than physical availability. The Senate Report explains that the Commission ‘shall include an assessment . . . of the availability, at reasonable cost, of equipment needed to deliver advanced broadband capability.’ The Senate Report also states that the goal of section 706 is ‘to promote and encourage advanced telecommunications networks, capable of enabling users to originate and receive affordable, high-quality voice, data, image, graphics, and video telecommunications services.’ Broadband service that is not, for example, of a quality sufficient to enable high-quality voice, data, image, graphics, and video telecommunications services does not satisfy these goals. This history closely accords with the goals of the BDIA, which recently amended section 706, and emphasizes Congress’s interest in the cost, quality and adoption of broadband.”) (citations omitted). 152 Id. at 8020–21, paras. 18–19. Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 23 June 30, 2011.153 The SBI Data are collected semi-annually through state-led efforts and maintained by NTIA for the National Broadband Map, in collaboration with the Commission. The Commission relied on the June 30, 2010 collection of these data in making its finding regarding broadband deployment in the previous broadband report.154 These data are generally collected by census block and contain information about each broadband provider’s advertised ability to deliver broadband services of a particular technology type and speed.155 Below, we highlight key aspects of our analysis of SBI Data for purposes of this report. 29. First, as in the previous two reports, we continue to assess broadband deployment using a speed tier that approximates the 4 Mbps/1 Mbps speed benchmark.156 The SBI Data are collected by pre- determined speed tiers, none of which are 4 Mbps/1 Mbps. The SBI established nine tiers of advertised download speeds and 11 tiers of advertised upload speeds, for 99 possible combinations.157 Of the 99 speed tier combinations collected in the SBI Data, the closest tier to our speed benchmark lies at 3 Mbps download and 768 kbps upload speeds (3 Mbps/768 kbps). Consistent with the last report, we use the 3 Mbps/768 kbps tier as a proxy for the 4 Mbps/1 Mbps speed benchmark in making our statutory assessment of deployment.158 30. Second, in this report, we now rely solely on the SBI Data to determine fixed broadband deployment.159 Prior to the collection of the SBI Data, the Commission estimated broadband deployment by drawing inferences from the residential broadband subscribership data the Commission collects on Form 477. In the 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, the Commission relied on SBI Data to determine broadband deployment levels for the report’s finding, but also presented an estimate of broadband deployment based on Form 477 Data “to provide continuity with previous broadband reports, and for additional confirmation of our assessment of broadband deployment.”160 Using Form 477 Data to estimate broadband deployment was necessary in the absence of better data. However, the Commission has always recognized that Form 477 subscribership data are a problematic indicator of physical network deployment.161 For example, the presence of some broadband subscribers in a census tract or county does not necessarily imply that a broadband network has been deployed extensively throughout that area.162 153 See infra Sections IV.D, IV.F. 154 See 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8022, para. 21. 155 See NTIA State Mapping NOFA, 74 Fed. Reg. at 32557. 156 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8023, para. 25. 157 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 Nos. 11-10, 07-38, 08-190, 10-132, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 26 FCC Rcd 1508, 1532, para. 60 (2011) (Modernizing Form 477 NPRM). 158 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8023, para. 25. 159 We also rely on SBI Data in combination with Form 477 Data to estimate broadband adoption. See infra Section IV.D. 160 See 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8024, para. 28. 161 Id.; Modernizing Form 477 NPRM, 26 FCC Rcd at 1522, para. 33; 2010 Sixth Broadband Progress Report, 25 FCC Rcd at 9569–70, para. 21. 162 The estimates of the number of unserved relying on Form 477 Data vary significantly based on two assumptions used in the analysis: the size of the geographical unit, and the threshold the Commission relies upon to estimate whether broadband has been deployed in that geographic area. See, e.g., 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8026, para. 31 tbl. 1 (showing that Form 477 analysis based on counties and a 1 percent “de minimis (continued….) Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 24 Because improved SBI broadband deployment data are available, we no longer find it necessary to use the Form 477 subscribership data to estimate broadband deployment. NTIA has now collected several rounds of SBI Data,163 and we have growing confidence in the fixed deployment estimates based on these data.164 In this report, we therefore limit our use of the Form 477 subscribership data to analyze broadband adoption. 31. Third, we again base our deployment finding on SBI Data for all fixed terrestrial broadband technologies, including fiber to the home, xDSL, cable modem, and fixed wireless.165 32. Fourth, we include in this report significantly more data on mobile services in light of the recent growth in the coverage of higher-speed mobile networks and given the Commission’s finding in the USF/Transformation Order that mobile should be an independent universal service goal.166 33. The growth of mobile deployment and demand for these services in recent years is significant. Today, Americans increasingly are using their smartphones and other mobile devices everywhere they go—at home, work, and travel—in addition to their home broadband connection. Americans are also able to purchase mobile plans that offer much higher speeds than in the past, and many forecast that the demand for mobile broadband services will only continue to increase. According to one commenter, consumers are choosing mobile broadband at a much faster rate than any other technology, and it is outpacing fixed broadband adoption.167 Another commenter indicates that “[i]ndustry analysts anticipate the U.S. wireless industry as a whole will invest between $23 billion to $53 billion in 4G network deployment between 2012 and 2016.”168 Other evidence suggests that many consumers who subscribe to fixed services concurrently subscribe to mobile data services, reflecting mobile’s additional utility to Americans today.169 Moreover, one report estimates that approximately 46% of American adults owned a smartphone as of February 2012,170 and a prior survey showed that 87% of smartphone owners used the Internet or e-mail on their smartphone as of May 2011.171 (Continued from previous page) threshold” result in an estimate of 12.2 million unserved Americans but an analysis based on census tracts and a 5 percent de minimis threshold result in an estimate of 51.0 million unserved Americans). Additionally, it is possible that one or more broadband networks could be deployed throughout a geographic area even if no one subscribes to broadband. In those instances, our Form 477 analysis would not capture this deployment in its estimate. 163 Since 2009, when NTIA began the collection of broadband data, NTIA has required the carriers to update the data twice a year, over a five-year period, which NTIA and the Commission will use to update the National Broadband Map. In this report, we base our estimate on SBI Data as of June 30, 2011 data, which is the third collection to date. See NTIA State Mapping NOFA, 74 Fed. Reg. at 32545. 164 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8023, para. 24 (stating that “it is the first time [SBI Data] have been collected, and the initial round of data has some significant limitations” but explaining “as the [SBI Data] improve, so will our deployment estimates.”). 165 See infra App. B. 166 USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 17667, para. 1. 167 CTIA Comments at 9–10 (citing INDUSTRY ANALYSIS AND TECHNOLOGY DIVISION, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, INTERNET ACCESS SERVICES: STATUS AS OF JUNE 30, 2010 at 1 (Mar. 2011)). 168 TIA Comments at 5. 169 See Horrigan, Broadband Adoption and Use in America at 24 (finding that mobile broadband is a supplementary service for broadband users). 170 2012 PEW SMARTPHONE SURVEY at 2; NIELSENWIRE SMARTPHONE OWNERS (finding that over 50% of mobile subscribers have a smartphone). 171 See AARON SMITH, PEW INTERNET, 35% OF AMERICAN ADULTS OWN A SMARTPHONE at 3 (2011), available at http://pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2011/PIP_Smartphones.pdf. Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 25 34. Our increased discussion of mobile deployment in this report also reflects the Commission’s recent finding in the USF/Transformation Order that mobile should be an independent universal service goal.172 Recognizing the growing impact of and demand for mobile services, the Commission’s policy goal in the USF/ICC Transformation Order was to ensure Americans have access to both fixed and mobile broadband services. The Commission stated that it sought to “ensure that robust, affordable voice and broadband service, both fixed and mobile, are available to Americans throughout the nation.”173 35. Despite our increased reporting on mobile broadband deployment and availability, we do not include the mobile data in our statutory finding in this report for two reasons. First, as detailed below, we have concerns that the available data sources for measuring mobile broadband may overstate deployment to a significant degree. Second, as noted above, in the USF/ICC Transformation Order, the Commission considered latency and capacity as core characteristics that affect what consumers can do with their broadband service.174 The Commission identified potential standards on latency and usage capacity with respect to fixed broadband services, but did not do so for mobile services, and the latency and capacity of many mobile broadband services may not be comparable to those of fixed broadband services.175 In any event, even if we included all LTE, WiMax, and HSPA+ service reported by Mosaik as meeting our broadband speed threshold, the number of unserved Americans would remain high (more than 14 million people), and we would likely reach the same 706 finding.176 36. Concerns about the Available Data Regarding Mobile Broadband Deployment. Our report includes two sources of mobile data—SBI Data and Mosaik Solutions (Mosaik Data).177 Although these data provide a useful tool for measuring developments in mobile broadband deployment, we have concerns that they overstate the extent of mobile broadband coverage meeting our speed benchmark. 37. With respect to the SBI Data on mobile deployment, we have concerns that providers are reporting services as meeting the broadband speed benchmark when they likely do not. We identified in our previous broadband report concerns that SBI Data overstate deployment.178 That report was based on SBI Data reflecting network status as of June 30, 2010, a time when most mobile broadband services relied on CDMA EV-DO/EV-DO Rev A or WCDMA/HSPA technologies. We noted that SBI Data indicated relatively widespread deployment of technologies meeting the 3 Mbps/768 kbps speed benchmark, but emphasized that “although mobile networks deployed as of June 30, 2010 may be capable of delivering peak speeds of 3 Mbps/768 kbps or more in some circumstances, the conditions under which 172 USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 17667, para. 1. 173 Id. 174 See supra Section III. 175 We thus do not “ignore” or “neglect” the true progress that is being made in deploying wireless services, as our dissenting colleague suggests. See infra Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Ajit Pai (Pai Statement). To the contrary, this report includes more data on mobile broadband deployment than any prior report. Rather, we note that the nature of the available data, and concerns about data caps and latency characteristics of these services limits our ability to make concrete findings about mobile deployment at this time or, as the dissent suggests, to simply treat mobile services as substitutes for fixed services in all areas where they may be deployed, contrary to our USF/ICC Transformation Order. 176 See infra tbl. 15. For this purpose, we rely on SBI and Mosaik Data as our best estimate given the limitations of both datasets. 177 Mosaik was formerly known as “American Roamer.” See MOSAIK SOLUTIONS (FORMERLY AMERICAN ROAMER), http://www.mosaik.com/. 178 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8023, para. 26. Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 26 these peak speeds could actually occur are relatively rare.”179 In other words, these technologies do not reliably deliver speeds that meet our proxy for the speed benchmark, despite how they were reported in some portions of the SBI Data, raising concerns that including these data would overstate the deployment of broadband meeting the speed benchmark. We therefore excluded SBI mobile wireless data from our deployment estimate in the prior report.180 38. This report relies on SBI Data reflecting network status as of June 30, 2011. This data set includes the older CDMA EV-DO/EV-DO Rev A and WCDMA/HSPA technologies as before, and the more recently-deployed, higher-speed LTE, mobile WiMAX, and HSPA+ technologies. While these newer technologies are more likely to deliver speeds that meet our speed benchmark, the SBI Data do not allow us to distinguish the areas covered by the older technologies within the coverage by mobile wireless data networks reported at 3 Mbps/768 kbps or more, again raising concerns that including the SBI Data on mobile wireless would overstate the deployment of broadband meeting the speed benchmark. In this report, therefore, we continue to exclude SBI mobile wireless data from our deployment finding. 39. This report for the first time examines an additional data source on mobile broadband deployment, the Mosaik Data. The Mosaik Data provide the Commission with a set of maps of the boundaries of the network coverage areas, by technology, of every operational, facilities-based, terrestrial mobile wireless provider in the United States and its territories.181 Using these maps and population data from the Census Bureau, we can estimate the percentage of the U.S. population covered by (1) a certain number of providers, (2) different types of network technologies, and (3) the mobile broadband networks of individual service providers.182 40. We have questions, however, on how we should interpret the Mosaik Data to estimate mobile broadband deployment. While the Mosaik Data distinguish coverage by particular mobile wireless network technologies, including LTE, WiMAX, and HSPA+, these technologies may not meet the benchmark depending on the version of the technology deployed, the configuration of the network, the amount of spectrum used, and the type of backhaul connection to the cell site. This is particularly true of certain HSPA+ deployments.183 Additionally, in the 2012 State of Mobile Public Notice, the Commission noted that the Mosaik Data likely overstates the coverage actually experienced by consumers.184 While many mobile wireless service providers report coverage to Mosaik, each uses a 179 Id. 180 Id. 181 Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks Comment on the State of Mobile Wireless Competition, WT Docket No. 11-186, Public Notice, 26 FCC Rcd 15595, 15597 (2012) (2012 State of Mobile Public Notice), available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1856A1_Rcd.pdf. 182 Id. 183 There are different versions of HSPA+ with varying peak data speeds—including HSPA+ (14.4 Mbps), HSPA+ (21 Mbps), and HSPA+ (42 Mbps)—which are not distinguishable in the Mosaik HSPA+ coverage maps. See Fifteenth Mobile Wireless Competition Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 9737, 9739, paras. 110, 114; Sascha Segan, AT&T Defines 4G as HSPA 14.4, PCMAG.COM, May 5, 2011 (PCMagazine HSPA 14.4), available at http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2384959,00.asp; Press Release, T-Mobile, T-Mobile Expands America’s Largest 4G Network and Showcases 4G Experiences at 2012 CES (Jan. 10, 2012), available at http://newsroom.t- mobile.com/articles/t-mobile-expands-network-showcases-4g-at-ces. In addition, at least one major wireless provider reports that its HSPA+ speeds can vary depending on the type of backhaul connection to the cell site. See AT&T, COVERAGE LEGEND TERMS, http://www.wireless.att.com/coverageviewer/popUp_legend.jsp (“AT&T’s 4G HSPA+ network is capable of delivering 4G speeds when combined with enhanced backhaul”); PCMagazine HSPA 14.4. We also note that LTE speeds can vary depending on the amount of spectrum used in each channel. Sascha Segan, Why Is AT&T LTE Fast in Houston, Slow in Chicago?, PCMAG.COM, Sept. 21, 2011, available at http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2393286,00.asp. 184 2012 State of Mobile Public Notice, 26 FCC Rcd at 15597. Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 27 different definition of coverage.185 The Commission also found that the data were not consistent across geographic areas and service providers.186 Thus, as with the SBI Data, relying on Mosaik Data would likely overestimate mobile broadband deployment capable of meeting the speed benchmark. 41. Finally, as in the Commission’s last report, we also exclude satellite from our deployment finding.187 Although the uniformity of satellite reporting has improved in the SBI Data over the past year, as of June 30, 2011, there was not a commercially available satellite offering that could provide 4 Mbps/1 Mbps broadband service to consumers.188 42. We note that, on January 16, 2012, ViaSat—formerly WildBlue—began offering broadband service of 12 Mbps/3 Mbps through its ViaSat-1 satellite.189 HughesNet has announced that it launched its high throughput satellite—ECHOSTAR XVII—on July 6, 2012.190 These developments raise the issue of how satellite services should be included in future Commission reports. As noted above, in the USF/ICC Transformation Order, the Commission focused on latency as one of the core characteristics that affects what consumers can do with their broadband service.191 Satellite service generally has latency over 100 milliseconds192 and latency may affect a user’s ability to “to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications using any technology,” as required by section 706.193 Thus, in the next Inquiry, we will also explore how we can best estimate satellite deployment based upon the Commission’s findings in the USF/ICC Transformation Order. 43. In light of these decisions, in the sections that follow and solely for purposes of this report, we use the term “broadband” to reflect fixed broadband service that meets the speed benchmark, unless otherwise specified. 185 Id. We note that both SBI Data and Mosaik collect advertised speeds from providers. Unlike Mosaik, with the SBI Data collection, broadband providers must provide broadband coverage in the provider’s service area as required by NTIA in the NTIA State Mapping NOFA. See NTIA State Mapping NOFA, 74 Fed. Reg. at 32557. 186 2012 State of Mobile Public Notice, 26 FCC Rcd at 15597. 187 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8023, para. 26 n.112 (excluding satellite due to incomplete SBI Data and evidence that these services were offered below 4 Mbps/1 Mbps). 188 See INDUSTRY ANALYSIS AND TECHNOLOGY DIVISION, FCC, INTERNET ACCESS SERVICES: STATUS AS OF JUNE 30, 2011 at 26 (June 2012) (JUNE 2012 IAS REPORT) (finding that there were zero reported residential subscriptions at 3 Mbps/768 kbps as of June 2011), available at http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0614/DOC-314630A1.pdf. See, e.g., HUGHESNET, PACKAGE DEALS AND OFFERS, http://www.satellitestarinternet.com/hughesnet_plans_pricing.html#available (offering 2 Mbps/300 kbps in its “Fastest” package). 189 See VIASAT, EXEDE, http://www.exede.com/internet-packages-pricing. The 2010 National Broadband Plan also noted that while there is enough capacity for many people to use satellite service, there may not be enough capacity for everyone to do so. Consequently, unlike fixed broadband service, this satellite service will be a first come, first served service. See 2010 NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 137. As noted above, in the next Inquiry, we will explore whether we should consider latency and capacity under section 706 in the next report. See supra Section III. 190 Press Release, Hughes, Hughes Echostar XVII Satellite with Jupiter High Throughput Technology Successfully Launched (July 6, 2012) (reporting the launch of HughesNet’s new high speed satellite), available at http://www.hughes.com/HNS%20Library%20Press%20Release/07-06-12_EchoStar_XVII_Launch.pdf. 191 See USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 17698, para. 96. 192 Greg Berlocher, Minimizing Latency in Satellite Networks, SATELLITE TODAY, at 1–2, Sept. 1, 2009, available at http://www.satellitetoday.com/via/features/Minimizing-Latency-in-Satellite-Networks_31811.html. 193 47 U.S.C. § 1302(d)(1) (defining “advanced telecommunications capability” as a service that enables users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications using any technology). Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 28 C. Broadband Deployment Estimates 44. This section presents our broadband deployment estimates, provides a demographic analysis of the areas without access to broadband, and reports the progress made in deploying broadband since the last report. The Commission has made several improvements to our data analysis since the last report. Here, we identify whether the Americans who lack access to fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark live in rural areas, on federally recognized Tribal lands, or in U.S. Territories.194 We include additional charts and printed maps compared to prior reports and we also make the analysis publicly available in an interactive online map.195 This interactive map shows the census block areas with and without access to fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark, indicates rural and non-rural areas, and identifies Tribal land boundaries and U.S. Territories. This map also includes the demographic analysis indicated in section 706(c) (i.e., the population, average population density, and average per capita income) in pop-up screens for each county. The mouse-over also shows the type and percentage of fixed broadband technology available in each county. Based on our analysis, we find that the broadband deployment gap remains significant as approximately 19 million Americans lack access to fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark and approximately 76 percent of these Americans reside in rural areas. Americans residing on Tribal lands and in U.S. Territories generally have even less access to fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark. We present these results below. 1. Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark 45. Table 1 estimates the number of Americans and households without access to fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark based upon SBI census block data as of June 30, 2011.196 194 This analysis of rural areas is similar to and builds upon the analysis conducted in the Rural Broadband Update. See 2011 RURAL BROADBAND UPDATE. 195 See ONLINE SECTION 706 FIXED BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT MAP, available at http://www.fcc.gov/maps/section- 706-fixed-broadband-deployment-map; see also infra App. I. 196 As explained above, our estimate is based upon fixed broadband services. See supra Section IV.B. Our analysis of the SBI Data estimates the unserved population of each census block by subtracting the population of each served census block from the total population of each census block. See infra Apps. B (providing a complete description of underlying data), C (providing a listing by state of the proportion of the state population without access to fixed broadband); see also infra Apps. D, G. In addition, we have included an interactive online map of the areas without access to the fixed broadband benchmark. See ONLINE SECTION 706 FIXED BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT MAP, available at http://www.fcc.gov/maps/section-706-fixed-broadband-deployment-map; see also infra App. I. We have also included information concerning unserved census blocks on the Commission’s website. See FCC, EIGHTH BROADBAND PROGRESS REPORT, http://www.fcc.gov/reports/eighth-broadband-progress-report. We provide two files that can be downloaded: (1) a zip file, SBI_noaccess_3_768June2011.zip (containing a csv file with data about each census block without access to the fixed broadband benchmark) and (2) a README file. For each census block without access, the csv file includes: (1) the fips code identifying the census block; (2) the American Indian Area Alaska Native Area Hawaiian Home Land Class Code identifying whether the census block is a Tribal land; (3) the Tribe categorization used in this report; (4) a rural dummy variable designating whether the census block is in a rural area; and (5) the population within the census block without access to fixed broadband benchmark. The README file includes instructions on how to examine the file, the names of the variables, and the characteristics of each variable. Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 29 Table 1 Americans and Households Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark All Americans (Millions) Americans Without Access (Millions / %) All American Households (Millions) Households Without Access (Millions / %) 315.9 19.0 / 6.0% 119.2 7.0 / 5.9% 46. As Table 1 indicates, we find that approximately 19 million Americans living in 7 million households lack access to fixed broadband meeting our speed benchmark. This means roughly one out of seventeen Americans—6 percent—still lack access to fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark.197 2. Rural Areas Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark 47. Table 2 identifies the number of Americans residing in rural and non-rural areas that lack access to fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark. We rely on the 2010 Census block rural designations to identify rural and non-rural.198 Table 2 Americans Residing in Rural and Non-Rural Areas Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark All Americans (Millions / %) Americans Without Access (Millions / %) Percentage of Americans Without Access All Americans 315.9 19.0 6.0% Americans in Rural Areas 61.0 / 19.3% 14.5 / 76.2% 23.7% Americans in Non-Rural Areas 254.9 / 80.7% 4.5 / 23.8% 1.8% 48. Approximately 14.5 million of the 19 million (or 76 percent) Americans without access to fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark reside in rural areas. In comparison, 4.5 million of the 19 million (or 24 percent) of Americans living in non-rural areas are without access to these services.199 The percentage of Americans without access in rural areas is 23.7 percent as compared to 1.8 percent in non-rural areas. These figures indicate that nearly one in four rural Americans lack access to fixed broadband meeting our speed benchmark. These data reflect that rural Americans are more than thirteen times more likely to lack access to fixed broadband than Americans in non-rural areas.200 3. Tribal Lands Without Access to Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark 49. Table 3 identifies the number of Americans residing on Tribal lands that lack access to fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark. Our assessment of Tribal lands is conducted by examining the census blocks that have been identified by the U.S. Census Bureau (Census Bureau) as 197 We note that it is possible that the Americans unserved by fixed broadband may have access to mobile and/or satellite broadband. But given our concerns with the mobile and satellite data as discussed above, we are unable to conduct this assessment. See supra Section IV.B. 198 See infra App. B. 199 In this report, the designation of a census block as rural is based upon the 2010 Census. See id. 200 See infra App. C (providing the population residing in rural areas of each state and the proportion of the rural population without access to fixed broadband meeting the benchmark). Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 30 federally recognized Tribal lands for the 2010 Census.201 Table 3 Americans Residing on Tribal Lands Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark All Americans (Millions / %) Americans Without Access (Millions / %) Percentage of Americans Without Access All Americans 315.9 19.0 6.0% Americans Residing on Tribal Lands 3.9 / 1.2% 1.1 / 5.9% 29.0% 50. Approximately 29 percent of Americans residing on Tribal lands are without access to fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark compared to only 6 percent of Americans overall.202 The percentage of unserved Americans living on Tribal lands is approximately five times the national average. 51. Table 4 identifies the number of Americans residing on Tribal lands in rural and non- rural areas that lack access to fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark.203 Table 4 Americans Residing on Tribal Lands Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark All Tribal Lands (Millions / %) Americans Residing on Tribal Lands Without Access (Millions / %) Percentage of Americans Residing on Tribal Lands Without Access All Tribal Lands 3.9 1.1 29.0% Tribal Lands in Rural Areas 2.0 / 50.7% 1.0 / 86.5% 49.5% Tribal Lands in Non-Rural Areas 1.9 / 49.3% 0.2 / 13.5% 7.9% 52. Nearly 50 percent of Americans residing on Tribal lands in rural areas lack access to fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark, compared to only 6 percent of Americans overall.204 The percentage of unserved Americans living on Tribal lands in rural areas is more than eight times the national average. 53. In Table 5 we disaggregate these data for all federally recognized Tribal lands into four groups and identify for each group the number of Americans without access to fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark. For purposes of this report, we disaggregate all federally recognized Tribal groups into the four groupings: (1) Tribal Lands in the Lower 48 States, (2) Alaskan Village Areas, (3) Tribal 201 See infra App. B. 202 Id. (defining Tribal lands), App. E (reporting, by state, the number of Americans residing on Tribal lands without access to the fixed broadband meeting the benchmark). See also ONLINE SECTION 706 FIXED BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT MAP, http://www.fcc.gov/maps/section-706-fixed-broadband-deployment-map. 203 The subcategories for the column “Americans residing on Tribal Lands Without Access” do not sum to 1.1 due to rounding. 204 See infra App. F (reporting the number of Americans residing on Tribal lands by American Indian Area, Alaska Native Area, and Hawaiian Home Land Class Code and disaggregating the Tribal land data between rural and non rural areas). Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 31 Statistical Areas, and (4) Hawaiian Home Lands.205 Table 5 Americans Residing on Tribal Lands Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark (Millions) Americans Residing on Tribal Lands Without Access (Millions) Percentage of Americans Residing on Tribal Lands Without Access All Tribal Lands 3.9 1.1 29.0% Tribal Lands in the Lower 48 States 1.1 0.5 48.2% Alaskan Village Areas 0.2 0.1 39.5% Tribal Statistical Areas 2.5 0.5 20.4% Hawaiian Home Lands 0.0308 0.0001 0.4% 54. Access to fixed broadband can vary significantly among the different groups on Tribal lands.206 More than 48 percent of Americans residing on Tribal Lands in the Lower 48 States lack access to fixed broadband meeting our speed benchmark compared to less than 1 percent of Americans residing on Hawaiian Home Lands. 4. U.S. Territories Without Access to Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark 55. Table 6 identifies the number of Americans residing in U.S. Territories that lack access to fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark.207 Table 6 Americans Residing in the U.S. Territories Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark All Americans (Millions / %) Americans Without Access (Millions / %) Percentage of Americans Without Access All Americans 315.9 19.0 6.0% Americans Residing in the U.S. Territories 4.1 / 1.3% 2.2 / 11.6% 54.0% 56. Approximately 54 percent of Americans residing in U.S. Territories are without access to 205 See infra App. B (defining the Tribal lands categories). The categories we use for purposes of this report fall into one of the categories of the American Indian Area Alaska Native Area Hawaiian Home Land Class Code (AIANHHCC). We aggregate these Tribal lands categories into 4 groups: Tribal Lands in the Lower 48 States (AIANHHCC Areas 1 through 4); Tribal Statistical Areas (AIANHHCC Area 5); Alaskan Village Areas (AIANHHCC Area 6) and Hawaiian Home Lands (AIANHHCC Area 7). We note that the Tribal Statistical Areas are largely in Oklahoma, but they also include areas in California, New York, and Washington. 206 The overarching goal of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act is to establish Hawaiian Home Lands and to provide homesteading opportunities for Native Hawaiians, and to advance related economic development purposes. See Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, ch. 42, 42 Stat. 108 (1921), as amended. 207 The U.S. Territories are American Samoa, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, Puerto Rico, and United States Virgin Islands. See infra Apps. C, D. Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 32 fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark compared to only 6 percent of Americans overall. The percentage of unserved Americans living in U.S. Territories is approximately nine times the national average. 5. Americans Without Access Between June 2010 to June 2011 57. This year’s report relies on SBI Data as of June 30, 2011 and last year’s report relied on SBI Data as of June 30, 2010. Thus, we are able to report the change in unserved Americans from June 2010 to June 30, 2011. Table 7 compares the change in one year for the following three speed categories: 768 kbps/200 kbps; 3 Mbps/768 kbps; and 6 Mbps/1.5 Mbps. Table 7 Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband From June 30, 2010 to June 30, 2011 Amended June 2010208 (Millions) June 2011 (Millions) 768 kbps/200 kbps 16.0 9.6 3 Mbps/768 kbps 26.4 19.0 6 Mbps/1.5 Mbps 62.6 48.3 58. The number of Americans without access to fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark has declined from 26 million in June 30, 2010 to 19 million in June 30, 2011. As we explained in the last report,209 the SBI Data as of June 30, 2010 was the first collection and with any new collection “some misinterpretation of reporting instructions can be expected whenever a new data collection is implemented.”210 While a variety of factors contributed to the decrease in the number of unserved Americans, significant factors likely include: (1) an increase in the number of providers submitting or correcting data about the services they offer;211 (2) providers reporting expanded broadband deployment; and (3) providers reporting higher-speed broadband services (i.e., services above the speed benchmark in areas where they had offered only lower-speed services previously).212 6. Broadband Deployment By Technology 59. Chart 1 reports the percentage of Americans with access to fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark by technology. 208 While the Commission, in the last report, estimated the number of unserved for SBI Data as of June 30, 2010 was 26,160,339, due to an internal calculation error, the estimate should have been 26,393,806 unserved Americans. 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8051. We underestimated the number of unserved Americans in the last report by 231,422 or 0.2 million. The SBI Data as of June 30, 2010 was amended to correct for this error. 209 Id. at 8078, App. F. 210 Id. at 8078, 8082, para. 8, App. F. 211 The total number of new providers submitting data in June 2011 was 540. 212 Determining the precise contribution of each of the three factors would require making assumptions about where in a census block homes are located because the SBI Data as of June 30, 2011 were reported using a different set of geographies (2010 Census) than the SBI Data as of June 30, 2010 (which used 2000 census areas). In addition, there are a number of areas where providers reported smaller footprints that meet the benchmark—areas that moved from “served” to “unserved” between the June 2010 and June 2011 data sets. These reductions presumably corrected prior overstatements of either speed or the footprint. Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 33 Chart 1 Households With Access to the Fixed Broadband Speed Benchmark by Technology 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Fiber Other Copper Fixed Wireless DSL Cable Any Fixed 60. Overall, more than 94 percent of Americans have access to fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark. Cable providers continue to report the largest coverage area (85 percent) followed by DSL providers (79 percent). 7. Section 706 Fixed Broadband Deployment Map 61. In conjunction with this report, for the first time, we have created an interactive online map that shows the census block areas of the United States with and without access to fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark.213 The map also indicates rural and non-rural areas, and identifies the Tribal land boundaries. The map allows visitors to view the demographic analysis indicated in section 706(c) (i.e., population, population density, and per capita income) in “mouse over” pop-up windows for each county. The mouse-over also shows the type and percentage of fixed broadband technology available in each county. We have also attached a printed version of this map in Appendix I.214 8. Demographic Analysis of the Areas Without Access to Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark 62. We provide a demographic analysis of the areas without access to fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark and report, as required by section 706(c), the average population, average population density (pop./sq. mi.) and average per capita income.215 We also provide further analysis by examining these demographics in served and unserved Non-Urban areas and Tribal land areas. We also conduct other demographic analysis of the areas by considering whether there are significant statistical 213 See ONLINE SECTION 706 FIXED BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT MAP, http://www.fcc.gov/maps/section-706-fixed- broadband-deployment-map; see also infra App. I. The SBI Data used to create this map are the same data used to create and update the National Broadband Map. NATIONAL BROADBAND MAP, http://broadbandmap.gov/. We also note that the SBI Data used for the online map is the same data relied upon in the report except the online map is based on population and housing units and the report estimates are based on population and households. See infra App. B. 214 See infra App. I. 215 47 U.S.C. § 1302(c) (directing the Commission to determine the population, the population density, and the average per capita income for unserved areas to the extent that Census Bureau data are available). Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 34 differences in the median household income, proportion of population living in poverty, education level, and racial composition of these areas compared to areas with access to these services. 