Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Inquiry Concerning Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion ) ) ) ) ) GN Docket No. 17-199 2018 BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT REPORT Adopted: February 2, 2018 Released: February 2, 2018 By the Commission: Chairman Pai and Commissioners O’Rielly and Carr issuing separate statements; Commissioners Clyburn and Rosenworcel dissenting and issuing separate statements. TABLE OF CONTENTS Para. I. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................1 II. BACKGROUND.....................................................................................................................................7 III. STATUTORY FRAMEWORK FOR SECTION 706 INQUIRY...........................................................9 A. Evaluating Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion ................................................................................................9 1. Progress in Deployment ...........................................................................................................10 2. Defining Advanced Telecommunications Capability ..............................................................14 B. Demographic Information...............................................................................................................40 C. International Comparisons ..............................................................................................................41 D. Schools and Classrooms .................................................................................................................42 IV. BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT AND AVAILABILITY...................................................................43 A. Data Sources and Methodologies....................................................................................................43 B. Broadband Deployment Estimates..................................................................................................49 1. Deployment of Fixed Advanced Telecommunications Capability ..........................................50 2. Deployment of Mobile LTE .....................................................................................................52 3. Deployment of Fixed Services and Mobile LTE......................................................................53 4. Additional Deployment Estimates............................................................................................57 C. Demographic Data ..........................................................................................................................60 D. International Data............................................................................................................................64 E. Schools and Classrooms Data .........................................................................................................70 F. Adoption Data .................................................................................................................................72 V. COMMISSION EFFORTS TO CLOSE THE DIGITAL DIVIDE.......................................................79 VI. SECTION 706 FINDING......................................................................................................................94 VII.ORDERING CLAUSE..........................................................................................................................99 APPENDIX A – List of Comments and Reply Comments APPENDIX B – Table and Chart Index APPENDIX C – Additional Data Source Information and Definitions APPENDIX D – Americans (Millions) With Access to Fixed Terrestrial 25 Mbps/3 Mbps Service and Mobile LTE by State and District of Columbia APPENDIX E – Americans (Thousands) With Access to Fixed Terrestrial 25 Mbps/3 Mbps Services Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 2 and/or Mobile LTE with a Minimum Advertised Speed of 5 Mbps/1 Mbps in the U.S. Territories APPENDIX F – Demographic Analysis of Americans With Access to Fixed Terrestrial 25 Mbps/3 Mbps Services and/or Mobile LTE with a Minimum Advertised Speed of 5 Mbps/1 Mbps by State, County or County Equivalent APPENDIX G – Americans (Thousands) Living on Tribal Lands with Access to Fixed Terrestrial 25 Mbps/3 Mbps Services and/or Mobile LTE with a Minimum Advertised Speed of 5 Mbps/1 Mbps by State APPENDIX H – Overall Adoption Rate for Fixed Terrestrial Services by State and District of Columbia (2016) I. INTRODUCTION 1. Americans turn to advanced telecommunications capability for every facet of daily life, using both fixed and mobile broadband services to communicate and to access the Internet. Fixed and mobile broadband services provide Americans, especially those in rural and remote areas of the country, access to numerous employment, education, entertainment, and health care opportunities. Moreover, American consumers today expect broadband at home, at work, and while on the go. 2. Recognizing the importance of high-speed broadband Internet access, Congress tasked the Commission with “encourag[ing] the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans.” 1 To ensure the Commission took this obligation seriously, Congress required the Commission to report on our progress each year. 2 3. The last time the Commission issued a broadband deployment report in 2016, it found “that advanced telecommunications capability is not being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion” 3 —in other words, that Commission policy was not adequately “encourag[ing]” the deployment of advanced telecommunications capability. 4. With this report we can confirm that was true: In the wake of the 2015 Title II Order, 4 the deployment of advanced telecommunications capability slowed dramatically. From 2012 to 2014, the two years preceding the Title II Order, fixed terrestrial broadband Internet access was deployed to 29.9 million people who never had it before, including 1 million people on Tribal lands. In the following two years, new deployments dropped 55 percent, reaching only 13.5 million people, including only 330,000 people on Tribal lands. From 2012 to 2014, mobile LTE broadband was newly deployed to 34.2 million people, including 21.5 million rural Americans. In the following two years, new mobile deployments dropped 83 percent, reaching only 5.8 million more Americans, including only 2.3 million more rural Americans. And from 2012 to 2014, the number of Americans without access to both fixed terrestrial broadband and mobile broadband fell by more than half—from 72.1 million to 34.5 million. But the pace was nearly three times slower after the adoption of the 2015 Title II Order, with only 13.9 million Americans newly getting access to both over the next two years. 5. That’s why over the past year, the Commission has followed the congressional command and taken repeated “action[s] to accelerate deployment of such capability by removing barriers to 1 47 U.S.C. § 1302(a). Congress also trusted this responsibility to state commissions. See id. 2 47 U.S.C. § 1302(b). 3 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. 15-191, 2016 Broadband Progress Report, 31 FCC Rcd 699, 701, para. 2 (2016) (2016 Report). 4 Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, WC Docket No. 14-28, Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 5601 (2015) (Title II Order). Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 3 infrastructure investment and by promoting competition in the telecommunications market.” 5 Most notably since the last report, the Commission has taken concrete actions to reduce regulatory barriers to the deployment of wireline and wireless infrastructure, constituted a Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee to assist in these efforts, reformed the legacy high-cost universal service program to ensure accountability and introduce opportunities for new entrants through reverse auctions, modernized our rules for business data services to facilitate facilities-based competition, authorized new uses of wireless spectrum both terrestrially and in the sky, and repealed the heavy-handed regulations of the Title II Order by returning to a light-touch approach to broadband Internet access. 6. With these changes in policy to accelerate deployment, we believe that the Commission is now encouraging the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans. That finding, however, does not undermine our continued commitment to closing the digital divide. Far too many Americans remain unable to access high-speed broadband Internet access, and we have much work to do if we are going to continue to encourage the deployment of broadband to all Americans, including those in rural areas, those on Tribal lands, and those in schools and classrooms. II. BACKGROUND 7. Section 706(b) requires the Commission to annually “initiate a notice of inquiry concerning the availability of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans (including, in particular, elementary and secondary schools and classrooms).” 6 In conducting this inquiry, the Commission must “determine whether advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.” 7 If that determination is negative, 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 market.” 8 8. On August 8, 2017, the Commission released the Thirteenth Section 706 Report Notice of Inquiry (Notice), 9 seeking comment on how a range of factors may affect the deployment and availability of advanced telecommunications capability, and whether and how to incorporate those factors into our section 706(b) analysis for both fixed and mobile services. We note that although the Commission did not issue a report in response to the 2016 Notice of Inquiry, 10 in light of the changes in the industry, and recent Commission actions to encourage broadband deployment, the Notice restarted the inquiry afresh, and included updated data and questions focused on the current progress of deployment of advanced telecommunications capability. 5 47 U.S.C. § 1302(b). 6 Id. 7 Id. 8 Id. 9 Notice, 32 FCC Rcd 7029. 10 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, Twelfth Broadband Progress Notice of Inquiry, GN Docket No. 16-245, 31 FCC Rcd 9140 (2016) (2016 Notice of Inquiry). Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 4 III. STATUTORY FRAMEWORK FOR SECTION 706 INQUIRY A. Evaluating Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion 9. Section 706 requires that the Commission’s annual inquiry “determine whether advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.” 11 Below, we set out how the Commission will determine if deployment is reasonable and timely, namely by analyzing the progress made in deployment. We also describe how the term “advanced telecommunications capability” is defined for the purposes of this Report, including setting out our benchmarks and metrics to analyze both fixed and mobile service. 1. Progress in Deployment 10. Consistent with the approach discussed in the Notice, we will measure whether advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion by evaluating progress—specifically, comparing deployment in the present year to deployment in previous years. Furthermore, we will analyze progress made with respect to both fixed and mobile broadband services, and consider the totality of the evidence in reaching our conclusion under section 706. 11. We find that analyzing progress to determine whether deployment is occurring in a reasonable and timely fashion is the approach that is most consistent with the language of section 706, as the analysis of such progress enables the Commission to determine whether advanced telecommunications capability “is being deployed” in the manner that section 706 requires. 12 The use of the present progressive tense—“is being deployed”—as well as the language requiring an evaluation of whether that deployment is “reasonable and timely” indicates that Congress intended that the Commission evaluate the current state of deployment to all Americans, not a rigid requirement that each and every American be served at this moment. 13 In addition to adhering to the plain text of section 706, our approach also finds support in the record 14 and in our precedent. 15 12. We disagree with commenters who claim that section 706 requires us to find universal availability of advanced telecommunications capability before reaching a positive determination. 16 11 47 U.S.C. § 1302(b). 12 Id. 13 Id. (emphasis added). 14 See, e.g., ADTRAN Comments at 11-12; NCTA Comments at 4; WISPA Comments at 11-12; Fiber Broadband Reply at 2-3. 15 See Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, GN Docket No. 07-45, Report, 23 FCC Rcd 9615, 9616, para. 1 (2008); Availability of Advanced Telecommunications Capability in the United States, GN Docket No. 04-54, Report, 19 FCC Rcd 20540, 20547 (2004); Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 98-146, Report, 17 FCC Rcd 2844, 2845, para. 1 (2002); Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 98-146, Report, 15 FCC Rcd 20913, 20918, 20995-21003, paras. 8, 217-43 (2000); Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 98-146, Report, 14 FCC Rcd 2398, 2405, para. 16 (1999). 16 See Benton Foundation Comments at 7; CWA Comments at 15-16; ITTA Comments at 9. Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 5 Although recent reports have taken this position, 17 the Commission has recognized that such an interpretation “departs” from our historical interpretation of the statute, 18 and we now find it incompatible with section 706. As explained above, the statute requires that we determine whether advanced telecommunications capability “is being deployed to all Americans”—not whether it has already been deployed to all Americans. Furthermore, reading section 706(b) to require universal availability as a prerequisite for a positive finding would disregard the statute’s “reasonable and timely” language. If Congress’ charge to the Commission in section 706 was only to determine whether every American had access to advanced telecommunications capability, there would have been no need for Congress to instruct the Commission to determine whether deployment was occurring “to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.” 19 13. Nevertheless, we agree with commenters that, absent universal deployment, we must continue to take concrete steps toward closing the digital divide. As WISPA notes, “there continues to be a significant shortfall in achieving universal access in all parts of the nation to advanced telecommunications, which dictates that the Commission should continue to take affirmative steps toward correcting this imbalance.” 20 A finding that deployment of advanced telecommunications capability is reasonable and timely in no way suggests that we should let up in our efforts to foster greater deployment. Section 706(a) mandates that we promote the deployment of advanced telecommunications capability in general, 21 and we believe that continued forward progress toward universal deployment is imperative if all Americans are to enjoy the full promise of our economy. We therefore remain committed to ensuring that all Americans can share in the benefits of access to advanced telecommunications capability, and we will continue to monitor progress in the availability of such services. 2. Defining Advanced Telecommunications Capability a. Evaluating Fixed and Mobile Services 14. This Report continues the practice of recent past reports of examining fixed and mobile broadband deployment. 22 Furthermore, we consider both fixed and mobile services to be capable of meeting the definition of “advanced telecommunications capability” under section 706. This finding is consistent with both the language of the statute, which defines advanced telecommunications capability “without regard to any transmission media or technology,” 23 and the record in this proceeding. 24 17 See, e.g., 2016 Report, 31 FCC Rcd at 701, para. 2; 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. 14-126, 2015 Broadband Progress Report and Notice of Inquiry on Immediate Action to Accelerate Deployment, 30 FCC Rcd 1375, 1378, para. 4 (2015) (2015 Report). 18 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. 09-137, 09-51, Sixth Broadband Deployment Report, 25 FCC Rcd 9556, 9558, para. 2 (2010) (2010 Report). 19 47 U.S.C. § 1302(b) (emphasis added). 20 WISPA Comments at 12; see also Benton Comments at 7; CWA Comments at 15-16 (“There is a persistent and troubling digital divide in our nation . . . foreclosing economic opportunity and access to the vast information available on the Internet for too many people.”); ITTA Comments at 9. 21 47 U.S.C. § 1302(a). 22 See 2016 Report, 31 FCC Rcd at 734-35, paras. 82-84; 2015 Report, 30 FCC Rcd at 1442-46, paras. 112-21. 23 47 U.S.C. § 1302(d)(1). Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 6 Accordingly, we consider whether advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed to all Americans by examining the deployment of (1) fixed service alone, (2) mobile service alone, (3) fixed and mobile service together, and (4) fixed or mobile service. 15. First, as in past reports, we find that certain fixed services provide “high-speed, switched, broadband telecommunications capability that enables users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications using any technology,” 25 and, as such, may be considered “advanced telecommunications capability” pursuant to section 706 so long as they meet the Commission’s current speed benchmark of 25 Mbps download/3 Mbps upload (25 Mbps/3 Mbps). Americans continue to rely on fixed broadband connections and require greater bandwidth at home, to the point where some providers have begun deploying fixed gigabit connections in certain areas. 26 16. Second, we continue “the common-sense step of including mobile broadband services in our assessment of advanced telecommunications capability.” 27 Mobile broadband connections increasingly enable users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video. 28 Indeed, as mobile devices and applications become more and more sophisticated, Americans are increasingly reliant “on mobile devices as indispensable tools of daily life” and the total number of mobile wireless connections continues to rise. 29 The use of smartphones has increased significantly since 2012, 30 with applications that once were confined to fixed use now commonly available for mobile devices. 31 Average (Continued from previous page) 24 See, e.g., ADTRAN Comments at 4-5; CWA Comments at 13; INCOMPAS Comments at 7; MMTC Comments at 5; NCBIO Comments at 1; NCTA Comments at 7; NTCA Comments at 5; NYC Comments at 2; UST Comments at 5; AT&T Reply at 4. 25 47 U.S.C. § 1302(d)(1); see also 2016 Report, 31 FCC Rcd at 708-10, paras. 20-24; 2015 Report, 30 FCC Rcd at 1379-80, para. 9 (2015). 26 Notice, 32 FCC Rcd at 7032, para. 8. In addition, satellite and fixed wireless providers are continuing to increase their offerings of high-speed services. ViaSat Comments at 2; Hughes Comments at 2; Notice, 32 FCC Rcd at 7032, para. 8. 27 2016 Report, 31 FCC Rcd at 701, para. 2. 28 See e.g., Microsoft Comments at 11 (noting that mobile broadband is “becoming increasingly capable of delivering high-quality video, data, voice, and other broadband applications”); USTelecom at 10-11; AT&T Reply at 4-5; see also 20 th Mobile Competition Report, 32 FCC Rcd at 8980, 9012-13, 9031, paras. 20, 65, 85. 29 CTIA estimated that the total number of mobile wireless subscriber connections grew from approximately 355 million at year-end 2014 to approximately 396 million at year-end 2016. 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, Twentieth Report, 32 FCC Rcd at 8968, 8977- 78, para. 19, Chart II.B.1 (20 th Mobile Competition Report). 