63. To complete the demographic analysis in this section, we aggregate the SBI Data up to the census tract level. As noted above, the SBI Data is collected by census block, the smallest geographic unit reported by the Census Bureau.216 Household income data as well as other demographic information, however, are not reported at the census block level. Therefore, we conduct our analysis based upon census tract level data. Because areas that lack access to broadband generally are smaller than a census tract, many census tracts are partially served and partially unserved. For purposes of this analysis, a census tract is categorized as “Census Tracts Without Full Access” if any of the census blocks within the census tract are without full access.217 We compare demographic data for census tracts in which some of the residents lack access to fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark to census tracts in which all residents have access to fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark. This approach is conservative because some of the census tracts classified as without access to fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark have only a small area that lacks access to fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark. 64. Instead of reporting demographic results for rural and non-rural as we did above, we report results for Urban and Non-Urban areas.218 The Census Bureau defines Urban and Non-Urban at the census tract level and we must therefore rely on these definitions rather than the rural definition to conduct our demographic analysis. The 2010 Census classifies a census tract as part of the “Urban core” if it is smaller than 3 square miles and has a population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile.219 All other census tracts are “Non-Urban.” 65. We report results for three groups of federally recognized Tribal lands: (1) Tribal Lands in the Lower 48 States, (2) Alaskan Village Areas, and (3) Tribal Statistical Areas.220 We do not separately report information for Hawaiian Home Lands, as we did above, because there are too few observations for the statistical analysis.221 We use the same approach we used last year and designate a census tract as Tribal land if at least 50 percent of the land area within the census tract is Tribal land.222 66. Finally, we conduct hypothesis testing at the 95 percent confidence level to determine if there is a significant difference in the demographics between areas without access to fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark and areas with access to these services. A star (*) indicates that there is a statistically significant difference in the mean for the demographic being examined. a. Demographics Required by Statute of the Unserved Areas (Population, Population Density, and Per Capita Income) 67. Table 8 reports the average population, average population density (pop./sq. mi.), and average per capita income for served and unserved areas.223 216 See infra App. B. 217 See 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8082, para. 9 (using this same analysis). 218 See supra tbl. 2. 219 Department of Commerce, Urban Area Criteria for the 2010 Census, Part II, Docket Number 1107143893-1393- 01, Notice of Final Program Criteria, 76 Fed. Reg. 53030, 53040 (Aug. 24, 2011). 220 See infra App. B. 221 Id. 222 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8038, para. 60. 223 See 47 U.S.C. § 1302(c); see also infra App. B. As part of our section 706(c) inquiry, we must compile a list of geographical areas that are not served by broadband and determine for each unserved area, the average population, average population density (pop./sq. mi.), and average per capita income. Appendix D provides demographic (continued….) Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 35 Table 8 Comparison of Census Tracts Without Full Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark to Census Tracts With Full Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark Areas (Census Tracts) Average Population Average Population Density (pop./sq. mi.) Average Per Capita Income ($2010) Census Tracts Without Access (25,268) 4,427.6* 925.0* $24,519* Census Tracts With Access (47,953) 4,173.9 7,557.3 $28,324 68. Census tracts without access to fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark tend to have statistically significantly higher average population, lower population densities, and lower average per capita incomes than areas with access to these services.224 b. Demographics of Non-Urban Areas 69. Table 9 compares the demographic data for Non-Urban areas with and without access to fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark.225 Table 9 Comparison of Non-Urban Areas With Full Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark to Non-Urban Areas Without Full Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark Non-Urban Areas (Census Tracts) Average Population Average Population Density (pop./sq. mi.) Average Per Capita Income ($2010) Census Tracts Without Access (21,068) 4,479.8* 269.6* $24,517* Census Tracts With Access (10,252) 4,854.8 800.2 $30,583 70. Non-Urban census tracts without access to fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark have a lower average population, population density, and per capita income than Non-Urban areas with access to fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark, and the differences are all statistically significant.226 These results are consistent with our prior findings in the last two reports.227 (Continued from previous page) information for counties with unserved Americans. See infra App. D. The number of observations reported in these tables is determined by the statistical test with the least observations. For example, while population is available for all 74,134 census tracts included in this analysis, per capita income is available only for 73,221 of the 74,134 census tracts. Specifically, per capita income is available only for 47,953 census tracts with full access and 25,268 census tracts without full access. 224 We note that the average population densities shown are the average of the population densities of the census tracts for the category. They are not the “overall population densities” (i.e., the total served population in the category divided by total land area for the category). The overall population density for areas without access is 33.8 people per square mile compared to 995.1 people per square mile for areas with access to fixed broadband meeting the benchmark. We note that our findings with respect to average population may be a result that most of the census tracts without access are in rural areas and tend to be very large. 225 See infra App. B. 226 We find that the “overall population density” is 28.4 people per square mile in non-Urban areas without access to fixed broadband meeting the benchmark compared to 300.5 people per square mile in non-Urban areas with access to these services. See supra note 224 (explaining “overall population density”). 227 See, e.g., 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8023, para. 38. Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 36 c. Demographics of Tribal Lands 71. Table 10 compares the demographic data for Tribal land with and without access to fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark.228 Table 10 Comparison of Tribal Lands Without Full Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark to Tribal Lands With Full Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark Federally Recognized Tribal Lands (Census Tracts) Average Population Average Population Density (pop./sq. mi.) Average Per Capita Income ($2010) Tribal Lands in the Lower 48 States Without Access (216) 3,514.9 118.7* $17,004* Tribal Lands in the Lower 48 States With Access (45) 3,408.6 1,589.9 $26,700 Alaskan Village Areas Without Access (24) 4,584.2 128.8* $27,707 Alaskan Village Areas With Access (10) 3,652.1 708.1 $27,853 Tribal Statistical Areas Without Access (370) 3,830 235.9* $20,653* Tribal Statistical Areas With Access (310) 3,634 2,200.0 $24,175 72. Generally, the three Tribal land categories without access to fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark have lower population density and lower average per capita income than areas with access to these services. We note that some of these findings may not be statistically significant because of a small sample size or because many of the census tracts designated as Tribal lands include non-Tribal land areas. d. Other Demographic Measures (Median Household Income, Poverty Rate, Education, and Race) 73. We consider whether areas with and without access to fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark have statistically significant differences with respect to median household income, poverty rate, the proportion of the population with a college degree, and the proportion of the population that identifies as “White Only.”229 We report this demographic information for: (1) all Americans; (2) Americans residing in Non-Urban areas; and (3) Americans residing on federally recognized Tribal lands. We discuss each category below. The results of this analysis suggests that census tracts without access to fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark are generally Non-Urban and thus tend to be poorer, less educated, and predominantly “White.” (i) All Americans 74. Table 11 compares the demographic data for all Americans with and without access to fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark. 228 See infra App. B. 229 Id. Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 37 Table 11 Comparison of Census Tracts Without Full Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark to Census Tracts With Full Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark All Areas (Census Tracts) Median Household Income ($2010) Percentage of Population Living in Poverty Percentage of College Educated Percentage of Population That Identifies as Non-White Census Tracts Without Access (25,206) $50,382* 14.8* 29.1%* 17.4%* Census Tracts With Access (47,821) $57,633 15.4 37.1% 31.2% 75. Americans without access to fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark tend to have lower median household income, a smaller percentage of the population that live in poverty, a smaller percentage of college-educated population, and a smaller percentage of the population that self identifies as non-White than areas with access to these services.230 These differences are statistically significant. (ii) Americans Residing in Non-Urban Areas 76. Table 12 compares the demographic data for served and unserved Non-Urban areas.231 Table 12 Comparison of Non-Urban Census Tracts Without Full Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark to Non-Urban Census Tracts With Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark Non-Urban Areas (Census Tracts) Median Household Income ($2010) Percentage of Population Living in Poverty Percentage of College Educated Percentage of Population That Identifies as Non-White Census Tracts Without Access (20,998) $50,909* 14.0%* 28.3%* 14.9%* Census Tracts With Access (10,088) $65,700 11.0% 38.2% 18.0% 77. Comparing the results of Tables 11 and 12 reveals that census tracts without access tend to be Non-Urban (i.e., most of the tracts without access to fixed broadband are in non-urban areas). In addition, census tracts without access to fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark have a statistically significant smaller median household income, higher proportion of the population living in poverty, less education, and a smaller proportion of the population that self identifies as non-White than tracts with access to these services. These trends remain even when accounting for urban and non-urban population (i.e., when comparing only non-urban areas without access to non-urban areas with access). (iii) Americans Residing on Federally Recognized Tribal Lands 78. Table 13 compares the demographic data for served and unserved Tribal land areas.232 230 Id. (defining variables). 231 Id. (defining Non-Urban areas). 232 Id. (describing the Tribal land categories). Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 38 Table 13 Comparison of Census Tracts on Tribal Lands That Include Unserved Areas to Census Tracts on Tribal Lands That Include Only Served Areas Federally Recognized Tribal Lands (Census Tracts) Median Household Income ($2010) Percentage of Population Living in Poverty College Educated Percentage Percentage of Population That Identifies as Non-White Tribal Lands in the Lower 48 States Without Access (226) $37,561* 27.4%* 22.1%* 64.4%* Tribal Lands in the Lower 48 States With Access (45) $45,717 19.9% 32.4% 31.8% Alaskan Village Areas Without Access (24) $60,239 10.5% 29.7% 12.2%* Alaskan Village Areas With Access (10) $64,185 9.4% 29.8% 28.0% Tribal Statistical Areas Without Access (369) $42,254* 17.4% 23.6%* 24.9% Tribal Statistical Areas With Access (310) $46,740 16.7% 30.4% 27.0% 79. We find mixed results with respect to the three Tribal land categories. Tribal lands without access to fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark generally have lower Median Household Income and less education then areas with access to these services. For Tribal lands in the Lower 48 States, we find a statistically larger proportion of the population residing in poverty and self-identifying as Non-White in areas without access as compared to the areas with access. We note that some differences are not statistically significant. As noted above, this may be the result of the aggregation process that results in many census tracts including non-Tribal land areas or, in the case of the Alaskan Village Areas, due to a small number of observations. e. Graphical Representation of the Relationship Between Broadband Deployment and Demographic Characteristics 80. To provide a graphical representation of the relationship between fixed broadband deployment and the demographic characteristics that are likely related to deployment, we examine how the deployment rate233 for fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark varies with median household income and population density. We present the results at the county level because summarizing these data at this level is likely to be more understandable and informative then presenting the results at the census tract level. (i) Broadband Deployment Increases with Median Household Incomes 81. As shown in Chart 2, fixed broadband deployment in a county increases significantly with increases in median household income. Chart 2 uses the format of a boxplot (also known as a box- and-whiskers plot). We analyze the deployment rate against the quintile ranking for county level median household income. This chart provides information about how deployment varies by this income 233 The deployment rate is the ratio of population with access to fixed broadband meeting the benchmark to the population in the area examined. See infra App. G (Overall Fixed Broadband Deployment Rates by State) (reporting deployment rates for fixed broadband services of at least 768 kbps/200 kbps, 3 Mbps/768 kbps, and 6 Mbps/1.5 Mbps). Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 39 measure. Each column represents 20% (one fifth) of the counties in the country (i.e., 643 to 644 counties) with the left-most column representing those counties with the lowest median household income, and the right-most column representing counties with the highest median household income. The deployment rate for each group of counties is represented by the box and whiskers. For each quintile: · the shaded box depicts the range from the 25th to 75th percentiles of deployment rates for that group of counties; · the horizontal bar inside each shaded box (that separates each box into two segments) represents the median deployment rate for that group of counties; · the plus sign inside each box represents the average deployment rate for that group of counties; and · the small un-shaded boxes represent individual observations that are unusually small or large.234 82. Summary statistics for the deployment rates associated with each median household quintile are reported in the chart above the boxplot. By way of illustration, we consider the lowest median household quintile in the left-most column and the highest median household quintile in the right- most column. The counties with the lowest median household income (i.e., counties in the lowest quintile or first quintile) have an average deployment rate of 65.3 percent and a group standard deviation of 28.8. The 25th percentile deployment rate for these counties is 51.8 percent and the 75th percentile deployment rate is 88.4 percent. In contrast, the counties with the highest median household income have an average deployment rate of 88.4 percent and a group standard deviation of 19.1. The 25th percentile deployment rate for these counties is 86.0 percent and the 75th percentile deployment rate is 99.3 percent. We find a statistically meaningful difference between the average deployment rates between the lowest and the highest median household income county groups. 234 The interquartile range is the difference between 75th percentile and the 25th percentile. The notch at the end of the top “whisker” is located at 1.5 times the interquartile range above the 75th percentile. The notch at the end of the bottom “whisker” is located at 1.5 times the interquartile range below the 25th percentile. Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 40 (ii) Broadband Deployment Increases with Population Density 83. Our analysis also shows that fixed broadband deployment in a county increases significantly with increases in population density. Chart 3 is a boxplot of deployment rate against the quintile ranking for county level population density. Among other things, this chart illustrates that, the counties with the lowest population density have an average deployment rate of 63.7 percent and a group standard deviation of 29.4. The 25th percentile deployment rate for these counties is 49.0 percent and the 75th percentile deployment rate is 86.3 percent. In contrast, the counties with the highest population density have an average deployment rate of 90.5 percent and group standard deviation of 22.9. The 25th percentile deployment rate for these counties is 95 percent and the 75th percentile deployment rate is 99.7 percent. We find a statistically meaningful difference between the average deployment rates between the lowest and the highest population density county groups. 84. The results of Charts 2 and 3 suggest that, at the county level, there is wide variability in deployment rates across measures of income and population density. These charts also show that variability in deployment rates is greater for lower values of median household income and population density than for higher values of these demographics. This can be seen by the steady increase in the summary statistics (i.e., average, median, percentile), and the steady reduction in the interquartile range (the difference between the 25th and 75th percentile figures) and the group standard deviation, as one compares columns from the left to the right). Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 41 9. Mobile Deployment and Trends 85. The deployment estimates above do not include mobile wireless services. In this section, we provide estimates of mobile wireless broadband deployment between June 30, 2010 and June 30, 2011, and rely on SBI Data and/or Mosaik Data to gain insight into the effect of these different data sources on the estimate of Americans without access.235 We believe it is important to report these estimates given the growth of mobile deployment in recent years and the ability of providers to offer consumers much higher speeds.236 The growing impact and demand for mobile services is significant, and we report estimates of mobile deployment to help ensure a comprehensive picture of what services are available to Americans. 86. SBI Mobile Broadband Trends. Table 14 reports the number of Americans without access to mobile broadband services between June 30, 2010 and June 30, 2011. We compare the change for the three speed categories, at least 768 kbps/200 kbps, at least 3 Mbps/768 kbps and at least 6 Mbps/ 1.5 Mbps. 235 For purposes of the analysis in this section, we refer to the services as mobile broadband. See supra Section IV.B. 236 Id. Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 42 Table 14 Americans Without Access to Mobile Services SBI Data From June 30, 2010 to June 30, 2011 Amended June 2010 (Millions / %) June 2011 (Millions / %) At Least 768 kbps/200 kbps 15.4 / 5.0% 5.1 / 1.6% At Least 3 Mbps/768 kbps 66.4 / 21.4% 19.7 / 6.2% At Least 6 Mbps/1.5 Mbps 232.3 / 74.8% 104.5 / 33.1% 87. Based upon SBI Data, the number of Americans without access to mobile broadband at the 3 Mbps/768 kbps speed declined significantly between June 2010 and June 2011.237 As we explained above, we have concerns that the SBI Data estimates of mobile deployment are likely overstated.238 In the SBI Data, providers do not distinguish between coverage by the previously deployed, slower mobile technologies (CDMA EV-DO/EV-DO Rev A or WCDMA/HSPA) that likely do not meet the speed benchmark and coverage by the more recently deployed, higher-speed technologies (LTE, mobile WiMax, and HSPA+) that are more likely to meet the speed benchmark.239 88. SBI Data and Mosaik Fixed and Mobile Deployment Estimates. We report the deployment estimates for mobile broadband services drawn from SBI and Mosaik Data individually and together. In this report, for the first time, we present results combining both fixed and mobile. In the recent USF/ICC Transformation Order, the Commission indicated that it is working to ensure that Americans have access to both fixed and mobile broadband. The Commission stated that it sought to “ensure that robust, affordable voice and broadband service, both fixed and mobile, are available to Americans throughout the nation.”240 Using both SBI Data and Mosaik Data, we consider whether Americans have access to: (1) a fixed broadband service; (2) a mobile broadband service; (3) a fixed or a mobile service; and (4) a fixed and a mobile broadband service, each meeting the 3 Mbps/768 kbps speed benchmark. 89. The top portion of Table 15 reports estimates of the number of Americans without access, based only upon SBI Data. The remainder of Table 15 reports estimates of the number of Americans without access based upon SBI Data for fixed and Mosaik Data for mobile services.241 We noted above that we have concerns with the SBI Data to estimate mobile deployment.242 We also have concerns that the Mosaik Data estimates may overstate deployment.243 While the Mosaik Data provide an estimate of deployment by technology, including LTE, mobile WiMax, and HSPA+, the speeds delivered by these technologies can vary depending on the version of the technology deployed, the configuration of the network, the amount of spectrum used, and the type of backhaul connection to the cell site.244 Because HSPA+ speeds are particularly dependent on these variables and may or may not meet the speed 237 We use 3 Mbps/768 kbps as our proxy for 4 Mbps/1 Mbps. Id. 238 Id. 239 Id; 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8023, para. 26. 240 USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 17667, para. 1. 241 See supra Section IV.B. We note that because these Mosaik Data provide an estimate of deployment based on the type of technology, we must infer speed by technology. As explained above, various technologies may or may not meet the broadband benchmark. Id. We recognize that this is an imperfect approximation of deployment. 242 Id. 243 Id. 244 Id. Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 43 benchmark, as discussed above,245 our results below first exclude and then include HSPA+. 90. The number of Americans without access varies depending on the data source and methodology used. For example, based upon the SBI Data, we estimate that 19.7 million Americans are unserved by mobile wireless data services at the 3 Mbps/768 kbps speed benchmark. In contrast, the Mosaik Data suggest that the number of Americans unserved by such mobile services at the 3 Mbps/768 kbps speed benchmark ranges from 94 million to over 150 million, depending upon whether the HSPA+ technology is excluded or included in the analysis. In general, because many carriers report that the previously-deployed mobile technologies—including CDMA EV-DO/EV-DO Rev A or WCDMA/HSPA—are capable of meeting the speed benchmark in the SBI Data, our estimates of Americans without access to broadband are greater with the Mosaik Data than with the SBI Data.246 The Mosaik Data excluding HSPA+ may also overstate the number of unserved as compared to the Mosaik Data including HSPA+.247 Finally, the number of unserved Americans increases regardless of the data source when estimating the population without access to both fixed and mobile broadband service. For example, the number of Americans without access to both fixed and mobile broadband service would range from 33.1 million to 151.5 million depending upon the data source used for mobile deployment. 10. Section 706 Mobile Deployment Map 91. We have created an interactive online map, that shows, based on SBI Data, the census block areas of the United States with and without access to mobile services at 768 kbps/200 kbps services 245 Id. 246 Id. 247 Id. Table 15 Americans Without Access to Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark Technology and Data Source Americans Without Access (Millions) Percentage Without Access Number of Americans Without Access (SBI Data) Fixed Broadband (SBI) 19.0 6.0% Mobile Broadband (SBI) 19.7 6.2% Either Fixed or Mobile Broadband (SBI) 5.5 1.7% Both Fixed and Mobile Broadband (SBI) 33.1 10.5% Number of Americans Without Access (SBI Fixed Data and Mosaik Mobile Data) WiMAX and LTE Technologies Mobile Broadband (Mosaik) 150.0 47.6% Either Fixed (SBI) or Mobile (Mosaik) Broadband 17.5 5.5% Both Fixed (SBI) and Mobile (Mosaik) Broadband 151.5 48.0% WiMAX, LTE, and HSPA+ Technologies Mobile Broadband (Mosaik) 94.1 29.8% Either Fixed (SBI) or Mobile (Mosaik) Broadband 14.2 4.5% Both Fixed (SBI) and Mobile (Mosaik) Broadband 98.8 31.3% Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 44 and services meeting the speed benchmark.248 We have also attached a printed version of this map in Appendix J. 11. Next Generation Broadband Services 92. Higher-speed broadband (10 Mbps and above) is increasingly available in many areas of the country. We must keep in mind these developments as we assess the current market and project consumer demand and expectations in the future. For example, cable providers have made much progress on rolling out DOCSIS 3.0, which is capable of 100 Mbps speeds and even higher speeds.249 And, Americans continue to demand and subscribe to higher services.250 We will examine in the next Inquiry whether we should identify multiple speed tiers in these reports to assess the country’s progress toward our universalization goal, as well as additional goals—such as affordable access to 100 Mbps/50 Mbps to 100 million homes by 2020.251 These higher speeds are important as we have seen that greater bandwidth allows for greater utilization of higher data speeds by innovators at the edge of the networks, which in turn drives greater demand and utility of broadband.252 For these reasons, we present the SBI Data as of June 2011 showing how many Americans are served with fixed broadband for downloads speeds of 10 Mbps, 25 Mbps, 50 Mbps, and 100 Mbps.253 Table 16 Americans With Access to High Speed Broadband Services All Areas in the U.S. (Millions / %) 10 Mbps Download 282.1 / 89.3% 25 Mbps Download 201.6 / 63.8% 50 Mbps Download 172.8 / 54.7% 100 Mbps Download 85.0 / 26.9% 93. While the industry is reporting even greater DOCSIS 3.0 deployment capable of 100 Mbps and higher speeds today (approximately 82% of U.S. households), our analysis here is based on June 2011 SBI Data.254 Cable providers may not offer such high-speed services to consumers for technical or other reasons yet and deployment of these networks may not be reflected in the June 2011 SBI Data collection. Nevertheless, we anticipate that as consumers demand these higher speeds, we expect more providers who have deployed DOCSIS 3.0 to offer these next generation services and our 248 See ONLINE SECTION 706 MOBILE DEPLOYMENT MAP, http://www.fcc.gov/maps/section-706-mobile- deployment-map; see also infra App. J. For purposes of the analysis in this section, we refer to the services as mobile broadband. This does not affect our concerns that the older mobile technologies do not meet our benchmark and our decision to exclude mobile wireless services from our deployment estimate. See supra Section IV.B. As explained above, we exclude mobile services in our deployment estimate due to data consistency and because we are unable to validate which mobile services meet the benchmark. Id. 249 NCTA DOCSIS DEPLOYMENT; Comcast Press Release (announcing plans to offer a 305 Mbps/65 Mbps service). 250 SECOND MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA REPORT at 5. 251 See supra Section III. 252 Id. at Section II (discussing Open Internet Order). 253 While we do not report upload speeds here, in the next Inquiry, we will ask parties to identify what multiple speed tiers in future reports we could adopt to ensure that we remain forward thinking and are prepared to satisfy future needs as well as immediate demands. 254 See supra Section I; NCTA DOCSIS DEPLOYMENT. Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 45 deployment estimates of these services to similarly increase in future reports. D. Broadband Adoption 94. New Fixed Adoption Rate Methodology. In this report, for the first time, we calculate fixed broadband adoption rates using both Form 477 data and SBI Data. In the 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, we relied solely upon the Form 477 subscription data to estimate fixed adoption,255 but recognized the limitations of this approach.256 Form 477 Data indicate the number of subscriptions in an area, but not the number of people who have access to service.257 Accordingly, as the Commission stated, “we can only calculate a subscription rate (the number of subscriptions as a fraction of the total number of households) rather than an adoption rate (the number of subscriptions as a fraction of the number of households who have access to broadband).”258 A simple example may be instructive. Imagine an area with 20 homes, in which 10 of the homes have access to broadband, and all 10 subscribe to broadband. The adoption rate in this area would be 100 percent (10 subscriptions in 10 homes that have access). On the other hand, the subscription rate would be 50 percent (10 subscriptions in 20 homes). 95. In this report, we combine the Form 477 Data reported at the census tract level with SBI Data aggregated up to the census tract level, and calculate an adoption rate: the ratio of residential connections to fixed broadband at a specified level of service quality (i.e., speed) (Form 477 Data) divided by the total number of households in the area with access to advertised broadband services of that service quality (SBI Data). We use Form 477 subscription data as a proxy for adoption.259 Our adoption rate should include all household that subscribe to a residential broadband service. However, this does not account for households that use services for free at their local library, community center, or a retail establishment that offers free access to WiFi. 96. We have insufficient information to calculate an adoption rate for mobile services. Our adoption rate is a measure of connections to the service divided by the number of households with access to the service. We believe it is reasonable to assume that households that choose to subscribe to a fixed service are more than likely to have a single fixed broadband connection. In contrast, we cannot assume that households that choose to subscribe to a mobile data service have a single mobile connection. Thus, calculating a mobile adoption rate based upon the Form 477 mobile data would be misleading because the numerator would be a count of mobile handsets to which a data service is subscribed. This would overstate adoption of the service because it would include households with multiple mobile handsets connections. 1. Broadband Adoption Rates Between June 2010 and June 2011 97. Table 17 reports adoption rates for fixed broadband services, including services that meet the speed benchmark, that is, at least 3 Mbps/768 kbps, as well as services with speeds of at least 768 255 See 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8038, para. 58 (stating that 33 percent of American households have a connection advertised as being capable of delivering at least 3 Mbps/768 kbps). 256 See id. at 8027, para. 34 n.133 ( “Form 477 subscription data, as currently collected, are also an imperfect measure of adoption.”); see also id. (adding that “[s]ince these data are collected based on a relatively large geographical unit—the census tract—the difference between those two figures can be significant. In addition, as broadband subscriptions grow to include multiple devices at a single location (e.g., a wired and a mobile wireless connection; or multiple mobile devices in a single home, if analyzing state-level data), the number and rate of subscriptions would not say much about the fraction of households that have adopted a service. One could find subscription rates above 100 percent in an area even if many households in that area have not adopted broadband.”). 257 Id. 258 Id. 259 Our adoption rates measure adoption of services at or above the benchmark. See infra App B. Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 46 kbps/200 kbps and at least 6 Mbps/1.5 Mbps.260 Table 17 Overall Fixed Broadband Adoption Rates for the United States as a Whole Adoption Rate (June 2010) Adoption Rate (June 2011) At Least 768 kbps/200 kbps 62.6% 64.0% At Least 3 Mbps/768 kbps 36.6% 40.4% At Least 6 Mbps/1.5 Mbps 24.0% 27.6% 98. These data suggest increases in the adoption of fixed broadband services at all speed levels between June 2010 and June 2011. The increase is small at the 768 kbps/200 kbps level, but higher at the higher speeds, including a 10%, year over year increase in speeds of at least 3 Mbps/768 kbps.261 2. Broadband Adoption Rates in the U.S. Compared to Adoption Rates in Non- Urban Areas 99. We examine adoption rates for Urban and Non-Urban areas by comparing the adoption rate for Americans in these areas to the adoption rate for the United States as a whole (i.e., total residential subscribers for the group to total served households for the group). Table 18 reports the overall fixed broadband adoption rates in Urban and Non-Urban areas. 260 The figures in Table 17 are for the United States as a whole. We recognize that the adoption rate as of June 2010 overstates the adoption rate because it is based upon 2009 Geolytics household data to estimate served households. The June 2011 adoption rate is based upon 2011 Geolytics household data. We report overall adoption rates for each state. See infra App. H (Overall Fixed Broadband Adoption Rates by State). The adoption rates in Appendix H are calculated for the state as a whole and include services at or above the particular threshold. “At least 768 kbps/200 kbps” captures the number of Americans that subscribe to a fixed service at that speed or higher. 261 We note the Horrigan, Broadband Adoption and Use in America adoption report and NTIA’s Exploring the Digital Nation adoption report provide different adoption estimates of 33 percent and 32 percent, respectively. The Horrigan study estimated that 67 percent of U.S. households contain a broadband user who accesses the service at home. Horrigan, Broadband Adoption and Use in America at 3. NTIA reported that, in 2010, more than two-thirds (68 percent) of all American households utilized broadband Internet access services, up four percentage points (64 percent) from the previous year. ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS ADMINISTRATION & NTIA, EXPLORING THE DIGITAL NATION: COMPUTER AND INTERNET USE AT HOME 1 (2011) (DIGITAL NATION NOV. 2011), available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/exploring_the_digital_nation_computer_and_internet_use_at_home_ 11092011.pdf. We note that these data are from surveys of consumers as compared to our adoption rate, which relies on the Commission’s Form 477 data or carrier-reported subscription data of their broadband services at particular speeds. We note that consumer surveys might be capturing much slower speeds than the Form 477 data because the Form 477 data reports that approximately 67 percent of households subscribe to speeds of 200 kbps or greater. See JUNE 2012 IAS REPORT. This speed benchmark is similar to, for example the Horrigan study (67%) and similar to the NTIA report (68%). Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 47 Table 18 Overall Fixed Broadband Adoption Rates in All Urban and Non-Urban Areas Overall Adoption Rate for Fixed 768 kbps/200 kbps Overall Adoption Rate for Fixed 3 Mbps/768 kbps Overall Adoption Rate for Fixed 6 Mbps/1.5 Mbps All Americans 64.0% 40.4% 27.6% Americans in All Urban Areas 65.0% 43.0% 30.0% Americans in All Non-Urban Areas 62.7% 36.8% 24.0% 100. Our data indicate that the overall adoption rates in Non-Urban areas are lower than the overall adoption rates in Urban areas. 101. Table 19 reports the average adoption rate for fixed broadband services in Urban and Non-Urban areas and reports whether there is a statistically significant difference in the average adoption rates between these areas. Table 19 Average Fixed Broadband Adoption Rates in Urban and Non-Urban Census Tracts (Census Tracts) Average Adoption Rate for Fixed 768 kbps/200 kbps Average Adoption Rate for Fixed 3 Mbps/768 kbps Average Adoption Rate for Fixed 6 Mbps/1.5 Mbps Urban Census Tracts (41,442) 62.4%* 41.2%* 28.4%* Non-Urban Census Tracts (29,575) 59.1% 34.2% 21.4% 102. The data indicate that, on average, the adoption rate for fixed broadband services is significantly greater in Urban areas than Non-Urban areas for fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark. 3. Broadband Adoption Rates in the U.S. Compared to Adoption Rates on Tribal Lands 103. We also compare adoption rates for the United States as a whole to adoption rates on Tribal lands. We examine the following two categories of federally recognized Tribal lands: (1) the Tribal Lands in the Lower 48 States and (2) Tribal Statistical Areas.262 262 See infra App. B. We do not separately report Alaskan Village Areas and Hawaiian Home Lands to maintain firm confidentiality. Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 48 Table 20 Overall Fixed Broadband Adoption Rates on Tribal Lands Overall Adoption Rate for Fixed 768 kbps/200 kbps Overall Adoption Rate for Fixed 3 Mbps/768 kbps Overall Adoption Rate for Fixed 6 Mbps/1.5 Mbps All Areas in the United States 64.0% 40.4% 27.6% All Tribal Land Areas 51.2% 25.9% 19.9% Tribal Lands in the Lower 48 States 47.1% 32.5% 15.2% Tribal Statistical Areas 52.0% 23.6% 20.1% 104. The overall adoption rate for fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark is lower for all Tribal land areas than the adoption rate for the United States as a whole.263 105. Table 21 reports the average adoption rates for fixed broadband services on Tribal lands to non-Tribal lands and reports whether there is a statistically significant difference in the average adoption rates between these areas. Table 21 Average Fixed Broadband Adoption Rates on Tribal and Non-Tribal Lands (Census Tracts) Average Adoption Rate for Fixed 768 kbps/200 kbps Average Adoption Rate for Fixed 3 Mbps/768 kbps Average Adoption Rate for Fixed 6 Mbps/1.5 Mbps Non-Tribal Lands (60,460) 61.2%* 38.4%* 25.9%* Tribal Lands (503) 48.0% 24.8% 16.6% 106. The analysis indicates that, on average, the adoption rates for fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark, as well as other lower speed tiers, are significantly lower on Tribal lands than on non-Tribal lands. 