30 See Notice, 32 FCC Rcd at 7031, para. 6. In 2016, approximately 81 percent of American mobile subscribers used smartphones, up from approximately 42 percent in 2011. 20 th Mobile Competition Report, 32 FCC Rcd at 9011-12, para. 63. About 90 percent of new mobile phones sold in 2016 were smartphones, compared to approximately 74 percent in 2013. UBS US Wireless 411, Feb. 22, 2017, at 16, Figure 30. The average American checks their smartphone approximately 47 times a day. Deloitte, 2017 Global Mobile Consumer Survey: US Edition at 2 (2017), https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/pages/technology-media-and-telecommunications/articles/global-mobile- consumer-survey-us-edition.html. 31 Notice, 32 FCC Rcd at 7031-32, para. 7. Many consumers today can send and receive high-quality pictures, stream video, and use ride-hailing apps or exercise apps using their mobile devices, and consumers are increasingly using smartphones for getting directions and real-time navigation, listening to music, or participating in video calls, among other uses. Lee Rainie & Andrew Perrin, 10 Facts About Smartphones as the iPhone Turns 10, Pew Research Center (June 28, 2017), http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/28/10-facts-about-smartphones/; Monica Anderson, More Americans Using Smartphones For Getting Directions, Streaming TV, Pew Research (Jan. 29, 2016), http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/01/29/us-smartphone-use/. Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 7 data use has grown from less than 1 GB per month in 2012 to approximately 4 GB per month in 2016. 32 And, in response to this growing demand for data, mobile wireless providers continue to expand and improve their networks. 33 17. Given that the record in this proceeding shows that some consumers choose to subscribe to either fixed or mobile broadband Internet access service to the exclusion of the other, we find that any analysis that did not include both services would be incomplete and flawed. 34 As the Commission cited in the Notice, while the percentage of Americans subscribing to fixed broadband in 2016 reached an all-time high of approximately 73 percent, 35 approximately 13 percent of Americans across all demographic groups did not have traditional home broadband service but relied solely on smartphones for home internet access. 36 18. At the same time, we disagree with those that argue that mobile services are currently full substitutes for fixed service. 37 Both fixed and mobile services can enable access to “information, entertainment, [and] employment options,” 38 but there are salient differences between the two technologies. Beyond the most obvious distinction that mobile services permit their users mobility, there are clear variations in consumer preferences and demands for fixed and mobile services. 39 Each clearly provides capabilities that satisfy the statutory definition of advanced telecommunications capability, and are important services that provide different functionalities, tailored to serve different consumer needs. 32 20 th Mobile Competition Report, 32 FCC Rcd at 8980, para. 20. CTIA reported wireless data volumes totaled 13.7 trillion MB in 2016, an increase of approximately 42 percent from 9.6 trillion MB in 2015, and an increase of approximately 238 percent from the 4.1 trillion MB reported in 2014. CTIA, Wireless Industry Indices Year-End 2016, at 96; see also CTIA, Annual Year-End 2016 Top-Line Survey Results at 3, https://www.ctia.org/industry- data/ctia-annual-wireless-industry-survey. 33 Close to 100 percent of the U.S. population resides in an area with LTE coverage from at least one service provider, and approximately 89 percent of the U.S. population resides in an area with LTE coverage from at least four service providers. 20 th Mobile Competition Report, 32 FCC Rcd at 9022-23, para. 77, Chart III.D.5. 34 See NCTA Comments at 8-9; FSF Comments at 10-11. 35 Notice, 32 FCC Rcd at 7033, para. 9. 36 Id. at 7032, para. 9. But see PK AH et al. Comments at 22 (noting that consumers who can afford to buy both fixed and wireless broadband services generally do, but consumers who are forced to choose between these services for economic reasons prefer mobile options). 37 See FSF Comments at 10-11; USTelecom Comments at 6-7; Verizon Comments at 12; see also MMTC Comments at 5 (arguing mobile broadband is both a complement to and a substitute for fixed broadband). Other commenters contend that mobile and fixed broadband are not substitutes. See, e.g., CWA Comments at 3; INCOMPAS Comments at 8-9 and Attach. at 12-16; Mimosa Comments at 2-3; NTCA Comments at 3; NYC Comments at 2; PK AH et al. Comments at 9; see also ILSR & NCC Comments at 1; Microsoft Comments at 7; OTI Comments at 4; PK AH et al. Comments at 20; WISPA Comments at 3 (arguing fixed and mobile broadband are compliments). 38 USTelecom Comments at 2. 39 Recognizing these inherent differences between the services, the Commission determined in its 2016 Report that because fixed and mobile services were tailored to serve different consumer needs, they could not at that time be considered “functional substitutes.” See 2016 Report, 31 FCC Rcd at 710, para. 24. As a result, the Commission concluded that advanced telecommunications capability should be deemed deployed only in areas where consumers had access to both fixed and mobile services. See id. In reaching this conclusion, the Commission used the notion of functional substitutability as a means to define advanced telecommunications capability, rather than determining whether fixed or mobile services actually meet section 706’s definition of advanced telecommunications capability, i.e., whether each service enables “users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics and video telecommunications using any technology.” 47 U.S.C. §1302(d)(1). Although fixed and mobile services offer different capabilities and thus serve distinct consumer needs, we find that both types of service can indeed provide capabilities that satisfy the statutory definition of advanced telecommunications capability under section 706. Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 8 As such, we find it appropriate to examine the deployment of fixed and mobile services, both individually and in conjunction with one another. 19. Finally, the Commission’s historical focus on both fixed and mobile broadband services supports our consideration of those services in this Report. For years, the Commission has recognized the importance of deploying both fixed and mobile technologies. In modernizing the universal service high- cost program and the intercarrier compensation system, for example, the Commission focused its support on networks capable of providing voice and broadband services in rural areas. In particular, the Commission reformed those mechanisms to increase deployment of both fixed and mobile broadband services in rural areas, recognizing the clear benefit for long-term economic health, education, health care, and civic participation. 40 b. Benchmarks and Metrics 20. Establishing benchmarks for advanced telecommunications capability is a helpful way for the Commission to chart progress in deployment over time. In our view, there is great benefit in charting progress against a particular benchmark (e.g., 25 Mbps download/3 Mbps upload) over time so that we can see how deployment is changing. As long as the benchmark continues to accurately define a service that satisfies the section 706(d)(1) definition of advanced telecommunications capability, we believe it is beneficial to report on the progress against that benchmark. If the Commission decides to set new benchmark(s) for defining advanced telecommunications capability in the future, we believe there is still value in continuing to track progress against previous benchmarks since meaningfully gauging progress necessarily requires doing so against an established standard. 41 Over time, we expect the section 706 report could show deployment progress year after year against various past and current benchmarks as a way to provide a more fulsome representation of the situation. 42 For this reason, we show in this Report progress not simply against our current benchmark but also against others. (i) Fixed Services 21. We find that the current speed benchmark of 25 Mbps/3 Mbps remains an appropriate measure by which to assess whether a fixed service provides advanced telecommunications capability. This finding follows the proposal in the Notice, and there is significant support in the record for maintaining the current 25 Mbps/3 Mbps speed benchmark for fixed services. 43 While some commenters 40 See Connect America Fund et al., WC Docket No. 10-90 et al., Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 26 FCC Rcd 17663, 17667-68, para. 3 (2011) (USC/ICC Transformation Order). 41 While we are not lowering any benchmarks as some commenters suggest, we agree with the sentiment that it is important to not move the benchmark and obscure the facts. See, e.g., Comment of Jeff Darrow (“Moving the goal posts so that it *appears* we are making progress is no way to achieve any sort of success.”). 42 The improved quality of the Form 477 data, particularly for fixed deployment, greatly facilitates our ability to track deployment in this way. 43 See, e.g., ADTRAN Comments at 5-7; Consumer Groups Comments at 6; CO SBO Comments at 3; CWA Comments at 13-14, 17; Free State Foundation Comments at 1-3, 9; ITTA Comments at 3-6; John Summer Comments at 1; Justin McMurdie Comments at 1; NTCA Comments at 11-12; NYC Comments at 2; Robert Gavigan Comments at 1; USTelecom at 7-8; WISPA Comments at 7-8; MATI Reply at 4-5; see also NDIA Comments at 3 (asserting that “the Commission should not reduce or dilute the speed benchmarks which it uses as indicators of the availability of fixed advanced telecommunications capability to local areas”); New Networks Reply at 2 (stating that “lowering the speed increases the number of broadband users” and “lowers the bar for the companies to deploy wireless in rural areas”); Nez Perce Tribe Comment at 1 (stating that they do not support lowering the current benchmark as they are concerned with Tribal lands receiving worse service); PK AH et. al Comments at 19 (maintaining that lowering the broadband standards would be taking steps backwards toward broadband deployment); Senator Al Franken et al. Comments at 1-2 (arguing that lowering the current standard of 25 Mbps/3 Mbps would not be in line with the Commission’s mission of ensuring advanced telecommunications (continued….) Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 9 support increasing the 25 Mbps/3 Mbps fixed speed benchmark, 44 we conclude that fixed services with speeds of 25 Mbps/3 Mbps meet the statutory definition of what constitutes advanced telecommunications capability; that is, such services “enable[] users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications.” 45 Record evidence indicates that the 25 Mbps/3 Mbps benchmark reflects consumer demand for high-speed broadband services. 46 For example, WISPA states that the current speed benchmark of 25 Mbps/3 Mbps enables Americans “to watch Netflix, play video games and browse online without interruption even if a couple of devices are on the same connection.” 47 Moreover, ADTRAN notes that the 25 Mbps/3 Mbps allows for consumers to use 4K TV. 48 ITTA submits that the 25 Mbps/3 Mbps benchmark continues to ensure that a “household can access a range of bandwidth intensive services, including HD video streaming, simultaneously over multiple devices.” 49 22. Furthermore, we find that current consumer usage trends support maintaining the 25 Mbps/3 Mbps fixed speed benchmark. As the Notice observed, the most recent Internet Access Service Report finds that 59 percent of residential fixed connections equal or exceed such speed. 50 Thus, subscribership at speeds of at least 25 Mbps/3 Mbps is widespread, but there are still significant numbers of American households that do not subscribe to these services, 51 or in some cases, lack access to these services altogether. 23. We disagree with commenters who argue the current benchmark does not reflect the current market given that some consumers have access to speeds up to 1 Gbps and that demand for robust networks will likely continue to increase in the future. 52 The record demonstrates that our current 25 Mbps/3 Mbps fixed speed benchmark reflects current usage patterns and demand, and provides consumers with the ability to receive high quality, advanced services, including HD video streaming and video calling over multiple devices. 53 Moreover, record evidence suggests that only 18 percent of the population has access to speeds of 1 Gbps, 54 and the Commission’s Form 477 data show only 11 percent (Continued from previous page) capability is deployed to all); William Gammans Comments at 1 (stating that he does not support lowering the fixed benchmark as it would make telecommuting impossible). 44 See Garcia Comments at 1; ILSR & NCC Comments at 7; INCOMPAS Comments at 19-20; Microsoft Comments at 2-5; NEMA Comments at 3; New America’s Open Technology Institute, Comments, GN Docket No. 16-245 at 3- 5 (Sept. 6, 2016) (re-filed in GN Docket 17-199 (Sept. 21, 2017)) (2016 OTI Comments); OTI Reply at 18-19. 45 47 U.S.C. § 1302(d)(1). 46 See ADTRAN Comments at 6-7; ITTA Comments at 3-6; see also FSF Comments at 5-7 (presenting data showing growth in the number of providers offering 25 Mbps/3 Mbps service or higher, as well as growth in the number of households subscribing to at least 25 Mbps/3 Mbps service). 47 See WISPA Comments at 7; see also CO SBO Comments at 3 (maintaining that the current benchmark allows for use of current applications). 48 See ADTRAN Comments at 6-7. 49 See ITTA Comments at 4. 50 Notice, 32 FCC Rcd at 7034, para. 14. 51 Accord ADTRAN Comments at 5-6. 52 See INCOMPAS Comments at 18-20; NEMA Comments at 3. But see ADTRAN Comments at 7 (stating that the Commission should “applaud” providers with service up to 1 gigabit, but it is not “an excuse to raise the benchmark”). 53 See ADTRAN Comments 6-7; CO SBO Comments at 3; ITTA Comments at 3-6; WISPA Comments at 7. 54 See Free State Foundation Comments at 5-6; NCTA Comments at 10. Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 10 of Americans have access to such services. 55 And of this small percentage of Americans that have access to 1 Gbps service, Form 477 subscription data indicates that only 3.9 percent are actually subscribing. Although we agree with INCOMPAS and NEMA that our fixed speed benchmark must keep pace with consumer usage, demand, and technology, 56 the definition of advanced telecommunications capability in section 706 nowhere suggests that “advanced” necessarily means the highest quality service possible. 57 Using standards that exceed investment and deployment capabilities on any large scale creates a never ending and unachievable goal. We do not believe that Congress intended the Commission’s annual progress reports to function as this kind of self-defeating exercise. Rather, we employ a benchmark that satisfies the statutory requirement to “enable[] users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics and video telecommunications.” 58 24. Furthermore, we disagree with commenters who argue that the current fixed upload benchmark is too low. 59 OTI argues that we should increase our upload benchmark to 20 Mbps, which would be paired with a 20 Mbps download benchmark in order to have a “symmetrical download/upload throughout.” 60 We find that 3 Mbps of upload speed remains an appropriate metric for advanced telecommunications capability. The record demonstrates that fixed services offering upload speeds of 3 Mbps continue to support upload-intensive applications such as High Definition (HD) video calling, Virtual Private Network (VPN) platforms, telemedicine, and long-distance learning applications. 61 25. We also disagree with NCTA that use of a single fixed speed benchmark is arbitrary. 62 A single fixed speed benchmark provides a useful and administrable way of conducting our inquiry. 63 However, we agree with commenters, including NCTA, that it would be helpful to use our annual report to show progress at multiple speed thresholds, 64 and we do so below. 65 We agree that providing such additional data is helpful to better understand consumer usage trends and marketplace developments. 66 26. The Notice inquired about “establishing a consistent, objective framework using 55 See FCC, Fixed Broadband Deployment Data from FCC Form 477, Data as of December 31, 2016, https://www.fcc.gov/general/broadband-deployment-data-fcc-form-477 (last visited Jan. 17, 2018). 56 See INCOMPAS Comments at 18-19; NEMA Comments at 3. 57 47 U.S.C. § 1302(d)(1). 58 Id.; see also Free State Foundation Comments at 8 (stating that speed benchmarks should support consumers’ everyday use of the Internet, “[not] minimally available and minimally adopted” services or applications). 59 See ILSR & NCC Comments at 7-8; 2016 OTI Comments at 8-10. 60 See 2016 OTI Comments at 8-10. 61 See ITTA Comments at 4-5; WISPA Comments at 7-8. 62 See NCTA Comments at 5. 63 See ITTA Comments at 5. At the same time, we do not rule out the possibility that multiple benchmarks may serve a purpose for future inquiries. 64 See Deere Comments at 4-6; NCTA Comments at 5-6; Comcast Reply at 11; Letter from Tom Struble, Technology Policy Manager, R Street Institute, and Joe Kane, Technology Policy Associate, R Street Institute, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 17-84, WT Docket No. 17-79, GN Docket No. 17-199, at 2-3 (filed Oct. 6, 2017) (R Street Ex Parte); SHLB Reply at 4-5; see also USTelecom Comments at 8-9 (asserting that a single benchmark does not reflect broadband deployment progress, but they will “conditionally support[] . . . maintain[ing] speed thresholds . . . [while] taking into account consumer needs and demand[s] . . . .”). But see City of Boston (Local Authorities) Reply at 24 (arguing that incorporating multiple speed tiers into our Inquiry is not appropriate). 65 See infra Section IV.B.4, Table 4. 66 See USTelecom Comments at 8-9. Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 11 predictable, reliable, and regularly-released public data from sources on which we can rely to evaluate our benchmarks.” 67 We are not convinced, however, that such a methodology is currently workable. Several commenters urge us to maintain flexibility over adoption of a framework that establishes a hard and fast rule. 68 Commenters advocating a framework in most cases fail to provide a methodology or reliable data sources to implement their general ideas. 69 The only data-based approach suggested in the record would use Form 477 subscription data to determine the fixed speed benchmark. 70 Although this approach could have merit, we decline to adopt it at this time, for instance, because it is unclear how this framework would be applied to mobile services given that our Form 477 mobile subscription data collection is currently not sufficiently granular to make a meaningful evaluation of mobile service subscribership. 71 (ii) Mobile Services 27. Certain mobile services provide “high-speed, switched, broadband telecommunications capability that enables users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics and video telecommunications using any technology.” 72 In this Report, we evaluate mobile deployment holistically and use various data points to assess the extent to which American consumers have access to advanced telecommunications capability under section 706. While we acknowledge the potential benefits of a single speed benchmark for mobile service, we find–as was the case in the last report–that adoption of a single mobile benchmark is currently unworkable given the inherent variability of actual mobile speeds and our available data. 73 Instead, we will use 4G LTE as our starting point and will present LTE coverage data based on the Form 477 minimum advertised speeds of 5 Mbps/1 Mbps. However we are not asserting that 5 Mbps/1 Mbps is a mobile advanced telecommunications capability benchmark. That’s why these results are then supplemented with Ookla’s actual speed test data at a median speed of 10 67 Notice, 32 FCC Rcd at 7036, para. 23. 68 See USTelecom Comments at 20; ADTRAN Comments at 9; Gabriel Garcia Comments at 3; see also Free State Foundation Comments at 8 (submitting that the Commission’s Section 706 inquiries should present clear standards in advance and should only alter those standards with ample advanced notice on an incremental basis). 69 See, e.g., NRECA Comments at 8 (suggesting a framework that sets the benchmark based upon the speed offerings available in the top 25 or 50 urban markets); CPUC at 6 (suggesting the FCC use CPUC’s current testing methodology, which analyzes speed along with quality and reliability metrics tracked by CPUC); NCTA at 6 (suggesting the FCC should move away from focusing on a single speed threshold and instead track progress at multiple speed thresholds); Fiber Broadband Reply at 3-5 (agreeing “in principle” with NCTA’s multi-speed framework, but submitting that the Commission should examine progress in the deployment of all-fiber networks); Deere at 5 (contending the current approach is too narrow, and the FCC should consider an alternative framework that does “not tie speed benchmarks to technologies, but rather [] examine[s] the uses of the different forms of broadband services”). 70 See Free State Foundation Comments at 8 (recommending a methodology that sets the benchmark based on what a majority of consumers are subscribing to); see also ADTRAN Comments at 9 (suggesting that instead of making assumptions about demand, the Commission should look to “services/applications that customers are accessing, as well as the broadband speeds customers are subscribing to”). 71 See Modernizing the FCC Form 477 Data Program, WC Docket No. 11-10, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 32 FCC Rcd 6329, 6337, paras. 26-27 (2017) (Form 477 Modernization FNPRM). The Form 477 Modernization FNPRM sought comment on ways to improve the Form 477 data collection to refine mobile subscribership reporting at a more granular level. See id. Despite the limitations of the Form 477 mobile subscribership data, the mobile deployment data provides helpful information about the availability of certain mobile services. 72 47 U.S.C. § 1302(d)(1). 73 2016 Report, 31 FCC Rcd at 724-25, paras. 58-61 (declining to set a mobile broadband speed benchmark); id. at 734-35, paras. 82-83 (reporting coverage based on LTE technology and a 10 Mbps/1 Mbps benchmark). Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 12 Mbps/3 Mbps or higher. 74 We find that this approach takes into account certain limitations of the current Form 477 mobile data, while helping us better understand the extent to which American consumers today are receiving speeds higher than 5 Mbps/1 Mbps such that, overall, we can evaluate whether LTE deployment in general is reaching speeds that would enable advanced telecommunications capability for an increasing percentage of American consumers. 28. The Notice sought comment on whether the Commission should set a mobile broadband benchmark or whether it should use a particular mobile technology, such as LTE, as a proxy for advanced telecommunications capability for mobile services (mobile ATC). 75 The Commission stated that it anticipated that the mobile speed benchmark, if one were adopted, would likely be lower than the 25 Mbps/3 Mbps benchmark adopted for fixed broadband services, 76 and the Commission specifically sought comment on whether a 10 Mbps/1 Mbps benchmark or the 5 Mbps download speed used for determining areas eligible for Mobility Fund II support were appropriate. 77 29. Several commenters advocate that the Commission should only assess LTE deployment when determining whether mobile ATC is deployed, 78 for reasons of administrative ease. 79 These commenters contend that this Report should be consistent with other Commission proceedings and reflect the reality of the mobile environment. 80 Other commenters opposed to this approach argue that the quality of LTE deployment can differ among providers. 81 Various commenters contend that 10 Mbps/1 Mbps should be used for a mobile speed benchmark, 82 claiming that it approximates a high-quality experience for the user, 83 while others argue that it should be the same as the fixed benchmark of 25 74 See infra Section IV.A. 75 Notice, 32 FCC Rcd at 7035, paras. 18-20. 76 Id. at 7035, para. 18. 77 Id. at 7035, paras. 19-20. 78 AT&T Comments at 2, 10; USTelecom Comments at 10-11; Verizon Comments at 13; ADT Reply at 5-6; AT&T Reply at 8; Mobile Future Reply at 4-6. Some of these commenters argue that LTE is capable of consistently high- speed broadband service, as demonstrated by evidence from speed tests. AT&T Comments at 2; USTelecom Comments at 10-11; Verizon Comments at 13-14; AT&T Reply at 8; Comcast Reply at 10 n.28. USTelecom asserts that LTE should be used as the benchmark because consumers rely on LTE to access advanced voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications. USTelecom Comments at 10-11. The Colorado State Broadband Office (CSBO) contends that, for the purposes of assessing mobile broadband deployment, assessing LTE-only would be appropriate because older mobile technologies do not provide the same consumer experience as LTE. CSBO Comments at 4. 79 AT&T Comments at 2; USTelecom Comments at 8, 11; AT&T Reply at 8 (“[the Commission would have] to resolve endless methodological issues that have no clear answer, such as how many samples should be taken, how often, and in what geographic areas, and many other similar issues”); Mobile Future Reply at 4-6. 80 See, e.g., AT&T Reply at 8 (“There are many variables that affect speed in a mobile network that do not exist in the wireline context and that would make measurement of speeds needlessly difficult.”). Verizon asserts that this Report should be consistent with other Commission proceedings, not create any new standards, and should avoid being distracted by speed thresholds. Verizon Comments at 13-14. 81 WISPA Comments at 10-11; California PUC Reply at 10-11; ILSR & NCC Reply at 7. 82 ADTRAN Comments at ii, 7-8; NCTA Comments at 8; NEMA Comments at 3; OTI Comments at 3; PK et al. Comments at 18; Nez Perce Tribe Reply at 1; Gabriel Garcia Comments at 3 (advocating for a 10 Mbps/3 Mbps mobile benchmark). 83 ADTRAN Comments at ii, 7-8 (noting that mobile screens are smaller than fixed screens); NCTA Comments at 8 (arguing that a speed slower than fixed is appropriate, as fixed is more likely to stream to many devices simultaneously); NEMA Comments at 3 (advocating for a 10 Mbps/1 Mbps mobile benchmark because that speed “approximately reflects 4G LTE speed”). Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 13 Mbps/3 Mbps because all advanced telecommunications capability should be considered the same. 84 Other commenters are concerned that a 1 Mbps upload speed is too low, given the substantial uploading of information that occurs from mobile-connected devices. 85 Finally, certain commenters argue that the Commission should assess multiple speed tiers. 86 30. We note that network speed is one of the key characteristics of mobile wireless performance, and mobile broadband speeds experienced by consumers may vary greatly with a number of factors, including the service provider’s received signal quality, cell traffic loading, and network capacity in different locations. 87 For example, the received signal quality is dependent on the service provider’s deployed cell site density, low/high frequency radio wave propagation losses, user locations, indoor obstructions and outdoor foliage or clutter, weather, inter-cell interference conditions, and wireless network optimization parameters. 88 Moreover, mobile broadband speeds can vary with the capability of consumers’ devices. 89 Mobile transmissions are subject to environmental factors that fixed line transmissions do not encounter and, thus, cannot achieve the same kinds of consistent speeds at the current level of technology. 90 We agree therefore with some commenters’ concerns that the LTE experience can be highly variable. 91 31. By looking at where service providers have deployed LTE, however, we can assess the progress that has been made in bringing high-quality mobile service to all Americans. The Form 477 data are used in this part of the analysis because they are currently the most comprehensive data we have available nationwide for evaluating where service providers have deployed LTE at minimum advertised 84 CWA Comments at 14; NYC Comments at 2; Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing et al. (TDI) Comments at 6; see also OTI Reply at b, 13; but cf OTI Comments at 3, Attach. at 15. Public Knowledge and other consumer groups argue that a 10 Mbps/1 Mbps benchmark is not aspirational enough and falls short of international targets. PK et al. Comments at 18. USTelecom disagrees with the 25 Mbps/3 Mbps standard because it argues that LTE does not currently offer those speeds and that such a speed threshold would not be a realistic standard in the universal service context. USTelecom Comments at 11. 85 ILSR & NCC Comments at 7; Microsoft Comments at 4; TDI Comments at 5-6; Gabriel Garcia Comments at 1-2; ADT Reply at 1. LiveStream, for instance, recommends at least 3 Mbps for a video stream to be considered high quality. LiveStream, What Kind of Internet Connection Do I Need in Order to Stream, https://help.livestream.com/hc/en-us/articles/212062598-Recommended-Bandwidth-for-Streaming (last visited Dec. 7, 2017). 