4. Broadband Adoption Rates in the U.S. Compared to Adoption Rates in the U.S. Territories 107. We also compare adoption rates for the United States as a whole to adoption rates in the U.S. Territories.264 263 The figures in this table are only those Tribal lands in which at least 50 percent of the land area of the census tract lies within a Tribal land. We note that our process resulted in only two census tracts being designated as Hawaiian Home Lands, and we cannot determine if the adoption rate is representative of all the other Hawaiian Home Land areas. Id. 264 For the U.S. Territories, we do not report adoption rates for 6 Mbps/1.5 Mbps to maintain firm confidentiality. We do not indicate here whether there is a statistically significant difference in the average adoption rates because there are too few observations in the U.S. Territories. Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 49 Table 22 Overall Fixed Broadband Adoption Rates in the U.S. Territories Overall Adoption Rate for Fixed 768 kbps/200 kbps Overall Adoption Rate for Fixed 3 Mbps/768 kbps All Areas in the United States 64.0% 40.4% All U.S. Territories 32.2% 3.1% 108. The overall adoption rate for fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark is lower in the U.S. Territories than the adoption rate for the United States as a whole. 109. Table 23 reports the average adoption rates for fixed broadband services in the U.S. Territories and the U.S. as a whole. Table 23 Average Fixed Broadband Adoption Rates in the U.S. Territories and the U.S. as a Whole (States) Average Adoption Rate for Fixed 768 kbps/200 kbps Average Adoption Rate for Fixed 3 Mbps/768 kbps All Areas in the United States (56) 60.7% 39.5% All U.S. Territories (5) 35.1% 10.7% 110. The analysis indicates that, on average, the adoption rate for fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark is lower in the U.S. Territories than the U.S. as a whole. 5. Distribution of County Level Broadband Adoption Rates 111. Table 24 summarizes the distribution of the county level adoption rates for fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark. Adoption rates for each county are ordered from lowest to highest and divided into five groups (or quintiles). For example, the first quintile row reports the range of adoption rates for those counties with the lowest adoption rate. For the first quintile, the counties with the lowest adoption rates ranges from 0.0 percent to 5.2 percent. Table 24 Overall Fixed Broadband Adoption Rates Counties Range of Adoption Rates First Quintile—(Counties with the Lowest Adoption Rates or Bottom 20 Percent) 0.0 5.2 Second Quintile 5.2 14.8 Third Quintile 14.8 27.5 Fourth Quintile 27.5 42.9 Fifth Quintile—(Counties with the Highest Adoption Rates or Top 20 Percent) 43.0 100.0 112. The data show that, in general, the county level adoption rate is fairly low for the bottom 60 percent of counties (the first three quintiles) where the adoption rate is less than 28 percent and, that as one moves up from the lowest quintile to the highest quintile, the range of adoption rates increases. For example, the first quintile row reports the range of adoption rates for those counties with the lowest adoption rate. For the first quintile, the adoption rate for fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark or faster speeds ranges is only 5.2 percentage points (0.0–5.2). In contrast, the range of adoption rates for the top quintile (those counties with the highest fixed broadband adoption rates) is 57 percentage points Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 50 (43.0–100.0). a. Graphical Representation of the Relationship Between Adoption Rate and Demographic Characteristics 113. We also examine the relationship between the county level adoption rate for fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark and two demographic variables, the county level median household income and the county level population density. Our analysis shows that the adoption rate in a county increases with both median household income and population density. We present the results at the county level because summarizing the data at this level is likely to be more understandable and informative then presenting the results at the census tract level. (i) Adoption Rate Increases with Median Household Income 114. Chart 4 is a boxplot of the county level adoption rates against the quintile ranking for the county level median household income. Among other things, this chart shows that the counties with the lowest median household income have an average adoption rate for fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark of 16.6 percent and a group standard deviation of 23.5. For the counties in this quintile, the 25th percentile adoption rate is 1.6 percent and the 75th percentile adoption rate is 22.2 percent. In contrast, the counties with the highest median household income have an average adoption rate for fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark of 41.0 percent and a group standard deviation of 23.5. For the counties in this quintile (the counties with the highest median household income), the 25th percentile adoption rate is s 22.6 percent and the 75th percentile adoption rate is 56.1 percent. Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 51 (ii) Adoption Rate for Broadband Increases with Population Density 115. Our analysis shows that the adoption rate in a county increases with population density. Chart 5 plots the county level adoption rate against the quintile ranking for the county level population density. This chart shows that the counties with the lowest population density have an average adoption rate for fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark of 20.1 percent and a group standard deviation of 21.9. The 25th percentile adoption rate for these counties is 2.7 percent and the 75th percentile adoption rate is 31.9 percent. In contrast, the counties with the highest population density have an average adoption rate of 41.3 percent with a group standard deviation of 24.7. For the counties in the top quintile of population densities, the 25th percentile adoption rate is 24.5 percent and the 75th percentile is 56.1 percent. 116. The results of Charts 4 and 5 suggest that, at the county level, there is wide variability in adoption rates across median household income and population density. This can be seen by the increase in the interquartile range (the difference between the adoption rate between the 25th and 75th percentiles) as one examines the table from lowest to highest quintile for either median household income or population density. In addition, the charts illustrate that the variability in adoption rates generally increases with increases in the county median household income and county population density. Finally, we find that the average adoption rate for those counties with the highest rank order median household income group (or population density) is greater than the average adoption rate for those counties in the lowest rank median household income group (or population density). Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 52 E. International Broadband Service Capability 117. Section 1303(b) 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 speed benchmarks for broadband service utilized by the Commission to reflect different speed tiers.”265 As was the case with prior reports,266 we are incorporating by reference a report from our International Bureau.267 118. The 2012 International Broadband Data Report released today found that in 2011, U.S. investment in wired and wireless network infrastructure rose 24% with current trends showing that “providers are offering higher speeds, more data under their usage limits, and more advanced technology in both fixed and mobile broadband.”268 The International Bureau recognized that OECD data ranks the United States first out of 28 countries in cable modem coverage and Americans “have been quick to adopt 4G LTE technology, securing the United States’ position as the world leader in LTE adoption.”269 The 2012 International Broadband Data Report also found, based on OECD data, the United States ranks 7th (compared to 9th at the time of the previous report) for wireless (mobile) broadband penetration on a per capita basis, and ranks 15th (similar to Japan, Finland, and Canada) for wired (e.g., DSL or cable) broadband penetration on a per capita basis.270 U.S. wired broadband adoption continues to lag behind such countries as South Korea, the United Kingdom, and Germany, but exceeds adoption rates in Israel, Australia, and the European Union average.271 With respect to speeds, our review of data on average actual download speeds reported by a sample of consumers from 38 countries (including the United States and Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China), finds that the United States ranks 24th in average actual speeds purchased and experienced by consumers.272 The United States ranks 17th when based on a stratified sampling technique using weighted average actual download speed.273 For the first time, the International Bureau took a close look at the broadband prices for both fixed and mobile service plans around the world, including detailed price information for mobile broadband plans, broken down by technology (e.g., smartphones, stick modems, and tablets) and found that U.S. prices for standalone fixed broadband are in the mid-level range in our 38 country survey, but are higher in higher speed tiers.274 The International Bureau also found the prices per GB of data for fixed broadband plans with usage limits and for smartphone data plans with usage limits are on the lower 265 47 U.S.C. § 1303(b). 266 See 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8039, para. 62; International Comparison Requirements Pursuant to the Broadband Data Improvement Act; International Broadband Data Report, IB Docket No. 10-171, Second Report, 26 FCC Rcd 7378, 7395, para. 52 (2011) (2011 International Broadband Data Report), available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-732A1_Rcd.pdf; 2010 Sixth Broadband Progress Report, 25 FCC Rcd at 9573, para. 27; International Comparison Requirements Pursuant to the Broadband Data Improvement Act International Broadband Data Report, GN Docket No. 09-47, First Report, 25 FCC Rcd 11963, 11963, para. 1 (2010). 267 The 2012 International Broadband Data Report explains that the report satisfies the Commission’s obligations under the BDIA. See 2012 International Broadband Data Report para. 39. 268 Id. para. 2. 269 Id. paras. 2–3. 270 Id. para. 7. 271 Id. 272 Id. para. 8. 273 Id. 274 Id. para. 9. Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 53 end of the countries we surveyed.275 This international analysis serves as useful benchmark for assessing our progress in comparison to other nations. F. Other Indicators of Availability to All Americans 119. In addition to the considerations discussed above, our inquiry assesses broadband availability by examining factors such as broadband cost, quality, and adoption.276 While we have access to what providers advertise for the price of broadband services on their websites, we do not currently have data sufficient to analyze the prices that consumers in fact pay for broadband, and we are unaware of any adequate third-party sources that capture this.277 We base our analysis on our adoption rates noted above278 and, for service quality, on the recent First Measuring Broadband America Report that presents the results of the Commission’s nationwide study of fixed broadband performance (DSL, cable, and fiber- to-the-home) and the Commission’s Second Measuring Broadband America Report that provides an update on the First Measuring Broadband America Report.279 1. Home Broadband Adoption 120. Fixed Adoption Rates. In this ever changing global digital economy, access to broadband has become essential. Americans are now able to use broadband for virtually every aspect of their life, from communicating with family and friends to obtaining important information about health care and government services. We find that many services today are increasingly only offered online.280 Our assessment of adoption rates also gives us reason to be concerned that broadband may not be available to all Americans. Even though broadband is becoming a necessity of modern life, and the benefits of broadband are immense and growing rapidly, only 64 percent of American households adopt service 275 Id. 276 See supra Section IV.D. 277 In February 2011, the Commission adopted an NPRM to reform the Commission’s data collection regarding broadband and local telephone service after more than a decade of rapid innovation in the marketplace for these services and is contemplating collecting pricing information on broadband services. Modernizing Form 477 NPRM, 26 FCC Rcd 1508. We also note that last year in the 2011 International Broadband Data Report, the International Bureau collected broadband prices for both fixed and mobile service plans but in this year’s 2012 International Broadband Data Report, the International Bureau presents a summary and analysis of fixed and mobile broadband prices from the United States and other countries. See 2011 International Broadband Data Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 7381, para. 7; 2012 International Broadband Data Report paras. 9, 29–37, Apps. B, C. The 2012 International Broadband Data Report, however, evaluates advertised prices rather than prices that consumers actually pay. 278 See supra Section IV.D. 279 See generally FIRST MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA REPORT; SECOND MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA REPORT. 280 Some banks are “online only.” See, e.g., ING DIRECT OVERVIEW, http://home.ingdirect.com/about-us (providing banking throughout the United States and instead of having branches, has eight “cafes” in eight different cities in the United States). Some encyclopedias are online only. See Joab Jackson, Encyclopedia Britannica Goes Online Only, COMPUTERWORLD (Mar. 26, 2012), available at http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9225506/Encyclopaedia_Britannica_Now_Online_Only; see, e.g., WIKIPEDIA: ABOUT, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About. Online educational opportunities are increasing. See, e.g., Press Release, MIT, MIT Launches Online Learning Initiative (Dec. 19, 2011), available at http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/mitx-education-initiative-1219.html. And those without a home Internet connection are at a disadvantage when applying for jobs. See WALMART, WELCOME TO THE HIRING CENTER, https://hiringcenter.walmartstores.com/OnlineHiringCenter/initialPage.jsp (requiring a 30–60 minute online application that can be saved and returned to later). Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 54 faster than 768 kbps/200 kbps.281 Significantly fewer American households—only 40 percent—adopt fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark.282 The broadband adoption rates for American households are lower, on average, in the counties with the lowest median household income, in areas outside of urban areas, on Tribal lands, and in U.S. Territories.283 121. NTIA’s Broadband Adoption Analysis. An NTIA study of broadband adoption supports our finding of an adoption gap.284 On October 10, 2011, NTIA published Exploring the Digital Nation, which presents the results of a broadband adoption survey of 54,300 households.285 For purposes of this study, NTIA defined broadband as Internet access services faster than dial-up, which includes a number of services that fall below our speed benchmark.286 NTIA reports that, as of October 2010, more than 68 percent of households used broadband Internet access service, up from 64 percent one year earlier.287 NTIA also found that “[a]pproximately 80 percent of households had at least one Internet user, either at home or elsewhere.”288 122. NTIA also reports that demographic and geographic disparities demonstrate a persistent digital divide among certain groups.289 For example, broadband adoption at home by rural, low-income, and minorities lagged significantly behind other groups of Americans.290 NTIA stated that “households with lower incomes and less education, as well as Blacks, Hispanics, people with disabilities, and rural residents were less likely to have home Internet access service.”291 The results also showed that Asian households displayed the highest rates of broadband adoption (81 percent), followed by White (72 percent), Hispanic (57 percent), and Black (55 percent) households.292 NTIA noted that Asian households on average were more likely to have broadband Internet access services than White households.293 Further, households without computers comprised the vast majority of non-adopters of home broadband Internet access services.294 Income was positively correlated with broadband service subscriptions: the 281 See supra tbl. 17. While we find low broadband adoption rates, the Second Measuring Broadband America Report found that, on average, customers subscribed to faster speed tiers in 2012 than in 2011. SECOND MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA REPORT at 5. 282 See supra tbl. 17. 283 See supra Chart 5, tbls. 19, 21, 23. 284 DIGITAL NATION NOV. 2011 at 5. 285 NTIA used the terms “adoption,” “use,” “utilization,” “access,” and “connection” interchangeably to indicate that a household reported having Internet access service. Id. at v n.1; see also supra Section IV.D.1. 286 DIGITAL NATION NOV. 2011 at 5 n.6 (“[a] household with at least one of the following high-speed, high capacity, two-way Internet services is considered to have broadband: DSL, cable modem, fiber optics, satellite, mobile broadband, or some other non-dial-up Internet connection.”) 287 Id. at v, 5. NTIA adds that a “[a] shrinking share of home Internet users- about three percent of households in 2010- used dial-up to access the Internet, down from five percent in 2009.” Id. at 5. NTIA also found that a small share of households (six percent) utilized mobile broadband services at home in 2010. Id. at 7. 288 Id. 289 Id. at ii. 290 Id. 291 Id. at 11. However, differences in socio-economic attributes do not entirely explain why certain racial and ethnic groups or rural residents lagged in adoption. 292 Id. at 29. 293 Id. 294 Id. at 11. Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 55 higher the income of the household, the more likely it is to subscribe for broadband service.295 2. Measuring Broadband America Reports Found that Residential Wireline Broadband Services Deliver Quality Service and Speeds Reasonably Commensurate with Advertised Offerings 123. We include in our section 706(b) inquiry consideration of the quality of broadband services that are deployed and made available to consumers.296 On August 2, 2011, in the First Measuring Broadband America Report, the Commission released results of the first nationwide study of home residential wireline broadband performance in the United States, using measurement technology deployed in the consumer’s home.297 The results enable consumers to compare the performance of different broadband offerings.298 The Commission examined service offerings from 13 of the largest broadband providers at the time299—which collectively account for approximately 86 percent of all U.S. wireline broadband connections—using automated, direct measurements of broadband performance delivered to the homes of thousands of volunteer broadband subscribers from February through June 2011.300 The Commission focused on three technologies—DSL, cable, and fiber-to-the-home—and broadband performance in three typical speed ranges—less than 3 Mbps, between 3 and 10 Mbps, and greater than 10 Mbps.301 Measurements for satellite and fixed terrestrial wireless technologies were not included in the report due to the low number of samples.302 On July 19, 2012, the Commission released the Second Measuring Broadband America Report that followed the structure of the First Measuring Broadband America Report and conducted the same measurements to provide a useful baseline for comparison.303 In the Second Measuring Broadband America Report, the Commission compares broadband performance between data collected in March 2011 (data used and released in the First 295 Id. at 12 (showing that 93 percent of households with incomes of over $100,000 subscribe to broadband service; whereas, only 43 percent of households that have less than $25,000 subscribe to a broadband service). 296 See 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8021, para. 19 (“Broadband service that is not, for example, of a quality sufficient to enable high-quality voice, data, image, graphics, and video telecommunications services does not satisfy these goals. This history closely accords with the goals of the BDIA, which recently amended section 706, and emphasizes Congress’s interest in the cost, quality and adoption of broadband.” (footnotes omitted)). 297 See FIRST MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA REPORT at 3. 298 See id. at 3. 299 The First Measuring Broadband America Report indicates that the participating ISPs were: AT&T (DSL); Cablevision (cable); CenturyLink (DSL); Charter (cable); Comcast (cable); Cox (cable); Frontier (DSL); Mediacom (cable); Insight (cable); Qwest (DSL); TimeWarner (cable); Verizon (DSL and fiber-to-the-home); and Windstream (DSL). See id. at 31 n.10. Since the report, two of these providers—Qwest and CenturyLink—have merged. See Applications Filed by Qwest Communications International Inc. and CenturyTel, Inc. d/b/a CenturyLink for Consent to Transfer Control, WC Docket No. 10-110, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 4194 (2011) (CenturyLink/Qwest Merger). 300 To do this, the Commission used measurement technology deployed in these volunteers’ homes. See FIRST MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA REPORT at 3. 301 Id. at 10. To account for network variances across the United States, volunteers were recruited from the four Census Regions: Northeast, Midwest, South, and West. These speed ranges were chosen to provide alignment with broadband tiers as categorized in the “Form 477” reports that the Commission uses as its primary tool for collecting data about broadband networks and services. Id. at 33 n.26. 302 Id. at 33 n.25; see also FCC, Raw Bulk Data 2011—Measuring Broadband America Report, http://www.fcc.gov/measuring-broadband-america/raw-bulk-data-2011#rawbulk (providing links to the raw data sets, which includes the results from the satellite and fixed terrestrial wireless technologies). 303 SECOND MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA REPORT at 8. Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 56 Measuring Broadband America Report) with data collected in April 2012.304 The Commission found that accurate delivery of advertised performance by ISPs has improved overall since the last report.305 Below, we highlight the Commission’s findings. 124. Actual Speeds. The results of the First Measuring Broadband America Report indicate that most of the broadband providers studied deliver actual speeds that are generally 80 percent to 90 percent of advertised speeds or better, although performance varies by technology and service provider.306 These results are significantly better than those of the 2010 OBI Broadband Performance study, conducted pursuant to the 2010 National Broadband Plan, which found actual speeds were roughly 50 percent of those advertised.307 The First Measuring Broadband America Report found that even during peak usage periods—between 7:00 pm and 11:00 pm on weeknights, when more home users are online and service quality declines—most major broadband providers deliver actual speeds that are at least 80 percent of advertised speeds.308 The report also found that, while there are some differences between technologies, DSL, cable, and fiber-to-the-home all are delivering quality service generally consistent with the speeds advertised.309 The Second Measuring Broadband America Report found that ISP performance has improved with ISPs delivering on average 96 percent of advertised speeds during peak intervals, and with five ISPs routinely meeting or exceeding advertised rates.310 125. Download Speeds/Upload Speeds. The First Measuring Broadband America Report found that on average, during peak periods, DSL-based services delivered download speeds that were 82 percent of advertised speeds, cable-based services delivered 93 percent of advertised speeds, and fiber-to- the-home services delivered 114 percent of advertised speeds.311 The Second Measuring Broadband America Report found that all technologies improved, concluding that on average, during peak periods, DSL-based services delivered download speeds that were 84 percent of advertised speeds, cable-based services delivered 99 percent of advertised speeds, and fiber-to-the-home services delivered 117 percent of advertised speeds.312 126. The First Measuring Broadband America Report found that the peak period speeds were lower than 24-hour average speeds313 by 0.4 percent for fiber-to-the-home services, 5.5 percent for DSL- based services, and 7.3 percent for cable-based services.314 In comparison, the Second Measuring Broadband America Report found that peak period speeds were lower than 24-hour average speeds by 0.8 304 Id. at 4, 14. 305 Id. at 4–5. 306 Press Release, FCC, FCC Unveils New Research That Measured Broadband Performance; Continues Consumer Empowerment Campaign To Help Americans Choose The Right Broadband Service Package At Home (Feb. 17, 2011), available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-308834A1.pdf; FIRST MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA REPORT at 26–27. 307 2010 OBI BROADBAND PERFORMANCE at 12; 2010 NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 21; see also FIRST MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA REPORT at 4. 308 FIRST MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA REPORT at 4, 18. 309 Id. at 18–21. 310 SECOND MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA REPORT at 10. 311 FIRST MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA REPORT at 4. 312 SECOND MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA REPORT at 10. 313 FIRST MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA REPORT at 32 n.18 (stating that a 24-hour average was computed each day and then averaged over Monday through Sunday). 314 Id. at 4. Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 57 percent for fiber-to-the-home services, 3.4 percent for DSL-based services and 4.1 percent for cable-based services.315 The First Measuring Broadband America Report also found that peak period performance results for upload speeds were similar to or better than those for download speeds. The upload speeds were not significantly affected during peak periods, showing an average decrease of only 0.7 percent from the 24-hour average speed.316 The report found that on average, DSL-based services delivered 95 percent of advertised upload speeds, cable-based services delivered 108 percent, and fiber-to-the-home services delivered 112 percent.317 The Second Measuring Broadband America Report found with respect to upload speeds, on average, DSL-based services delivered 103 percent, and cable-based services delivered 110 percent of advertised upload speeds, and fiber-to-the-home services delivered 106 percent.318 127. Latency. The Commission in the First Measuring Broadband America Report also tested latency, which is the time it takes for a packet of data to travel from one designated point to another in a network.319 The fiber-to-the-home services provided 17 milliseconds (ms) round-trip latency on average, while cable-based services averaged 28 ms, and DSL-based services averaged 44 ms. The Second Measuring Broadband America Report found that latency was largely unchanged from last year as fiber- to-the-home services provided 18 ms round-trip latency on average, while cable-based services averaged 26 ms, and DSL-based services averaged 43 ms.320 128. Applications (Web Browsing, VoIP, Streaming Video). The First Measuring Broadband America Report found in specific tests designed to mimic basic web browsing—accessing a series of web pages, but not streaming video or using video chat sites or applications—that performance increased with the higher subscribed-to speed tier, but only up to about 10 Mbps.321 Latency and other factors reduced performance at the highest speed tiers.322 The report also found that, for these high speed tiers, consumers are unlikely to experience much if any improvement in basic web browsing from subscribing to higher speeds—e.g., moving from a 10 Mbps broadband offering to a 25 Mbps offering. The Second Measuring Broadband America Report had comparable results.323 129. The First Measuring Broadband America Report assessed VoIP and video streaming capabilities of the broadband services. The report found that VoIP services, which can be used with a data rate as low as 100 kbps but require relatively low latency, were adequately supported by all of the broadband service tiers.324 The report noted that VoIP quality might suffer during times when household bandwidth is shared by other services, but the VoIP measurements the Commission utilized were not designed to detect such effects.325 The report found that video streaming should work well across all technologies tested, provided that the consumer has selected a broadband service tier that matches the 315 SECOND MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA REPORT at 10. 316 FIRST MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA REPORT at 5. 317 Id. 318 SECOND MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA REPORT at 11. 319 FIRST MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA REPORT at 5; see also USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd 17663, 17698, para. 96 (for purposes of the report, the Commission defined latency “as the round-trip time from the consumer’s home to the closest server used for speed measurement within the provider’s network.”). 320 SECOND MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA REPORT at 11–12. 321 FIRST MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA REPORT at 6. 322 Id. at 5. 323 SECOND MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA REPORT at 12. 324 FIRST MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA REPORT at 6. 325 Id. Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 58 quality of streaming video desired.326 The Second Measuring Broadband America Report found similar results.327 130. We are continuing to study broadband performance and are currently expanding the Measuring Broadband project to include satellite broadband, as well as fixed wireless technologies.328 We intend to publish an additional report in 2012 and are pursuing ways to ensure that mobile broadband consumers have detailed and accurate information about actual mobile broadband performance.329 3. Elementary and Secondary Schools May Lack a Sufficient Level of Broadband Service 131. Section 706(b) requires that we examine the availability of broadband to “elementary and secondary schools and classrooms.”330 We rely again on the results of the one-time survey of E-rate funded schools and libraries.331 132. In January 2011, the Commission released the results of a survey of E-rate funded schools and libraries.332 The goal of the survey was to collect data on the current state of broadband connectivity and challenges that schools and libraries face now and in the future.333 As many as 80 percent334 of E-rate recipients say that their broadband connections do not fully meet their needs, and 78 percent of recipients say that they need additional bandwidth.335 The survey results suggest that E-rate recipients face challenges when trying to provide students higher-bandwidth applications.336 Changes in 2010 to the E-rate program are designed to help improve high-speed connectivity among E-rate recipients337 and also to create initiatives to promote broadband.338 For instance, schools and libraries can 326 Id. 327 SECOND MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA REPORT at 13. 328 Id. at 49. 329 Id.; 2012 Measuring Broadband America Public Notice. 330 47 U.S.C. § 1302. 331 FCC E-RATE SURVEY. 332 Id. 333 Id. at 2. 334 Id. 335 Id. at 7 (showing that only 22 percent of respondents believe their connection speeds completely meet their needs). 336 Id. at 9 (showing that broadband is more likely to be inadequate with more data intensive applications, like video- conferencing). Last year, we also examined SBI Data at anchor schools but noted that the speed threshold was likely insufficient for a school system. See 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8036–37, para. 56. SBI defines “anchor institutions” as “schools, libraries, medical and healthcare providers, public safety entities, community colleges and other institutions of higher education, and other community support organizations and entities.” Id. While we note that 3 Mbps/768 kbps is not is insufficient for a school system, similar to last year, we present the results of SBI Data with respect to anchor institutions. Based upon SBI Data as of June 30, 2011, more than 47.5 percent of the roughly 43,534 K–12 schools that speed tier information is available for have 3 Mbps/768 kbps or greater. 337 See Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism; A National Broadband Plan for Our Future, CC Docket No. 02-6, GN Docket No. 09-51, Sixth Report and Order, 25 FCC Rcd 18762, 18764, para. 5 (2010). 338 Id. (“We adopt a number of the proposals put forward in the E-rate Broadband NPRM. The revisions we adopt today fall into three conceptual categories: (1) enabling schools and libraries to better serve students, teachers, librarians, and their communities by providing more flexibility to select and make available the most cost-effective (continued….) Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 59 now use universal service funds more efficiently to bring higher-speed broadband at lower cost to their communities.339 The Commission also launched a pilot program to investigate the merits and challenges of wireless off-premises connectivity services for mobile learning devices, and to help the Commission determine whether and how those services should ultimately be eligible for E-rate support.340 As part of the pilot program, the Commission authorized up to $10 million for funding year 2011 to support a small number of innovative, interactive off-premise wireless connectivity projects for schools and libraries.341 133. We lack comprehensive data regarding the actual or desired level of broadband service in our nation’s elementary and secondary schools. NTIA has stated that, “based on studies by state education technology directors, most schools need a connection of 50 to 100 Mbps per 1,000 students.”342 While school systems will need speeds substantially faster than the speed benchmark, we find, based on SBI Data, that providers offer download speeds of at least 25 Mbps to only 63.7 percent of the nation’s schools, suggesting that many schools may not have a sufficient level of broadband service.343 The Department of Education also has developed the School and Broadband Availability Map, in collaboration with NTIA and the Commission.344 This map relies on the SBI Data and other primary data sources concerning colleges and public schools345 to show information about the type of school, the location of the school, and the maximum download speed providers advertise in the area where the school is located.346 This map is a tool to better understand the state of broadband at schools across the country, but it doesn’t provide comprehensive information on what resources schools have. 134. In light of the foregoing, although we do not have precise or comprehensive data regarding the availability of broadband to “elementary and secondary schools and classrooms,” it continues to appear that many schools and classrooms are underserved by broadband today. G. Broadband Is Not Yet Being Deployed to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion 135. Based on the data presented above, we conclude that broadband is not yet being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.347 Our analysis shows that the nation’s broadband (Continued from previous page) broadband and other communications services; (2) simplifying and streamlining the E-rate application process; and (3) improving safeguards against waste, fraud, and abuse.”). 339 Id. at 18764, para. 6. 340 Id. at 18785–87, paras. 44–50. 341 Id. at 18785–86, para. 46. 342 NTIA National Broadband Plan Press Release. 343 See Schools in the Community Anchor Institution data of the National Broadband Map, available at http://www2.ntia.doc.gov/files/broadband-data/All-NBM-CAI-June-2011.zip (download). 344 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, SCHOOLS & BROADBAND AVAILABILITY MAP, http://maps.ed.gov/broadband/. 345 NATIONAL BROADBAND MAP, http://www.broadbandmap.gov/. To build the education broadband availability tool set, four primary data sources were used: NTIA U.S. Broadband Availability Data (Fall 2010) for nationwide broadband availability, NTIA U.S. Community Anchor Institutions (Fall 2010) for PK–12 school, college and university connectivity, NCES Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (2009) for data on U.S. colleges and universities, and NCES Common Core of Data (2008–09) for data on pre-kindergarten through grade 12 public schools. 346 See NATIONAL BROADBAND MAP, COMMUNITY ANCHOR INSTITUTIONS, http://www.broadbandmap.gov/community-anchor-institutions (showing community anchor institutions within a radius of whatever address is entered). 347 47 U.S.C. § 1302(b). We adopt the same statutory construction of section 706(b) as we did in the 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report. See 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8032–35, paras. 46–52. (continued….) Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 60 deployment gap remains significant and is particularly pronounced for Americans living in rural areas and on Tribal lands. We find that as of June 30, 2011, approximately 19 million Americans did not have access to fixed broadband. Significantly, approximately 76 percent of these Americans reside in rural areas. Our analysis further shows that Americans residing on Tribal lands disproportionately lack access to fixed broadband.348 And the available international broadband data, though not perfectly comparable to U.S. data, suggest that the availability and deployment of broadband in the United States may lag behind a number of other developed countries in certain respects, although we also compare favorably to some developed countries in other respects.349 Moreover, as many as 80 percent of E-rate recipients say that their broadband connections do not fully meet their needs, and 78 percent of recipients say that they need additional bandwidth.350 These data combined with our findings concerning availability above provide further indication that broadband is not yet being reasonably and timely deployed to all Americans.351 136. Private industry is continuing to build out broadband and has invested significantly into broadband networks to date.352 Some reports indicate that wireline companies have averaged (Continued from previous page) We find that “is being deployed” refers to “existing deployment and current actions that will meaningfully affect broadband deployment in the near future. . . . [but not] general plans or goals to deploy broadband, particularly long- range plans or goals that are uncertain to be realized.” Id. at 8033, para. 47. We interpret “all Americans” as having its ordinary meaning, and thus as establishing the goal of universal broadband availability for every American. Id. at 8033, para. 48. We find that “broadband deployment is more likely to be reasonable and timely if communities in the United States compare favorably to comparable foreign communities on broadband service capability metrics, and less likely to be reasonable and timely if U.S. communities compare unfavorably.” Id. at 8033, para. 49. As indicated in the last report, broadband “deployment” and “availability” are broader than physical deployment of broadband. See supra para. 27. For example, we might conclude that a service is not reasonably deployed if it is not of sufficient quality. See 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8020, paras. 