86 Deere Comments at 4-5; NDIA Comments at 3; SHLB Reply at 5-6. Verizon argues that this Report should be consistent with other Commission proceedings, not create any new standards, and should avoid being distracted by speed thresholds. Verizon Comments at 13-14. National Digital Inclusion Alliance (NDIA) argues that the Commission should also separately report speeds that match or exceed the speed benchmark for fixed deployment, if such speeds exist. NDIA Comments at 3. 87 20 th Mobile Competition Report, 32 FCC Rcd at 9033, para. 87. 88 We note also that the cell traffic loading or demand is dependent on the overall number of concurrent active mobile broadband users sharing the same cell, which in turn depends on user locations, the day of the week, and the time of day. The capacity of a service provider’s wireless network is dependent on the deployed mobile wireless technology, sites and equipment, available bandwidth, and the capacity of backhaul connections. 20 th Mobile Competition Report, 32 FCC Rcd at 9033, para. 87 & n.289. 89 Differences in consumer devices (e.g., smartphones, tablets, USB dongles, and laptops) or differing capabilities within each device category can also result in users experiencing different data speeds on the same mobile wireless broadband network. 20 th Mobile Competition Report, 32 FCC Rcd at 9033, para. 87 & n.290. 90 2016 Report, 31 FCC Rcd at 711-12, para. 29. 91 For instance, commenters cite to poor backhaul and limited available spectrum, among other concerns, and LTE performance, like any mobile technology, can be highly variable. See, e.g., WISPA Comments at 10-11; California PUC Reply at 10-11; ILSR & NCC Reply at 7. Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 14 or expected speeds of 5 Mbps/1 Mbps. 92 It is important to recognize nonetheless that these data can only provide us with an understanding of the minimum speeds that consumers can expect to receive. We therefore supplement our analysis with on-the-ground data to evaluate the extent to which the typical American consumer receives speeds that are significantly higher than these minimum advertised speeds. 93 32. Thus, for purposes of this Report, we evaluate 4G LTE deployment holistically, taking into account actual speed variations in the mobile environment, in order to assess whether progress is being made in deploying advanced mobile capabilities in a reasonable and timely fashion. We find that 4G LTE technology generally enables users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications, and the actual speed achieved with LTE depends on several features, including channel bandwidth, modulation type, antenna configuration, and the quality of the wireless path. 94 Our Form 477 data show that most LTE networks have a minimum advertised speed of 5 Mbps/1 Mbps or higher, and these speeds generally are accepted by the industry as consistent with an LTE network. 95 We note however that we are not asserting that 5 Mbps/1 Mbps is a mobile advanced telecommunications capability benchmark. Rather, our Form 477 data currently constrain our inquiry by only containing minimum advertised speeds. For this reason, we consider actual speed data from Ookla as well. 33. To account for the limitations of a mobile environment, we also examine the speed of these LTE networks with actual on-the-ground speed data. Using these various data points, we can make a reasonable assessment of the progress and the extent to which American consumers have access to mobile high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video. 34. Accordingly, we present our results based both on the Form 477 LTE data with minimum advertised speeds of 5 Mbps/1 Mbps and on Ookla’s speed test data with a median of 10 Mbps/3 Mbps or higher. We believe that, in the mobile environment, it would not be workable to set a single speed 92 As the Commission has stated, having accurate and reliable mobile broadband deployment data is critical to policymakers as well as to consumers. Form 477 Modernization FNPRM, 32 FCC Rcd at 6331-32, para. 8. While the current Form 477 deployment data are an improvement over the deployment data previously available on a national scale, questions have arisen in various contexts regarding the bases for certain filings. Id., 32 FCC Rcd at 6332-33, para. 10. For example, in the context of the Mobility Fund II (MF-II) proceeding, the Commission determined that a separate, one-time data collection was necessary to ensure that all Form 477 filers were using a consistent standard when reporting their deployment of 5 Mbps 4G LTE services. Connect America Fund, Universal Service Reform—Mobility Fund, Order on Reconsideration and Second Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd 6282, 6286, 6287, 6298, paras. 7, 10, 34 (2017) (MF-II Challenge Process Order) (the Commission reconsidered its decision to use the Form 477 data given the various challenges with respect to the accuracy of the Form 477 deployment data, and determined that there would be a new, one-time data collection). In addition, the Commission has initiated a rulemaking to consider improvements in the Form 477 data collection process. See generally Form 477 Modernization FNPRM, 32 FCC Rcd 6329; see also 20 th Mobile Competition Report, 32 FCC Rcd at 9016, para. 70. 93 The methodology is described below in Section IV.A. 94 See, e.g., Electronic Design, An Introduction to LTE-Advanced: The Real 4G, http://www.electronicdesign.com/4g/introduction-lte-advanced-real-4g (last visited Jan. 11, 2018); Rysavy Research, LTE to 5G: Cellular and Broadband Innovation, 5G Americas, http://www.5gamericas.org/files/1915/0282/6623/LTE_to_5G_Cellular_and_Broadband_Innovation_- _Rysavy_for_upload.pdf (last visited Jan. 11, 2018). 95 Id. We note that in the MF-II context, the Commission has decided to use 5 Mbps download speeds as a benchmark for LTE to identify unserved areas that may be presumptively eligible for MF-II support. Connect America Fund; Universal Service Reform – Mobility Fund, WC Docket NO. 10-90, WT Docket No. 10-208, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 32 FCC Rcd 2152, 2173, 2236-37, 2238, paras. 50-51, 232, 243 (MF-II R&O and FNPRM). In that proceeding, commenters consistently cited 5 Mbps download as consistent with 4G LTE service. MF-II R&O and FNPRM, 32 FCC Rcd at 2189-90, para. 87 & n.220; see also MF-II Challenge Process Order, 32 FCC Rcd 6290-91, para. 16 & n.42 & n.44. Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 15 benchmark at this time due to the difficulty of evaluating the inherent variability of the mobile experience, combined with current data limitations and methodological issues. By using the Form 477 data, and supplementing with Ookla data, however, we can show that, in those geographical areas (counties) where most consumers live, speeds appear to be well above 5 Mbps/1 Mbps, with a median of 10 Mbps/3 Mbps or higher. 96 In addition, more and more consumers are receiving these higher speeds, as shown below. Therefore, while we recognize that minimum speeds are likely to increase over time as network configurations, technology, and consumer demands evolve, by supplementing advertised mobile speed data with on-the-ground data, we can reasonably evaluate the progress of high-speed mobile deployment and assess whether LTE deployment in general is reaching speeds that would enable advanced telecommunications capability for an increasing percentage of American consumers based on current uses. 97 (iii) Possible Additional Benchmarks and Metrics 35. Latency and consistency of service benchmarks and metrics. We decline at this time to adopt additional performance-related benchmarks or metrics, such as latency or consistency of service for fixed or mobile broadband. 98 Several commenters contend that the Commission should adopt a latency benchmark for its analysis under section 706, 99 with certain commenters proposing specific benchmarks, such as 100 millisecond (ms) or 400 ms. 100 NTCA argues that some types of broadband, such as satellite, may not meet a particular latency target and should be excluded from our section 706 analysis. 101 By contrast, ViaSat objects to any latency standard, arguing that the Commission should not single out latency among all the performance characteristics that affect the end-user consumer experience. 102 Verizon and CTIA also oppose adoption of a latency benchmark, urging the Commission instead to focus on consumer needs and experience. 103 36. We decline to adopt a latency benchmark. The commenters seeking the inclusion of latency in the analysis fail to identify any data sources or methodologies that are both sufficiently disaggregated and reliable that we could rely upon to incorporate latency into our section 706 analysis for fixed or mobile broadband. We also decline to rely on latency information collected in the Measuring Broadband America Report program to establish a latency benchmark, as suggested by the Entertainment 96 We note that in the Commission’s discussion of performance metrics for supported areas in the MF-II proceeding, the Commission also stated that the median data speed of the network for the supported area must be 10 Mbps/1 Mbps, with at least 90 percent of the required download speed measurements not less than a certain threshold speed. MF-II R&O and FNPRM, 32 FCC Rcd 2189-90, para. 87. 97 We believe that by reporting these two metrics, we are able to evaluate the extent to which, in the context of the mobile environment, mobile services are providing consumers with “high-speed, switched, broadband telecommunications capability that enables users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics and video telecommunications.” 47 U.S.C. § 1302(d)(1). 98 See, e.g., Consumer Groups Comments at 9-11; CO SBO Comments at 3; CPUC Comments at 6; Gregory Lucius Comments at 1; Jason Wellman Comments at 1; NTCA Comments at 12-14; NYC Comments at 2; 2016 OTI Comments at 12-14; WISPA Comments at 9; OTI Reply at 11-12; U.S. Telecom Comments, Attach. at 14. 