18–20. Although we find a significant number of Americans are unserved by broadband today, we note that for fixed services, the Commission found in the First Measuring Broadband America Report and the Second Measuring Broadband America Report that residential wireline broadband services deliver quality of service and speeds reasonably commensurate with advertised offerings. FIRST MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA REPORT at 4; SECOND MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA REPORT at 4–5. 348 See supra Section IV.C.3. 349 See supra Section IV.E. 350 See supra Section IV.F.3; FCC E-RATE SURVEY at 2, 7 (showing that only 22 percent of respondents believe their connection speeds complete meet their needs). 351 We incorporate by reference here our findings concerning availability to all Americans above. See Section IV.F. We reject commenters claims that there is pervasive broadband coverage throughout the United States, and the Commission should therefore conclude that broadband is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion. See AT&T Comments at 3, 6; Comcast Comments at 16–17; CTIA Comments at 3; TIA Comments at 10; USTelecom Comments at 2; Sprint Reply at 1. While we recognize broadband has been deployed to most Americans, we still find that a large number of Americans remain unserved and may remain unserved. 352 See AT&T Comments at 1–2, 10–11; CTIA Comments at 5–8. Others are also continuing to explore ways to deploy next generation networks nationwide. See, e.g., INTERNET2, available at http://www.internet2.edu/resources/AboutInternet2.pdf; John Markoff, Partnership to Bring Ultra-Speed Internet to Six Communities, N.Y. TIMES, May 22, 2012 (discussing Gigabit Squared’s partnership with Gig.U and with public and private universities to deliver “ultrahigh-speed Internet service” to six communities), available at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/23/technology/partnership-plans-to-bring-ultrahigh-speed-internet-to-six- communities.html?_r=3; Press Release, EPB, Chattanooga Announces Nationals Only 150 Mbps Residential Internet Offer: Chattanooga Area Ten Years Ahead of FCC’s National Broadband Plan (June 4, 2010) (“EPB Fiber Optics, Chattanooga’s municipally-owned fiber-to-the-home network, announced it will introduce a 150 Mbps symmetrical residential Internet product later this month.”), available at https://www.epb.net/downloads/news/chattanooga-announces-nations-only-150-mbps-residential-internet-offer.pdf. Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 61 approximately $41 billion a year between 1996 and 2010 in capital expenditures to expand their networks,353 and mobile providers have been spending billions of dollars to deploy mobile broadband networks.354 Although data limitations hinder our ability to quantify mobile broadband deployment, it is clear that higher-speed mobile broadband services have been significantly deployed since our last report. 137. While we recognize these efforts, it appears that millions of Americans may be left without access to broadband indefinitely absent the strides we are making with broadband deployment with universal service reforms.355 The large deployment gap we find today356 is likely due to the very challenging economics posed by many unserved and underserved areas.357 To this end, the Recovery Act’s approximately $7 billion in one-time funding for the BTOP and BIP programs marked a significant down payment to expand broadband to unserved and underserved areas.358 While we noted in the last report that those funds will not fully address the challenges we face in bringing broadband to these areas,359 NTIA and RUS continue the progress and promise of these programs for many Americans.360 To help bring broadband to the remaining unserved and underserved areas,361 the Commission adopted its 353 USTelecom Comments at 5. 354 See CTIA Comments at 3–8. 355 USTELECOM, RESEARCH BRIEF 2 chart 2 (Apr. 20, 2012) (showing declining capital expenditures for wireline broadband providers from 2008 to 2011), available at http://www.ustelecom.org/sites/default/files/documents/042012_Investment_2011_Research_Brief.pdf; see also USTelecom Comments at 5 (showing annual spending on broadband deployment down substantially after 2001). Moreover, in some rural areas where broadband networks are deployed, providers have not yet upgraded the infrastructure and those consumers remain unable to receive broadband meeting the benchmark needed to ensure “advanced telecommunications capability” is available. Eric Mack, Bringing Broadband to the Boonies, Part 2: DSL’s Dark Side; CNET, Mar. 27, 2012 (Bringing Broadband to the Boonies), http://news.cnet.com/8301- 17938_105-57401255-1/bringing-broadband-to-the-boonies-part-2-dsls-dark-side/?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=. 356 AT&T and others believe that we should reverse this conclusion and conclude that broadband is not being deployed in a reasonable and timely manner for only those parts of the country that are unserved. See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 25; Puerto Rico Telephone Company Comments, GN Docket No. 10-159, at 6 (asking the Commission to conclude that “broadband is not being deployed in Puerto Rico and other insular areas”). However, while there are pockets of unserved areas across the country, the language of the statute requires the Commission to make its determination regarding all Americans, and we see no benefit to bifurcating our answer under section 706 in that manner. Also, as shown in the online map, the landscape of the unserved areas is so complex that bifurcating the country would not be practical. See ONLINE SECTION 706 FIXED BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT MAP, http://www.fcc.gov/maps/section-706-fixed-broadband-deployment-map; see also infra App. I. 357 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8034–35, para. 51. The 2010 National Broadband Plan estimated that $24 billion would be needed to bring broadband to all unserved Americans. See generally 2010 NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN, Ch. 8 (discussing the economics of serving unserved areas). 358 See supra Section II. 359 See 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8034–35, para. 51 n.175 (stating that “[t]hese programs do not focus exclusively on last-mile projects, and even if they did, the full amount appropriated to these programs is less than one-third of the estimated amount needed to bring broadband to all unserved areas. NTIA reports that ‘middle-mile’ rather than ‘last-mile’ projects comprise the ‘vast majority’ of BTOP awards directed at broadband infrastructure deployment.”). 360 See supra Section II. 361 See 2010 NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 136 (“Because service providers in [areas with low population density] cannot earn enough revenue to cover the costs of deploying and operating broadband networks, including expected returns on capital, there is no business case to offer broadband services in these areas. As a result, it is unlikely that private investment alone will fill the broadband availability gap.”); id. at 21 (stating that “it is unlikely there will be (continued….) Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 62 comprehensive USF/ICC Transformation Order, which created the Connect America Fund to, among other things, accelerate broadband build-out to Americans living in “costly-to-serve communities where even with our actions to lower barriers to investment nationwide, private sector economics still do not add up, and therefore the immediate prospect for stand-alone private sector action is limited.”362 While it will take some time to realize the full benefits of the reforms, this effort will assist in bringing broadband to Americans living in rural, insular, and other high-cost areas, including Tribal lands. 138. In sum, as we have held in the last two reports, the standard against which we measure our progress is universal broadband deployment. We have not achieved this goal as of yet and likely will not achieve it in any reasonable timeframe absent continued implementation of the Commission’s broadband-related initiatives, including its universal service reforms.363 Measured against this standard, the data demonstrate that broadband is not being reasonably and timely deployed to all Americans. We would likely reach this same finding even if we considered the best available mobile data. Over 14 million Americans lack access, even if access to either fixed or mobile broadband is considered adequate and even when all LTE, WiMax, and HSPA+ deployments are included.364 V. REMOVING BARRIERS TO INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT & PROMOTING COMPETITION 139. Because we determine that broadband deployment is not reasonable and timely, the statute directs the Commission to “take immediate action to accelerate deployment of such capability by removing barriers to infrastructure investment and by promoting competition in the telecommunications market.”365 In the last report, we found that there are many barriers to infrastructure investment.366 High costs of deploying and operating broadband networks and low adoption rates present barriers.367 We continue to identify and reduce potential obstacles to deployment, competition, and adoption—concepts that in the past report we found to be interrelated.368 We will continue to take steps to remove barriers and maximize Americans’ access to—and the adoption of—affordable broadband. 140. We continue to review the key barriers identified in the last report. These include: (1) costs and delays in building out networks; (2) broadband service quality; (3) lack of affordable broadband Internet access services; (4) lack of access to computers and other broadband-capable equipment; (5) lack of relevance of broadband for some consumers; (6) poor digital literacy; and (7) other reasons, such as consumers’ lack of trust in broadband and Internet content and services, including concerns about (Continued from previous page) a significant change in the number of unserved Americans based on planned upgrades over the next few years, although some small companies may upgrade their networks to support broadband in currently unserved areas”). 362 USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 17668–69, para. 5. 363 Private industry, state and local governments, and federal agencies, including the Commission, continue to work on closing this broadband deployment gap. See supra Section II. 364 See supra tbl. 15 (showing that over 14 million Americans lack access to either fixed or mobile broadband, using SBI Data for fixed services and Mosaik Data for mobile services). As explained above, we consider the SBI Data not to be a reliable indicator of the deployment of mobile broadband services, not just because of the likelihood of over-reporting but because the data set includes deployment of technologies that do not meet our speed benchmark. See supra paras. 36–40, 89 & tbl. 15. 365 See 47 U.S.C. § 1302(b). 366 See 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8040, para. 65; see generally 2010 NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 167–99. 367 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8040, para. 65. 368 Id. Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 63 inadequate privacy protections.369 141. Costs and Delays in Building Out Networks. We seek to ensure ubiquitous access to and participation in the digital economy. Such ubiquity offers benefits not only to those who are not currently connected; it offers benefits to all Americans. A large proportion of unserved areas are in rural areas or on Tribal lands. The challenges of building out broadband in these particular areas are significant. Building out new networks on Tribal lands and in rural areas is costly as infrastructure often must be built over long distances, and lower population density and generally lower incomes present fewer revenue- generating opportunities for service providers.370 We have acknowledged that there is no business case for broadband investment in some parts of the nation.371 Moreover, in some rural areas where broadband networks are deployed, providers have not yet upgraded the infrastructure and those consumers remain unable to receive broadband meeting the speed benchmark needed to ensure “advanced telecommunications capability” is available.372 142. Other obstacles to deployment include providers’ difficulty in accessing key inputs for broadband infrastructure, such as utility poles, conduits, rooftops, and rights-of-way.373 As NTIA notes, “[a]ccess to rights-of-way—the conduits, corridors, trenches, tower sites, and other physical passage ways that modern communications networks traverse—is critical for the deployment of broadband services.”374 With regard to wireless broadband, permitting obstacles for cell towers,375 and the limited supply of wireless spectrum continue to present challenges to deployment.376 These obstacles delay or prevent broadband deployment, and are likely to limit competitive entry, raise costs, lower service quality and have other negative impacts on businesses and consumers.377 143. The Commission has taken several steps to remove barriers to broadband deployment and adoption. On October 27, 2011, the Commission adopted the USF/ICC Transformation Order, which will target the $4.5 billion spent annually to ensure rural connectivity towards support for fixed and mobile voice and broadband facilities in areas that would otherwise not have service, including rural and insular areas, and on Tribal lands.378 The policies adopted in the USF/ICC Transformation Order will stimulate high-quality fixed and mobile voice and broadband service in regions where it is not 369 Id. 370 See TIM KELLY ET AL., WORLD BANK, WHAT ROLE SHOULD GOVERNMENTS PLAY IN BROADBAND DEVELOPMENT? (2009), available at http://www.oecd.org/ict/4d/43631862.pdf; see also 2010 NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 136–39. 371 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8040, para. 66; 2010 NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 136. 372 Bringing Broadband to the Boonies. 373 Id. 374 NTIA, STATE AND LOCAL RIGHTS OF WAY, http://www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/ntiahome/staterow/statelocalrow.html. 375 Petition for Declaratory Ruling to Clarify Provisions of Section 332(c)(7)(B) to Ensure Timely Siting Review and to Preempt Under Section 253 State and Local Ordinances that Classify All Wireless Siting Proposals as Requiring a Variance, WT Docket No. 08-165, Declaratory Ruling, 24 FCC Rcd 13994 (2009) (establishing a 90-day time limit for tower permitting decisions). 376 2010 NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at xii, Ch. 5. 377 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8040, para. 66; 2010 NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 136. 378 See USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd 17663. Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 64 economically viable, without subsidies, to deploy and/or operate modern communications networks.379 These policies include establishment of a Mobility Fund—initially funded with $300 million, as well as $50 million for a Tribal Mobility Fund—to provide dedicated support to expand mobile broadband nationwide to tens of thousands of road miles where millions of Americans live, work, and travel.380 The Commission will be implementing these reforms for the next several years.381 The Bureau announced support amounts for the first phase of the Connect America Fund to spur immediate new broadband buildout on April 25, 2012 and on July 24, 2012, a number of carriers committed to use over $110 million to deploy broadband to unserved areas in 37 states.382 144. In 2011, the Commission launched the Broadband Acceleration Initiative that focused on removing barriers to build-out and expediting cost-cutting initiatives.383 The Pole Attachment Order,384 part of this initiative, adopted a pricing methodology that lowered the pole attachment rate for wireline, wireless, and cable companies’ broadband attachments to a level closer to the rate paid by cable providers, thus encouraging broadband competition and investment.385 Additionally, the Commission lowered costs of deployment through greater certainty by establishing a specific timeline for access. 386 Indeed, at least one wireless infrastructure provider has documented to the Commission how this order was essential in achieving cost savings through lower rates and expanding broadband networks through a greater ability to attach equipment in a timely manner.387 The Commission has also initiated an inquiry about regulations and practices that impede build-out at all levels of government: Tribal, federal, state, and local.388 As part of this inquiry, the Commission has provided recommendations to the administration and executive branch agencies in the last year on identifying ways in which the federal government can streamline its processes to ease infrastructure deployment on federal lands.389 The Commission is also working with state, local, and Tribal officials through the Intergovernmental Advisory Council to foster best practices. In addition, Congress took action to streamline mobile broadband deployments by requiring a state or local government to approve any eligible facilities request for a modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such 379 See id. at 17709, para. 115. 380 See id. at 17771–825, paras. 295–497. Additional Mobility Fund funding consists of $50 million for Phase I support on Tribal lands and $500 million for Phase II support. See supra Section II. 381 See USF/ICC EXECUTIVE SUMMARY paras. 8, 19 (discussing multi-year implementation efforts). 382 See FCC Public-Private Effort Press Release. 383 FCC, THE FCC’S BROADBAND ACCELERATION INITIATIVE, REDUCING REGULATORY BARRIERS TO SPUR BROADBAND BUILDOUT 1 (2011) (BROADBAND ACCELERATION INITIATIVE), available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-304571A2.pdf; see Acceleration of Broadband Deployment: Expanding the Reach and Reducing the Cost of Broadband Deployment by Improving Policies Regarding Public Rights of Way and Wireless Facilities Siting, WC Docket No. 11-59, Notice of Inquiry, 26 FCC Rcd 5384 (2011) (ROW NOI) (inquiring about regulations and practices at all levels of government that slow broadband deployment). 384 See Implementation of Section 224 of the Act, A National Broadband Plan for Our Future, WC Docket No. 07- 245, GN Docket No. 09-51, Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, 26 FCC Rcd 5240 ( 2011). 385 Id. at 5243–45, 5295–38, paras. 8, 126–220. 386 Id. at 5243–45, para. 8. 387 See Letter from Norine Luker, Senior Director Utility Administration, NextG Networks, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 07-245 (filed Feb. 22, 2012). 388 See generally ROW NOI. 389 Press Release, The White House, Executive Order—Accelerating Broadband Infrastructure Deployment (Jun. 14, 2012), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/06/14/executive-order-accelerating- broadband-infrastructure-deployment. Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 65 tower or base station.390 145. We have also continued our efforts to free critical spectrum and make it available for deployment and innovation of mobile broadband networks. Since the last report, on August 9, 2011, in the 2011 Wireless Backhaul Report and Order, we removed regulatory barriers and made available as much as 650 megahertz, which covers almost two-thirds of the U.S. landmass, for microwave wireless backhaul.391 Such facilities are an essential component of many broadband networks, particularly mobile wireless networks. Based on the recommendations in the 2010 National Broadband Plan, this reform permits fixed microwave operations in several spectrum bands previously reserved for specialized microwave services where wireless backhaul is the only practical middle mile solution.392 We sought comment on additional ways to increase the flexibility, capacity, and cost-effectiveness of the microwave bands, while protecting incumbent licensees in these bands.393 In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking released in March 2012, we proposed to increase the supply of spectrum for mobile broadband by removing unnecessary barriers to enable flexible use of spectrum currently assigned to the Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) in the 2 GHz band.394 In particular, we sought comment on whether we should free up 40 megahertz of spectrum in the 2 GHz band spectrum for mobile broadband by removing rules that have limited this spectrum to satellite use.395 On April 27, 2012, in response to the recently enacted Spectrum Act, the Commission took preliminary steps toward making a portion of the UHF and VHF frequency bands (U/V bands) currently used by the broadcast television service available for new uses, while also preserving the integrity of the television broadcast service.396 The spectrum to be repurposed will serve to further address this nation’s growing demand for wireless broadband services, promote ongoing innovation and investment in mobile communications, and help to ensure that the United States keeps pace with the global wireless revolution.397 146. Broadband Service Quality. Although the First Measuring Broadband America Report and the Second Measuring Broadband America Report found that quality and speeds are reasonably commensurate with advertised offerings, we nevertheless recognize that there likely are opportunities to improve broadband service quality. The Commission has taken steps to understand and assess broadband service quality of residential wireline services (DSL, cable, and fiber-to-the-home) in the recent Measuring Broadband America Reports. As explained above, the First Measuring Broadband America Report established for the first time that the majority of residential wireline broadband consumers are receiving performance close to the level advertised by their providers.398 The report also identified ISPs that fell short of advertised speeds; a few months after the report was released, the Commission noticed a significant improvement by a major ISP and announced the results in a blog post.399 The Second 390 Middle Class Tax Relief Act, § 6409(a)(1), 126 Stat. at 232–34. 391 See 2011 Wireless Backhaul Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 11623, para. 16; see also 2012 Wireless Backhaul Second Report and Order. 392 2011 Wireless Backhaul Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 11616, paras. 1–2. 393 Id. at 11616, para. 3. 394 See Wireless Services in 2000-2020 MHz NPRM and NOI, 27 FCC Rcd 3561. 395 Id. 396 Incentive Auctions Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 4616–17, para. 1. 397 Id. 398 The First Measuring Broadband America Report also identified ISPs that fell short of advertised speeds. FIRST MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA REPORT at 5. 399 2012 Measuring Broadband Public Notice, 27 FCC Rcd 1680. A few months after the report was released, the FCC noticed a significant improvement by a major ISP and announced the results in a blog post. Joel Gurin, (continued….) Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 66 Measuring Broadband America Report found that consumers are experiencing performance more closely aligned with what is advertised than they experienced one year ago, adding that “[t]here is evidence that our August 2011 Report helped prompt these changes, and had a substantial impact on both the industry and on consumer broadband experience.”400 While this work focused on fixed broadband services, we will continue our efforts to measure the broadband service quality of other technologies, such as satellite and mobile services. With these services, there may be a variety of technical network and other factors— including latency and capacity constraints—that may impact consumers’ ability to use the full range of Internet-based applications and services.401 We are continuing to study broadband performance and are currently expanding the Measuring Broadband project.402 147. Lack of Affordability. NTIA found that “[h]ouseholds reporting affordability as the major barrier to subscribing to broadband service cited both the fixed cost of purchasing a computer and the recurring monthly subscription costs as important factors.403 The report further shows that, among dial-up households stating expense or affordability as their main reason for not having broadband, the cost of monthly Internet access service was a more serious concern than fixed costs. The majority (75 percent) of these households cited the monthly service cost, and another 10 percent reported both the monthly service cost and fixed costs, as their main impediments to adopting broadband Internet access at home.404 Data further indicate that income divide translates to digital divide. Low income households of less than $25,000 are the least likely income group to adopt broadband or use a computer, and the opposite is true for households with an income of more than $100,000.405 148. In pursuit of its goal to make broadband more affordable to everyone, the Commission adopted comprehensive reforms to the Lifeline program on January 31, 2012.406 As a universal service program that seeks to fulfill Congress’s mandate to ensure the availability of communications to all Americans, Lifeline for the past 25 years has helped tens of millions of low-income Americans afford basic phone service. The order begins to modernize the program with the express goal of ensuring availability of broadband for all low-income Americans. The Commission has established a Broadband Pilot Program using up to $25 million in savings from other reforms to test and determine how Lifeline can best be used to increase broadband adoption among Lifeline-eligible consumers. Starting this year, the program will solicit applications from broadband providers and will select a number of projects to fund.407 Lifeline will help reduce the monthly cost of broadband service, but ETC applicants will be (Continued from previous page) Broadband Speed: FCC Data is Improving the Market, OFFICAL FCC BLOG (Dec. 5, 2011), http://www.fcc.gov/blog/broadband-speed-fcc-data-improving-market. 400 SECOND MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA REPORT at 4–5. 401 See supra Section III. 402 2012 Measuring Broadband Public Notice, 27 FCC Rcd 1680; SECOND MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA REPORT at 49. 403 DIGITAL NATION NOV. 2011 at vi, 37; see also Horrigan, Broadband Adoption and Use in America at 5; KATHRYN ZICKUHR & AARON SMITH, PEW INTERNET, DIGITAL DIFFERENCES 7 (2012) (showing that 10 percent of non-Internet users do not use the Internet because it is too expensive), 8 (finding that 35 percent of dial-up users will not switch to broadband until the price falls) (2012) (PEW INTERNET, DIGITAL DIFFERENCES), available at http://pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2012/PIP_Digital_differences_041312.pdf. 404 DIGITAL NATION NOV. 2011 at 36. 405 Id. at 44 (showing that 42.9 percent of households with incomes of less than $25,000 adopt broadband and 54.4 percent use a computer and showing that 92.6 percent of households with incomes of more than $100,000 adopt broadband and 96 percent use a computer). 406 Lifeline Reform and Modernization Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 6660, para. 3. 407 See Lifeline Pilot Program Public Notice, 27 FCC Rcd 4840. Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 67 expected to help address other challenges to broadband adoption, including the provision of no-cost or low-cost devices to participants in their pilot project and digital literacy training.408 If the pilot is successful, the program may be expanded in the future. 149. As part of its Broadband Adoption Initiative, the Commission helped facilitate “Connect to Compete.”409 In May 2011, Chairman Genachowski issued a challenge to help close the adoption gap. This is a first-of-its-kind national nonprofit initiative to address the barriers to broadband adoption, digital literacy, and the employment skills gap. The program targets families with children who are eligible for free school lunch. In response, many private and grassroots community organizations have partnered together. For example, thirteen broadband cable providers, covering all 50 states, have agreed to offer 1 Mbps Internet service for $9.95 plus tax per month, with no installation fees and a no- or low-cost modem rental fee. This offering lasts for two years with a three year sign-up window. 150. Efforts of network operators are also helpful in making broadband affordable.410 The Commission’s efforts to speed deployment411 and free spectrum412 may lead to more competitive offerings and help bring down the cost of broadband for many Americans. The Commission is also investigating the need for IP-to-IP interconnection rules, which could add certainty to some providers’ business models.413 As part of their merger agreements, some companies are also implementing measures to help improve adoption in their footprints.414 151. Lack of Access to Computers. Another barrier to adoption is the cost of equipment necessary to access broadband. NTIA’s October 10, 2011, Exploring the Digital Nation found that “[f]ifteen percent of non-adopters of Internet service indicate that an inadequate or no computer is the major reason they do not go online from home.”415 In a large-scale study of broadband adoption in low- income communities, researchers found that hardware, software, and equipment maintenance fees deter 408 Lifeline Reform and Modernization Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 6804–05, para. 349. 409 See CONNECT2COMPETE (CONNECT2COMPETE), www.connect2compete.org; Broadband Adoption Taskforce, Presentation to the FCC (Nov. 30, 2011) (FCC Broadband Adoption Presentation), available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-311281A1.pdf; see also Press Release, FCC, FCC Chairman Genachowski & Connect2Compete Partners Announce Adoption Pilot Program (May 31, 2012), available at http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0531/DOC-314389A1.pdf. 410 See 2010 NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 33–49. 411 Since the last report, the Commission has continued its Broadband Acceleration Initiative and worked with the administration and executive branch agencies and state and local governments to encourage deployments along rights of way and collocation of new and upgraded communications facilities. See supra Sections I, II. 412 See, e.g., 2011 Wireless Backhaul Report and Order. 413 See USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 18044–45, paras. 1009–11. 414 See, e.g., Letter from Melissa E. Newman, Vice President—Federal Regulatory Affairs, CenturyLink, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 10-110 (filed Apr. 16, 2012) (redacted) (submitting CenturyLink’s first Semi-Annual Report on its “Internet Basics” adoption program), available at http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7021910757. See Applications of Comcast Corporation, General Electric Company and NBC Universal, Inc.; For Consent to Assign Licenses and Transfer Control of Licensees, MB Docket No. 10-56, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 4238, 4379, App. A at Part XVI (2011) (describing Comcast’s Broadband Opportunity Program, which will make an Economy version of Comcast’s Broadband Internet Access Service available to eligible customers for $9.95 a month, require no installation or modem charges, and provide a computer for less than $150); CenturyLink/Qwest Merger, 26 FCC Rcd at 4218, App. C at Part II (describing CenturyLink’s commitment to offer affordable broadband service and reduced cost of computer equipment to qualifying customers). 415 DIGITAL NATION NOV. 2011 at vi, 35; see also PEW INTERNET, DIGITAL DIFFERENCES at 7 (showing that 12 percent of non-Internet users do use the Internet because they don’t have a computer). Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 68 some low-income consumers from taking up broadband service, even if they have had it previously.416 In the Lifeline Reform and Modernization Order, ETC applicants to the Broadband Pilot Program are expected to help address challenges to broadband adoption, including the provision of no-cost or low-cost devices to participants.417 Two partners in the Connect to Compete program will help to alleviate this problem by offering computers for $150418 and $250419 respectively, and these computers will come loaded with Windows 7 and Microsoft Office.420 152. Lack of Relevance. NTIA’s Exploring the Digital Nation found that the most common reason households without broadband Internet or dial-up service gave for not subscribing was lack of interest.421 NTIA found that 28 percent of households that owned a computer, but did not have Internet access, explained that they did not need it.422 For those households that did not own a computer, the perceived lack of need to access the Internet was the top reason why Internet was not accessed at home.423 The Commission is collaborating with the Connect-to-Compete program, which is offering new content that may promote relevancy of broadband to consumers.424 At least six of the Connect to Compete partners—Arise Virtual Solutions, CareerBuilder.com, Glassdoor.com, Indeed.com, Monster.com, and oDesk—will have content that is part of a portal to promote job skills. CareerBuilder.com, for instance, will offer online prep and certification courses for $1 per course in high demand employment areas and will release a “Skills Gap Monitor” that lists the top 5 “in-demand jobs” for which further online training or certification could serve as a qualification.425 At least six other partners—Brainfuse, Discovery Education, EverFi, LearningExpress, MetrixLearning, and Sesame Workshop—will contribute to a portal with customized education content. Discovery Education, for example, will provide educational video clips and digital lessons to help bolster student achievement and proven resources for student success will be accessible free of charge to America’s neediest students and their parents.426 153. Poor Digital Literacy. The 2012 Pew Internet Digital Differences survey found that 21 percent of non-adopters cite factors pointing to digital literacy as the main reason they are not online.427 In a prior survey, many of these users have reported that they would need assistance to begin using the 416 DHARMA DAILEY ET AL., SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL, BROADBAND ADOPTION IN LOW INCOME COMMUNITIES 25–36 (2010) (noting that price pressures for low-income consumers include more than the monthly fee for service), available at http://webarchive.ssrc.org/pdfs/Broadband_Adoption_v1.1.pdf. 417 Lifeline Reform and Modernization Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 6804–05, para. 349. 418 Redeemtech’s refurbished $150 computers will have a Core 2 Duo processor, 2GB of RAM, 80GB hard drive, DVD player, and a wireless card. The computers will have a 90 day warranty and have family settings. Phone tech support will also be available. See FCC Broadband Adoption Presentation. 419 Microsoft will offer new education laptops starting at $250. Id. 420 CONNECT2COMPETE. 421 DIGITAL NATION NOV. 2011 at 35; PEW INTERNET, DIGITAL DIFFERENCES at 7 (showing that 42 percent of non- Internet users do use the Internet for reasons relating to a lack of interest (i.e., “just not interested,” “it’s a waste of time,” and “don’t want it/need it” answers)). 422 DIGITAL NATION NOV. 2011 at 36. 423 Id. 424 CONNECT2COMPETE. 425 FCC Broadband Adoption Presentation. 426 Id. 427 PEW INTERNET, DIGITAL DIFFERENCES at 7; see also Horrigan, Broadband Adoption and Use in America at 5 (“22 percent of non-adopters cite factors pointing to lack of digital literacy as the main reason they are not online.”). Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 69 Internet.428 A lack of digital skills can keep people from subscribing to a service at home, and impacts the number of activities they do online.429 The Lifeline Broadband Pilot Program expects its ETC applicants to promote digital literacy with its participants.430 In addition, at least two partners in the Connect-to- Compete program have committed to promoting digital literacy. Best Buy will offer in-person basic digital literacy training beginning in 20 cities, including training the trainers, with plans to expand to additional communities, and Microsoft will provide basic digital literacy training and advanced training, including training on Microsoft Office, beginning in 15 states with plans to go nationwide. Microsoft will also provide a new online training portal.431 154. Consumers’ Lack of Trust in Broadband. A recent private survey indicated that 94 percent of consumers are concerned about online privacy and more than half think about it often.432 The Broadband Adoption and Use in America survey similarly found that this concern is also prevalent in non-adopters.433 To make sure that consumers are getting consistent and clear information and guidance from government agencies, the Commission has partnered with the FTC, the Department of Commerce, and the Small Business Administration on a number of education efforts like Net Cetera434 and OnGuard Online,435 which offer advice on how to protect children’s personal information and guard against identity theft. The Commission has also worked with industry to better protect against cybersecurity threats.436 155. We must continue to address all the obstacles we have identified to achieve universal broadband deployment and availability. One study estimates that the consumer surplus gain for households from home broadband use relative to no home Internet connection is roughly $32 billion in annual economic value, or about $100 for every American, every year.437 Since our conclusion in the 428 See Horrigan, Broadband Adoption and Use in America at 32. 429 Id. at 4 (finding that current broadband users who displayed a greater level of familiarity with various terms associated with computers and the Internet engaged in a greater number and range of activities online than those less familiar with the concepts); see also Eszter Hargittai, An Update on Survey Measures of Web-Oriented Digital Literacy, 27 SOC’L SCI. COMPUTER REV., 130, 130–137 (2009) (assessing this method for determining the levels of digital literacy), available at http://webuse.org/p/a25 (click “PDF” to download). 430 Lifeline Reform and Modernization Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 6804–05, para. 349. 431 FCC Broadband Adoption Presentation. 432 TRUSTe Research & Harris Interactive, 2011 Consumer Research Results, Privacy and Online Behavioral Advertising 11 (2011) (discussing the results of its survey), available at http://www.truste.com/ad-privacy/TRUSTe- 2011-Consumer-Behavioral-Advertising-Survey-Results.pdf. 433 Of broadband users at home, 56 percent strongly agree that too much inappropriate content are available online, compared to 65 percent of non-adopters; 39 percent of adopters strongly agree it is too easy for their personal information to be stolen online, compared to 57 percent of non-adopters; and 24 percent of adopters agree the Internet is too dangerous for children, compared to 46 percent of non-adopters. Horrigan, Broadband Adoption and Use in America at 4, 6; see also PEW INTERNET, DIGITAL DIFFERENCES at 7 (showing that 1 percent of non-Internet users do use the Internet because they are worried about viruses/spyware/spam). 434 ONGUARDONLINE.GOV, NET CETERA: CHATTING WITH KIDS ABOUT BEING ONLINE, http://onguardonline.gov/features/feature-0004-featured-net-cetera-toolkit. 435 ONGUARDONLINE.GOV, www.onguardonline.gov. 436 See Press Release, FCC, FCC Advisory Committee Adopts Recommendations to Minimize Three Major Cyber Threats, Including Anti-Bot Code of Conduct, IP-Route HiJacking Industry Framework, and Secure DNS Best Practices (Mar. 22, 2012), available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-313158A1.pdf. 437 See MARK DUTZ ET AL., COMPASS LEXECON, commissioned by the Internet Innovation Alliance, THE SUBSTANTIAL CONSUMER BENEFITS OF BROADBAND CONNECTIVITY FOR U.S. HOUSEHOLDS 26 (July 2009), available at http://internetinnovation.org/files/special-reports/CONSUMER_BENEFITS_OF_BROADBAND.pdf. Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 70 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report that broadband was not being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion,438 we have made progress on promoting competition and removing barriers to infrastructure investment, as required by the statute.439 We will continue to improve the data we collect to better inform our policies440 and continue to adopt policies that will accelerate broadband deployment, remove barriers to infrastructure investment, and promote competition in telecommunications markets.441 156. In addition to addressing those challenges, we also must continue to protect the freedom and openness of the Internet. As the Commission recognized in the Open Internet Order, “[t]he Internet’s openness . . . enables a virtuous circle of innovation in which new uses of the network—including new content, applications, services, and devices—lead to increased end-user demand for broadband, which drives network improvements, which in turn lead to further innovative network uses.”442 The Commission further found that “[e]ach round of innovation increases the value of the Internet for broadband providers, edge providers, online businesses, and consumers,” while, by contrast, “[r]estricting edge providers’ ability to reach end users, and limiting end users’ ability to choose which edge providers to patronize, would reduce the rate of innovation at the edge and, in turn, the likely rate of improvements to network infrastructure.”443 As discussed above, the open Internet rules were adopted to ensure the continuation of the Internet’s virtuous cycle of innovation and investment, and the Commission must continue to prioritize those efforts consistent with the mandate of section 706.444 VI. ORDERING CLAUSE 157. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 1301 et seq., this Report IS ADOPTED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary 438 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8009, 8032–35, paras. 1, 46–52. 439 See supra Section II. 440 See, e.g., Modernizing Form 477 NPRM, 26 FCC Rcd at 1508, para. 1 (proposing rules 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”). 441 See 2010 NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at xi–xv. 442 Open Internet Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 17911, para. 14. 443 Id. 444 See supra Section II (discussing the Open Internet Order). Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 71 APPENDIX A Commenters Commenter Abbreviation American Library Association ALA AT&T Inc. AT&T Broadband Alliance of Mendocino County BAMC Comcast Corporation Comcast CTIA - The Wireless Association CTIA Fiber-to-the-Home Council FTTH Council Free State Foundation Free State Foundation Information Use Management & Policy Institute Information Institute Internet 2 K20 Initiative’s National CAI Data Collection Working Group Internet2 K20 Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Cable MDTC MetroPCS Communications, Inc. MetroPCS National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors NATOA Navajo Nation Telecommunications Regulatory Commission NNTRC Organization for the Promotion and Advancement of Small Telecommunications Companies, the National Telecommunications Cooperative Association, and the Western Telecommunications Alliance OPASTCO Rex Buddenberg Rex Buddenberg SouthEast Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors SEATOA Telecommunications Industry Association TIA United States Telecom Association USTelecom Verizon and Verizon Wireless Verizon Reply Commenters Commenter Abbreviation Comcast Corporation Comcast CTIA - The Wireless Association CTIA Fiber-to-the-Home Council FTTH Council Maneesh Pangasa SouthEast Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors SEATOA Sprint Sprint Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 APPENDIX B Data Sources and Definitions Data Sources SBI Data. Our estimate of deployment is based upon SBI Data as of June 30, 2011. We also compare these results with SBI Data as of June 30, 2010. We include the following broadband services (with corresponding technology codes): Asymmetric xDSL (10), Symmetric xDSL (20), Other Wireline (all copper-wire based technologies other than xDSL) (30), Cable Modem—DOCSIS 3.0 (40), Cable Modem—Other (41), optical carrier (fiber to the home) (50), Terrestrial Fixed Wireless (provisioned/equipped over licensed spectrum (71) or over spectrum used on an unlicensed basis (70)), Electric Power Line (90), and a catch all category, All Other (0). The data for mobile wireless service provide us with an estimate of mobile network deployment by speed, but we do not rely upon these mobile data to estimate where mobile wireless services meet the speed benchmark. Mosaik Data. Mosaik was formerly known as “American Roamer.” We report some estimates with the Mosaik Data as of July 31 2011. The data for mobile wireless service provide us with an estimate of mobile network deployment by technology, but we do not rely upon these mobile data to estimate where mobile wireless services meets the speed benchmark. Form 477 Data. The adoption rates rely on Residential Form 477 subscription data as of June 30, 2011. We include the following fixed broadband services: Asymmetric xDSL, Symmetric xDSL, Other Wireline (all copper-wire based technologies other than xDSL, Cable Modem, optical carrier (fiber to the home), Terrestrial Fixed Wireless (provisioned/equipped over licensed spectrum or over spectrum used on an unlicensed basis), Electric Power Line, and a catch all category, All Other. Demographic Data. We rely primarily upon 2011 GeoLytics data for population and household count for the fifty states and the District of Columbia. For the U.S. Territories, we rely on the 2010 Census for population and household count. We rely on the ACS Five-Year Estimates 2006–2010 for income, education, and race-identification data. These data are based upon surveys conducted from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2010. We use these data rather than data from the 2010 Census because the ACS estimates will be updated each year and will enable us to examine trends over time. The ACS collects survey information continuously nearly every day of the year and then aggregates the results over five years. The data collection is spread evenly across the entire period represented so as not to over-represent any particular month or year within the period. These multiyear estimates describe the population and characteristics of an area for the full five-year period, not for any specific day, period, or year within the multiyear time period. The ACS surveys were conducted only for the fifty states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico; they did not include American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, or the U.S. Virgin Islands. Thus, our demographic analysis excludes the U.S. Territories for which we do not have data. We rely upon the 2010 census for land area and American Indian Area Alaska Native Area Hawaiian Home Land Class Code (AIANHHCC) affiliation. Definitions Adoption Rate. We measure adoption of services at or above the speed benchmark. Because fixed broadband services are not available throughout all areas, we measure adoption in this report by examining the ratio of the number of residential Form 477 broadband subscriptions to the total number of households in which this same minimum broadband speed service is available as evidenced in the SBI Data. We calculate adoption rates for four geographic areas: the census tract, the county, the state, and the United States as a whole. Deployment Rate. We measure deployment of services at or above the speed benchmark. The Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 73 deployment rate is the ratio of the population with access to the fixed broadband service to the total population. We calculate deployment rates for three geographic areas: the county, the state, and the United States as a whole. Educational Attainment. ACS Five-Year Estimates 2006–2010. We measure educational attainment as the portion of the population aged 25 years old and older that has attained at least an Associates Degree.1 Income Measures. ACS Five-Year Estimates 2006–2010. We report three income measures: per capita income, median (household) income, and the poverty rate (the proportion of the population living below the poverty level as defined by the Office of Management and Budget).2 Per capita income and median household income in the past twelve months are measured in 2010 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars. The survey reports the population for which income data are available and the population living below the poverty threshold appropriate for that person’s family size and composition. The population living below the poverty level is the sum of people in families and the number of unrelated individuals with incomes in the last twelve months below the poverty threshold.3 Land Area. The land area is based upon the 2010 Census and measured in square miles of land. Non-Urban Area. A census tract that is not part of the “Urban core.” Non-White Proportion. ACS Five-Year Estimates 2006–2010. We examine the portion of the population in the area that self-identifies solely as being White and the portion that does not self-identify solely as being White.4 Survey respondents to the ACS can select multiple races to which they identify and results from the 2010 Census indicate that approximately 2.9 percent of the population identifies with more than one race. Thus, to simplify the assessment of how subscription patterns may be affected by the racial demographics of the geographic area of interest, we examine the proportion of the population that identifies as non-White. Population Density. Population density of an area is the total population residing in the area divided by the square miles of land in the area. We use the most recent population data available for each area. Rural Areas. The designation of a census block as rural is based upon the 2010 Census. Tribal Lands. Our assessment of Tribal lands is conducted by examining the census blocks that have been identified by the Census Bureau as federally recognized Tribal lands for the 2010 Census. These areas fall into one of the following categories of the AIANHHCC: (1) Joint Use Areas; (2) Legal federally recognized American Indian area consisting of reservation and associated off-reservation trust land; (3) Legal federally recognized American Indian area consisting of reservation only; (4) Legal federally recognized American Indian area consisting of off-reservation trust land only; (5) Statistical American Indian area defined for a federally recognized Tribe that does not have reservation or off-reservation trust 1 See U.S. CENSUS, AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY, PUERTO RICO COMMUNITY SURVEY, 2010 SUBJECT DEFINITIONS 59–61 (2010) (discussing Educational Attainment measures), available at http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/data_documentation/SubjectDefinitions/2010_ACSSubjectDefinitions. pdf. 2 See id. at 77–83 (discussing Income Measures in the Past 12 Months and adjustments to the data for inflation), 102–05 (discussing poverty measures). 3 See id. at 102–05. 4 See id. at 105–12 (discussing racial classifications). Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 74 land, specifically a Tribal designated statistical area (TDSA) or Oklahoma Tribal Statistical Area (OTSA);5 (6) Alaskan Native village statistical area; and (7) Hawaiian Home Lands established by the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1921. Two categories of federally recognized areas were not designated by any census block with a population (off-reservation trust land portion of an American Indian area with both a reservation and off-reservation trust land; and the reservation portion of an American Indian area with both a reservation and off-reservation trust land). We exclude state- recognized areas from the analysis of Tribal lands. For purposes of this report, we aggregate these Tribal lands into 4 groups: Tribal Lands in the Lower 48 States (areas 1 through 4 defined above); Tribal Statistical Areas (area 5 defined above); Alaskan Village Areas (area 6 defined above) and Hawaiian Home Lands (area 7 defined above). Because demographic data are generally not available at the census block, we aggregate the SBI Data up to the census tract. However, because a census tract can be composed of Tribal lands and non-Tribal lands, a census tract is designated as one of the four Tribal land groupings if the land area of the Tribal lands comprises at least 50 percent of the land area within the census tract. The particular Tribal land grouping is determined by the Tribal land that accounts for the largest proportion of the census tract. Because this process resulted in only two census tracts being designated as a Hawaiian Home Land we exclude this Tribal group from our demographic analysis because there are too few observations for the statistical analysis. Urban Area. A census tract is defined as being Urban if it is in the “Urban Core.” A census tract is in the “Urban Core” if it has a land area less than three square miles and a population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile. This definition is consistent with the Census Bureau’s criteria for identifying initial Urban Core areas for the 2010 Census. 5 The statistical areas are largely in Oklahoma, but also include areas in California, New York, and Washington. Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 75 Appendix C Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by State All Areas Non-Rural Areas Rural Areas Areas Population (Millions) Population Without Access (Millions) Percentage of Population Without Access Population (Millions) Population Without Access (Millions) Percentage of Population Without Access Population (Millions) Population Without Access (Millions) Percentage of Population Without Access United States 315.887 18.992 6.0 254.886 4.521 1.8 61.000 14.471 23.7 Alabama 4.824 0.549 11.4 2.851 0.046 1.6 1.973 0.503 25.5 Alaska 0.715 0.140 19.6 0.471 0.021 4.4 0.244 0.119 48.9 Arizona 6.571 0.312 4.7 5.903 0.073 1.2 0.667 0.239 35.8 Arkansas 2.946 0.400 13.6 1.660 0.031 1.8 1.286 0.370 28.8 California 37.781 1.238 3.3 35.893 0.574 1.6 1.887 0.664 35.2 Colorado 5.112 0.221 4.3 4.409 0.043 1.0 0.703 0.178 25.3 Connecticut 3.581 0.027 0.7 3.153 0.015 0.5 0.427 0.011 2.6 Delaware 0.910 0.029 3.1 0.757 0.009 1.1 0.153 0.020 13.0 District of Columbia 0.606 0.000 0.0 0.606 0.000 0.0 0.000 0.000 Not Apply Florida 18.954 0.584 3.1 17.265 0.343 2.0 1.689 0.241 14.3 Georgia 9.861 0.336 3.4 7.412 0.093 1.3 2.449 0.243 9.9 Hawaii 1.362 0.021 1.5 1.250 0.001 0.1 0.112 0.020 17.7 Idaho 1.604 0.209 13.1 1.134 0.015 1.3 0.470 0.195 41.4 Illinois 12.907 0.423 3.3 11.430 0.045 0.4 1.476 0.378 25.6 Indiana 6.519 0.282 4.3 4.731 0.061 1.3 1.788 0.221 12.4 Iowa 3.064 0.218 7.1 1.969 0.014 0.7 1.095 0.204 18.7 Kansas 2.874 0.220 7.7 2.139 0.021 1.0 0.735 0.199 27.0 Kentucky 4.370 0.458 10.5 2.555 0.040 1.5 1.815 0.418 23.0 Louisiana 4.602 0.406 8.8 3.380 0.044 1.3 1.223 0.362 29.6 Maine 1.326 0.063 4.7 0.512 0.006 1.2 0.814 0.057 7.0 Maryland 5.776 0.186 3.2 5.038 0.044 0.9 0.738 0.142 19.2 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 76 Appendix C Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by State All Areas Non-Rural Areas Rural Areas Areas Population (Millions) Population Without Access (Millions) Percentage of Population Without Access Population (Millions) Population Without Access (Millions) Percentage of Population Without Access Population (Millions) Population Without Access (Millions) Percentage of Population Without Access Massachusetts 6.557 0.064 1.0 6.034 0.030 0.5 0.523 0.033 6.4 Michigan 9.823 0.616 6.3 7.326 0.055 0.8 2.497 0.561 22.4 Minnesota 5.329 0.427 8.0 3.909 0.033 0.8 1.420 0.394 27.7 Mississippi 2.979 0.362 12.1 1.470 0.018 1.2 1.509 0.343 22.8 Missouri 6.020 0.454 7.5 4.240 0.024 0.6 1.780 0.430 24.2 Montana 1.000 0.267 26.7 0.559 0.022 4.0 0.441 0.245 55.4 Nebraska 1.839 0.186 10.1 1.351 0.025 1.9 0.488 0.161 33.0 Nevada 2.762 0.063 2.3 2.602 0.015 0.6 0.160 0.048 30.2 New Hampshire 1.316 0.099 7.5 0.794 0.020 2.5 0.522 0.079 15.2 New Jersey 8.809 0.063 0.7 8.342 0.037 0.4 0.466 0.026 5.6 New Mexico 2.098 0.298 14.2 1.627 0.078 4.8 0.471 0.220 46.7 New York 19.466 0.246 1.3 17.125 0.002 0.0 2.342 0.245 10.4 North Carolina 9.727 0.627 6.4 6.452 0.134 2.1 3.276 0.493 15.0 North Dakota 0.675 0.107 15.9 0.407 0.010 2.5 0.268 0.097 36.2 Ohio 11.522 0.397 3.4 8.979 0.041 0.5 2.543 0.356 14.0 Oklahoma 3.788 0.615 16.2 2.513 0.072 2.9 1.276 0.543 42.5 Oregon 3.885 0.132 3.4 3.153 0.005 0.2 0.732 0.127 17.3 Pennsylvania 12.725 0.218 1.7 10.011 0.033 0.3 2.715 0.185 6.8 Rhode Island 1.045 0.002 0.2 0.950 0.000 0.0 0.096 0.002 2.3 South Carolina 4.702 0.549 11.7 3.127 0.153 4.9 1.575 0.395 25.1 South Dakota 0.822 0.173 21.1 0.468 0.015 3.2 0.354 0.158 44.6 Tennessee 6.421 0.440 6.8 4.266 0.039 0.9 2.155 0.400 18.6 Texas 25.707 1.521 5.9 21.805 0.443 2.0 3.903 1.078 27.6 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 77 Appendix C Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by State All Areas Non-Rural Areas Rural Areas Areas Population (Millions) Population Without Access (Millions) Percentage of Population Without Access Population (Millions) Population Without Access (Millions) Percentage of Population Without Access Population (Millions) Population Without Access (Millions) Percentage of Population Without Access Utah 2.845 0.052 1.8 2.578 0.007 0.3 0.267 0.045 16.7 Vermont 0.625 0.059 9.4 0.243 0.001 0.2 0.381 0.058 15.2 Virginia 8.063 0.878 10.9 6.085 0.134 2.2 1.978 0.744 37.6 Washington 6.827 0.217 3.2 5.742 0.028 0.5 1.085 0.189 17.4 West Virginia 1.858 0.854 45.9 0.903 0.283 31.4 0.955 0.571 59.8 Wisconsin 5.710 0.396 6.9 4.010 0.006 0.1 1.700 0.390 23.0 Wyoming 0.574 0.076 13.2 0.371 0.004 1.1 0.203 0.072 35.4 U.S. Territories 4.102 2.215 54.0 2.926 1.213 41.5 1.176 1.002 85.2 American Samoa 0.056 0.044 78.6 0.012 0.004 30.9 0.043 0.040 92.0 Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 0.054 0.054 100.0 0.039 0.039 100.0 0.015 0.015 100.0 Guam 0.159 0.086 54.3 0.046 0.000 0.1 0.114 0.086 76.1 Puerto Rico 3.725 1.922 51.6 2.779 1.120 40.3 0.946 0.802 84.8 United States Virgin Islands 0.109 0.109 100.0 0.051 0.051 100.0 0.058 0.058 100.0 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 78 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Alabama Autauga 8,622 93.1 24,568 Baldwin 16,096 117.3 26,469 Barbour 7,988 30.9 15,875 Bibb 9,592 37.0 19,918 Blount 4,519 90.1 21,070 Bullock 4,355 17.5 20,289 Butler 4,227 27.1 16,916 Calhoun 7,808 196.9 20,574 Chambers 5,210 56.9 16,626 Cherokee 8,294 47.2 21,322 Chilton 13,180 63.5 20,517 Choctaw 3,622 15.1 17,214 Clarke 11,506 20.7 17,372 Clay 6,781 23.0 18,332 Cleburne 6,122 27.1 17,490 Coffee 9,540 75.2 22,797 Colbert 13,286 92.0 21,079 Conecuh 8,617 15.5 15,755 Coosa 3,211 17.8 19,209 Covington 7,482 37.1 19,822 Crenshaw 7,359 23.0 19,793 Cullman 7,982 110.5 20,284 Dale 18,585 89.4 21,722 Dallas 4,423 44.6 16,646 DeKalb 4,145 92.6 18,152 Elmore 7,934 130.6 22,640 Escambia 11,629 40.4 16,259 Etowah 4,938 195.6 20,439 Fayette 8,917 27.4 17,711 Franklin 10,006 50.4 18,094 Geneva 11,345 47.2 18,351 Greene 4,820 13.9 14,738 Hale 7,698 24.2 16,523 Henry 7,239 31.1 19,716 Houston 9,966 178.4 22,725 Jackson 6,834 49.3 18,905 Jefferson 8,347 592.1 26,529 Lamar 7,180 23.9 19,789 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 79 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Lauderdale 20,431 140.0 22,341 Lawrence 9,713 49.6 19,370 Lee 3,848 235.6 22,794 Limestone 6,857 152.4 24,007 Lowndes 3,506 15.6 16,524 Macon 6,707 34.9 16,380 Madison 20,535 426.6 29,918 Marengo 5,672 21.4 18,323 Marion 10,236 41.4 19,030 Marshall 2,645 167.2 19,875 Mobile 12,760 338.1 21,548 Monroe 10,237 22.3 17,652 Montgomery 5,526 293.5 24,622 Morgan 4,053 208.6 23,090 Perry 4,630 14.6 13,433 Pickens 6,200 22.2 16,278 Pike 13,206 49.1 19,013 Randolph 6,037 39.6 19,844 Russell 4,739 83.4 17,415 St. Clair 12,406 137.2 22,192 Shelby 4,152 255.3 33,978 Sumter 6,464 15.1 14,460 Talladega 11,363 111.8 18,713 Tallapoosa 2,743 58.3 22,542 Tuscaloosa 14,443 149.6 22,546 Walker 11,468 84.6 20,516 Washington 4,281 16.2 18,824 Wilcox 4,957 13.2 12,573 Winston 10,018 39.8 18,055 Alaska Aleutians East 3,269 0.5 22,279 Aleutians West 5,372 1.2 29,920 Anchorage 1,755 171.0 34,678 Bethel 17,145 0.4 18,584 Bristol Bay 981 1.9 31,260 Denali 133 0.1 42,245 Dillingham 4,877 0.3 22,597 Fairbanks North Star 19,827 13.4 30,395 Haines 391 1.1 27,979 Hoonah-Angoon 1,657 0.3 24,932 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 80 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Juneau 508 11.6 34,923 Kenai Peninsula 21,983 3.5 29,127 Ketchikan Gateway 42 2.8 29,520 Kodiak Island 5,273 2.1 26,413 Lake and Peninsula 1,642 0.1 15,161 Matanuska-Susitna 5,586 3.8 27,910 Nome 9,520 0.4 20,549 North Slope 9,228 0.1 22,109 Northwest Arctic 7,590 0.2 21,278 Petersburg 1,062 1.2 30,971 Prince of Wales-Hyder 2,576 1.4 24,193 Sitka 184 3.1 29,982 Skagway 30 2.1 35,536 Southeast Fairbanks 5,331 0.3 27,657 Valdez-Cordova 833 0.3 30,703 Wade Hampton 7,608 0.4 11,269 Wrangell 344 0.9 28,731 Yakutat 659 0.1 28,576 Yukon-Koyukuk 4,712 0.0 18,614 Arizona Apache 57,074 6.5 12,294 Cochise 1,807 21.6 23,010 Coconino 48,181 7.3 22,632 Gila 20,736 11.4 19,600 Graham 6,804 8.4 15,644 Greenlee 184 4.8 21,281 La Paz 10,755 4.6 21,165 Maricopa 27,505 426.2 27,816 Mohave 20,734 15.3 21,523 Navajo 58,306 11.0 16,745 Pima 9,052 109.1 25,093 Pinal 19,911 74.9 21,716 Santa Cruz 8,480 39.5 16,209 Yavapai 19,844 26.7 25,527 Yuma 2,591 36.8 18,418 Arkansas Arkansas 1,075 19.1 22,142 Ashley 4,733 23.4 18,779 Baxter 2,219 76.1 21,513 Benton 7,311 271.2 25,186 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 81 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Boone 10,479 63.4 20,507 Bradley 4,619 17.7 18,845 Calhoun 4,923 8.5 16,457 Carroll 6,668 44.0 19,743 Chicot 2,834 18.0 14,668 Clark 6,206 26.7 17,186 Clay 1,146 24.8 18,892 Cleburne 4,492 47.1 20,371 Cleveland 2,522 14.4 19,481 Columbia 6,411 31.7 20,110 Conway 7,637 38.7 19,909 Craighead 2,520 139.0 21,728 Crawford 5,214 105.9 18,715 Crittenden 6,051 83.9 18,241 Cross 4,822 28.8 18,248 Dallas 1,523 12.0 16,457 Desha 1,264 16.7 17,582 Drew 7,757 22.3 18,903 Faulkner 3,918 179.0 22,811 Franklin 2,602 29.9 18,010 Fulton 1,367 19.8 17,067 Garland 5,355 143.5 22,786 Grant 3,615 28.5 22,229 Greene 11,620 73.7 18,225 Hempstead 4,953 31.1 17,177 Hot Spring 19,297 54.1 18,248 Howard 5,500 23.4 18,216 Independence 19,899 48.2 19,912 Izard 1,654 23.5 17,737 Jackson 6,689 28.2 14,874 Jefferson 21,331 87.9 18,681 Johnson 5,060 39.2 16,937 Lafayette 5,055 14.3 17,699 Lawrence 6,042 29.4 15,168 Lee 5,015 17.1 13,103 Lincoln 5,474 25.0 15,024 Little River 7,641 24.6 18,808 Logan 3,031 31.5 19,121 Lonoke 1,690 91.3 22,473 Madison 5,154 19.3 18,611 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 82 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Marion 11,177 28.2 19,532 Miller 1,824 69.8 19,654 Mississippi 4,438 51.6 17,736 Monroe 1,485 13.1 17,084 Montgomery 2,442 12.2 20,010 Nevada 2,185 14.4 21,020 Newton 7,910 10.1 15,904 Ouachita 7,028 35.3 18,244 Perry 3,144 19.1 19,844 Phillips 13,491 30.6 15,244 Pike 1,395 18.7 18,122 Poinsett 3,456 32.3 16,625 Polk 4,466 24.1 16,913 Pope 2,590 77.3 19,693 Prairie 696 13.2 18,134 Pulaski 4,333 506.5 27,158 Randolph 2,964 27.6 18,751 St. Francis 12,372 43.7 13,693 Saline 7,527 151.6 24,584 Scott 3,580 12.8 17,668 Searcy 2,963 12.5 15,298 Sebastian 1,750 239.0 22,284 Sevier 2,031 30.9 15,590 Sharp 2,954 28.6 16,570 Stone 2,255 20.6 16,090 Union 5,677 39.9 20,447 Van Buren 5,389 24.6 17,999 Washington 7,626 220.2 22,421 White 5,879 75.7 20,900 Woodruff 761 12.0 18,344 Yell 10,235 24.2 16,345 California Alameda 1,969 2064.5 33,961 Alpine 1,055 1.5 32,159 Amador 6,872 63.9 26,329 Butte 868 135.1 23,404 Calaveras 13,208 45.0 28,408 Colusa 1,111 19.1 21,317 Contra Costa 10,228 1479.6 37,818 Del Norte 2,608 28.8 18,974 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 83 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) El Dorado 12,321 106.0 34,393 Fresno 101,185 160.0 20,329 Glenn 696 21.8 19,987 Humboldt 57,613 37.7 24,025 Imperial 28,880 43.4 16,395 Inyo 9,412 1.8 26,762 Kern 241,472 106.4 20,100 Kings 69,699 112.6 17,875 Lake 174 51.5 21,531 Lassen 5,233 7.8 19,756 Los Angeles 24,705 2451.2 27,344 Madera 23,977 72.7 18,724 Marin 9,952 488.9 53,940 Mariposa 6,552 12.6 27,064 Mendocino 29,903 25.1 23,357 Merced 21,544 134.9 18,041 Modoc 8,615 2.5 20,536 Mono 5,596 4.7 27,321 Monterey 70,236 128.7 25,776 Napa 84 184.1 34,310 Nevada 20,799 103.0 30,727 Orange 715 3844.3 34,017 Placer 11,814 251.8 35,680 Plumas 684 7.7 28,732 Riverside 43,187 313.1 24,431 Sacramento 6,144 1478.0 26,953 San Benito 4,979 40.2 25,508 San Bernardino 55,610 103.2 21,867 San Diego 78,813 743.1 30,715 San Joaquin 43,034 497.9 22,851 San Luis Obispo 37,615 82.5 29,790 San Mateo 6,000 1628.2 43,958 Santa Barbara 9,709 156.5 29,731 Santa Clara 668 1411.3 39,804 Santa Cruz 95 597.4 32,862 Shasta 13,960 46.8 23,772 Sierra 259 3.4 27,389 Siskiyou 4,483 7.2 22,179 Solano 3,845 502.0 28,649 Sonoma 8,277 308.3 32,597 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 84 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Stanislaus 19,865 347.3 22,064 Tehama 450 21.8 20,198 Trinity 13,959 4.4 22,073 Tulare 46,581 94.7 17,966 Tuolumne 33,912 24.8 25,483 Ventura 6,291 450.9 32,348 Yolo 40 201.0 27,420 Yuba 460 117.7 19,937 Colorado Adams 1,604 388.3 23,999 Alamosa 17 21.6 18,820 Arapahoe 2,190 726.1 31,898 Archuleta 4,817 9.2 25,421 Baca 293 1.5 21,472 Bent 56 4.3 16,505 Boulder 821 408.9 36,947 Chaffee 4,873 17.6 26,110 Cheyenne 206 1.0 22,999 Clear Creek 1,016 22.7 34,506 Conejos 81 6.5 17,541 Costilla 88 2.9 16,525 Crowley 4,423 7.5 18,966 Custer 2,513 5.8 26,860 Delta 1,190 27.6 22,080 Dolores 339 2.0 19,244 Douglas 462 347.6 42,418 Eagle 11,381 32.0 36,753 Elbert 5,711 12.4 34,782 El Paso 18,425 296.0 27,945 Fremont 5,995 30.5 19,083 Garfield 4,930 19.9 28,457 Gilpin 658 36.7 33,591 Grand 4,337 8.1 30,055 Gunnison 3,130 4.8 28,490 Hinsdale 200 0.8 43,293 Huerfano 1,882 4.3 23,139 Jackson 747 0.9 23,814 Jefferson 1,593 702.6 34,714 Kiowa 238 0.8 22,877 Kit Carson 1,878 3.8 21,086 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 85 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Lake 1,540 19.8 20,437 La Plata 6,786 30.8 29,836 Larimer 2,822 117.1 30,046 Las Animas 6,268 3.3 21,887 Lincoln 1,171 2.1 23,440 Logan 5,072 12.2 22,564 Mesa 12,699 45.5 27,067 Mineral 298 0.8 46,358 Moffat 2,636 3.0 24,563 Montezuma 9,404 12.7 24,616 Montrose 1,786 19.0 23,613 Morgan 4,352 22.2 20,181 Otero 3,181 15.0 18,056 Ouray 870 8.5 29,051 Park 3,879 7.3 31,663 Phillips 4,447 6.5 23,453 Pitkin 3,361 17.9 64,381 Prowers 85 7.6 18,429 Pueblo 24,219 67.8 21,609 Rio Blanco 1,708 2.1 28,382 Rio Grande 1,413 13.2 17,199 Routt 12,407 10.2 33,079 Saguache 2,924 2.0 18,686 San Juan 59 1.7 31,232 San Miguel 4,017 5.7 38,247 Sedgwick 1,029 4.2 21,652 Summit 2,370 46.5 35,770 Teller 4,694 41.8 28,726 Washington 2,098 1.9 23,125 Weld 4,081 65.1 24,732 Yuma 3,288 4.3 21,872 Connecticut Fairfield 385 1470.6 48,295 Hartford 5,370 1221.1 33,151 Litchfield 2,179 205.5 35,848 Middlesex 5,340 449.1 37,519 New Haven 3,308 1429.7 31,720 New London 7,205 410.3 32,888 Tolland 2,679 372.0 33,108 Windham 124 232.5 26,457 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 86 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Delaware Kent 13,932 285.0 24,194 New Castle 1,688 1270.4 31,220 Sussex 12,959 215.3 26,779 District of Columbia District of Columbia 218 9921.1 42,078 Florida Alachua 8,763 285.2 24,741 Baker 2,009 47.7 19,593 Bay 3,179 223.3 25,033 Bradford 9,006 99.0 16,997 Brevard 703 536.8 27,606 Broward 25,037 1430.5 28,631 Calhoun 2,344 26.2 15,091 Charlotte 8,128 230.4 26,938 Citrus 2,923 247.1 22,551 Clay 12,104 324.4 26,872 Collier 11,122 161.8 37,046 Columbia 7,213 87.1 19,366 DeSoto 3,589 54.8 15,989 Dixie 3,931 23.6 17,066 Duval 43,619 1137.9 25,854 Escambia 14,153 451.1 23,474 Flagler 1,007 208.2 24,939 Franklin 517 22.2 21,005 Gadsden 1,991 91.2 16,843 Gilchrist 321 49.4 18,309 Glades 3,452 16.1 17,872 Gulf 1,142 27.5 17,968 Hamilton 4,106 28.8 15,794 Hardee 5,991 44.6 14,668 Hendry 8,447 34.9 14,734 Hernando 1,886 376.5 22,775 Highlands 7,301 98.9 19,579 Hillsborough 8,250 1218.5 27,062 Holmes 9,467 41.8 15,285 Indian River 145 278.2 31,918 Jackson 12,888 55.0 17,177 Jefferson 3,742 24.5 19,647 Lafayette 3,568 16.7 18,069 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 87 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Lake 11,621 326.2 25,323 Lee 22,915 809.1 29,445 Leon 7,296 417.6 25,803 Levy 3,791 37.1 18,703 Liberty 3,329 10.3 17,003 Madison 6,051 27.6 16,346 Manatee 6,923 438.5 28,072 Marion 14,071 214.8 22,384 Martin 2,146 268.7 35,772 Miami-Dade 128,691 1320.1 22,957 Monroe 3,148 72.8 35,516 Nassau 5,334 115.6 29,089 Okaloosa 11,635 192.1 28,621 Okeechobee 1,118 52.8 19,664 Orange 84 1283.0 25,490 Osceola 576 210.0 20,536 Palm Beach 26,698 669.0 33,610 Pasco 4,306 639.7 24,164 Pinellas 1,885 3319.6 28,742 Polk 13,129 343.1 21,881 Putnam 9,577 102.5 18,402 St. Johns 12,257 328.4 36,027 St. Lucie 2,137 502.4 23,296 Santa Rosa 5,677 151.5 25,384 Sarasota 8,732 686.4 33,045 Seminole 6 1372.0 29,795 Sumter 6,280 179.3 24,180 Suwannee 1,289 61.3 18,782 Taylor 4,332 22.3 18,649 Union 2,734 64.7 13,657 Volusia 6,755 450.8 24,768 Wakulla 1,698 52.5 21,892 Walton 5,916 54.2 27,746 Washington 9,974 44.0 18,470 Georgia Appling 6,598 36.5 18,977 Atkinson 285 25.4 15,456 Bacon 11,047 43.4 17,110 Baker 3,011 10.0 16,379 Baldwin 1,073 178.6 17,488 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 88 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Banks 394 80.7 19,497 Barrow 345 453.8 20,882 Bartow 3,181 221.8 22,241 Ben Hill 549 71.2 15,529 Berrien 1,427 43.5 16,049 Bibb 324 623.2 21,436 Bleckley 2,034 61.3 18,960 Brantley 18 41.6 18,905 Brooks 1,089 33.2 20,346 Bryan 752 71.9 28,365 Bulloch 31,995 106.7 17,812 Burke 2,614 28.0 15,934 Butts 326 130.5 20,963 Calhoun 1,048 24.4 12,452 Camden 275 83.4 22,022 Candler 354 46.3 16,068 Carroll 867 225.7 20,523 Catoosa 1,125 398.5 22,563 Charlton 1,501 15.7 16,652 Chatham 11,239 629.7 25,397 Chattahoochee 7,124 42.0 22,202 Chattooga 284 83.7 15,158 Cherokee 387 528.1 30,217 Clarke 108 990.1 19,839 Clay 849 16.4 13,353 Clinch 971 8.6 16,709 Cobb 318 2052.9 33,110 Coffee 1,085 74.4 16,664 Colquitt 681 85.1 17,362 Columbia 422 437.7 29,479 Cook 884 76.6 16,528 Coweta 723 299.5 26,161 Crawford 1,386 38.9 20,692 Crisp 2,702 86.3 17,187 Dade 1,869 95.4 20,168 Dawson 265 109.2 25,557 Decatur 1,056 47.0 17,833 DeKalb 3 2607.2 28,412 Dodge 1,785 44.2 16,288 Dooly 5,135 37.8 14,871 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 89 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Dougherty 1,567 288.3 19,210 Douglas 469 685.6 24,515 Early 1,059 21.3 16,330 Echols 284 9.4 14,201 Effingham 4,190 113.0 23,465 Elbert 2,059 57.1 17,100 Emanuel 2,135 33.6 16,076 Evans 1,711 61.1 19,072 Fannin 286 62.0 21,103 Fayette 479 554.0 35,076 Floyd 6,399 189.7 20,640 Forsyth 130 820.2 35,385 Franklin 1,314 84.7 19,276 Fulton 4,163 1790.7 37,211 Gilmer 220 67.6 20,439 Glascock 835 21.9 16,844 Glynn 504 193.5 28,040 Gordon 3,226 157.8 18,285 Grady 368 55.7 17,785 Greene 571 41.2 24,943 Gwinnett 197 1928.0 26,901 Habersham 431 159.9 19,286 Hall 730 474.3 23,675 Hancock 4,991 20.0 10,925 Haralson 2,005 102.6 19,033 Harris 1,003 70.6 31,073 Hart 13,050 109.2 19,124 Heard 2,011 40.4 18,077 Henry 74 649.0 25,773 Houston 561 378.8 25,206 Irwin 1,127 27.0 16,561 Jackson 581 187.6 22,473 Jasper 3,208 38.3 20,263 Jeff Davis 4,369 46.3 15,730 Jefferson 3,204 32.0 15,165 Jenkins 2,184 24.0 17,629 Johnson 5,056 33.4 15,659 Jones 227 73.8 21,598 Lamar 179 100.8 17,725 Lanier 1,400 56.6 16,894 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 90 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Laurens 2,153 60.4 19,387 Lee 2,105 81.1 23,867 Liberty 2,046 127.0 18,662 Lincoln 766 37.9 19,627 Long 5,027 37.0 15,068 Lowndes 2,189 224.7 20,041 Lumpkin 1,785 108.2 20,088 McDuffie 820 85.4 17,261 McIntosh 10,415 34.1 20,964 Macon 870 36.7 12,902 Madison 325 100.6 18,975 Marion 437 23.9 17,729 Meriwether 4,646 43.8 18,295 Miller 892 21.8 19,895 Mitchell 4,848 46.2 16,322 Monroe 4,206 68.1 23,656 Montgomery 1,110 38.2 17,168 Morgan 3,779 52.4 27,732 Murray 116 114.8 16,925 Muscogee 3,172 876.2 22,514 Newton 645 379.3 21,583 Oconee 505 184.3 34,271 Oglethorpe 403 34.5 17,572 Paulding 2,629 475.0 23,450 Peach 392 187.5 18,681 Pickens 103 129.7 25,892 Pierce 3,860 60.9 18,283 Pike 1,627 85.2 21,051 Polk 794 135.7 18,214 Pulaski 544 47.9 16,621 Putnam 3,235 62.3 25,576 Quitman 1,283 16.9 13,642 Rabun 398 44.3 22,471 Randolph 1,494 17.8 17,632 Richmond 478 620.6 20,604 Rockdale 47 670.8 24,367 Schley 780 31.3 16,122 Screven 8,672 22.8 16,189 Seminole 130 37.0 19,263 Spalding 437 330.2 19,607 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 91 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Stephens 1,709 147.6 18,285 Stewart 1,330 13.1 15,612 Sumter 7,483 67.7 17,436 Talbot 1,382 17.4 18,007 Taliaferro 918 8.8 13,955 Tattnall 6,083 53.9 16,742 Taylor 2,668 23.8 14,693 Telfair 4,197 38.0 13,420 Terrell 263 27.4 15,553 Thomas 648 83.3 21,261 Tift 792 158.0 18,394 Toombs 2,554 75.7 17,974 Towns 4,292 64.0 21,527 Treutlen 30 35.0 16,710 Troup 2,596 164.0 19,699 Turner 432 30.8 15,973 Twiggs 2,155 25.1 15,904 Union 547 67.7 24,182 Upson 355 83.7 17,398 Walker 2,048 155.1 19,440 Walton 834 267.7 22,521 Ware 2,250 41.2 18,295 Warren 1,180 20.2 15,987 Washington 5,559 31.4 15,033 Wayne 1,162 47.5 18,393 Webster 938 13.4 16,295 Wheeler 1,698 25.1 10,043 White 247 114.1 23,680 Whitfield 349 360.5 19,780 Wilcox 1,926 24.6 12,692 Wilkes 2,717 22.5 16,993 Wilkinson 515 21.4 17,929 Worth 3,972 37.8 18,348 Hawaii Hawaii 18,297 46.9 26,194 Honolulu 335 1580.2 29,516 Kauai 365 109.3 26,513 Maui 1,517 134.2 29,180 Idaho Ada 1,042 382.7 27,915 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 92 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Adams 1,160 2.9 22,730 Bannock 8,107 75.0 21,275 Bear Lake 720 6.1 19,284 Benewah 7,725 12.2 18,312 Bingham 12,919 22.1 18,633 Blaine 3,512 8.2 32,656 Boise 4,195 3.7 24,288 Bonner 18,868 23.8 24,745 Bonneville 9,737 57.7 23,218 Boundary 6,083 8.9 18,011 Butte 1,109 1.3 20,414 Camas 1,158 1.1 19,659 Canyon 1,013 332.8 18,366 Caribou 1,819 3.9 20,637 Cassia 2,747 9.1 17,782 Clark 1,009 0.6 19,737 Clearwater 3,658 3.6 20,507 Custer 468 0.9 22,625 Elmore 3,872 8.8 20,388 Franklin 2,233 19.6 17,967 Fremont 3,154 7.2 18,616 Gem 488 30.2 20,431 Gooding 6,569 21.4 17,694 Idaho 11,003 1.9 18,980 Jefferson 11,728 25.1 19,019 Jerome 7,236 38.5 16,947 Kootenai 13,401 114.4 24,418 Latah 2,646 34.5 20,218 Lemhi 1,985 1.8 21,699 Lewis 1,753 8.0 18,580 Lincoln 3,351 4.4 19,011 Madison 11,096 81.7 13,735 Minidoka 116 26.9 17,747 Nez Perce 3,648 46.7 23,899 Oneida 755 3.6 17,950 Owyhee 2,735 1.5 17,373 Payette 2,369 56.7 18,814 Power 1,675 5.7 18,412 Shoshone 3,439 4.9 19,020 Teton 10,886 24.2 23,633 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 93 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Twin Falls 10,894 41.4 19,892 Valley 2,248 2.8 27,577 Washington 3,145 7.1 20,015 Illinois Adams 10,789 78.4 24,308 Alexander 6,920 34.1 15,858 Bond 2,058 46.5 24,341 Boone 397 197.6 26,105 Brown 1,016 22.8 17,133 Bureau 2,980 40.4 24,103 Calhoun 4,355 20.3 23,109 Carroll 835 34.4 25,914 Cass 683 36.3 19,825 Champaign 676 203.1 24,553 Christian 2,455 48.8 21,519 Clark 3,172 32.5 23,173 Clay 3,040 29.4 20,802 Clinton 370 80.1 25,392 Coles 927 106.0 20,601 Cook 244 5526.4 29,335 Crawford 3,385 44.5 21,545 Cumberland 2,207 31.9 21,262 DeKalb 86 169.7 24,179 De Witt 2,424 41.4 24,320 Douglas 556 47.7 21,438 DuPage 2 2799.1 37,849 Edgar 2,730 29.6 22,175 Edwards 3,049 30.0 21,113 Effingham 2,519 71.3 24,843 Fayette 5,309 30.9 21,663 Ford 884 28.9 23,401 Franklin 8,999 96.8 18,504 Fulton 11,218 42.6 20,309 Gallatin 2,050 17.2 21,537 Greene 4,813 25.2 22,107 Grundy 459 123.9 27,895 Hamilton 5,265 19.5 21,602 Hancock 4,798 23.9 22,885 Hardin 779 24.0 18,515 Henderson 3,263 19.2 22,492 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 94 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Henry 4,050 61.2 24,915 Iroquois 4,509 26.6 23,400 Jackson 6,658 102.5 19,294 Jasper 2,314 19.5 21,467 Jefferson 16,011 67.9 21,370 Jersey 3,061 62.5 24,368 Jo Daviess 2,928 37.5 26,819 Johnson 9,035 36.7 16,402 Kane 186 1009.4 29,480 Kankakee 4,194 169.6 22,888 Kendall 291 382.0 30,565 Knox 4,442 73.3 20,908 Lake 677 1596.5 38,120 LaSalle 2,667 100.7 24,982 Lawrence 5,439 45.2 19,297 Lee 2,459 49.9 24,440 Livingston 986 37.0 23,259 Logan 9,128 48.8 22,063 McDonough 1,503 54.9 18,344 McHenry 1,282 517.6 31,838 McLean 7,623 144.2 28,167 Macon 5,726 190.1 24,726 Macoupin 12,101 55.1 23,222 Madison 640 376.5 26,127 Marion 8,633 68.7 20,493 Marshall 966 32.4 24,991 Mason 2,096 26.9 23,427 Massac 6,249 64.7 20,216 Menard 6,897 40.4 26,281 Mercer 7,511 29.2 25,332 Monroe 122 86.6 31,091 Montgomery 7,504 42.7 21,700 Morgan 4,502 62.2 23,244 Moultrie 466 44.1 22,954 Ogle 3,171 70.9 24,959 Peoria 10,431 301.9 28,157 Perry 5,033 50.4 17,926 Piatt 348 38.2 26,492 Pike 6,076 19.9 19,996 Pope 3,739 12.2 20,134 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 95 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Pulaski 3,818 30.2 18,444 Putnam 1,728 37.6 27,004 Randolph 3,909 57.8 19,950 Richland 2,102 44.7 22,874 Rock Island 3,295 345.4 25,071 St. Clair 367 411.5 24,770 Saline 5,888 65.5 20,903 Sangamon 13,536 227.7 28,394 Schuyler 1,840 17.2 20,649 Scott 3,459 21.1 27,530 Shelby 5,966 29.3 21,891 Stark 942 20.7 25,311 Stephenson 7,021 83.8 22,608 Tazewell 10,885 210.1 27,036 Union 9,497 43.1 19,512 Vermilion 8,342 90.4 20,218 Wabash 6,018 53.0 23,350 Warren 4,384 32.5 20,047 Washington 2,241 26.0 24,846 Wayne 8,740 23.4 21,493 White 5,343 29.4 22,081 Whiteside 3,390 85.5 23,405 Will 2,823 822.8 29,811 Williamson 10,939 158.6 22,164 Winnebago 3,176 581.8 24,008 Woodford 6,247 74.4 29,475 Indiana Allen 3,377 543.9 24,532 Bartholomew 3,007 191.0 26,860 Benton 172 21.7 21,949 Boone 663 136.6 38,696 Brown 6,092 48.1 24,312 Carroll 2,536 53.9 23,163 Cass 11,257 94.4 20,562 Clay 24,765 75.0 20,569 Clinton 864 82.4 21,131 Crawford 9,949 34.4 18,598 Daviess 11,769 74.0 20,254 Dearborn 4,007 165.1 25,023 Decatur 