99 See, e.g., CO SBO Comments at 3; CPUC Comments at 6; Gregory Lucius Comments at 1; Jason Wellman Comments at 1; NTCA Comments at 12-14; NYC Comments at 2; 2016 OTI Comments at 12-14; OTI Reply at 11- 12; but see U.S. Telecom Comments at 12 (arguing that “reliability of service and latency do not directly or meaningfully affect mobile deployment,” and that the Commission “should not expand the inquiry to include benchmarks for such criteria”). 100 WISPA Comments at 9; Consumer Groups Comments at 9-11. 101 NTCA Reply at 5. 102 ViaSat Comments at 2, 7. 103 CTIA Reply at 5-6; Verizon Comments at 2, 14-15; ViaSat Comments at 2, 7-8. Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 16 Software Association. 104 While this dataset provides some useful information about the latency of fixed broadband networks, the data lack the geographic granularity necessary to evaluate latency performance by census block. Therefore, we do not believe the Measuring Broadband America data can be used to evaluate latency at this time and, similar to the 2016 Report, we find that the current record lacks any reliable and sufficiently comprehensive data. 105 37. We reject arguments of certain commenters that broadband services with relatively higher latency, such as satellite, should be categorically excluded from our section 706 analysis because they do not qualify as an “advanced telecommunications capability.” Indeed, many consumers choose relatively higher latency fixed satellite broadband services that meet the 25 Mbps/3 Mbps speed benchmark and consume services such as Skype, Netflix, and YouTube 106 that fall within the statutory definition of “advanced telecommunications capability.” Applying a latency benchmark for all broadband services, whether fixed terrestrial, satellite, or mobile broadband, that would exclude from our section 706 analysis any consideration of broadband services that, on their face, would appear to provide consumers with the relevant capabilities articulated in section 706(d)(1), would prevent a reliable or complete assessment of the deployment of advanced telecommunications capability. 38. We also know of no data that would enable us to analyze consistency of service. Therefore, due to the lack of reliable and sufficient data, we refrain in this Report from evaluating latency and consistency of service in our section 706 analysis at this time. We will, however, continue to monitor and analyze the relevant data to the extent they become available. 39. Non-performance benchmarks and metrics. While some commenters contend that our inquiry should also include an examination of non-performance related benchmarks such as data/usage allowances or pricing, 107 we agree with several commenters that such metrics fall outside of the scope of our section 706 inquiry. 108 Section 706 requires us to examine the “availability” and “deployment” of advanced telecommunications capability. 109 While factors such as data allowances or pricing may affect consumers’ use of advanced telecommunications capabilities or influence decisions concerning the purchase of these services in the first instance, such considerations do not affect the underlying determination of whether advanced telecommunications capability has been deployed and made available to customers in a given area. 110 Thus, we believe such factors are extraneous to the present inquiry. In any event, as Verizon points out, to the extent that providers offer different types of data plans or pricing offerings, this range of choices for consumers “underscores how robust broadband deployment has been.” 111 Furthermore, commenters in support of including such metrics fail to cite reliable, comprehensive data sources that could be used, or sound methodologies for incorporating non- 104 Entertainment Software Association Reply at 8. 105 2016 Report, 31 FCC Rcd at 727, para. 66. 106 See OECD Working Party on Communications Infrastructure and Services Policy, The Evolving Role of Satellite Networks in Rural and Remote Broadband Access at 16-17 (2017), http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/science-and- technology/the-evolving-role-of-satellite-networks-in-rural-and-remote-broadband-access_7610090d-en. 107 See, e.g., Consumer Groups Comments at 7-9; MDTC Comments at 4-6; Microsoft Comments at 5-6; NTCA Comments at 12-14; NYC Comments at 2; 2016 OTI Comments at 15-17; WISPA Comments at 10. But see Verizon Comments at 16 (asserting that the Commission should only review benchmarks and characteristics that are relevant to broadband deployment). 108 See NCTA Comments at 3-4; Verizon Comments at 16; Comcast Reply at 3. 109 47 U.S.C. § 1302(b). 110 See NCTA Comments at 3-4; Comcast Reply at 3. 111 Verizon Comments at 16. Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 17 performance metrics into the section 706 inquiry. 112 Thus, we decline to consider additional, non- performance related benchmarks at this time. 113 B. Demographic Information 40. Section 706(b) directs the Commission to compile a list of geographical areas that are not served by any provider of advanced telecommunications capability and, to the extent that data from the Census Bureau is available, to determine, for each unserved area, the population, the population density, and the average per capita income. 114 We include such demographic data on unserved areas below in Section IV.B. 115 and show the availability of advanced telecommunications capability on a county-by county basis in Appendix F. 116 C. International Comparisons 41. Section 706(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 data rate benchmarks for broadband service utilized by the Commission to reflect different speed tiers.” 117 The statute directs the Commission to choose international communities comparable to various communities in the United States with respect to population size, population density, topography, and demographic profile. 118 As in past years, the staff of the International Bureau has prepared a report providing the information required by the statute, including comparative international information on broadband services and, where possible, the extent of broadband service capability in the United States and select communities and countries abroad. 119 We present a summary of the data in the Sixth International Broadband Data Report in Section IV.D. below. 120 D. Schools and Classrooms 42. Section 706(b) also specifies that our annual inquiry concerning the availability of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans must include “elementary and secondary schools and classrooms.” 121 We assess the current state of deployment in elementary and secondary 112 Consumer Groups Comments at 7-9; MDTC Comments at 4-6; Microsoft Comments at 5-6; NTCA Comments at 12-14; NYC Comments at 2; 2016 OTI Comments at 15-17; WISPA Comments at 10. 113 By contrast, the Broadband Data Improvement Act specifically requires that we consider as part of our section 706 inquiry a comparison of “broadband service capability (including broadband transmission speeds and price for broadband service capability) in a total of 75 communities in at least 25 countries abroad . . . .” 47 U.S.C. § 1303(b). 114 47 U.S.C. § 1302(c). 115 See infra Section IV.B. 116 See infra Appendix F. 117 47 U.S.C. § 1303(b)(1). 118 Id. § 1303(b)(2). The Commission is required to include “a geographically diverse selection of countries” and “communities including the capital cities of such countries.” Id. 119 International Comparison Requirements Pursuant to the Broadband Data Improvement Act, International Broadband Data Report, GN Docket No. 17-199, DA 18-99, rel. Feb. 2, 2018 (Sixth International Broadband Data Report). We are incorporating by reference the Sixth International Broadband Data Report. See, e.g., 2016 Report, 31 FCC Rcd at 748, para. 114 (incorporating by reference the 2016 Fifth International Broadband Data Report); 2015 Report, 30 FCC Rcd at 1450, para. 130 (same). 120 See infra Section IV.D. 121 47 U.S.C. § 1302(b). Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 18 schools in Section IV.E. below, using a short-term and long-term goal for broadband connectivity to schools of 100 Mbps per 1,000 students and staff and 1 Gbps per 1,000 students and staff, respectively. 122 IV. BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT AND AVAILABILITY A. Data Sources and Methodologies 43. We rely primarily upon our FCC Form 477 deployment data to evaluate deployment for fixed and mobile services. 123 We also consider, however, actual on-the-ground speed data based upon Ookla data in our mobile analysis. 124 Consistent with previous findings by the Commission, 125 and notwithstanding certain issues that have been identified with respect to the Form 477 data, the Form 477 data nonetheless are currently the most accurate data available to the Commission for this analysis. 126 For deployment data prior to 2014, we rely on data from the State Broadband Initiative (SBI), which prior to the Commission’s revision of the Form 477 data collection, were the most comprehensive and geographically granular deployment data publicly available. 127 Consequently, we rely upon that data to identify areas with access to services with maximum advertised speeds meeting our 25 Mbps/3 Mbps speed benchmark for fixed advanced telecommunications capability, as well as identifying areas with LTE coverage at minimum advertised (or in the case of SBI data, maximum advertised) or expected speeds of 5 Mbps/1 Mbps. We note that the Form 477 and SBI data only report service at the census block level, and not the household level. A whole census block is classified as served if the Form 477 or SBI data indicate that service is being provided anywhere in the block. Therefore, it is not necessarily the case that every person will have access to a service in a block that this Report indicates is served. 