764 69.0 22,719 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 96 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) DeKalb 26 116.7 21,779 Delaware 1,383 296.4 20,405 Dubois 2,107 98.7 24,801 Elkhart 1,386 431.4 22,187 Fayette 16,344 112.4 18,928 Floyd 38 508.6 25,971 Franklin 4,108 60.3 23,090 Fulton 1,670 56.7 21,119 Gibson 7,786 68.4 22,542 Greene 2,192 60.7 20,676 Hamilton 11 714.9 38,500 Hancock 140 233.9 28,017 Harrison 2,619 81.4 23,539 Hendricks 1,096 364.1 28,880 Henry 61 126.0 19,879 Jackson 2,363 83.5 21,498 Jasper 3,402 60.5 23,676 Jefferson 2,446 90.3 21,278 Jennings 73 75.5 18,636 Johnson 473 443.8 28,224 Knox 1,233 74.4 20,381 Kosciusko 5,492 146.0 24,019 LaGrange 170 98.5 18,388 Lake 3,649 1001.0 23,142 LaPorte 11,343 187.6 22,599 Madison 274 291.4 21,722 Marion 550 2290.5 24,498 Marshall 225 106.3 22,493 Martin 8,936 30.5 21,750 Miami 2,403 97.4 18,854 Montgomery 3,481 75.7 22,788 Morgan 6,846 171.5 23,972 Newton 28 35.1 24,055 Noble 5 116.0 19,783 Ohio 2,299 70.4 25,703 Orange 5,193 49.8 19,119 Owen 2,750 55.6 20,581 Parke 5,352 38.7 19,494 Perry 7,379 50.7 20,806 Pike 5,565 38.2 20,005 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 97 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Porter 1,515 397.6 27,922 Posey 1,356 62.8 26,727 Pulaski 93 30.8 20,491 Putnam 6,276 79.0 20,441 Randolph 585 57.7 19,552 Ripley 1,040 64.3 22,025 Rush 4,756 42.2 21,215 St. Joseph 896 584.5 23,082 Scott 135 126.6 19,414 Shelby 1,396 108.4 26,398 Spencer 3,732 52.8 23,609 Starke 224 76.0 17,991 Steuben 77 110.1 22,950 Sullivan 9,845 47.8 20,093 Switzerland 5,825 47.8 21,214 Tippecanoe 3,483 351.1 22,203 Tipton 33 60.6 23,499 Union 4,300 46.5 19,243 Vermillion 3,255 62.8 22,178 Vigo 4,346 267.7 20,398 Wabash 9,828 79.0 20,475 Warrick 8,403 157.0 29,737 Washington 676 55.1 19,278 Wayne 1,458 170.4 21,789 White 3,683 48.5 22,323 Whitley 2,823 99.5 24,644 Iowa Adair 1,544 13.4 23,497 Adams 881 9.4 23,549 Allamakee 3,508 22.5 21,349 Appanoose 1,331 25.6 20,084 Audubon 1,411 13.7 24,207 Benton 9,314 36.3 25,111 Black Hawk 2,052 232.9 23,357 Boone 637 46.0 25,998 Bremer 1,136 55.8 26,522 Buchanan 835 36.8 23,437 Buena Vista 1,246 35.3 21,256 Butler 3,931 25.6 24,030 Calhoun 180 16.7 23,049 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 98 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Carroll 754 36.6 25,094 Cass 4,641 24.7 21,787 Cedar 3,202 32.0 24,742 Cerro Gordo 2,838 77.4 25,463 Cherokee 1,419 20.6 24,507 Chickasaw 2,720 24.5 22,447 Clarke 2,294 21.5 23,271 Clay 84 29.3 25,398 Clayton 377 23.2 22,303 Clinton 3,384 70.5 23,573 Crawford 2,736 24.0 21,181 Dallas 1,097 118.0 33,051 Davis 5,639 17.4 21,970 Decatur 2,333 15.8 18,195 Delaware 705 30.5 22,578 Des Moines 5,309 97.1 22,555 Dickinson 1,123 44.0 29,459 Dubuque 2,410 155.0 25,045 Emmet 307 26.1 24,371 Fayette 1,053 28.3 21,566 Floyd 3,997 32.5 21,416 Franklin 3,720 18.3 22,507 Fremont 936 14.4 23,612 Greene 6,028 16.1 23,947 Grundy 1,063 24.8 26,916 Guthrie 2,107 18.4 26,590 Hamilton 787 26.8 24,765 Hancock 2,126 19.8 22,713 Hardin 538 30.5 24,154 Harrison 1,349 21.2 24,221 Henry 703 46.5 23,056 Howard 2,598 20.1 22,417 Humboldt 662 22.3 24,568 Ida 2,730 16.2 23,841 Iowa 1,458 27.8 26,721 Jackson 810 31.1 23,008 Jasper 2,338 50.1 23,160 Jefferson 1,017 38.6 23,853 Johnson 51 216.1 28,008 Jones 1,082 35.9 22,873 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 99 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Keokuk 2,158 17.9 22,088 Kossuth 928 15.9 27,415 Lee 3,550 69.0 21,324 Linn 46 298.1 28,239 Louisa 1,414 28.3 20,367 Lucas 1,756 20.4 19,967 Lyon 2,472 19.5 21,613 Madison 3,291 28.3 25,711 Mahaska 2,727 39.2 21,568 Marion 1,885 60.0 24,613 Marshall 836 71.5 22,407 Mills 3,578 34.5 25,400 Mitchell 4,118 22.9 22,820 Monona 1,192 13.1 22,774 Monroe 1,340 18.2 21,228 Montgomery 1,719 25.2 21,301 Muscatine 4,293 98.5 24,138 O'Brien 1,673 24.8 24,771 Osceola 3,542 16.0 23,063 Page 1,707 29.7 21,204 Palo Alto 151 16.6 23,071 Plymouth 3,997 28.8 28,060 Pocahontas 63 12.6 23,385 Polk 788 763.5 29,246 Pottawattamie 14,381 98.4 23,782 Poweshiek 1,243 32.1 25,218 Ringgold 1,344 9.5 21,858 Sac 3,796 17.9 23,837 Scott 2,005 364.7 27,408 Shelby 205 20.4 22,389 Sioux 6,981 43.9 21,333 Story 74 158.8 25,450 Tama 1,624 24.6 23,041 Taylor 851 11.7 21,335 Union 2,009 29.9 20,435 Van Buren 470 15.6 20,209 Wapello 2,821 82.6 22,376 Warren 4,449 82.4 28,798 Washington 920 38.2 23,979 Wayne 2,474 12.0 18,795 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 100 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Webster 33 52.8 22,653 Winnebago 4,670 27.0 22,684 Winneshiek 2,404 30.5 23,608 Woodbury 4,303 117.9 22,069 Worth 2,666 19.0 27,240 Wright 323 22.6 23,068 Kansas Allen 2,207 26.4 20,195 Anderson 2,353 13.9 20,558 Atchison 849 39.0 20,995 Barber 236 4.2 23,542 Barton 1,135 31.0 23,688 Bourbon 4,740 23.8 18,596 Brown 1,826 17.4 19,555 Butler 12,832 46.5 26,436 Chase 1,194 3.5 21,890 Chautauqua 1,051 5.7 21,613 Cherokee 6,852 36.5 20,075 Cheyenne 1,282 2.7 19,460 Clark 126 2.3 24,605 Clay 710 13.4 24,858 Cloud 738 13.3 18,690 Coffey 2,013 13.6 23,744 Comanche 367 2.4 22,974 Cowley 1,708 32.1 20,720 Crawford 3,974 66.4 19,753 Decatur 938 3.2 21,966 Dickinson 1,059 23.6 22,009 Doniphan 1,605 20.2 21,704 Douglas 2,764 244.6 24,851 Edwards 760 4.8 24,899 Elk 994 4.5 20,958 Ellis 1,107 31.9 24,093 Ellsworth 2,010 9.1 21,704 Finney 1,494 28.7 20,976 Ford 1,946 31.4 19,348 Franklin 5,563 45.6 22,294 Geary 459 92.1 20,709 Gove 2,148 2.5 22,775 Graham 2,340 2.9 25,026 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 101 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Grant 85 13.7 25,188 Gray 143 6.8 22,606 Greeley 173 1.6 28,698 Greenwood 2,224 5.7 21,325 Hamilton 18 2.7 20,190 Harper 475 7.4 22,467 Harvey 4,309 64.3 22,890 Haskell 291 7.4 21,966 Hodgeman 452 2.2 20,859 Jackson 2,190 20.4 23,306 Jefferson 3,964 35.8 25,580 Jewell 515 3.3 22,443 Johnson 3,732 1165.6 37,882 Kearny 49 4.5 20,888 Kingman 1,387 8.9 22,861 Kiowa 191 3.3 19,430 Labette 5,003 33.5 21,021 Lane 39 2.4 25,261 Leavenworth 9,034 165.9 25,925 Lincoln 980 4.4 23,084 Linn 7,088 16.1 22,472 Logan 329 2.5 22,856 Lyon 6,053 39.8 18,245 McPherson 3,944 32.4 26,467 Marion 3,778 13.2 21,166 Marshall 2,202 11.3 21,295 Meade 177 4.6 23,909 Miami 9,125 57.7 26,218 Mitchell 1,111 9.0 23,350 Montgomery 3,102 55.3 21,037 Morris 112 8.6 23,967 Morton 26 4.3 22,862 Nemaha 3,847 14.2 22,484 Neosho 4,402 28.9 18,683 Ness 41 2.9 27,622 Norton 1,966 6.3 19,080 Osage 2,364 22.9 22,697 Osborne 908 4.3 22,536 Ottawa 216 8.4 22,665 Pawnee 1,782 9.1 17,927 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 102 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Phillips 1,252 6.3 21,870 Pottawatomie 1,067 26.2 25,157 Pratt 1,315 13.1 23,585 Rawlins 712 2.3 22,895 Reno 9,217 51.5 22,149 Republic 1,099 6.8 24,731 Rice 1,197 13.8 19,316 Riley 6,025 118.8 19,999 Rooks 446 5.8 23,435 Rush 82 4.6 23,608 Russell 1,409 7.8 23,243 Saline 1,500 77.5 23,669 Scott 426 6.9 28,872 Sedgwick 15,722 506.3 25,297 Seward 82 36.5 18,083 Shawnee 3,396 329.3 25,705 Sheridan 1,142 2.9 24,933 Sherman 791 5.7 22,651 Smith 1,377 4.3 23,644 Stafford 1,345 5.5 23,171 Stanton 29 3.1 19,196 Stevens 100 7.8 21,633 Sumner 155 20.2 23,114 Thomas 1,233 7.2 23,883 Trego 776 3.3 22,095 Wabaunsee 1,101 9.0 23,072 Wallace 474 1.6 23,269 Washington 2,513 6.5 20,577 Wichita 308 3.1 20,375 Wilson 2,407 16.5 18,708 Woodson 1,295 6.6 23,986 Wyandotte 770 1046.2 18,827 Kentucky Adair 3,212 45.9 15,790 Allen 16,229 58.5 16,897 Anderson 4,226 107.6 24,516 Ballard 4,440 33.6 23,001 Barren 6,262 87.7 20,067 Bath 132 41.6 15,487 Bell 8,169 79.6 14,627 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 103 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Boone 13,376 494.9 28,520 Bourbon 67 69.3 21,355 Boyd 907 309.3 22,064 Boyle 3,195 159.3 22,534 Bracken 1,301 41.0 18,671 Breathitt 7,808 28.2 16,442 Breckinridge 5,494 35.6 17,757 Bullitt 667 254.0 22,791 Butler 4,661 29.7 17,236 Caldwell 3,208 37.9 19,498 Calloway 7,812 97.3 20,951 Campbell 15,571 595.7 27,096 Carlisle 3,112 26.9 17,260 Carroll 2,648 84.8 21,845 Carter 1,958 67.6 18,147 Casey 1,261 35.9 14,252 Christian 6,969 102.8 18,476 Clark 79 142.4 23,966 Clay 4,843 46.7 12,300 Clinton 2,011 52.3 14,802 Crittenden 4,183 26.1 19,463 Cumberland 3,324 22.1 15,025 Daviess 3,151 212.2 22,064 Edmonson 857 40.3 18,959 Elliott 841 34.3 13,072 Estill 950 57.9 15,725 Fayette 1,931 1055.7 28,345 Fleming 3,335 41.3 17,629 Floyd 3,564 100.0 15,883 Franklin 4,215 237.2 26,857 Fulton 983 32.5 16,908 Gallatin 2,555 84.9 17,810 Garrard 1,366 73.9 18,735 Graves 11,098 67.5 19,976 Grayson 1,826 52.1 17,443 Green 471 39.4 21,281 Greenup 1,890 107.5 21,533 Hancock 2,647 45.9 19,952 Hardin 1,249 170.4 22,997 Harlan 8,032 62.9 15,224 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 104 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Harrison 7,043 62.0 20,037 Hart 4,530 44.6 16,726 Henderson 1,394 106.0 22,192 Henry 3,275 53.9 21,090 Hickman 1,132 20.0 19,953 Hopkins 4,167 86.6 21,347 Jackson 12,723 39.2 13,935 Jefferson 223 1958.2 26,473 Jessamine 819 289.2 24,097 Johnson 4,465 89.4 18,486 Kenton 9,800 1004.2 27,205 Knott 6,425 46.4 16,110 Knox 3,621 83.4 14,101 Larue 1,149 54.6 18,474 Laurel 1,406 136.3 19,604 Lawrence 795 38.4 15,903 Lee 5,606 37.3 12,983 Leslie 6,281 28.0 14,753 Letcher 6,236 72.0 17,393 Lewis 2,453 28.8 14,915 Lincoln 3,794 74.0 16,985 Livingston 1,764 30.5 20,800 Logan 6,818 48.7 19,443 Lyon 1,651 39.0 19,036 McCracken 2,047 264.9 24,709 McCreary 8,502 43.4 12,197 McLean 2,441 37.7 21,071 Madison 2,760 191.7 21,536 Magoffin 2,455 43.1 13,849 Marion 1,978 58.1 18,445 Marshall 2,496 104.8 23,056 Martin 7,336 56.7 14,785 Mason 1,767 73.5 21,717 Meade 2,591 92.2 18,823 Menifee 607 31.1 15,418 Mercer 3,626 86.2 23,645 Metcalfe 2,751 35.1 16,835 Monroe 1,661 32.9 15,534 Montgomery 29 136.8 20,004 Morgan 1,068 36.4 17,705 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 105 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Muhlenberg 5,827 67.2 18,538 Nelson 8,651 105.8 21,763 Nicholas 233 36.0 18,452 Ohio 7,194 40.9 18,258 Oldham 578 328.6 32,702 Owen 4,951 31.1 21,754 Owsley 4,743 24.0 10,767 Pendleton 5,350 53.5 19,523 Perry 2,282 85.0 19,049 Pike 12,941 82.5 18,973 Powell 3,582 70.8 15,796 Pulaski 1,621 96.8 19,540 Robertson 1,099 22.9 15,374 Rockcastle 2,400 54.5 15,621 Rowan 165 83.6 17,435 Russell 17,134 70.2 17,868 Scott 4,318 173.7 26,838 Shelby 5,182 113.7 27,593 Simpson 3,454 74.0 20,426 Spencer 2,722 94.2 25,589 Taylor 1,186 92.6 18,014 Todd 5,321 33.5 17,460 Trigg 3,369 32.7 23,387 Trimble 1,941 58.4 21,161 Union 2,164 43.2 18,811 Warren 4,823 214.6 23,206 Washington 5,898 39.7 20,873 Wayne 3,080 45.6 16,109 Webster 2,000 40.7 18,879 Whitley 2,988 82.0 15,258 Wolfe 611 33.2 11,214 Woodford 243 133.3 28,501 Louisiana Acadia 10,918 94.8 18,116 Allen 7,275 34.0 17,108 Ascension 1,277 385.4 26,888 Assumption 234 69.0 20,348 Avoyelles 11,855 50.8 16,944 Beauregard 19,116 31.0 21,543 Bienville 5,382 17.6 18,873 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 106 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Bossier 9,949 141.0 25,630 Caddo 15,816 290.9 22,594 Calcasieu 3,440 181.7 23,591 Caldwell 5,484 19.1 19,888 Cameron 1,841 5.0 24,634 Catahoula 5,334 14.8 17,166 Claiborne 9,745 22.7 16,925 Concordia 3,822 29.9 15,911 De Soto 8,565 30.6 20,112 East Baton Rouge 8,208 975.7 26,260 East Carroll 2,779 18.2 15,947 East Feliciana 6,768 44.7 18,376 Evangeline 7,811 51.5 17,561 Franklin 10,306 33.1 18,676 Grant 8,716 35.2 18,536 Iberia 6,531 128.3 20,112 Iberville 7,015 53.9 19,379 Jackson 3,820 28.6 19,308 Jefferson 1,797 1456.1 25,842 Jefferson Davis 7,853 48.8 20,487 Lafayette 5,200 836.2 26,791 Lafourche 521 90.2 22,898 La Salle 7,621 24.1 20,049 Lincoln 5,328 98.8 19,665 Livingston 3,340 203.7 23,372 Madison 3,411 19.2 13,089 Morehouse 3,261 34.8 15,713 Natchitoches 13,331 31.7 18,207 Orleans 4,151 2220.1 24,929 Ouachita 6,665 252.3 21,893 Plaquemines 2,772 27.4 23,378 Pointe Coupee 7,205 41.2 21,533 Rapides 12,960 100.9 21,982 Red River 4,708 23.2 20,044 Richland 7,021 37.4 18,060 Sabine 11,776 28.0 20,626 St. Bernard 136 122.9 19,448 St. Charles 1,277 190.0 25,728 St. Helena 6,555 27.8 16,387 St. James 636 91.7 22,509 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 107 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) St. John the Baptist 851 216.7 20,842 St. Landry 3,825 91.4 17,839 St. Martin 4,798 71.4 20,687 St. Mary 4,123 98.4 20,057 St. Tammany 525 280.1 29,282 Tangipahoa 10,579 157.5 19,788 Tensas 1,869 8.6 15,218 Terrebonne 1,330 91.3 22,931 Union 10,192 25.8 20,375 Vermilion 6,211 49.8 21,389 Vernon 13,426 38.1 20,191 Washington 16,794 71.3 17,120 Webster 9,358 69.4 19,254 West Baton Rouge 1,834 124.9 22,101 West Carroll 3,990 32.1 16,462 West Feliciana 8,691 38.6 18,118 Winn 8,029 16.0 15,833 Maine Androscoggin 1,224 230.1 22,752 Aroostook 9,096 10.7 20,251 Cumberland 4,567 336.9 31,041 Franklin 3,744 18.1 20,838 Hancock 5,840 34.4 26,876 Kennebec 3,185 140.7 24,656 Knox 528 108.2 25,291 Lincoln 1,106 75.1 28,003 Oxford 4,387 27.9 21,254 Penobscot 10,033 45.3 22,977 Piscataquis 3,640 4.4 19,870 Sagadahoc 567 138.2 26,983 Somerset 6,038 13.3 20,709 Waldo 1,978 53.1 22,213 Washington 3,455 12.9 19,401 York 3,280 197.9 27,137 Maryland Allegany 12,992 176.3 20,764 Anne Arundel 2,375 1294.0 38,660 Baltimore 8,979 1342.1 33,719 Calvert 9,245 415.6 36,323 Caroline 11,397 105.5 24,294 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 108 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Carroll 13,734 372.6 33,938 Cecil 6,246 294.2 28,640 Charles 15,467 321.3 35,780 Dorchester 4,642 61.1 25,139 Frederick 23,173 353.9 35,172 Garrett 13,245 46.5 23,888 Harford 3,929 560.7 33,559 Howard 1,044 1151.7 45,294 Kent 5,508 73.4 29,536 Montgomery 1,628 1988.8 47,310 Prince George's 5,821 1773.7 31,215 Queen Anne's 5,817 129.8 35,964 St. Mary's 1,732 298.7 34,000 Somerset 9,044 82.6 16,919 Talbot 5,821 141.8 37,958 Washington 12,693 324.9 26,588 Wicomico 8,440 267.7 25,505 Worcester 3,134 109.5 31,520 Massachusetts Barnstable 9,394 541.4 35,246 Berkshire 7,092 140.7 28,300 Bristol 1,676 988.4 27,736 Dukes 1,537 160.9 33,390 Essex 2,960 1511.3 33,828 Franklin 9,783 101.8 27,544 Hampden 2,389 753.3 24,718 Hampshire 3,181 300.0 28,367 Middlesex 2,235 1844.1 40,139 Nantucket 348 230.6 53,410 Norfolk 999 1698.4 42,371 Plymouth 14,223 751.0 33,333 Suffolk 93 12500.9 30,720 Worcester 7,797 528.4 30,557 Michigan Alcona 3,161 16.3 19,904 Alger 1,439 10.4 19,858 Allegan 13,545 135.2 23,108 Alpena 2,933 51.3 21,140 Antrim 1,228 49.2 23,912 Arenac 5,436 43.0 19,073 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 109 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Baraga 350 9.7 19,107 Barry 8,265 106.6 24,493 Bay 3,817 242.7 23,049 Benzie 2,148 54.3 23,649 Berrien 7,285 275.5 24,025 Branch 6,479 88.3 19,049 Calhoun 13,671 191.3 22,166 Cass 9,478 106.0 22,698 Charlevoix 1,296 61.8 28,403 Cheboygan 7,603 36.0 23,038 Chippewa 4,998 24.7 20,309 Clare 9,819 54.0 18,491 Clinton 6,942 133.4 27,223 Crawford 2,232 25.0 21,002 Delta 4,338 31.4 22,064 Dickinson 1,858 34.3 23,854 Eaton 9,224 186.4 25,963 Emmet 7,031 69.8 28,308 Genesee 3,808 660.0 22,458 Gladwin 11,859 50.2 20,571 Gogebic 3,635 14.7 19,933 Grand Traverse 1,674 188.3 27,091 Gratiot 6,615 74.6 18,388 Hillsdale 11,884 77.5 20,006 Houghton 3,443 36.3 18,267 Huron 8,949 39.1 22,098 Ingham 4,890 502.4 23,883 Ionia 11,370 111.4 19,386 Iosco 5,389 46.7 20,513 Iron 1,367 10.1 19,986 Isabella 11,252 122.7 18,510 Jackson 19,337 226.2 21,947 Kalamazoo 4,739 445.9 25,138 Kalkaska 2,813 30.5 19,770 Kent 8,851 714.1 24,791 Keweenaw 887 4.0 21,307 Lake 7,131 19.8 16,084 Lapeer 14,369 136.0 25,110 Leelanau 1,694 62.1 32,194 Lenawee 4,525 132.8 22,529 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 110 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Livingston 11,357 319.2 31,609 Luce 2,555 7.3 17,195 Mackinac 4,593 10.7 22,170 Macomb 5,975 1748.2 26,524 Manistee 2,428 45.2 21,612 Marquette 5,348 37.1 23,347 Mason 8,546 57.8 21,760 Mecosta 8,890 76.3 18,745 Menominee 7,573 22.9 21,624 Midland 6,693 161.0 28,363 Missaukee 8,472 26.1 19,560 Monroe 4,588 276.2 25,520 Montcalm 16,533 89.4 18,569 Montmorency 4,131 17.8 19,102 Muskegon 7,656 344.5 19,719 Newaygo 17,713 59.2 20,870 Oakland 22,522 1381.6 36,138 Oceana 8,914 51.7 18,402 Ogemaw 5,492 38.0 18,321 Ontonagon 353 5.1 21,448 Osceola 11,264 41.0 17,861 Oscoda 4,788 15.0 18,524 Otsego 3,653 46.2 22,568 Ottawa 2,411 470.7 25,045 Presque Isle 7,677 20.1 20,870 Roscommon 1,140 46.3 20,194 Saginaw 9,939 247.5 21,662 St. Clair 28,872 224.7 23,828 St. Joseph 10,582 122.3 20,192 Sanilac 20,198 44.3 19,645 Schoolcraft 3,179 7.2 20,455 Shiawassee 6,107 131.7 21,869 Tuscola 13,780 68.6 19,937 Van Buren 13,395 125.4 22,002 Washtenaw 15,403 487.1 31,316 Wayne 8,203 2927.7 22,125 Wexford 9,851 57.9 19,952 Minnesota Aitkin 7,461 8.9 22,966 Anoka 7,641 784.4 29,347 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 111 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Becker 15,561 24.8 24,385 Beltrami 534 17.8 21,016 Benton 9,812 94.0 23,648 Big Stone 1,473 10.5 23,746 Blue Earth 2,359 86.1 23,691 Brown 847 41.9 24,591 Carlton 12,868 41.1 23,932 Carver 5,624 262.2 35,807 Cass 7,052 14.1 24,348 Chippewa 1,968 21.3 23,610 Chisago 6,401 129.9 26,576 Clay 4,437 57.4 23,011 Clearwater 84 8.7 20,913 Cook 3,468 3.6 28,873 Cottonwood 2,256 18.1 23,162 Crow Wing 1,918 63.2 24,282 Dakota 2,273 714.0 34,142 Dodge 1,538 46.0 26,969 Douglas 2,911 57.1 25,633 Faribault 798 20.1 22,667 Fillmore 9,761 24.1 23,758 Freeborn 4,455 44.1 23,645 Goodhue 4,105 61.1 27,472 Grant 72 10.9 23,233 Hennepin 7,941 2091.0 35,902 Houston 4,891 34.1 24,865 Hubbard 9,108 22.1 24,413 Isanti 13,509 87.5 25,165 Itasca 17,289 16.9 23,465 Jackson 3,715 14.5 25,144 Kanabec 10,192 31.1 21,304 Kandiyohi 2,463 53.1 25,844 Kittson 222 4.1 25,030 Koochiching 2,027 4.2 24,576 Lac qui Parle 988 9.4 24,291 Lake 1,724 5.1 26,087 Lake of the Woods 458 3.1 27,192 Le Sueur 1,752 62.3 25,958 Lincoln 948 10.9 24,922 Lyon 5,130 36.3 23,755 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 112 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) McLeod 1,423 75.0 27,590 Mahnomen 4,973 9.8 17,999 Marshall 1,375 5.3 24,552 Martin 358 29.2 25,321 Meeker 3,292 38.3 23,839 Mille Lacs 3,780 45.9 21,744 Morrison 8,565 29.5 22,934 Mower 6,560 54.8 23,740 Murray 2,352 12.2 24,045 Nicollet 2,508 73.5 25,656 Nobles 5,124 30.3 20,953 Norman 3,267 7.7 22,817 Olmsted 6,137 223.7 32,704 Otter Tail 28,857 28.9 23,445 Pennington 1,729 22.6 22,687 Pine 13,628 21.1 21,328 Pipestone 5,099 20.5 22,289 Polk 3,125 16.1 23,105 Pope 980 16.4 25,935 Ramsey 5,324 3344.4 28,956 Red Lake 21 9.4 23,171 Redwood 2,649 18.1 23,548 Renville 3,573 15.8 23,956 Rice 3,656 130.3 24,678 Rock 3,910 20.0 23,079 Roseau 3,378 9.3 22,975 St. Louis 36,507 32.0 25,014 Scott 1,675 370.1 33,612 Sherburne 1,741 207.5 27,376 Sibley 3,457 25.8 24,073 Stearns 9,205 112.6 24,816 Steele 6,213 85.8 25,062 Stevens 464 17.2 24,585 Swift 1,471 13.1 21,571 Todd 7,650 26.3 21,014 Traverse 907 6.2 24,188 Wabasha 4,300 41.4 26,282 Wadena 1,752 25.7 19,344 Waseca 2,392 45.4 23,121 Washington 7,956 628.5 36,248 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 113 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Watonwan 829 25.6 22,334 Wilkin 1,806 8.6 24,447 Winona 8,379 82.5 21,864 Wright 2,419 192.9 28,454 Yellow Medicine 1,798 13.6 23,171 Mississippi Adams 1,120 69.5 17,473 Alcorn 7,713 93.0 17,954 Amite 7,449 17.9 16,861 Attala 6,197 26.7 17,659 Benton 3,751 21.9 14,998 Bolivar 2,268 38.6 16,051 Calhoun 3,746 25.5 15,183 Carroll 3,017 17.1 16,025 Chickasaw 6,837 34.4 15,985 Choctaw 1,758 20.5 16,545 Claiborne 2,359 19.5 12,571 Clarke 5,102 24.2 16,467 Clay 5,708 49.9 17,604 Coahoma 2,379 46.6 15,687 Copiah 5,745 37.9 17,473 Covington 2,951 47.7 17,713 DeSoto 2,653 349.2 24,531 Forrest 3,400 162.8 19,272 Franklin 1,330 14.6 21,583 George 771 48.1 19,452 Greene 1,393 20.7 14,064 Grenada 2,858 52.0 19,701 Hancock 2,785 89.8 21,935 Harrison 1,174 319.7 22,880 Hinds 6,830 281.1 20,676 Holmes 2,707 25.4 11,585 Humphreys 1,283 22.4 13,282 Issaquena 598 3.4 11,810 Itawamba 1,735 44.0 18,517 Jackson 1,145 191.8 22,655 Jasper 3,349 25.5 18,268 Jefferson 3,587 14.8 12,534 Jefferson Davis 5,221 30.4 15,120 Jones 4,779 98.3 18,632 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 114 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Kemper 4,937 13.5 12,903 Lafayette 5,924 76.1 21,267 Lamar 2,389 116.0 26,052 Lauderdale 3,111 114.5 20,116 Lawrence 5,702 30.3 19,142 Leake 3,674 40.8 14,617 Lee 7,545 185.7 21,831 Leflore 2,621 54.7 12,957 Lincoln 7,098 60.2 20,620 Lowndes 2,265 117.7 21,273 Madison 3,159 136.2 31,517 Marion 5,575 50.3 17,549 Marshall 8,111 53.3 16,825 Monroe 7,745 48.2 18,884 Montgomery 843 26.5 16,584 Neshoba 8,968 52.5 17,609 Newton 7,796 37.7 16,727 Noxubee 3,747 16.5 12,759 Oktibbeha 2,014 105.1 19,356 Panola 9,815 50.8 15,987 Pearl River 5,381 70.6 20,014 Perry 2,147 19.0 18,238 Pike 5,232 99.7 17,620 Pontotoc 12,384 60.5 17,820 Prentiss 5,197 60.9 17,068 Quitman 2,281 19.9 13,080 Rankin 4,219 186.4 26,637 Scott 3,940 46.6 16,608 Sharkey 1,154 11.2 14,322 Simpson 5,570 46.8 18,397 Smith 6,926 26.1 18,686 Stone 3,135 40.9 21,691 Sunflower 4,801 41.6 11,993 Tallahatchie 4,371 23.5 12,687 Tate 7,102 72.1 18,318 Tippah 7,902 48.7 16,365 Tishomingo 4,266 46.1 17,017 Tunica 2,286 23.6 15,711 Union 4,498 65.7 17,945 Walthall 8,294 38.5 16,157 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 115 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Warren 3,467 82.3 22,079 Washington 7,076 69.7 15,946 Wayne 7,188 25.4 17,099 Webster 2,112 24.3 17,888 Wilkinson 3,662 14.5 14,333 Winston 8,533 31.5 17,244 Yalobusha 3,127 27.0 16,623 Yazoo 6,654 30.5 14,339 Missouri Adair 25 45.2 17,098 Andrew 2,700 40.1 24,009 Atchison 666 10.2 23,659 Audrain 2,953 36.9 18,800 Barry 1,486 46.2 19,363 Barton 3,020 20.6 19,117 Bates 8,394 20.3 19,056 Benton 7,632 27.1 19,955 Bollinger 10,393 20.0 18,172 Boone 2,220 241.1 25,124 Buchanan 845 220.4 21,638 Butler 3,406 61.7 19,368 Caldwell 4,411 22.1 19,499 Camden 9,458 67.9 25,509 Cape Girardeau 10,774 131.8 23,014 Carroll 4,431 13.2 25,021 Carter 3,031 12.5 15,881 Cass 3,704 144.8 26,326 Cedar 3,401 29.2 16,432 Chariton 3,423 10.3 19,978 Christian 630 142.8 23,720 Clark 2,794 14.2 19,114 Clay 1 570.6 28,204 Cole 24 194.4 25,935 Cooper 258 31.2 19,234 Crawford 2,079 33.3 17,317 Dade 3,157 15.9 16,638 Dallas 9,177 31.3 18,400 Daviess 2,417 14.8 19,900 DeKalb 1,514 29.7 16,916 Dent 5,468 20.9 18,111 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 116 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Douglas 3,131 17.0 15,117 Dunklin 2,609 58.8 16,619 Franklin 3,776 110.8 23,365 Gasconade 568 29.2 21,240 Gentry 1,941 13.5 19,021 Grundy 3,829 23.6 18,148 Harrison 8,637 12.5 18,967 Henry 5,050 31.7 20,304 Hickory 7,754 24.1 18,215 Holt 93 10.5 21,666 Howard 2,953 21.9 21,829 Howell 17,258 44.0 17,135 Iron 3,299 19.1 17,200 Jackson 1,892 1117.2 25,213 Jasper 6,499 186.8 19,899 Jefferson 4,253 335.9 24,586 Johnson 4,761 63.3 20,405 Knox 47 8.2 18,481 Laclede 9,892 47.1 19,858 Lafayette 4,068 53.1 23,043 Lawrence 247 63.7 18,777 Lewis 1,902 20.1 18,973 Lincoln 3,895 86.7 21,862 Linn 3,719 20.5 20,742 Livingston 3,227 28.6 20,295 McDonald 3,243 43.1 17,070 Macon 2,888 19.5 18,411 Madison 5,170 24.9 17,239 Maries 659 17.5 19,155 Marion 5,269 65.8 20,718 Mercer 3,797 8.4 19,031 Miller 1,685 41.9 18,202 Mississippi 1,071 34.9 15,927 Moniteau 871 37.7 19,267 Monroe 2,670 13.6 19,834 Montgomery 767 22.7 19,634 Morgan 4,615 34.6 18,789 New Madrid 2,680 27.7 18,811 Newton 7,584 93.7 20,832 Nodaway 6,565 26.5 18,909 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 117 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Oregon 6,151 13.7 15,093 Ozark 8,239 13.0 17,298 Pemiscot 4,598 36.7 15,841 Perry 6,663 40.2 22,200 Pettis 323 62.4 19,351 Phelps 7,318 67.1 20,817 Pike 6,828 27.6 18,769 Platte 103 214.6 34,037 Polk 1,885 49.5 18,138 Pulaski 10,576 94.8 19,800 Putnam 3,614 9.5 20,005 Ralls 5,759 21.7 22,605 Randolph 10,433 52.9 17,049 Ray 6,486 41.0 25,244 Reynolds 6,254 8.3 16,964 Ripley 8,409 22.3 15,115 St. Clair 6,578 14.5 18,309 Ste. Genevieve 9,036 36.1 22,665 St. Francois 8,871 146.4 18,852 Saline 3,013 30.9 18,581 Schuyler 86 14.5 18,410 Scotland 19 11.1 19,895 Scott 3,640 93.3 19,566 Shannon 5,175 8.5 15,309 Shelby 141 12.6 18,056 Stoddard 5,727 36.2 20,911 Stone 32 70.0 21,748 Sullivan 1,239 10.3 16,633 Taney 1,723 84.1 21,474 Texas 11,278 22.1 15,790 Vernon 10,422 25.5 18,314 Warren 3,536 78.0 24,358 Washington 11,751 33.3 16,867 Wayne 4,804 17.7 17,105 Webster 931 62.2 18,699 Worth 906 8.0 18,229 Wright 2,280 27.8 16,413 Montana Beaverhead 3,268 1.7 21,110 Big Horn 8,043 2.6 15,066 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 118 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Blaine 6,532 1.5 16,813 Broadwater 3,433 4.8 19,606 Carbon 5,453 4.9 24,983 Carter 661 0.3 20,681 Cascade 4,763 30.1 22,963 Chouteau 5,371 1.5 20,202 Custer 1,964 3.1 21,676 Daniels 1,728 1.2 24,737 Dawson 2,165 3.8 24,602 Deer Lodge 2,561 12.6 21,921 Fallon 956 1.8 26,819 Fergus 4,784 2.7 22,295 Flathead 4,829 18.3 24,721 Gallatin 16,987 35.6 27,423 Garfield 1,228 0.3 22,424 Glacier 1,499 4.4 17,053 Golden Valley 449 0.8 19,319 Granite 1,101 1.8 23,222 Hill 4,442 5.6 21,420 Jefferson 5,922 7.0 26,437 Judith Basin 1,914 1.1 24,029 Lake 1,902 19.5 20,164 Lewis and Clark 11,082 18.6 25,894 Liberty 2,268 1.6 19,097 Lincoln 16,726 5.5 19,626 McCone 1,049 0.7 23,265 Madison 4,918 2.2 32,205 Meagher 1,878 0.8 17,318 Mineral 1,078 3.5 19,209 Missoula 17,595 42.7 24,343 Musselshell 4,579 2.5 20,875 Park 6,397 5.6 24,717 Petroleum 495 0.3 21,008 Phillips 4,224 0.8 24,227 Pondera 2,002 3.8 18,989 Powder River 920 0.5 21,543 Powell 2,994 3.0 17,849 Prairie 1,186 0.7 21,296 Ravalli 21,661 16.9 23,908 Richland 5,722 4.7 26,888 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 119 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Roosevelt 10,327 4.4 17,821 Rosebud 1,504 1.9 19,844 Sanders 3,013 4.2 18,472 Sheridan 3,320 2.0 26,537 Silver Bow 4,268 47.8 21,357 Stillwater 5,850 5.1 27,168 Sweet Grass 3,740 2.0 22,785 Teton 1,641 2.6 20,509 Toole 2,517 2.8 20,464 Treasure 198 0.7 20,882 Valley 7,357 1.5 24,305 Wheatland 2,202 1.5 18,474 Wibaux 1,006 1.1 22,579 Yellowstone 21,057 56.9 26,152 Nebraska Adams 675 55.9 23,084 Antelope 4,396 7.7 20,419 Arthur 147 0.6 19,722 Banner 559 1.0 22,042 Blaine 105 0.7 20,586 Boone 4,336 8.0 22,790 Box Butte 1,104 10.6 23,434 Boyd 241 3.9 21,003 Brown 532 2.5 17,330 Buffalo 2,095 48.2 22,616 Burt 1,207 13.8 23,302 Butler 1,368 14.1 22,494 Cass 595 45.3 27,584 Cedar 3,350 11.8 20,595 Chase 1,044 4.3 22,730 Cherry 1,975 0.9 22,601 Cheyenne 1,931 8.4 26,983 Clay 322 11.3 21,147 Colfax 3,438 25.7 20,872 Cuming 5,273 15.9 22,783 Custer 3,569 4.2 21,685 Dakota 6,745 80.3 19,048 Dawes 2,117 6.5 18,573 Dawson 405 24.4 19,384 Deuel 429 4.3 23,758 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 120 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Dixon 1,947 12.9 20,478 Dodge 6,210 69.6 22,049 Douglas 2,899 1592.7 28,092 Dundy 447 2.1 24,701 Fillmore 907 10.2 21,990 Franklin 539 5.6 19,764 Frontier 654 2.8 22,374 Furnas 745 6.7 21,644 Gage 2,159 26.0 21,619 Garden 679 1.2 19,740 Garfield 417 3.6 19,235 Gosper 129 4.5 23,132 Grant 228 0.8 20,518 Greeley 2,019 4.4 19,235 Hall 2,327 109.4 22,552 Hamilton 230 16.7 23,240 Harlan 64 6.1 25,050 Hayes 909 1.4 21,977 Hitchcock 2,536 4.1 20,853 Holt 3,702 4.3 22,498 Hooker 89 1.1 21,197 Howard 2,129 11.1 22,325 Jefferson 1,490 13.0 21,976 Johnson 2,593 13.9 17,606 Kearney 745 12.4 27,227 Keith 1,549 7.8 25,315 Keya Paha 356 1.0 20,691 Kimball 751 3.9 22,263 Knox 8,592 7.8 19,894 Lancaster 620 344.5 25,949 Lincoln 1,668 14.3 25,319 Logan 506 1.4 22,320 Loup 256 1.1 20,004 McPherson 539 0.6 21,000 Madison 20,843 60.6 22,157 Merrick 3,236 16.2 21,819 Morrill 1,940 3.5 21,367 Nance 2,233 8.4 21,457 Nemaha 811 17.9 22,151 Nuckolls 130 7.7 20,299 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 121 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Otoe 780 25.5 23,773 Pawnee 1,195 6.2 21,865 Perkins 2,660 3.3 23,542 Phelps 2 16.8 23,951 Pierce 2,513 12.7 21,419 Platte 8,191 48.7 23,358 Polk 1,748 12.2 23,831 Red Willow 1,148 15.3 21,246 Richardson 1,138 15.1 20,516 Rock 1,384 1.5 23,871 Saline 1,394 24.6 20,431 Sarpy 1,056 680.3 29,212 Saunders 1,300 27.6 26,898 Scotts Bluff 4,951 50.4 21,212 Seward 1,245 29.2 26,386 Sheridan 2,777 2.2 20,066 Sherman 801 5.6 20,900 Sioux 987 0.6 25,824 Stanton 3,372 14.2 23,018 Thayer 524 9.1 21,648 Thomas 57 0.9 31,499 Thurston 5,740 17.7 15,686 Valley 1,129 7.4 21,058 Washington 6,886 51.8 27,884 Wayne 1,590 21.5 19,681 Webster 1,115 6.5 18,906 Wheeler 277 1.5 20,614 York 1,459 23.9 25,412 Nevada Churchill 503 5.1 22,997 Clark 16,455 253.5 27,422 Douglas 1,413 65.7 35,239 Elko 6,758 2.9 26,879 Esmeralda 478 0.2 34,571 Eureka 1,459 0.5 30,306 Humboldt 8,638 1.7 25,965 Lander 2,335 1.1 25,287 Lincoln 218 0.5 18,148 Lyon 1,747 27.1 21,041 Mineral 910 1.3 23,226 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 122 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Nye 9,509 2.5 22,687 Pershing 2,950 1.1 17,519 Storey 1,400 15.8 31,079 Washoe 4,147 67.9 29,687 White Pine 4,107 1.2 21,615 Carson City 127 379.6 27,568 New Hampshire Belknap 1,015 149.2 28,517 Carroll 2,422 51.8 28,411 Cheshire 22,242 108.9 27,045 Coos 7,078 18.2 22,976 Grafton 11,245 52.4 28,170 Hillsborough 9,172 456.7 33,108 Merrimack 14,976 156.5 30,544 Rockingham 15,944 424.7 35,889 Strafford 4,660 334.7 28,059 Sullivan 10,398 81.9 26,322 New Jersey Atlantic 8,268 496.3 27,247 Bergen 182 3888.0 42,006 Burlington 10,543 557.9 34,802 Camden 2,371 2332.3 29,478 Cape May 1,788 382.3 33,571 Cumberland 13,287 329.6 21,883 Essex 53 6200.1 31,535 Gloucester 3,652 904.6 31,210 Hunterdon 7,619 298.6 48,489 Mercer 1,433 1634.1 36,016 Middlesex 953 2631.9 33,289 Monmouth 2,911 1339.7 40,976 Morris 803 1070.1 47,342 Ocean 2,444 917.2 29,826 Passaic 428 2735.9 26,095 Salem 1,999 200.0 27,296 Somerset 1,097 1079.7 47,067 Sussex 692 288.0 35,982 Union 21 5225.9 34,096 Warren 2,593 302.7 32,985 New Mexico Bernalillo 21,557 582.8 26,143 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 123 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Catron 1,702 0.5 20,895 Chaves 116 11.1 18,504 Cibola 17,485 6.0 14,712 Colfax 3,906 3.6 21,047 Curry 21 34.2 19,925 Doña Ana 3,535 56.6 18,315 Eddy 100 13.1 24,587 Grant 11,683 7.6 21,164 Guadalupe 203 1.5 13,710 Harding 261 0.3 14,684 Hidalgo 963 1.5 17,451 Lea 4 15.1 19,637 Lincoln 45 4.3 24,290 Los Alamos 430 163.2 49,474 Luna 12,462 8.7 15,687 McKinley 53,020 13.2 12,932 Mora 4,974 2.6 22,035 Otero 119 9.7 19,255 Quay 1,398 3.1 18,234 Rio Arriba 13,378 7.0 19,913 Sandoval 20,513 37.1 25,979 San Juan 44,676 23.6 20,725 San Miguel 12,503 6.3 18,508 Santa Fe 13,917 76.7 32,188 Sierra 2,926 2.9 16,667 Socorro 7,636 2.7 17,801 Taos 23,371 15.3 22,145 Torrance 7,679 4.9 17,278 Union 1,199 1.2 19,228 Valencia 16,022 73.5 19,955 New York Albany 3,779 579.8 30,863 Allegany 6,977 47.3 20,058 Bronx 13 33549.6 17,575 Broome 3,947 283.1 24,314 Cattaraugus 16,386 60.8 20,824 Cayuga 8,826 115.2 22,959 Chautauqua 6,604 126.8 21,033 Chemung 3,781 216.8 23,457 Chenango 833 56.4 22,036 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 124 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Clinton 4,459 79.0 22,660 Columbia 4,442 98.9 31,844 Cortland 1,466 98.4 22,078 Delaware 8,797 33.1 22,928 Dutchess 1,051 373.2 31,642 Erie 9,269 875.9 26,378 Essex 5,102 22.0 24,390 Franklin 10,369 31.9 19,807 Fulton 926 112.1 23,147 Genesee 1,721 121.2 24,323 Greene 1,808 76.1 23,461 Hamilton 1,072 2.8 29,965 Herkimer 5,891 45.5 21,908 Jefferson 9,790 92.0 21,823 Lewis 2,746 21.2 20,970 Livingston 269 103.1 22,923 Madison 753 112.0 24,311 Monroe 34 1130.4 26,999 Montgomery 1,266 124.8 22,347 Niagara 2,589 413.3 24,224 Oneida 4,054 193.6 23,458 Onondaga 1,359 598.3 27,037 Ontario 1,371 168.0 28,950 Orange 342 461.9 28,944 Orleans 961 109.0 20,812 Oswego 2,818 127.8 21,604 Otsego 8,137 61.8 22,902 Putnam 365 431.1 37,915 Queens 748 20772.4 25,553 Rensselaer 3,855 244.9 27,457 Rockland 24 1806.5 34,304 St. Lawrence 15,127 41.8 20,143 Saratoga 986 271.7 32,186 Schenectady 675 762.1 27,500 Schoharie 7,014 52.6 25,105 Schuyler 8,428 55.4 22,123 Seneca 7,496 107.7 21,818 Steuben 15,259 70.8 23,279 Suffolk 1,190 1635.6 35,755 Sullivan 3,605 80.4 23,422 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 125 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Tioga 3,108 98.2 24,596 Tompkins 5,313 213.4 25,737 Ulster 2,504 162.2 28,954 Warren 1,186 75.9 27,744 Washington 14,023 76.4 22,347 Wayne 4,558 154.8 24,092 Westchester 45 2211.2 47,814 Wyoming 3,639 70.8 20,605 Yates 3,210 74.9 23,255 North Carolina Alamance 13,005 362.9 22,819 Alexander 2,017 144.3 20,716 Alleghany 8,936 47.7 18,919 Anson 5,583 50.5 16,856 Ashe 7,394 64.0 20,350 Avery 806 71.5 23,465 Beaufort 21,828 58.2 22,728 Bertie 6,162 30.6 17,614 Bladen 2,158 40.2 17,890 Brunswick 4,456 133.7 26,315 Buncombe 723 368.2 25,665 Burke 979 179.8 19,220 Cabarrus 158 510.4 26,165 Caldwell 1,646 176.6 19,686 Camden 981 42.9 25,544 Carteret 64 131.6 26,791 Caswell 8,506 55.6 17,814 Catawba 358 391.6 22,969 Chatham 9,697 95.1 29,991 Cherokee 4,920 61.0 20,747 Chowan 2,152 86.4 20,900 Clay 1,977 50.2 20,474 Cleveland 3,790 211.7 19,284 Columbus 10,294 62.2 18,784 Craven 18,015 146.5 24,591 Cumberland 2,153 492.0 22,285 Currituck 2,055 91.6 26,083 Dare 209 87.8 30,327 Davidson 30,050 297.4 22,268 Davie 39 158.9 26,139 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 126 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Duplin 4,401 72.8 16,693 Durham 282 957.2 27,503 Edgecombe 20,449 111.3 16,747 Forsyth 29,141 874.9 26,213 Franklin 9,289 126.3 21,331 Gaston 734 590.9 22,305 Gates 6,125 36.6 19,893 Graham 2,860 30.2 17,825 Granville 7,656 114.8 21,733 Greene 5 81.3 17,362 Guilford 10,917 770.3 26,267 Halifax 9,212 75.4 17,223 Harnett 2,316 198.3 19,274 Haywood 1,440 106.9 24,233 Henderson 2,424 291.9 26,061 Hertford 3,968 69.1 17,002 Hoke 1,916 124.2 17,630 Hyde 3,311 9.4 14,992 Iredell 2,284 286.7 25,610 Jackson 7,028 82.7 20,228 Johnston 12,471 221.5 22,437 Jones 3,396 21.7 20,066 Lee 602 231.8 21,061 Lenoir 15,080 148.6 19,017 Lincoln 122 269.6 23,560 McDowell 2,837 102.7 18,798 Macon 3,613 66.6 26,156 Madison 2,756 46.5 18,792 Martin 7,702 52.6 18,728 Mitchell 650 70.1 18,804 Montgomery 6,640 56.6 18,618 Moore 14,437 128.5 25,786 Nash 22,391 179.4 23,909 New Hanover 8 1077.9 29,363 Northampton 4,682 40.7 17,128 Onslow 2,743 236.3 21,048 Orange 5,121 343.8 32,912 Pamlico 1,090 39.0 23,320 Pasquotank 2,423 184.2 21,736 Pender 7,546 62.6 22,872 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 127 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Perquimans 3,131 56.2 22,085 Person 2,772 100.9 21,848 Pitt 36,131 264.3 21,935 Polk 2,561 86.5 24,008 Randolph 17,150 183.0 21,297 Richmond 939 98.4 17,692 Robeson 13,445 142.8 15,321 Rockingham 27,745 165.5 20,801 Rowan 2,388 274.0 21,525 Rutherford 7,413 120.4 18,961 Sampson 2,766 67.9 19,086 Scotland 2,920 113.5 16,297 Stanly 532 154.1 21,139 Stokes 17,099 106.1 20,852 Surry 40,556 138.9 20,541 Swain 2,361 26.7 19,297 Transylvania 2,994 88.7 23,939 Tyrrell 1,221 11.4 15,812 Union 2,123 337.3 28,596 Vance 2,735 178.4 17,622 Wake 2,158 1124.7 32,592 Warren 5,835 48.7 17,838 Washington 1,825 37.9 16,982 Watauga 1,932 165.0 20,961 Wayne 3,630 223.0 20,446 Wilkes 5,933 91.8 19,406 Wilson 1,468 223.2 20,691 Yancey 2,136 57.9 18,576 North Dakota Adams 279 2.3 20,118 Barnes 2,396 7.4 26,152 Benson 4,766 4.9 14,545 Billings 507 0.7 28,666 Bottineau 1,916 3.8 26,277 Bowman 353 2.7 27,354 Burke 1,799 1.7 32,347 Burleigh 2,132 50.8 28,784 Cass 5,450 86.2 28,184 Cavalier 1,126 2.6 26,468 Dickey 221 4.6 21,824 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 128 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Divide 2,027 1.6 28,462 Dunn 1,444 1.7 24,832 Eddy 641 3.7 20,302 Emmons 1,598 2.3 21,358 Foster 805 5.3 27,945 Golden Valley 599 1.6 21,899 Grant 1,297 1.4 25,840 Griggs 3 3.3 24,122 Hettinger 467 2.2 24,928 Kidder 940 1.7 23,502 LaMoure 142 3.5 27,056 Logan 503 2.0 21,654 McHenry 2,404 2.8 22,911 McIntosh 805 2.7 22,608 McKenzie 6,342 2.4 27,605 McLean 4,298 4.3 27,029 Mercer 261 8.0 30,616 Morton 2,451 14.5 25,303 Mountrail 5,746 4.2 25,762 Nelson 254 3.2 22,838 Oliver 265 2.5 29,348 Pembina 68 6.5 27,019 Pierce 1,379 4.3 18,575 Ramsey 1,251 9.6 24,130 Ransom 1,594 6.3 21,995 Renville 1,085 2.7 26,856 Richland 3,723 11.2 24,342 Rolette 10,535 15.4 13,632 Sargent 649 4.4 26,553 Sheridan 685 1.3 24,286 Sioux 219 3.8 13,542 Slope 214 0.6 24,824 Stark 2,375 18.3 25,282 Stutsman 12,904 9.4 23,307 Towner 811 2.1 24,203 Traill 558 9.2 23,340 Ward 6,515 30.6 25,326 Wells 1,511 3.2 23,531 Williams 7,119 11.0 29,153 Ohio Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 129 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Adams 9,946 48.8 17,693 Allen 1,734 263.6 21,713 Ashland 1,729 126.2 20,558 Ashtabula 23,136 143.7 19,898 Athens 13,497 128.1 16,642 Auglaize 1,209 114.5 25,290 Belmont 26,414 131.6 20,266 Brown 5,486 91.2 20,167 Butler 1,137 795.5 25,892 Carroll 4,473 72.4 21,575 Champaign 583 93.7 23,438 Clark 598 346.5 22,110 Clermont 618 439.6 27,900 Clinton 2,621 103.5 22,163 Columbiana 14,664 201.2 19,635 Coshocton 10,221 64.8 19,635 Crawford 1,030 107.7 20,590 Cuyahoga 62 2767.3 26,263 Darke 4,472 88.1 21,483 Defiance 979 95.0 22,139 Delaware 2,617 401.3 40,682 Erie 438 305.2 25,290 Fairfield 3,341 291.1 26,130 Fayette 789 71.7 20,525 Franklin 76 2197.4 26,909 Fulton 1,709 105.4 22,804 Gallia 12,727 66.2 20,199 Geauga 2,083 233.1 32,735 Greene 3,441 391.3 28,328 Guernsey 6,775 76.2 19,187 Hamilton 5 1976.0 28,799 Hancock 1,297 140.7 25,158 Hardin 4,313 68.3 19,100 Harrison 1,822 39.2 19,318 Henry 660 67.6 22,638 Highland 9,280 78.5 18,966 Hocking 8,097 69.8 19,048 Holmes 17,201 100.0 17,009 Huron 2,309 121.1 21,743 Jackson 6,554 78.9 18,775 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 130 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Jefferson 3,708 169.5 20,470 Knox 5,731 116.4 21,204 Lake 235 1011.6 28,221 Lawrence 6,741 137.7 19,452 Licking 3,702 245.5 25,534 Logan 3,943 99.8 22,974 Lorain 3,580 617.2 25,002 Lucas 372 1287.4 23,981 Madison 732 93.9 23,980 Mahoning 1,634 573.6 22,824 Marion 1,516 164.6 19,849 Medina 887 411.4 29,986 Meigs 6,908 54.8 18,003 Mercer 556 88.4 22,348 Miami 701 252.2 25,006 Monroe 12,627 31.9 18,738 Montgomery 192 1150.5 24,828 Morgan 5,995 36.0 18,777 Morrow 3,558 85.6 20,795 Muskingum 9,226 129.1 20,561 Noble 4,793 36.9 20,029 Ottawa 911 161.7 27,809 Paulding 660 46.9 20,919 Perry 13,144 88.6 18,916 Pickaway 2,855 112.8 21,432 Pike 2,720 65.1 17,494 Portage 1,485 331.2 25,097 Preble 2,043 99.4 23,290 Putnam 352 71.5 24,023 Richland 7,014 249.6 21,459 Ross 1,010 113.6 20,595 Sandusky 1,645 148.6 22,286 Scioto 4,770 130.6 17,778 Seneca 1,446 102.5 20,976 Shelby 2,505 121.4 21,948 Stark 1,551 651.8 24,015 Summit 111 1306.2 26,676 Trumbull 5,256 336.3 21,854 Tuscarawas 11,171 162.8 20,536 Union 5,387 122.8 27,389 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 131 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Van Wert 1,073 70.0 20,772 Vinton 5,190 32.3 16,736 Warren 7,700 537.2 31,935 Washington 13,402 97.4 22,786 Wayne 10,753 206.2 22,645 Williams 1,502 89.2 21,381 Wood 1,742 203.7 26,671 Wyandot 1,849 55.3 22,553 Oklahoma Adair 21,006 39.6 13,732 Alfalfa 2,803 6.5 21,029 Atoka 10,217 14.7 15,772 Beaver 2,971 3.1 23,525 Beckham 6,574 25.2 21,144 Blaine 11,030 13.0 19,445 Bryan 10,409 47.9 19,103 Caddo 3,145 23.0 16,787 Canadian 1,246 132.7 26,970 Cherokee 26,529 63.0 16,084 Choctaw 8,408 19.6 17,231 Cimarron 1,107 1.3 18,358 Cleveland 1,168 482.4 25,831 Coal 3,397 11.4 17,338 Comanche 93 116.2 20,778 Cotton 2,458 9.8 20,948 Craig 5,888 19.9 18,784 Creek 24,019 74.0 21,891 Custer 6,364 28.4 22,003 Delaware 10,461 56.5 20,142 Dewey 4,850 4.9 21,055 Ellis 4,257 3.5 23,767 Garfield 7,907 57.7 22,812 Garvin 2,587 34.6 20,176 Grady 56 48.3 21,687 Grant 3,129 4.5 22,204 Greer 1,127 9.7 13,241 Harmon 2,886 5.4 17,677 Harper 2,290 3.6 23,693 Haskell 5,476 22.2 18,735 Hughes 6,343 17.4 18,083 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 132 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Jackson 4,305 32.7 21,249 Jefferson 1,838 8.5 17,491 Johnston 4,187 17.0 18,451 Kay 5,523 50.5 21,167 Kingfisher 13,860 16.9 23,481 Kiowa 5,194 9.3 18,921 Latimer 8,117 15.5 20,353 Le Flore 34,669 31.9 17,357 Lincoln 9,903 36.0 20,774 Logan 3,213 57.6 25,090 McClain 451 62.4 23,556 McCurtain 6,912 17.9 17,456 McIntosh 11,715 32.8 16,095 Major 5,385 7.8 24,897 Marshall 3,811 43.4 18,794 Mayes 13,479 63.4 19,975 Muskogee 18,101 87.8 19,161 Noble 4,034 15.8 20,032 Nowata 4,033 18.6 20,752 Okfuskee 7,867 19.6 15,046 Okmulgee 16,610 57.2 19,071 Osage 21,929 21.1 21,446 Ottawa 3,373 67.2 17,638 Pawnee 10,649 28.9 19,520 Payne 14,871 113.3 19,540 Pittsburg 11,793 35.5 20,714 Pontotoc 7,923 52.8 21,136 Pottawatomie 7,631 88.5 19,437 Pushmataha 8,563 8.3 15,460 Roger Mills 3,810 3.3 28,427 Rogers 26,355 129.9 25,358 Seminole 4,568 40.4 17,032 Sequoyah 27,549 63.5 18,049 Stephens 5,979 52.3 22,790 Texas 5,999 10.3 21,356 Tillman 3,147 9.1 15,894 Tulsa 10,545 1070.0 26,769 Wagoner 18,861 133.4 24,049 Washington 6,578 124.1 26,663 Washita 7,231 11.9 21,511 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 133 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Woods 3,488 6.9 24,292 Woodward 20,517 16.5 24,635 Oregon Baker 5,664 5.2 21,683 Benton 240 127.7 26,177 Clackamas 1,302 203.1 31,785 Clatsop 2,250 45.1 25,347 Columbia 9,007 76.0 24,613 Coos 6,105 39.6 21,981 Crook 1,839 7.2 22,275 Curry 757 13.6 23,842 Deschutes 643 54.1 27,920 Douglas 15,776 21.5 21,342 Gilliam 473 1.6 25,559 Grant 4,823 1.6 22,041 Harney 2,415 0.7 20,849 Hood River 382 43.6 23,930 Jackson 5,606 73.7 24,410 Jefferson 2,328 12.4 20,009 Josephine 12,429 50.7 21,539 Klamath 10,246 11.2 22,081 Lake 4,319 1.0 22,586 Lane 10,403 78.0 23,869 Lincoln 761 47.3 24,354 Linn 263 52.1 22,165 Malheur 13,732 3.2 16,335 Marion 1,338 271.0 21,915 Morrow 1,952 5.5 20,201 Multnomah 12 1732.5 28,883 Polk 1,285 105.3 24,345 Sherman 239 2.1 21,688 Tillamook 1,498 22.9 22,824 Umatilla 4,274 23.8 20,035 Union 3,249 12.7 22,947 Wallowa 1,314 2.2 23,023 Wasco 1,671 10.6 21,922 Washington 29 743.8 30,522 Wheeler 1,402 0.8 20,598 Yamhill 1,507 142.0 24,017 Pennsylvania Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 134 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Adams 2,101 196.6 25,606 Allegheny 1,508 1663.5 29,549 Armstrong 19,970 104.8 21,828 Beaver 1,982 389.6 24,168 Bedford 5,540 49.2 20,545 Berks 2,779 485.2 25,518 Blair 4,899 240.9 22,880 Bradford 385 54.4 20,979 Bucks 32 1035.2 35,687 Butler 1,020 233.5 28,446 Cambria 824 207.5 21,278 Cameron 110 12.6 21,375 Carbon 360 172.7 22,956 Centre 8,465 139.0 23,744 Chester 209 674.0 41,251 Clarion 2,520 66.4 20,259 Clearfield 7,083 71.2 Clinton 2,942 44.0 19,261 Columbia 506 139.3 22,403 Crawford 8,517 87.3 20,383 Cumberland 810 435.3 30,119 Dauphin 596 512.9 27,727 Elk 74 38.2 22,729 Erie 9,444 350.0 22,644 Fayette 5,157 172.4 19,209 Forest 1,958 18.4 14,325 Franklin 5,685 197.2 25,307 Fulton 810 34.2 21,739 Greene 4,111 66.9 20,258 Huntingdon 11,662 52.3 20,616 Indiana 9,054 107.1 20,587 Jefferson 3,444 69.2 20,305 Juniata 4,663 63.1 20,682 Lackawanna 2,676 467.6 24,152 Lancaster 4,635 555.4 25,854 Lawrence 1,304 252.2 21,467 Lebanon 5,442 373.3 25,525 Lehigh 63 1025.3 27,301 Luzerne 1,092 360.5 23,245 Lycoming 4,502 94.2 21,802 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 135 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) McKean 158 44.2 21,022 Mercer 6,438 172.3 21,765 Mifflin 2,591 113.3 19,085 Monroe 4,051 279.3 24,824 Montgomery 83 1654.4 40,076 Montour 317 139.3 26,124 Northampton 28 813.6 28,362 Northumberland 1,467 206.0 20,654 Perry 2,050 83.7 23,701 Pike 183 107.5 27,564 Potter 121 15.8 20,594 Schuylkill 4,985 190.8 21,408 Snyder 4,348 120.2 21,072 Somerset 8,800 71.9 19,903 Sullivan 55 14.1 19,718 Susquehanna 388 52.3 22,173 Tioga 1,231 36.8 20,358 Union 588 142.9 21,612 Venango 4,459 80.9 20,522 Warren 5,104 46.9 22,170 Washington 8,074 243.0 26,045 Wayne 862 73.5 22,525 Westmoreland 7,601 354.1 25,845 Wyoming 35 71.5 22,899 York 5,173 488.4 27,196 Rhode Island Kent 267 976.4 31,221 Newport 151 799.7 36,994 Providence 760 1523.4 25,169 Washington 1,181 382.2 34,737 South Carolina Abbeville 78 51.4 16,653 Aiken 18,465 151.2 24,172 Allendale 2,938 25.5 14,190 Anderson 1,754 265.1 22,117 Bamberg 3,686 40.5 16,236 Barnwell 3,475 41.1 17,592 Beaufort 2,925 288.5 32,731 Berkeley 5,908 167.5 22,865 Calhoun 3,047 39.7 20,845 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 136 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Charleston 13,387 385.8 29,401 Cherokee 5,069 141.4 17,862 Chester 10,684 56.7 17,687 Chesterfield 3,169 58.4 17,162 Clarendon 52 57.8 16,562 Colleton 22,680 36.8 17,842 Darlington 10,303 121.8 20,096 Dillon 9,207 78.8 14,684 Dorchester 18,734 248.9 24,497 Edgefield 8,382 54.2 19,901 Fairfield 11,150 34.6 18,877 Florence 13,020 172.2 21,932 Georgetown 15,756 74.1 23,942 Greenville 2,177 588.5 25,931 Greenwood 4,933 153.6 21,728 Hampton 11,387 37.7 16,262 Horry 140,135 247.6 24,811 Jasper 8,035 38.8 17,997 Kershaw 7,368 86.5 21,777 Lancaster 2,436 143.0 19,308 Laurens 4,018 93.1 18,757 Lee 346 46.6 12,924 Lexington 40,650 383.1 26,393 McCormick 95 28.3 19,411 Marion 12,007 67.0 16,653 Marlboro 6,164 60.7 13,817 Newberry 10,581 59.9 21,410 Oconee 6,755 119.5 24,055 Orangeburg 28,498 83.4 17,579 Pickens 2,091 242.3 20,647 Richland 45,452 514.7 25,805 Saluda 9,824 44.2 18,717 Spartanburg 5,434 358.3 21,924 Sumter 1,187 161.1 18,944 Union 2,883 55.8 18,495 Williamsburg 2,944 36.9 13,513 York 9,418 347.1 25,707 South Dakota Aurora 504 3.8 21,291 Beadle 270 13.9 23,409 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 137 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Bennett 2,870 2.9 16,153 Bon Homme 4,633 12.6 20,074 Brookings 2,858 40.8 20,995 Brown 413 21.4 23,878 Brule 1,368 6.5 19,779 Buffalo 1,234 4.1 11,410 Butte 1,288 4.6 20,418 Campbell 251 1.9 22,338 Charles Mix 3,346 8.3 17,403 Clark 2,223 3.8 23,909 Clay 2,059 33.9 19,518 Codington 3,355 39.6 24,781 Corson 718 1.6 13,359 Custer 6,916 5.3 24,353 Day 1,763 5.5 20,542 Deuel 691 7.1 22,276 Dewey 4,642 2.3 15,632 Edmunds 517 3.6 24,268 Fall River 6,008 4.1 21,574 Faulk 483 2.4 21,898 Grant 2,116 10.6 22,887 Gregory 3,620 4.2 21,311 Haakon 1,155 1.1 25,877 Hamlin 4,488 11.7 21,558 Hand 1,082 2.4 23,238 Hanson 413 7.6 21,391 Harding 49 0.5 22,004 Hughes 2,463 22.9 28,236 Hutchinson 2,881 8.9 21,944 Hyde 1,059 1.6 22,995 Jackson 2,579 1.6 14,568 Jerauld 1,206 3.9 24,942 Jones 727 1.0 24,630 Kingsbury 2,663 6.2 24,660 Lake 464 20.4 22,447 Lawrence 3,280 30.5 25,465 Lincoln 6,298 81.3 33,261 Lyman 2,431 2.3 16,930 McCook 2,894 9.8 25,502 McPherson 76 2.1 19,255 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 138 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Marshall 3,210 5.6 22,441 Meade 4,687 7.2 22,045 Mellette 2,045 1.6 16,971 Miner 692 4.1 25,450 Minnehaha 10,108 214.4 26,392 Moody 2,799 12.4 24,948 Pennington 9,615 36.9 25,894 Perkins 213 1.0 25,780 Potter 1,590 2.6 23,986 Roberts 7,342 9.2 19,825 Sanborn 41 4.0 21,055 Shannon 10,494 6.5 7,772 Spink 120 4.2 25,295 Stanley 580 2.0 27,435 Sully 1,316 1.3 26,596 Todd 8,408 7.1 11,010 Tripp 4,771 3.4 21,192 Turner 4,340 13.5 22,871 Union 4,120 31.9 33,783 Walworth 609 7.6 23,716 Yankton 3,045 43.2 24,776 Ziebach 2,675 1.4 11,069 Tennessee Anderson 3,152 225.3 24,242 Bedford 5,244 97.3 18,471 Benton 7,198 41.7 19,114 Bledsoe 2,135 32.3 12,907 Blount 4,235 223.6 24,071 Bradley 2,554 305.3 21,444 Campbell 5,705 85.0 16,426 Cannon 63 52.8 18,076 Carroll 5,472 47.4 19,712 Carter 2,148 168.7 17,601 Cheatham 2,413 130.4 24,392 Chester 3,676 60.3 17,343 Claiborne 7,871 74.6 17,128 Clay 415 33.2 18,367 Cocke 9,521 82.7 16,957 Coffee 20 124.1 20,737 Crockett 1,198 55.0 19,742 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 139 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Cumberland 791 83.4 20,544 Davidson 13,821 1255.8 27,780 Decatur 901 35.0 19,757 DeKalb 184 62.2 17,976 Dickson 8,759 102.6 21,415 Dyer 1,826 75.0 19,169 Fayette 8,882 56.2 26,898 Fentress 61 36.7 17,291 Franklin 3,853 74.1 20,817 Gibson 2,668 83.3 20,065 Giles 8,971 48.2 19,778 Grainger 573 82.0 16,783 Greene 4,068 111.4 18,782 Grundy 30 38.3 14,000 Hamblen 546 392.7 21,162 Hamilton 875 624.6 26,588 Hancock 4,698 30.6 13,717 Hardeman 8,496 40.7 15,838 Hardin 6,648 45.3 18,122 Hawkins 7,258 117.6 19,600 Haywood 6,598 35.0 17,047 Henderson 5,483 53.9 19,988 Henry 8,765 57.8 20,687 Hickman 10,053 40.3 18,447 Houston 363 42.9 17,791 Humphreys 6,613 34.9 20,874 Jackson 26 37.4 17,452 Jefferson 6,513 190.8 19,680 Johnson 3,121 61.1 16,638 Knox 2,857 862.7 27,349 Lake 1,502 46.4 11,813 Lauderdale 5,387 58.9 16,006 Lawrence 21,061 67.8 18,086 Lewis 3,755 43.2 17,473 Lincoln 3,957 59.2 22,811 Loudon 2,975 216.4 27,046 McMinn 11,630 122.4 19,796 McNairy 9,298 46.8 18,488 Macon 368 72.9 16,518 Madison 2,424 176.7 22,948 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 140 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Marion 2,555 56.7 20,811 Marshall 6,170 83.1 20,157 Maury 4,394 135.9 23,136 Meigs 4,508 61.3 18,768 Monroe 6,433 71.6 18,651 Montgomery 3,483 327.0 22,092 Moore 1,538 49.8 26,678 Morgan 17,196 42.2 17,883 Obion 1,108 57.9 21,235 Overton 52 51.3 17,720 Perry 2,626 19.2 17,028 Pickett 2 31.0 19,327 Polk 4,319 38.5 17,481 Putnam 258 183.7 19,434 Rhea 4,549 102.0 17,655 Roane 6,576 150.6 23,196 Robertson 7,126 142.5 22,658 Rutherford 11,855 441.3 24,390 Scott 22,004 41.9 15,087 Sequatchie 74 54.4 18,094 Sevier 7,074 154.7 22,047 Shelby 11,109 1215.1 25,002 Smith 2,750 61.6 21,026 Stewart 4,323 29.2 20,670 Sullivan 743 380.7 23,263 Sumner 6,261 310.5 26,014 Tipton 9,129 135.7 21,585 Trousdale 2,886 70.2 19,996 Unicoi 1,733 98.5 20,540 Union 3,195 85.8 16,155 Van Buren 252 20.5 17,160 Warren 29 92.6 18,508 Washington 3,936 383.1 24,114 Wayne 4,395 23.2 15,814 Weakley 1,982 60.2 18,895 White 64 69.4 17,880 Williamson 10,062 326.7 41,220 Wilson 3,369 206.2 27,814 Texas Anderson 16,684 55.7 17,465 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 141 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Andrews 438 10.2 29,605 Angelina 4,522 110.1 20,104 Aransas 990 93.2 25,610 Archer 1,131 10.2 23,882 Armstrong 85 2.1 24,195 Atascosa 2,764 37.2 18,461 Austin 12,301 44.5 26,959 Bailey 886 8.7 18,275 Bandera 12,107 26.1 24,249 Bastrop 3,644 84.9 22,918 Baylor 1,625 4.2 22,894 Bee 43 36.5 14,188 Bell 13,744 303.8 22,722 Bexar 2,044 1420.4 23,225 Blanco 4,641 14.7 27,010 Borden 323 0.7 40,916 Bosque 4,740 18.5 21,269 Bowie 5,853 105.5 22,293 Brazoria 54,267 237.4 27,529 Brazos 11,445 340.6 21,018 Brewster 2,963 1.5 23,577 Briscoe 50 1.8 17,652 Brooks 1,711 7.7 14,728 Brown 6,720 40.5 20,586 Burleson 8,323 26.1 21,379 Burnet 15,830 44.0 25,245 Caldwell 326 70.1 18,106 Calhoun 3,923 42.5 22,835 Callahan 4,303 15.2 22,300 Cameron 1,110 466.0 13,695 Camp 6,245 64.8 18,710 Carson 1,479 6.6 24,977 Cass 14,250 32.4 20,137 Castro 2,415 9.1 16,073 Chambers 6,917 59.7 26,453 Cherokee 24,969 48.7 17,230 Childress 2,163 10.1 16,338 Clay 784 9.7 24,565 Cochran 817 3.9 16,018 Coke 3,151 3.6 18,384 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 142 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Coleman 4,052 7.1 16,494 Collingsworth 903 3.4 21,726 Colorado 10,618 21.9 22,676 Comal 5,843 203.0 31,862 Comanche 4,359 15.0 18,086 Concho 2,423 4.2 17,731 Cooke 626 44.0 23,598 Coryell 18,853 72.0 18,936 Cottle 187 1.7 17,385 Crane 108 5.8 20,185 Crockett 847 1.4 24,194 Crosby 541 6.7 17,940 Culberson 577 0.6 16,060 Dallam 1,405 4.5 18,940 Dallas 575 2761.2 26,185 Dawson 675 15.4 15,288 Deaf Smith 1,916 13.2 16,687 Delta 211 20.3 20,837 Denton 622 779.4 32,538 DeWitt 1,226 22.1 20,020 Dickens 162 2.7 18,642 Dimmit 1,236 7.5 14,045 Donley 1,526 4.0 20,137 Duval 1,364 6.5 15,134 Eastland 6,039 20.0 17,973 Ector 591 156.9 22,859 Edwards 166 1.0 31,109 Ellis 709 165.8 25,346 El Paso 8,201 806.2 16,768 Erath 8,539 35.6 20,903 Falls 2,211 23.2 14,979 Fannin 1,510 38.3 20,221 Fayette 7,981 26.0 26,898 Fisher 1,657 4.4 20,516 Floyd 1,054 6.4 18,093 Foard 1,303 1.8 18,368 Fort Bend 49,401 710.9 32,016 Franklin 2,333 38.1 23,821 Freestone 5,751 22.7 23,235 Frio 751 15.2 15,036 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 143 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Gaines 4,932 12.0 22,785 Galveston 17,473 783.0 28,959 Garza 573 7.0 16,185 Gillespie 8,699 23.9 28,072 Glasscock 1,111 1.4 26,104 Goliad 1,999 8.5 28,120 Gonzales 181 18.8 18,716 Gray 2,802 24.9 20,567 Grayson 1,000 130.2 23,242 Gregg 6,087 450.1 23,024 Grimes 12,831 34.1 17,365 Hale 1,804 36.5 16,322 Hall 362 3.7 20,126 Hamilton 2,789 10.3 22,429 Hansford 1,494 6.2 21,095 Hardeman 693 5.8 17,401 Hardin 13,683 62.0 23,965 Harris 255,229 2459.8 26,788 Harrison 34,622 73.5 22,019 Hartley 2,163 4.2 24,616 Haskell 2,117 6.5 22,734 Hays 4,560 242.5 25,998 Hemphill 898 4.3 29,343 Henderson 13,688 89.8 21,580 Hidalgo 715 508.7 13,480 Hill 1,681 36.9 20,554 Hockley 1,605 25.3 20,255 Hood 507 124.4 30,687 Hopkins 7,419 46.2 21,163 Houston 8,138 19.3 18,813 Howard 795 39.4 17,832 Hudspeth 937 0.8 11,485 Hunt 463 102.5 21,646 Hutchinson 1,390 24.9 21,075 Irion 795 1.5 31,857 Jack 1,266 10.0 21,349 Jackson 4,684 17.1 24,337 Jasper 22,221 37.8 19,182 Jeff Davis 1,193 1.1 22,007 Jefferson 14,799 288.3 22,095 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 144 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Jim Hogg 207 4.7 17,163 Jim Wells 2,144 47.5 16,976 Johnson 320 212.0 23,669 Jones 12,015 21.8 15,880 Karnes 61 20.0 15,949 Kaufman 713 137.5 23,909 Kendall 9,116 53.0 36,418 Kenedy 400 0.3 16,655 Kent 83 0.9 27,021 Kerr 1,579 45.7 25,454 Kimble 2,063 3.6 27,118 King 84 0.3 39,511 Kinney 856 2.7 14,207 Kleberg 2,322 36.6 18,580 Knox 1,308 4.2 20,375 Lamar 4,443 54.9 20,588 Lamb 1,754 13.7 17,553 Lampasas 9,092 28.1 22,943 La Salle 1,721 4.6 13,542 Lavaca 2,540 19.9 23,168 Lee 2,692 26.5 23,074 Leon 6,609 15.9 22,484 Liberty 33,978 65.3 18,807 Limestone 871 25.8 18,420 Lipscomb 779 3.6 24,839 Live Oak 123 11.1 21,540 Llano 5,905 20.7 29,027 Loving 67 0.1 42,220 Lubbock 12,452 315.0 22,831 Lynn 637 6.6 19,752 McCulloch 178 7.9 20,116 McLennan 876 229.3 20,652 McMullen 199 0.6 21,358 Madison 4,881 29.5 14,245 Marion 7,977 27.3 20,125 Martin 1,798 5.3 19,695 Mason 653 4.4 23,555 Matagorda 7,886 33.5 22,623 Maverick 3,337 43.1 12,444 Medina 3,862 35.3 20,604 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 145 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Menard 686 2.5 23,362 Midland 2,173 156.4 30,956 Milam 3,759 24.3 21,509 Mills 30 6.7 20,438 Mitchell 2,000 10.4 13,358 Montague 2,655 21.3 22,328 Montgomery 16,758 455.3 31,959 Moore 1,273 24.8 18,239 Morris 3,551 51.1 20,292 Motley 189 1.2 19,754 Nacogdoches 7,257 69.0 18,180 Navarro 10,702 47.7 20,539 Newton 8,633 15.4 17,721 Nolan 2,308 16.9 19,973 Nueces 8 410.3 22,558 Ochiltree 1,122 11.4 21,143 Oldham 1,001 1.4 22,504 Orange 5,822 245.5 23,155 Palo Pinto 3,085 29.7 21,551 Panola 14,071 29.8 22,846 Parker 196 133.1 28,539 Parmer 1,995 11.7 16,926 Pecos 4,020 3.3 16,717 Polk 13,301 42.6 16,961 Potter 10,905 134.5 18,725 Presidio 5,709 2.0 15,635 Rains 2,463 47.9 20,855 Randall 3,718 134.2 28,668 Reagan 415 3.0 23,028 Real 570 4.8 15,074 Red River 5,520 12.4 18,105 Reeves 4,551 5.2 13,112 Refugio 907 9.6 18,638 Roberts 386 1.0 29,291 Robertson 5,516 19.4 21,113 Runnels 2,827 10.0 20,056 Rusk 29,237 58.3 22,392 Sabine 5,190 22.1 18,155 San Augustine 5,106 16.7 17,184 San Jacinto 18,323 46.9 21,453 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 146 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) San Patricio 1,082 94.1 20,766 San Saba 31 5.3 19,721 Schleicher 1,462 2.7 21,299 Scurry 3,913 19.0 22,424 Shackelford 891 3.6 22,346 Shelby 15,406 32.2 20,103 Sherman 985 3.3 21,587 Smith 13,855 232.3 25,374 Somervell 255 46.6 26,314 Starr 4,780 50.5 11,659 Stephens 3,310 10.9 19,573 Sterling 285 1.2 20,640 Stonewall 800 1.7 25,177 Sutton 870 2.9 23,325 Swisher 116 8.8 16,513 Tarrant 12 2147.8 27,333 Taylor 12,296 144.4 22,606 Terrell 959 0.4 18,871 Terry 700 14.3 22,306 Throckmorton 312 1.8 20,677 Titus 12,966 81.7 17,520 Tom Green 11,084 73.3 22,292 Travis 1,467 1069.0 31,785 Trinity 3,256 21.2 19,828 Tyler 11,697 23.9 19,450 Upshur 25,579 67.8 21,946 Upton 335 2.7 23,112 Uvalde 1,486 17.2 17,842 Val Verde 5,719 15.7 16,615 Van Zandt 18,255 62.5 20,989 Victoria 14,954 99.4 24,146 Walker 21,452 87.0 13,920 Waller 12,178 85.5 21,621 Ward 686 13.1 20,055 Washington 12,535 56.3 25,464 Webb 7,272 76.4 14,163 Wharton 14,527 38.2 21,049 Wheeler 1,359 5.9 27,282 Wichita 7,433 208.5 22,837 Wilbarger 2,342 14.0 19,916 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 147 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Willacy 1,055 38.0 10,800 Williamson 9,637 395.0 29,663 Wilson 123 55.1 25,149 Winkler 180 8.5 19,309 Wise 701 66.1 24,075 Wood 14,829 65.8 21,682 Yoakum 1,664 10.1 19,937 Young 2,637 20.3 24,656 Zapata 1,218 14.4 13,915 Zavala 1,021 9.1 10,180 Utah Beaver 129 2.6 16,131 Box Elder 3,284 8.9 20,465 Cache 553 98.7 19,670 Carbon 1,966 14.6 20,260 Daggett 520 1.5 22,862 Duchesne 2,504 6.0 21,787 Emery 1,130 2.5 19,968 Garfield 894 1.0 23,187 Grand 1,833 2.6 20,611 Iron 324 14.6 16,898 Juab 3,076 3.1 18,193 Kane 1,371 1.8 25,155 Millard 2,672 1.9 18,839 Morgan 1,963 16.1 24,276 Piute 58 2.1 16,140 Rich 384 2.3 25,376 Salt Lake 1,063 1415.0 25,041 San Juan 14,839 2.0 15,150 Sanpete 810 18.0 15,731 Sevier 53 11.1 18,856 Summit 675 19.6 40,270 Tooele 1,101 8.6 22,020 Uintah 2,390 7.5 24,160 Utah 2,772 270.5 20,210 Wasatch 849 20.7 26,873 Washington 1,336 59.7 21,378 Wayne 637 1.2 19,829 Weber 2,679 410.2 22,849 Vermont Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 148 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Addison 3,590 47.9 26,599 Bennington 3,795 54.8 27,962 Caledonia 5,600 48.1 22,504 Chittenden 3,718 292.3 31,095 Essex 2,691 9.5 20,040 Franklin 3,546 75.3 24,767 Grand Isle 196 85.0 30,499 Lamoille 3,724 53.4 27,164 Orange 8,428 41.9 25,951 Orleans 5,339 39.2 20,652 Rutland 3,615 66.1 25,426 Washington 2,735 86.3 28,337 Windham 4,575 56.3 27,247 Windsor 6,949 58.1 29,053 Virginia Accomack 6,350 73.3 22,766 Albemarle 20,567 137.4 36,685 Alleghany 2,844 36.1 22,013 Amelia 10,666 36.4 24,197 Amherst 11,167 68.8 21,097 Appomattox 7,932 45.7 22,388 Augusta 21,496 77.0 23,571 Bath 2,838 8.8 22,083 Bedford 16,984 92.5 27,732 Bland 4,270 19.2 20,468 Botetourt 5,514 61.5 29,540 Brunswick 9,807 30.6 16,739 Buchanan 8,782 47.2 16,742 Buckingham 11,382 29.7 16,752 Campbell 11,397 109.8 22,044 Caroline 10,283 56.1 25,024 Carroll 29 63.3 18,670 Charles City 2,617 39.9 23,955 Charlotte 7,900 26.4 17,348 Chesterfield 9,844 760.9 31,711 Clarke 5,712 80.3 34,630 Craig 3,227 15.9 23,461 Culpeper 12,824 126.6 27,507 Cumberland 6,230 34.3 19,691 Dickenson 12,950 48.5 16,278 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 149 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Dinwiddie 10,674 56.4 23,423 Essex 3,775 44.4 23,795 Fairfax 1,355 2781.2 49,001 Fauquier 16,093 101.2 38,710 Floyd 1,534 40.5 21,425 Fluvanna 7,941 90.2 29,407 Franklin 16,065 82.2 23,527 Frederick 27,819 192.9 27,977 Giles 11,307 48.7 20,985 Gloucester 5,747 171.1 27,395 Goochland 15,199 79.5 38,553 Grayson 111 35.1 19,499 Greene 4,377 118.6 24,969 Greensville 8,288 41.8 17,631 Halifax 20,966 44.3 19,909 Hanover 12,404 214.0 34,201 Henrico 1,149 1331.5 33,001 Henry 16,042 141.0 19,206 Highland 2,354 5.7 25,690 Isle of Wight 3,499 114.3 29,547 James City 2,516 482.7 38,162 King and Queen 5,181 22.1 21,777 King George 2,228 137.2 32,630 King William 4,374 60.0 26,853 Lancaster 1,433 85.2 29,275 Lee 5,011 58.9 16,513 Loudoun 17,196 626.3 45,356 Louisa 25,383 69.0 27,562 Lunenburg 8,196 29.9 17,744 Madison 11,299 41.7 26,081 Mathews 3,459 104.8 27,011 Mecklenburg 5,955 52.4 20,162 Middlesex 1,508 84.5 28,539 Montgomery 16,727 246.1 22,040 Nelson 11,694 32.1 26,996 New Kent 4,186 91.2 31,741 Northampton 1,848 58.9 23,233 Northumberland 2,094 64.6 28,646 Nottoway 7,753 50.7 20,318 Orange 9,412 101.4 26,447 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 150 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Page 9,459 77.8 22,969 Patrick 8,083 38.3 18,396 Pittsylvania 34,032 65.6 20,652 Powhatan 4,356 109.6 25,851 Prince Edward 7,876 68.0 18,192 Prince George 2,297 133.3 25,769 Prince William 2,632 1211.0 35,737 Pulaski 9,429 109.2 20,976 Rappahannock 5,352 27.4 37,149 Richmond 4,273 48.5 19,965 Roanoke 12,230 371.7 31,046 Rockbridge 13,353 37.6 23,753 Rockingham 19,143 91.2 25,274 Russell 13,445 61.3 17,909 Scott 6,010 43.3 18,667 Shenandoah 3,227 83.8 24,502 Smyth 7,125 71.1 19,906 Southampton 7,238 31.6 21,201 Spotsylvania 7,195 305.7 31,012 Stafford 1,938 480.1 34,691 Surry 6,782 25.5 23,835 Sussex 6,692 24.9 16,735 Tazewell 7,946 86.9 19,016 Warren 8,589 178.6 29,098 Washington 18,128 98.6 23,488 Westmoreland 3,549 77.2 27,501 Wise 14,165 102.9 17,944 Wythe 7,582 63.8 20,589 York 1,037 621.8 35,823 Bedford 15 901.4 20,092 Bristol 12,322 1367.2 19,700 Buena Vista 1,440 988.6 19,030 Charlottesville 3,598 4342.9 24,578 Chesapeake 5,574 654.8 29,306 Colonial Heights 517 2312.8 26,115 Covington 2 1084.2 20,781 Danville 1,240 992.8 18,840 Emporia 62 859.8 19,245 Franklin 1 1065.8 19,453 Fredericksburg 907 2367.0 27,870 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 151 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Hampton 2,246 2671.1 24,051 Harrisonburg 1,531 2818.4 16,750 Lexington 407 2831.5 17,022 Lynchburg 3,416 1577.6 21,586 Martinsville 2,105 1252.4 19,766 Newport News 5,866 2611.5 24,249 Norfolk 4,713 4427.5 23,773 Norton 259 527.1 24,145 Poquoson 84 793.5 36,840 Portsmouth 3,332 2832.5 22,302 Radford 20 1664.6 16,496 Richmond 595 3437.5 26,034 Roanoke 7,036 2287.3 22,530 Salem 750 1732.2 27,081 Staunton 340 1199.4 24,077 Suffolk 4,019 213.6 28,441 Virginia Beach 3,150 1746.8 30,873 Waynesboro 379 1411.1 23,190 Williamsburg 359 1590.3 22,851 Winchester 481 2848.5 26,341 Washington Adams 4,807 10.1 16,689 Asotin 1,144 34.4 23,731 Benton 226 104.6 27,161 Chelan 4,615 25.4 24,378 Clallam 6,902 41.6 24,449 Clark 2,533 687.2 27,828 Columbia 423 4.7 25,810 Cowlitz 3,152 91.2 22,948 Douglas 2,962 21.7 22,359 Ferry 7,172 3.4 18,021 Franklin 4,659 67.4 18,660 Garfield 955 3.2 22,825 Grant 17,640 34.3 19,718 Grays Harbor 12,751 38.4 21,656 Island 3,367 376.6 29,079 Jefferson 6,134 16.7 28,528 King 7,498 926.0 38,211 Kitsap 5,726 635.0 29,755 Kittitas 3,482 18.1 23,467 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 152 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Klickitat 5,663 11.0 21,553 Lewis 14,047 31.8 21,695 Mason 6,933 64.8 22,530 Okanogan 20,270 8.0 20,093 Pacific 3,990 22.5 23,326 Pierce 22,103 481.7 27,446 San Juan 2,345 90.9 35,487 Skagit 9,453 68.8 26,925 Skamania 2,972 6.8 24,140 Snohomish 10,673 346.7 30,635 Thurston 9,075 357.3 29,707 Wahkiakum 1,030 15.6 23,115 Walla Walla 321 46.7 23,027 Whatcom 10,361 97.2 25,407 Yakima 1,937 58.1 19,325 West Virginia Barbour 8,694 49.3 17,304 Berkeley 9,120 333.0 25,460 Boone 17,055 49.1 20,457 Braxton 5,153 28.7 17,469 Brooke 7,597 266.7 22,377 Cabell 14,954 342.5 21,907 Calhoun 7,108 27.7 17,121 Clay 8,546 27.6 16,205 Doddridge 4,379 25.7 14,658 Fayette 31,796 69.4 17,082 Gilmer 3,733 25.9 13,899 Grant 7,371 25.6 19,358 Greenbrier 28,845 34.8 20,044 Hampshire 24,079 38.2 17,752 Hancock 2,986 367.6 23,118 Hardy 14,194 24.4 16,944 Harrison 12,913 167.0 21,010 Jackson 9,225 62.8 20,633 Jefferson 6,907 259.4 29,733 Kanawha 124,452 213.2 25,439 Lewis 3,289 43.1 18,240 Lincoln 8,912 49.6 16,439 Logan 28,129 80.9 18,614 McDowell 16,422 41.0 12,955 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 153 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Marion 10,257 182.8 20,752 Marshall 13,794 106.9 21,064 Mason 24,140 63.3 19,609 Mercer 38,173 149.1 18,431 Mineral 19,938 86.4 20,805 Mingo 18,073 63.0 17,629 Monongalia 10,681 268.7 23,116 Monroe 13,467 29.0 18,927 Morgan 7,083 77.0 20,732 Nicholas 13,302 40.7 19,359 Ohio 7,321 417.8 23,950 Pendleton 6,197 11.1 19,401 Pleasants 6,710 58.3 18,770 Pocahontas 8,508 9.2 19,763 Preston 31,470 52.3 19,329 Putnam 30,552 162.2 25,857 Raleigh 70,444 130.8 20,457 Randolph 11,160 28.5 18,472 Ritchie 1,312 23.3 18,255 Roane 11,072 30.7 15,103 Summers 13,150 37.9 15,190 Taylor 6,149 98.6 18,562 Tucker 6,438 17.1 20,020 Tyler 7,847 35.7 18,245 Upshur 7,605 68.9 18,823 Wayne 21,429 83.3 18,410 Webster 2,536 16.5 17,268 Wetzel 13,555 46.1 19,899 Wirt 4,069 24.6 18,438 Wood 4,136 236.9 22,890 Wyoming 7,307 47.5 17,662 Wisconsin Adams 9,637 31.9 21,917 Ashland 3,510 15.4 19,730 Barron 3,696 53.1 22,666 Bayfield 2,162 10.1 24,028 Brown 2 472.2 26,816 Buffalo 3,289 20.2 22,579 Burnett 3,993 18.6 22,767 Chippewa 7,594 62.4 23,952 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 154 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Clark 16,690 28.6 19,797 Columbia 13,595 74.3 26,993 Crawford 5,302 29.2 21,346 Dane 5,832 412.3 32,392 Dodge 6,720 101.4 23,663 Door 8,843 57.2 29,154 Douglas 7,221 33.7 24,552 Dunn 6,639 51.8 21,624 Eau Claire 7,402 155.1 24,826 Florence 1,043 8.9 20,283 Fond du Lac 8,972 141.6 25,360 Forest 3,614 9.2 20,578 Grant 11,307 44.6 20,758 Green 3,080 63.9 26,721 Green Lake 4,348 54.2 24,973 Iowa 4,203 31.1 25,156 Iron 1,424 7.6 21,286 Jackson 7,857 20.8 20,778 Jefferson 10,221 151.1 24,729 Juneau 5,858 34.9 23,026 Kenosha 2,169 617.6 26,168 Kewaunee 876 59.7 24,574 La Crosse 3,067 255.6 24,917 Lafayette 4,586 26.4 22,026 Langlade 2,345 22.8 22,025 Lincoln 10,414 32.5 23,793 Manitowoc 1,804 138.0 25,161 Marathon 23,965 87.5 25,893 Marinette 8,763 29.6 22,999 Marquette 4,275 34.2 22,895 Menominee 89 11.7 14,794 Milwaukee 282 3932.3 23,740 Monroe 9,981 50.1 23,052 Oconto 3,806 37.7 24,521 Oneida 8,458 32.1 28,085 Outagamie 1,520 278.9 26,965 Ozaukee 32 370.9 39,778 Pepin 1,150 32.0 24,233 Pierce 10,291 72.0 26,313 Polk 8,009 48.3 24,704 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 155 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Portage 10,100 87.9 24,873 Price 3,856 11.1 23,125 Racine 376 591.4 26,321 Richland 7,401 30.7 21,301 Rock 4,644 224.9 23,926 Rusk 4,443 16.0 20,573 St. Croix 7,857 119.2 31,377 Sauk 8,878 75.4 25,452 Sawyer 2,714 13.2 23,527 Shawano 3,953 46.9 22,539 Sheboygan 973 226.5 24,976 Taylor 11,316 21.2 22,639 Trempealeau 4,080 39.7 23,224 Vernon 856 37.8 21,618 Vilas 8,750 24.8 27,128 Walworth 5,713 185.5 26,769 Washburn 5,173 20.0 23,221 Washington 68 309.2 30,580 Waukesha 1,223 710.9 36,752 Waupaca 9,936 69.9 23,293 Waushara 3,945 39.0 22,002 Winnebago 2,686 385.7 26,383 Wood 7,355 93.9 24,893 Wyoming Albany 1,074 8.5 25,622 Big Horn 476 3.8 24,486 Campbell 4,074 9.9 31,968 Carbon 4,600 2.0 26,122 Converse 1,659 3.3 27,656 Crook 2,653 2.6 24,520 Fremont 10,768 4.4 24,173 Goshen 1,122 6.0 23,753 Hot Springs 163 2.4 25,269 Johnson 1,060 2.1 26,753 Laramie 2,907 34.4 27,406 Lincoln 13,249 4.6 24,421 Natrona 1,286 14.4 28,235 Niobrara 484 1.0 22,885 Park 6,738 4.1 26,203 Platte 2,293 4.1 24,185 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 156 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Sheridan 2,493 11.7 26,756 Sublette 2,066 2.3 31,433 Sweetwater 5,302 4.3 30,961 Teton 2,926 5.4 42,224 Uinta 7,328 10.4 24,460 Washakie 412 3.8 28,557 Weston 819 3.1 28,463 American Samoa Eastern 20,009 Manu'a 1,143 Swains Island 17 Western 22,461 Guam Guam 86,467 Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Rota 2,721 Saipan 47,784 Tinian 3,377 Puerto Rico Adjuntas 28,193 422.8 5,974 Aguada 50,862 1648.6 7,414 Aguadilla 50,991 1395.9 7,908 Aguas Buenas 13,118 1025.0 7,494 Aibonito 30,851 1374.9 8,213 Añasco 78,107 1988.2 7,584 Arecibo 22,138 664.7 8,867 Arroyo 34,354 2289.1 7,547 Barceloneta 3,417 1023.4 8,479 Barranquitas 7,725 693.7 6,588 Bayamón 11,027 4253.3 12,180 Cabo Rojo 45,723 649.8 8,999 Caguas 26,454 2052.0 11,880 Camuy 10,531 489.5 7,368 Canóvanas 14,313 1242.1 9,852 Carolina 17,803 2907.5 13,740 Cataño 1,908 3320.1 9,893 Cayey 17,465 814.0 9,633 Ceiba 5,319 673.1 9,658 Ciales 7,821 212.1 6,376 Cidra 14,342 874.2 10,175 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 157 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Coamo 28,018 359.2 7,660 Comerío 12,532 724.1 6,755 Corozal 19,188 863.8 6,974 Culebra 1,496 128.9 10,349 Dorado 1,164 1694.1 14,687 Fajardo 5,844 906.4 9,949 Florida 1,344 861.6 7,336 Guánica 24,438 659.6 6,104 Guayama 60,074 924.4 8,821 Guayanilla 38,436 909.4 6,803 Guaynabo 5,030 2994.7 20,409 Gurabo 18,094 1489.5 12,155 Hatillo 5,400 1217.1 7,934 Hormigueros 18,377 1620.0 9,877 Humacao 5,834 1218.7 9,640 Isabela 45,877 829.6 6,859 Jayuya 14,525 326.2 6,976 Juana Díaz 56,389 935.6 7,928 Juncos 6,923 1491.8 8,968 Lajas 53,337 889.7 6,857 Lares 11,686 544.8 6,775 Las Marías 20,403 440.1 6,417 Las Piedras 12,124 1350.9 9,078 Loíza 14,191 1188.7 8,050 Luquillo 2,626 931.1 10,506 Manatí 5,527 703.5 8,949 Maricao 15,433 421.5 5,327 Maunabo 12,009 570.0 7,366 Mayagüez 80,071 1031.3 9,416 Moca 61,823 1228.1 6,906 Morovis 12,402 945.1 6,212 Naguabo 8,711 363.3 7,548 Naranjito 10,834 990.5 6,384 Orocovis 34,480 750.2 6,134 Patillas 24,550 525.9 6,928 Peñuelas 19,511 437.4 6,480 Ponce 118,580 1225.8 9,545 Quebradillas 23,595 1040.2 6,295 Rincón 19,153 1340.5 8,768 Río Grande 20,503 922.0 10,049 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 158 Appendix D Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County County County Population Without Access County Population Density County Per Capita Income ($2010) Sabana Grande 41,810 1166.9 7,859 Salinas 49,998 720.9 6,944 San Germán 41,638 764.1 8,066 San Juan 17,951 6825.6 16,031 San Lorenzo 22,899 913.1 8,399 San Sebastián 25,394 788.9 6,456 Santa Isabel 28,690 843.3 8,530 Toa Alta 21,567 2212.4 11,055 Toa Baja 6,297 3040.8 10,938 Trujillo Alto 12,398 2488.7 14,588 Utuado 35,651 434.6 6,775 Vega Alta 17,150 2143.1 8,890 Vega Baja 20,862 1237.3 9,053 Vieques 8,873 174.8 8,054 Villalba 17,781 499.0 6,877 Yabucoa 20,416 780.8 7,449 Yauco 90,054 1320.6 7,374 United States Virgin Islands St. Croix 53,424 St. John 6,938 St. Thomas 48,240 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 159 Appendix E Tribal Lands Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by State Tribal Lands Population Population Without Access % Population Without Access All Areas 3,857,121 1,118,982 29.0% Lower 48 States 1,050,085 506,034 48.2% Alabama 281 238 84.7% Alaska 1,472 56 3.8% Arizona 181,085 152,886 84.4% California 59,626 21,022 35.3% Colorado 13,953 4,646 33.3% Connecticut 341 78 22.9% Florida 3,601 798 22.1% Idaho 31,733 20,566 64.8% Iowa 1,049 20 1.9% Kansas 5,787 1,156 20.0% Louisiana 768 349 45.4% Maine 2,548 193 7.6% Massachusetts 78 0 0.0% Michigan 34,137 3,799 11.1% Minnesota 38,397 16,778 43.7% Mississippi 7,427 2,001 26.9% Montana 67,007 28,380 42.4% Nebraska 8,514 6,901 81.1% Nevada 12,010 4,391 36.6% New Mexico 139,781 103,775 74.2% New York 14,109 6,095 43.2% North Carolina 9,036 3,104 34.3% North Dakota 23,742 18,748 79.0% Oklahoma 92,590 25,351 27.4% Oregon 8,763 3,206 36.6% South Carolina 853 0 0.0% South Dakota 62,958 44,853 71.2% Texas 1,823 999 54.8% Utah 32,255 10,290 31.9% Washington 128,605 13,022 10.1% Wisconsin 38,781 3,919 10.1% Wyoming 26,975 8,418 31.2% Tribal Statistical Areas 2,529,095 515,261 20.4% California 3,153 3 0.1% New York 2,713 1,101 40.6% Oklahoma 2,486,306 511,279 20.6% Washington 36,923 2,879 7.8% Alaskan Village Areas 247,105 97,578 39.5% Hawaiian Home Lands 30,836 109 0.4% Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 Appendix F Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark on Certain Tribal Lands All Areas Non-Rural Areas Rural Areas Tribal Lands Population Population Without Access % Population Without Access Population Population Without Access % Population Without Access Population Population Without Access % Population Without Access All 3,857,121 1,118,982 29.0% 1,903,421 150,668 7.9% 1,953,700 968,314 49.6% Lower 48 States 1,050,085 506,034 48.2% 360,939 83,652 23.2% 689,146 422,383 61.3% Statistical or legal area administered and/or claimed by two or more American Indian Tribes 45,105 3,422 7.6% 35,730 98 0.3% 9,375 3,324 35.5% Legal federally recognized American Indian area consisting of reservation and associated off- reservation trust land 590,706 323,726 54.8% 203,566 52,302 25.7% 387,140 271,424 70.1% Legal federally recognized American Indian area consisting of reservation only 410,951 177,923 43.3% 121,472 31,252 25.7% 289,479 146,672 50.7% Legal federally recognized American Indian area consisting of off-reservation trust land only 3,323 963 29.0% 171 0 0.0% 3,152 963 30.6% Tribal Statistical Area 2,529,095 515,261 20.4% 1,424,974 52,104 3.7% 1,104,121 463,157 41.9% Alaskan Village Areas 247,105 97,578 39.5% 91,150 14,912 16.4% 155,955 82,666 53.0% Hawaiian Home Lands 30,836 109 0.4% 26,358 0 0.0% 4,478 109 2.4% There were no census blocks with population for two categories. See supra App. B (Data Sources and Definitions). Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 161 Appendix G Overall Fixed Broadband Deployment Rates by State Area Deployment Rate 768 kbps/200 kbps or Faster Deployment Rate 3 Mbps/768 kbps or Faster Deployment Rate 6 Mbps/1.5 Mbps or Faster All Areas 97.0% 94.0% 84.7% Alabama 93.1 88.6 79.8 Alaska 89.5 80.4 1.3 Arizona 98.2 95.3 84.2 Arkansas 92.7 86.4 66.4 California 98.2 96.7 90.8 Colorado 97.9 95.7 78.5 Connecticut 99.3 99.3 84.8 Delaware 98.2 96.9 91.4 District of Columbia 100.0 100.0 99.8 Florida 97.6 96.9 95.8 Georgia 97.7 96.6 92.0 Hawaii 98.5 98.5 26.6 Idaho 94.7 86.9 70.4 Illinois 98.4 96.7 92.9 Indiana 98.4 95.7 90.5 Iowa 97.4 92.9 83.5 Kansas 97.2 92.3 84.2 Kentucky 93.7 89.5 58.4 Louisiana 93.9 91.2 78.6 Maine 97.3 95.3 47.1 Maryland 97.9 96.8 89.8 Massachusetts 99.5 99.0 95.3 Michigan 96.7 93.7 89.6 Minnesota 97.3 92.0 82.1 Mississippi 90.3 87.9 75.3 Missouri 96.0 92.5 89.1 Montana 91.1 73.3 7.6 Nebraska 95.7 89.9 73.5 Nevada 99.0 97.7 96.0 New Hampshire 98.0 92.5 68.5 New Jersey 99.4 99.3 92.8 New Mexico 93.0 85.8 71.4 New York 99.2 98.7 87.2 North Carolina 97.7 93.6 87.8 North Dakota 97.0 84.1 75.6 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 162 Appendix G Overall Fixed Broadband Deployment Rates by State Area Deployment Rate 768 kbps/200 kbps or Faster Deployment Rate 3 Mbps/768 kbps or Faster Deployment Rate 6 Mbps/1.5 Mbps or Faster Ohio 97.7 96.6 79.6 Oklahoma 91.8 83.8 69.4 Oregon 98.6 96.6 94.7 Pennsylvania 98.7 98.3 88.5 Rhode Island 99.8 99.8 99.7 South Carolina 96.5 88.3 71.7 South Dakota 97.1 78.9 72.7 Tennessee 95.3 93.2 88.8 Texas 96.7 94.1 86.7 Utah 99.0 98.2 95.2 Vermont 94.6 90.6 78.3 Virginia 93.0 89.1 76.3 Washington 98.1 96.8 92.9 West Virginia 89.0 54.1 34.7 Wisconsin 96.7 93.1 80.0 Wyoming 93.2 86.8 56.4 U.S. Territories American Samoa 30.5 21.4 0.0 Guam 45.7 45.7 45.7 Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands 93.3 0.0 0.0 Puerto Rico 80.5 48.4 30.0 U.S. Virgin Islands 62.4 0.0 0.0 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 163 Appendix H Overall Fixed Broadband Adoption Rates by State Area Adoption Rate 768 kbps/200 kbps or Faster Adoption Rate 3 Mbps/768 kbps or Faster Adoption Rate 6 Mbps/1.5 Mbps or Faster All Areas 64.0 40.4 27.6 Alabama 52.9 25.1 12.4 Alaska 58.0 ^ ^ Arizona 65.4 42.5 34.9 Arkansas 48.5 21.4 14.3 California 70.1 45.1 24.5 Colorado 71.9 55.1 ^ Connecticut 75.0 51.0 47.9 Delaware 74.1 67.2 ^ District of Columbia 65.7 55.8 42.1 Florida 69.4 42.3 29.4 Georgia 60.7 35.8 23.6 Hawaii ^ ^ ^ Idaho 57.3 19.4 3.8 Illinois 62.3 36.3 ^ Indiana 57.4 33.8 22.9 Iowa 60.5 22.1 3.2 Kansas 61.8 26.6 18.1 Kentucky 56.2 36.5 10.6 Louisiana 55.0 29.4 22.5 Maine 64.8 22.7 8.8 Maryland 72.2 67.1 61.5 Massachusetts 76.3 69.7 57.5 Michigan 60.7 40.5 19.7 Minnesota 64.7 43.5 29.3 Mississippi 44.4 14.6 13.0 Missouri 55.2 24.0 4.9 Montana 60.9 44.2 2.0 Nebraska 66.0 45.1 ^ Nevada 61.8 35.8 6.7 New Hampshire 75.4 58.2 ^ New Jersey 78.2 72.5 70.7 New Mexico 56.5 35.1 22.2 New York 70.6 48.6 37.2 North Carolina 60.3 13.8 1.6 North Dakota 61.3 38.1 29.9 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 164 Appendix H Overall Fixed Broadband Adoption Rates by State Area Adoption Rate 768 kbps/200 kbps or Faster Adoption Rate 3 Mbps/768 kbps or Faster Adoption Rate 6 Mbps/1.5 Mbps or Faster Ohio 59.0 19.2 3.6 Oklahoma 55.8 28.0 ^ Oregon 63.6 49.2 35.1 Pennsylvania 65.8 51.1 41.6 Rhode Island ^ ^ ^ South Carolina 55.6 21.5 10.6 South Dakota 58.6 44.5 43.6 Tennessee 52.0 33.5 24.4 Texas 59.2 29.3 14.6 Utah 68.8 47.9 32.1 Vermont 66.7 57.3 ^ Virginia 69.0 62.8 59.1 Washington 67.7 54.1 45.4 West Virginia 59.2 47.4 34.9 Wisconsin 62.1 26.0 4.9 Wyoming 60.0 46.4 4.0 U.S. Territories American Samoa ^ 0.0 NA Guam ^ ^ ^ Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands ^ NA NA Puerto Rico 30.5 ^ 0.0 United States Virgin Islands ^ NA NA A ^ signifies that data has been withheld to maintain firm confidentiality. Also, (NA) signifies that the services are not available in the area. Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 165 APPENDIX I Section 706 Fixed Broadband Deployment Map Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 166 APPENDIX J Section 706 Mobile Deployment Map Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 167 APPENDIX K Commission’s Report on Internet Access Services: Status as of June 30, 2011 This report can be found on the FCC website at http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0614/DOC-314630A1.pdf Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 168 STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JULIUS GENACHOWSKI Re: Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as Amended by the Broadband Data Improvement Act, GN Docket No. 11-121 Today, we deliver our annual Broadband Progress Report to Congress. It is the most accurate and comprehensive Report since its inception. The data in this report paint the clearest picture yet about the progress we have made on broadband—and the urgent challenges that remain. The U.S. has now regained global leadership in key areas of the broadband economy, including mobile, where we lead in mobile apps and 4G deployment; but, in this flat, competitive global economy, we need to keep driving toward faster broadband and universal access. The Report’s conclusions only reaffirm what I hear all too often from small business owners, parents, educators and others across the country—we can’t let up on our efforts to unleash the benefits of broadband for every American. Increasing broadband deployment, increasing adoption, increasing speeds and capacity are vital throughout our country; they’re essential to growing our innovation economy and driving our global competitiveness. I heard this message just last month when I visited three rural communities in Nevada and California that either recently received new broadband, or will be getting it in the near future as a result of our new Connect America Fund. These meetings were a vivid reminder of why Congress directed the FCC, each year, to conduct an “inquiry concerning the availability of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans,” and to “determine whether advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.” As we’ve refocused the FCC on broadband, we’ve significantly improved and expanded this report. It’s become a critical annual check-in on where we stand and what we still have to do. This year’s Report reflects the huge strides that both the private and public sector have made to extend broadband, while also explaining that there’s more work to do. Fixed providers are offering higher speeds, including through the deployment of fiber and new technologies like DOCSIS 3.0. Mobile providers continue to expand their coverage and deploy new faster network technologies like LTE. In fact, we’re leading the world in deploying 4G mobile broadband at scale. At the Commission, we’ve adopted landmark reforms to our universal service programs, particularly those targeted at increasing broadband deployment and affordability to all Americans. We’ve created the new Connect America Fund, and just a few weeks ago, the Commission announced that nearly 400,000 residents and small business owners in 37 states will gain access to high-speed Internet within three years as a result of the new Fund. And we’ve made universal access to mobile service and express universal service goal for the first time ever—the first Mobility Fund auction in September will provide funding to extend mobile broadband to thousands of unserved road miles where Americans live, work, and travel. We have also continued to push forward with our Broadband Acceleration Initiative to lower the costs and increase the speed of broadband build-out. We have adopted major reforms to facilitate access to utility poles and faster tower siting, and our National Broadband Plan recommended key initiatives in Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 169 the President’s recent Executive Order on accelerating broadband infrastructure deployment, including the “Dig Once” initiative. We’ve laid out clear rules of the road to protect the openness of the Internet, promoting a virtuous cycle of innovation, investment, and competition. And we’ve taken numerous steps to unleash spectrum for broadband, both licensed and unlicensed. Some look at the progress that’s being made and say, “Mission Accomplished.” I disagree. Our data show that 19 million Americans remain without access to fixed broadband. The residents and business owners I met with in California and Nevada will finally get broadband in the coming months— but millions more, especially in rural areas and Tribal lands, are still waiting. And until we fully implement our Connect America reforms, this gap won’t close. In this context, we cannot declare that broadband deployment to all Americans is “reasonable and timely.” Our data also show that a significant broadband adoption gap remains—fewer than 70% of Americans have subscribed to fixed broadband, even counting speeds as low as 768 kbps. We have to continue striking at the barriers that are keeping Americans offline. And while we’ve made great strides in the rollout of next-generation high-speed services, there’s a lot left to do. Industry reports that the upgrade of cable infrastructure to DOCSIS 3.0 technology means that more than 80% of Americans have access to networks technically capable of 100 Mbps or more. But our data show that just 27% of Americans are being offered broadband services at those speeds today, and U.S. prices for these higher speed services exceed many other countries. And while 100 Mbps is impressive progress from where we were, it’s not where we want to end up. We need to see ongoing increases in broadband speed and capacity, so that we’re routinely talking about gigabits, not megabits. Broadband abundance is the goal that will drive U.S. leadership in innovation, and our finding today reflects our belief that we need to keep our feet on the accelerator. On mobile, passage of the incentive auction concept suggested in our National Broadband Plan reflects important progress, along with the other steps we are taking to free up new spectrum for mobile broadband. But demand for spectrum capacity continues to increase at a dramatic rate, so we can no more declare mission accomplished in mobile than we can in fixed broadband. Having the very best data is critical to tackling each of these challenges. This is our first Broadband Progress report ever to include extensive data on mobile broadband and the availability of next-generation, high-speed services. It incorporates the most robust analysis of international data that the Commission has ever done. And we’re releasing it with new online, interactive maps, which show exactly where broadband is and isn’t available and provide technology-by-technology deployment statistics for every county in the nation. To ensure our report keeps pace with changing demands, today we also adopt a Notice of Inquiry to seek public input on how to assess our Nation’s progress toward its broadband goals in next year’s report. As the importance of mobile broadband continues to grow for American consumers and businesses, mobile broadband should be incorporated in our analysis in the Ninth Broadband Progress Report. And our report needs to formally include an evaluation the deployment of next generation services, which promote a mindset of abundance, and fuel world-leading innovation. Today’s Inquiry lays the foundation for these important updates. It is our responsibility to ensure that our goals for broadband availability reflect the real needs of American consumers and businesses. One study projects that the average Internet household will generate over 130 gigabytes of traffic per month by 2016 at a compounded growth rate of 21% a year. Meanwhile, the average smartphone user consumed 435 MB a month in early 2011, an increase of 89% Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 170 from the year before. In short, the goalposts are moving. Every year consumers and businesses need higher speeds and more capacity to keep up, innovators need new test beds for the latest technologies, and our competitors around the world are pushing hard to gain a strategic advantage by deploying faster, higher capacity broadband to their citizens. As broadband providers respond to meet this incredible demand, so too our broadband benchmarks and our broadband policies must keep up with these changes to foster economic growth, job creation, and our global competitiveness. I thank the staff of the Wireline Competition Bureau and Wireless Telecommunications Bureau for their excellent work on this item. Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 171 DISSENTING STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER ROBERT M. McDOWELL Re: Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as Amended by the Broadband Data Improvement Act, GN Docket No. 11-121 It is discouraging that, for the third year in a row, the majority has decided to clutch to its earlier negative findings as to whether “advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion” pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.1 In reality, the growth of broadband deployment in America, especially regarding the mobile marketplace, has been swift and strong. For instance, between 2003 and 2009, broadband deployment steadily increased from reaching 15 percent of Americans to 95 percent of Americans.2 Furthermore, mobile broadband is the fastest growing segment of the broadband market. America has always led the world in wireless connectivity thanks to de-regulatory policies and our lead is growing. For instance, our country has approximately 21 percent of the globe’s 3G/4G subscribers and approximately 69 percent of the world’s LTE subscribers even though the United States is home to less than five percent of the global population.3 Furthermore, the investments made by American wireless providers have been higher than their international counterparts. For example, in 2011, over $25 billion was invested in United States’ wireless infrastructure4 compared to $18.6 billion invested in the 15 largest European economies combined.5 The mobile market in the United States has more competition than most international markets. Nine out of ten American consumers have a choice of at least five wireless service providers, according to the most recent FCC statistics.6 In Europe, however, that figure is around three.7 Therefore, Americans benefit from lower prices and higher mobile usage rates compared to consumers in the European Union 1 47 U.S.C. § 1302(b) (Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 has since been amended by the Broadband Data Improvement Act (BDIA), Pub. L. No. 110-385, 122 Stat. 4096 (2008) and is now codified in Title 47, Chapter 12 of the U.S. Code. It is commonly referred to as “Section 706”). 2 See, e.g., FCC, OMNIBUS BROADBAND INITIATIVE (OBI), CONNECTING AMERICA: THE NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN, GN Docket No. 09-51 (2010). 3 See INFORMA TELECOMS AND MEDIA (WCIS Database) (Dec. 2011). 4 See CTIA-THE WIRELESS ASSOC., CTIA SEMI-ANNUAL WIRELESS INDUSTRY SURVEY (2012), http://www.ctia.org/advocacy/research/index.cfm/AID/10316; see also CTIA-THE WIRELESS ASSOC., SEMI-ANNUAL 2011 TOP-LINE SURVEY RESULTS 10 (2012), http://files.ctia.org/pdf/CTIA_Survey_Year_End_2011_Graphics.pdf (providing cumulative capital investment numbers). 5 See BOA/MERRILL LYNCH EUROPEAN TELECOMS MATRIX Q112 (Mar. 30, 2012) (GLOBAL TELECOMS MATRIX Q112) (estimating €14,368 YE 2011. Conversion at $1.2948/1€). The European countries included in the Matrix: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and UK; there are 27 members of the European Union (EU). 6 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. 10-133, Fifteenth Report, 26 FCC Rcd 9664, 9669 (2011). 7 See GLOBAL TELECOMS MATRIX Q112. Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 172 (EU)—4 cents per minute versus 17 cents generally in the EU.8 Also, wireless subscriber usage on average in the United States is often three to seven times as much compared to some countries.9 Moreover, American consumers pay at least one-third less than consumers in many other parts of the world.10 The instant Section 706 report does discuss advances in the deployment of mobile broadband. Notwithstanding the fact that the number of Americans who gained access to mobile broadband grew significantly since last year, the report discards these important statistics, in part, for being “overstated,” and ignores them in its pre-determined 706 finding. Even if these mobile broadband statistics were incorporated, the majority indicates that it “would likely reach this same finding even if we considered the best available mobile data. Over 14 million Americans lack access, even if access to either fixed or mobile broadband is considered adequate and even when all LTE, WiMax, and HSPA+ deployments are included.”11 In other words, it appears that the majority has already tipped its hand for next year’s report—reducing the number of unserved Americans to 14 million would still not be good enough for the majority’s outcome-driven Section 706 purposes. Furthermore, even if a future Section 706 report reaches the elusive “magic number,” that still may not be adequate progress for the majority. My colleagues continue to argue that Congress did not mean “physical” deployment when it referred to “deployment” and “availability.” Rather than look to the plain statutory language to determine Congress’s intent, the majority has relied on legislative report language to argue that even if broadband is physically deployed to a particular area but is not affordable, it is not available under Section 706. That interpretation is flawed. The actual statutory language states otherwise: as part of the inquiry, the statute requires the Commission to look at demographic information for “geographical areas that are not served by any provider of advanced telecommunications capability.”12 Congress was directing the Commission to study whether certain areas are actually not served by a provider, not whether consumers in certain areas choose not to adopt broadband. This creative interpretation of Section 706 ties in nicely with the majority’s efforts to expand its jurisdictional reach. For example, the report identifies low broadband service quality, affordability of broadband, lack of access to computers, lack of relevance, and poor digital literacy as some of the barriers to infrastructure investment. These are really adoption issues, not deployment issues. And, by identifying these “barriers,” the majority has continued to use Section 706 as a tool for mission creep.13 Section 706 is narrow in scope, however, and does not provide the Commission with specific or general 8 Roger Entner, The Wireless Industry: The Essential Engine of U.S. Economic Growth, RECON ANALYTICS, at 1 (May 2012), http://reconanalytics.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Wireless-The-Ubiquitous-Engine-by-Recon- Analytics-1.pdf ). 9 See GLOBAL TELECOMS MATRIX Q112 at 71. 10 See id. 11 Para. 138 of the instant report. 12 47 U.S.C. 1302(c) (emphasis added). 13 For example, in January of 2012, over my partial dissent, the Commission established a broadband pilot program as part of the Lifeline program. I had concerns with the establishment of the pilot, in part, because the Commission did not have authority to pursue it under Section 706 or any other section of the Communications Act. See Lifeline & Link Up Reform & Modernization Lifeline & Link Up Fed.-State Joint Bd. on Universal Serv. Advancing Broadband Availability Through Digital Literacy Training, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 27 FCC Rcd 6656 (2012). Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 173 authority to do much of anything. Section 706 has a de-regulatory bent and should not be used for other purposes beyond what Congress intended, especially creating more rules, red tape and bureaucracy.14 In sum, the Section 706 process should be used to assess the progress of broadband deployment in our nation, as Congress intended. Unfortunately, that has not been the majority’s practice for the past three years. Instead, the majority has used this process as an opportunity to create a pretext to justify more regulation. The fact that the report’s closing paragraph heralds the use of Section 706 for the majority’s adoption of unprecedented regulation of Internet network management, or “net neutrality” rules, underscores my point. Referencing the net neutrality order, the majority says “the open Internet rules were adopted to ensure the continuation of the Internet’s virtuous cycle of innovation and investment, and the Commission must continue to prioritize those efforts consistent with the mandate of section 706.”15 In reality, the 706 process has been co-opted by the majority, and used in the course of a “cynical cycle” of regulation. For all of these reasons, I must respectfully dissent. 14 Congress stated that “[i]f the Commission’s determination is negative, it shall take immediate action to accelerate deployment of such capability by removing barriers to infrastructure investment and by promoting competition in the telecommunications market.” 47 U.S.C. 1302(b). 15 Para. 156 of the instant report. Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 174 STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER MIGNON L. CLYBURN Re: Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as Amended by the Broadband Data Improvement Act, GN Docket No. 11-121 I wish to commend the Staff on today’s release of the Eighth Broadband Progress Report and Notice of Inquiry for the Ninth Broadband Progress Report. This year’s Report is more detailed than ever before, and it closely reviews the actions taken by both the private and public sectors to advance the availability of broadband to all Americans. In addition to the significant investments made by industry by way of deployment to date, the FCC has achieved many of the goals we set forth to make broadband available to those who do not currently have it. Since last year’s Report, we have reformed the Universal Service Fund’s high-cost program so that it directly supports the deployment of broadband-enabled networks in rural areas. We have taken important steps to address the availability of broadband for low-income consumers through the Lifeline program, including providing the flexibility for consumers to use their subsidy to purchase bundled voice and broadband services. We also have implemented a pilot project that will offer broadband service to low-income consumers. Moreover, the public-private initiative Connect-to- Compete was launched, and similar industry-led programs are entering their second year—all of which are providing low-cost service, equipment, and training to consumers who otherwise could not afford broadband. As we continue to implement our reforms and further address the barriers to deployment and broadband adoption, I expect that the statistics presented in our annual assessment will continue to improve. But it is clear from today’s Report that we are not ready to declare victory just yet, as approximately 19 million Americans still lack access to terrestrial fixed broadband services that meet our broadband definition, and the adoption gap still shows that about 1/3 of Americans do not subscribe to broadband. Broadband service has not been made available to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion. Moreover, for low-income consumers and residents of rural areas, Tribal Lands, and the Territories, this finding is even more acute. It is necessary, therefore, that we continue to promote reforms and policies that will ensure broadband availability to all Americans no matter where they live, work, or travel in this great nation. While I am pleased that we have included a discussion specific to the Territories in this year’s Report and request comment in the NOI on the broadband challenges in the Territories, it is clear that we must continue to pay particular attention to the specific needs of remote and insulated areas. The same holds true for Tribal Lands. We should continue to evaluate the impact of our reforms and policies in these areas and be open to further refining them. In doing so, it is my hope that we can make more progress in addressing the broadband needs in those areas. I also believe that the NOI’s review of the broadband definition, including whether we should modify our findings to include mobile service, are important discussions that I encourage interested parties to engage with us on. As noted in the Report and NOI, the marketplace is rapidly evolving. More consumers are relying upon their mobile devices to access broadband than ever before. We included in our USF Transformation Order the goal that consumers have access to mobile broadband and voice service, by allocating $300 million in Mobility Fund Phase I and $500 million annually in Phase II. Moreover, our inquiry includes questions about the speeds offered and consumed for fixed service, as well as the capacity of networks, including latency and data capacity. I am particularly interested in the Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 175 data the Commission would rely upon should we modify our Ninth Broadband Progress Report. In particular, the Commission has yet to complete its proceeding to update the Form 477 wherein we collect broadband subscriber information. Taking the necessary steps to ensure that the Commission has the relevant data to assess such additional broadband criteria will be crucial if we determine to include such data in the Ninth Broadband Progress Report. Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 176 STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER JESSICA ROSENWORCEL Re: Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as Amended by the Broadband Data Improvement Act, GN Docket No. 11-121 Today’s report shows real progress in the deployment of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans. It reveals that for some, broadband services are faster and more robust than ever. Consider, for instance, that more than 80 percent of households now have access to broadband at speeds as high as 100 Mbps. But at the same time, this report demonstrates that broadband remains out of reach for 19 million Americans. The bulk of these Americans—14.5 million—live in rural areas that lack basic infrastructure for fixed broadband service. Furthermore, nearly one in three Americans do not subscribe to broadband, citing lack of relevance, lack of affordability, and lack of digital literacy. These numbers are even more troubling when the United States is compared with the rest of the world. Today, this report cites data that show that the United States is ranked fifteenth in the world for fixed broadband penetration. We are ranked seventh in the world for mobile broadband penetration. The United States should lead the world in broadband. Until the data unequivocally demonstrate that we do, how can the answer to our Section 706 inquiry—whether advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion—be anything but no? We know that in the 21st century access to broadband means access to opportunity. It means access to jobs, access to education, and access to healthcare. This is the platform that will drive innovation, boost productivity, and enhance our ability to compete with other nations. So we must make our markets the most attractive worldwide for investment in all aspects of the digital economy. To do so, the Commission is already taking action to advance broadband deployment and adoption for the millions of Americans without access today. We are moving forward with comprehensive universal service reform, implementing the 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act, and developing public and private partnerships to promote broadband adoption and digital literacy. We are also poised to carry out the world’s first incentive auction to free up additional spectrum for mobile broadband services. These are exciting developments, though today’s report is a thoughtful reminder that we still have work to do before every American has access and we unequivocally lead the world’s broadband ranks. Though there are challenges ahead, I believe that we are up for the task. The Notice of Inquiry we release today is a small step towards figuring out how to address these challenges, including a fresh perspective on the consumer experience. In particular, our inquiry includes factors beyond speed, like latency and capacity, that impact how consumers use their broadband connections. So I look forward to tackling these issues with my colleagues and thank Commission staff for their hard work on this report. Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 177 DISSENTING STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER AJIT PAI Re: Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as Amended by the Broadband Data Improvement Act, GN Docket No. 11-121 From 1999 to 2008, the Commission found that broadband was being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion. In 2010, however, this suddenly changed. Today, the Commission determines for the third straight year that the objective set forth in section 706(b) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 is no longer being met. Because the Commission’s conclusion rests on a flawed interpretation of the statute, and because I see the elimination of regulatory uncertainty—not the public fisc or new regulation—as the key to accelerating broadband deployment, I respectfully dissent from today’s report. Official statistics tell us that the recession technically ended three years ago. Yet for many Americans, the recovery still has not come. The Federal Reserve estimates that the economy’s output is still $800 billion smaller than it could be.1 The unemployment rate has risen to 8.3 percent,2 which understates our economy’s woes given that more than five million people have given up searching for employment since the recession began.3 Even the communications sector is not immune; telecommunications companies employ 160,000 fewer workers than they did three-and-a-half years ago, meaning that the sector’s workforce has shrunk by over fifteen percent.4 Despite our general economic problems and the current regulatory environment, the private sector deserves credit for what it has been able to accomplish recently when it comes to infrastructure investment. Communications network operators invested $66 billion in 2011.5 According to State Broadband Initiative data, private sector investment brought fixed terrestrial broadband service meeting the Commission’s speed benchmark to 7.4 million Americans6 and mobile broadband service to 46.7 million Americans7 from June 2010 to June 2011. 1 See Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, FRED Economic Data, http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/ (compare NGDPPOT to GDP as of Aug. 15, 2012). 2 See Bureau of Labor Statistics, Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey, (Seas) Unemployment Rate, http://go.usa.gov/Gw9. 3 Compare Bureau of Labor Statistics, Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey, (Seas) Labor Force Participation Rate, http://go.usa.gov/Gwk (showing that the labor force participation rate has declined from 66.0% in November 2007 to 63.7% in July 2012), with Bureau of Labor Statistics, Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey, (Seas) Civilian Labor Force Level, http://go.usa.gov/Gw0 (showing that 155 million Americans participated in the labor force in July 2012, and accordingly 5.6 million more Americans would have participated had the participation rate not declined from November 2007 to July 2012). 4 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey, (Seas) Telecommunications Labor Force Level, http://go.usa.gov/GwB (showing that telecommunications employment fell from 994,700 in January 2009 to 830,100 in May 2012). 5 US Telecom, Broadband Investment, http://bit.ly/ygeVLS. 6 See Eighth Broadband Progress Report at tbl. 7. 7 See id. at tbl. 14. Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 178 The report sets aside this evidence because under its reading of the statute,8 progress is irrelevant. “[T]he standard against which we measure our progress is universal broadband deployment,”9 it maintains, and “approximately 19 million Americans did not have access to fixed broadband [in 2011].”10 In other words, because fixed broadband service meeting the Commission’s speed benchmark is not already (or very soon to be) available to all Americans, “broadband is not yet being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.”11 My colleague, Commissioner McDowell, and my predecessor, Commissioner Baker, previously noted problems with this interpretation of Section 706.12 I hope to flesh out some aspects of the statute that further highlight the deficiencies in the Commission’s recent approach. First, the Commission has consistently ignored in recent years the statute’s direction that “advanced telecommunications capability” may be deployed “using any technology.”13 That instruction does not permit us to segregate fixed connections from mobile connections, focusing on the former and neglecting the latter. Instead, in making our statutory finding we should consider all broadband services meeting the statutory definition regardless of the technologies used to deploy them. If the Commission followed this statutory command and relied on the State Broadband Initiative data to look at all broadband services meeting the benchmark,14 it would have concluded that 5.5 million Americans—not 8 See 47 U.S.C. § 1302 (codifying Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, § 706, 110 Stat. 153 (as amended)) (directing Commission to “determine whether advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.”). 9 Eighth Broadband Progress Report at para. 138. 10 Id. at para. 135. 11 Id. 12 See Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as Amended by the Broadband Data Improvement Act, GN Docket No. 10-159, Seventh Broadband Progress Report and Order on Reconsideration, 26 FCC Rcd 8008, 8101 (2011) (Seventh Broadband Progress Report) (Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Robert M. McDowell) (calling the Commission’s decision to adopt a 4 Mbps/1 Mbps benchmark “arbitrary,” arguing that the Commission “should never have mandated a one-size-fits-all definition of broadband” that ignores divergent consumer preferences, and arguing against interpretations of “availability” and “deployment” that would read those statutory terms to mean something other than “availability” and “deployment”); 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; A National Broadband Plan for Our Future, GN Docket Nos. 09-137, 09-51, Sixth Broadband Deployment Report, 25 FCC Rcd 9556, 9696 (2010) (Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Meredith A. Baker) (“The goal encapsulated by section 706 is universal broadband availability. Nowhere in section 706 does it require that goal to be reached definitively in 2010. Rather, the question is whether network providers continue to make demonstrable progress towards that goal.”). 13 47 U.S.C. § 1302(d)(1) (emphasis added). 14 In truth, we have never examined the availability of broadband service at our speed benchmark given that we have never collected data measuring deployment at the benchmark. Instead, we have relied on the deployment of fixed services meeting a 3 Mbps/768 kbps benchmark as the next-best thing. We should extend that same proxy to mobile services; vague concerns that providers may be over-reporting surely apply just as much to the wireline world as the wireless, see Eighth Broadband Progress Report at para. 37, and the widespread deployment of LTE, WiMax, and HSPA+ in the past two years demonstrates that at least some mobile offerings in otherwise unserved areas qualify as “advanced telecommunications capability,” id. at para. 6 & n.27; see also tbl. 15 (implying that, based on Mosaik data, 221.7 million Americans had access to LTE, WiMax, or HSPA+ as of June 2011). Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 179 19 million—lack access to advanced telecommunications capability.15 Not only does this mistaken interpretation lead to a 245% overstatement of the problem, it also leads the Commission to report to Congress something it never asked for: a list of geographical areas, some of which are served by a provider of advanced telecommunications capability and some of which are not.16 Second, I do not see how the Commission’s test can be reconciled with the statutory language that instructs us to ask if broadband “is being deployed . . . in a reasonable and timely fashion.”17 That language most naturally requires a comparison of broadband deployment within the country at one point in time with broadband deployment at a later point in time, after which an assessment can be made as to whether “reasonable and timely” advancements have been made. Our metric, in other words, is progress—not total achievement—and Congress emphasized the point by using the progressive present tense in its command (i.e., Congress used the phrase “is being deployed” in Section 706 rather than “is deployed”).18 An example illustrates the point. Suppose that you are building a house and ask the contractor to report back to you on a weekly basis whether the project “is being constructed in a reasonable and timely fashion.” Each week, the contractor submits a report responding to the question in the negative because the house has yet to be completed. Most people would consider such a response to be beside the point, but the Commission essentially uses that same reasoning today. Aside from being inconsistent with the statute’s use of the progressive present tense, the Commission’s “are-we-there-yet” test has the added defect of reading the phrase “in a reasonable and timely fashion” out of the statute. We should not treat statutory terms as mere surplusage,19 especially when there is a way to read the statute that respects every word Congress chose to legislate. Third, the Commission’s approach is a short-sighted one that disserves our goal of being a data- driven agency. In recent years, the Commission has relied on an expansive reading of section 706(b) that purports to grant us heretofore unknown and unspecified authorities to carry out the public interest so long as doing so tangentially relates to broadband. But our authority under this provision only lasts so long as our section 706 determination is negative. In other words, the Commission’s authority to enforce net neutrality, subsidize broadband for low-income households, or support digital literacy programs20 15 Given that the Commission, in the Notice of Inquiry released today, is seeking comment on whether to add latency and data capacity thresholds in the next report, I fail to understand how the Commission can rely on these two issues in this report as support for its decision to exclude consideration of mobile broadband in making its statutory finding. 16 In contrast, the statute requires the Commission to “compile a list of geographical areas that are not served by any provider of advanced telecommunications capability.” 47 U.S.C. § 1302(c) (emphasis added). 17 Because the majority adopts the construction of the statute in the Seventh Broadband Progress Report whole cloth, Eighth Broadband Progress Report at n.347, I address the arguments raised in that report. 18 Verizon made this precise point about the progressive tense in comments on last year’s Notice of Inquiry. But the Commission seems to have misunderstood the argument, thinking that Verizon was making the unremarkable observation that “is being deployed” is in the present tense. See Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8033, para. 47 & n.163. The progressive present tense is used for actions that are occurring, without definite starting or stopping points. The simple present tense is used for actions that occur, implying a distinct start and finish. 19 See Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 174 (2001). 20 See Preserving the Open Internet; Broadband Industry Practices, GN Docket No. 09-191, WC Docket No. 07-52, Report and Order, 25 FCC Rcd 17905, 17972, para. 123 (2010) (asserting that section 706(b) gives the Commission “additional authority to take actions such as enforcing open Internet principles”); Lifeline and Link Up Reform and (continued….) Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 180 hangs in the balance each year, dependent on a finding that broadband is not being deployed in a reasonable and timely fashion. If we are willing to set an objective with no intent of reaching it, then I suppose that this is not a problem.21 But if we believe instead that data should drive our decisions—not vice versa—then section 706(b) can never be a reliable authority for implementing good policy since we will eventually be forced to concede once again that broadband is being deployed in a timely and reasonable fashion. Finally, I do agree with the Commission that when it comes to deploying broadband infrastructure, our country should be doing much better. But to improve our performance, the Commission needs to take Section 706’s deregulatory imperatives to heart. Today’s report, in large measure, misidentifies the primary barriers to infrastructure investment and broadband deployment. In my discussions with those in the private sector responsible for making broadband investment decisions, they do not identify the price of computers, poor digital literacy, a lack of consumer interest, or a lack of consumer trust22 as the primary factors behind their decisions to keep tens of billions of dollars of capital sitting on the sidelines. Rather, they indicate that their caution stems primarily from regulatory uncertainty and in particular their concerns about whether and how Internet Protocol-based (IP) networks are going to be regulated in the future. As it turns out, section 706 itself supplies an answer to this problem. That provision first directs the Commission to encourage deployment via “price cap regulation, regulatory forbearance, measures that promote competition in the local telecommunications market, or other regulating methods that remove barriers to infrastructure investment.”23 And if we find that broadband is not being deployed in a reasonable and timely fashion, then we must “accelerate deployment of such capability by removing barriers to infrastructure investment and by promoting competition in the telecommunications market.”24 In my view, there is plenty to do. Twenty years after the advent of price-cap regulation, most price-cap carriers still must file the same studies and accounting information as rate-of-return carriers. Sixteen years after the Telecommunications Act of 1996, incumbent local exchange carriers still must file tariffs as if they were local monopolists, despite competition from all corners. Thirteen years after the Commission provided a path to pricing flexibility for special access services, carriers are facing the specter of re-regulation. Eight years after the Vonage Order,25 we still treat interconnected VoIP providers as second-class carriers rather than first-rate competitors. And two years after the Commission considered reclassifying broadband (Continued from previous page) Modernization; Lifeline and Link Up; Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service; Advancing Broadband Availability Through Digital Literacy Training, WC Docket Nos. 11-42, 03-109, 12-23, CC Docket No. 96-45, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 27 FCC Rcd 6656, 6798–99, paras. 331–32 (asserting that section 706(b) gives the Commission “authority . . . to provide USF support to ETCs through a low- income broadband Pilot Program to subsidize low-income consumers’ purchase of broadband services”) (Lifeline Reform Order); Eighth Broadband Progress Report at paras. 140, 153 (suggesting poor digital literacy is a “key barrier” to infrastructure investment and noting that Lifeline broadband pilot projects are expected to promote digital literacy, citing Lifeline Reform Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 6805, para. 350). 21 Cf. Yoda, STAR WARS: EPISODE V—THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK (Lucasfilm 1980) (“Always with you it cannot be done.”). 22 See Eighth Broadband Progress Report at para. 140. 23 47 U.S.C. § 1302(a). 24 Id. § 1302(b). 25 Vonage Holdings Corporation Petition for Declaratory Ruling Concerning an Order of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, WC Docket No. 03-211, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 22404 (2004). Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-90 181 Internet access service as a telecommunications service, that docket (GN Docket No. 10-127) remains open, a sword of Damocles hanging over every broadband investor’s head. The directive from Congress may not be easy to carry out, but it is clear: Promote competition. Eliminate regulatory uncertainty. Repeal archaic twentieth-century regulations that assumed regulated monopolies running copper networks. Empower small businesses, large businesses, entrepreneurs, and others with capital to invest in broadband infrastructure, unfettered by government mandate and unshackled from outdated restraints. To be sure, all of this will not happen overnight. But we should begin immediately down this path by creating an IP Transition Task Force that would develop a holistic set of recommendations for facilitating and expediting our transition to an all-IP world. If the private sector came to the conclusion that the Commission was committed to a deregulatory approach to IP networks and was serious about eliminating the regulatory uncertainty surrounding the IP transition, I am confident that broadband infrastructure investment would increase substantially and quickly. * * * Notwithstanding my bottom-line assessment of this item, the staff has made a significant number of improvements to this year’s report that merit recognition. For example, the report contains a more thorough and thoughtful analysis of deployment in rural areas, U.S. territories, and Tribal lands; additional reporting on mobile data speeds; and a novel approach to calculating adoption rates (even if adoption is not strictly related to the question of deployment). For all of these accomplishments and more, I thank the analysts, the economists, the geographers, the engineers, the attorneys, and other members of our expert staff that put this report together. In light of their efforts, I wish that I could support this item. But for the reasons outlined above, I must respectfully dissent.