128 44. In addition, rather than only focus on deployment for the most recent year, our analysis examines how the deployment of fixed and mobile broadband has progressed since December 2012. 129 122 See infra Section IV.E. 123 On August 3, 2017, the Commission adopted a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking comment on ways to improve the quality and accuracy of information collected on Form 477. See generally Form 477 Modernization FNPRM, 32 FCC Rcd 6329. 124 See infra Appendix C (Data Sources and Definitions) at para. 1 (discussing our data sources and how we incorporate Ookla actual speed data into our evaluation), para. 5 (discussing how we evaluate the fixed deployment data). 125 2016 Report, 31 FCC Rcd at 730, para. 75. 126 The Commission currently is seeking comment on the Form 477 FNPRM to explore whether revisions are needed to this data collection to address concerns about accuracy. See Form 477 Modernization FNPRM, 32 FCC Rcd 6329, 6337, paras. 26-27. Here we use the best data available while recognizing improvements may be needed. 127 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. 11-121, Eighth Broadband Progress Report, 27 FCC Rcd 10342, 10364-65, para. 28 (2012) (2012 Report). The SBI data were collected semi-annually through state-led efforts and maintained by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration for the National Broadband Map, in collaboration with the Commission. Id. at 10365, para. 28. 128 We acknowledge the possibility that this analysis may therefore overstate or understate the deployment of services. See 20 th Mobile Competition Report, 32 FCC Rcd at 9016-17, para. 71; 2016 Report, 31 FCC Rcd at 730, para. 75 n.234. 129 We note that figures reported for years prior to 2016 may not be identical to figures reported in prior reports issued pursuant to section 706. Figures relying on Form 477 data may have been updated in subsequent years by reportees submitting corrected data. This Report also relies on a different population data source than previous reports. Furthermore, figures from previous reports also included the U.S. Territories when presenting calculations for the United States as a whole. We report on the U.S. Territories separately in this Report. Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 19 We present an analysis of deployment data for fixed terrestrial services and for mobile LTE. Unlike past Reports, 130 our deployment figures for the United States as a whole in this Report do not include data from the U.S. Territories because the 2016 data may significantly overstate current deployment in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, which account for over 92 percent of the total combined population of the U.S. Territories. 131 While December 2016 Form 477 data suggest that fixed terrestrial 25 Mbps/3 Mbps service and mobile 5 Mbps/1 Mbps LTE were deployed in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands as of December 2016, given the damage to infrastructure in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands from Hurricanes Maria and Irma, we are uncertain as to the current deployment of broadband services in these areas. 45. Fixed services. We find that our Form 477 fixed technology coverage data are the most reliable and comprehensive data to assess the availability of fixed terrestrial, and where applicable, satellite, services to American consumers. Using the Form 477 data, we evaluate the availability of fixed terrestrial services with a minimum advertised speed of 10 Mbps/1 Mbps, 25 Mbps/3 Mbps and 50 Mbps/5 Mbps. SBI data are not available for 10 Mbps/1 Mbps or for 50 Mbps/5 Mbps, so for 2012 and 2013 data, we use 10 Mbps/768 kbps for 10 Mbps/1 Mbps and 50 Mbps/6 Mbps for 50 Mbps/5 Mbps, the most comparable speeds reported. We also present data reflecting the initial deployment during 2016 of satellite services at 25 Mbps/3 Mbps. Prior to evaluating the fixed deployment data, the data submitted by providers are examined for quality and consistency. 132 Form 477 subscribership data is used to calculate adoption rates for fixed terrestrial services. 46. Mobile services. While recognizing certain limitations of the Form 477 data, we find nonetheless that our Form 477 LTE technology coverage data are the most reliable and comprehensive data that we have to assess the availability of mobile LTE to American consumers at a minimum advertised speed of 5 Mbps/1 Mbps. 133 For 2012 and 2013, we use SBI data, which only include a speed component for mobile services, 134 while for 2014 through 2016, we use the Form 477 LTE deployment shapefiles with a minimum advertised speed of 5 Mbps/1 Mbps. SBI data are not available for 5 Mbps/1 Mbps, so for our analysis of the 2012 and 2013 data, we use maximum advertised speeds of 6 Mbps/768 kbps, which are the most comparable speeds reported. As the Commission has previously done, we employ the centroid methodology in evaluating the Form 477 deployment data for LTE. 135 We consider a 130 See, e.g., 2016 Report, 31 FCC Rcd at 732, para. 79; 2015 Report, 30 FCC Rcd at 1418, para. 79. 131 We provide separate deployment estimates for fixed 25 Mbps/3 Mbps and mobile LTE 5 Mbps/1 Mbps for the U.S. Territories. See infra Table 6; Appendix E. We do not report estimates for mobile LTE 10 Mbps/3 Mbps because we lack sufficiently reliable Ookla speed data for the U.S. Territories. 132 Our analysis may understate or overstate deployment of services to the extent that broadband providers fail to report data or misreport data. See FCC, Explanation of Broadband Deployment Data (Nov. 20, 2017), https://www.fcc.gov/general/explanation-broadband-deployment-data (describing quality and consistency checks performed on providers’ submitted data and explaining any adjustments made to the Form 477 data as filed). 133 For fixed services, the Commission has been able to rely upon FCC Form 477 reported maximum advertised speeds to track actual speeds. However, we note that the relationship between actual speeds and the advertised speed reported in the FCC Form 477 for mobile services is more complex because minimum advertised speed is reported by the mobile providers, and different mobile providers estimate their minimum advertised speed based on various points of their actual speed distribution. 2016 Report, 31 FCC Rcd at 734, para. 82 & n.246. By contrast, the Ookla data provide us with the actual speeds that consumers experience. 134 Because the SBI data does not identify mobile services by technology, we are unable to limit the data to LTE only. Appendix C, para. 2. In addition, we note that the SBI data include mobile coverage area boundaries by maximum advertised download/upload speeds. 2016 Report, 31 FCC Rcd at 734, para. 82; 2015 Report, 30 FCC Rcd at 1414, para. 72. This means that the SBI data are not directly comparable to the Form 477 data, which reports minimum advertised speeds. 135 2016 Report, 31 FCC Rcd at 730, para. 75 & n.234 (explaining that the Commission evaluated the ability of mobile wireless providers to provide services throughout a census block by evaluating whether the provider’s (continued….) Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 20 census block to be covered by LTE if there is at least one service provider serving that census block that reports 5 Mbps/1 Mbps as the minimum advertised speed, based on their Form 477 submission. 136 47. We recognize, however, that actual speeds tend to be much faster than the minimum advertised speed. Therefore, we also present data based on the availability of LTE with a median actual speed of 10 Mbps/3 Mbps or higher. 137 While we acknowledge that there are alternative sources of data on speed, 138 we rely on the Ookla data 139 to supplement our Form 477 analysis, 140 primarily because it provides us with the greatest number of observations of actual speeds that customers receive. We only evaluate actual speeds in counties with a sufficient number of test observations in each time frame; because there generally are more observations in those geographical areas with a higher population density, the more densely populated counties have a higher likelihood of being included in this portion of (Continued from previous page) shapefile overlaps the centroid of the census block); id. at 730, para. 82, Tbls. 4-5 (reporting the proportion of the population with access to LTE technology); see also 20 th Mobile Competition Report, 32 FCC Rcd at 9016-17, para. 71. We note that these coverage estimates represent deployment of mobile networks and do not indicate the extent to which service providers affirmatively offer service to residents in the covered areas. Further, this analysis likely overstates the coverage experienced by some consumers, especially in large or irregularly shaped census blocks. 20 th Mobile Competition Report, 32 FCC Rcd at 9016-17, para. 71. In the 20 th Mobile Competition Report, the Commission presented coverage analysis based on both the centroid methodology and the actual area coverage methodology (which calculates the exact area of the block covered by each service provider by technology). At the aggregate national level, the results will be similar whether the centroid methodology or the actual area coverage methodology is utilized and, therefore, at that aggregate level, the centroid approach is a reasonable approach to take. Id. at 9017-18, para. 72. 136 Various commenters support the Commission continuing to rely on Form 477 data to determine broadband deployment. AT&T Comments at 5, 10 (also noting that fixed broadband deployment is determined using Form 477 data); US Telecom Comments at 22; Verizon Comments at 16-17. 137 Some commenters argue that the Commission should not rely on crowd-sourced data or set a speed benchmark due to the inherent methodological difficulties in doing so. See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 10-11; Verizon Comments at 16-17. CSBO contends that the Commission should factor crowd-sourced speed data into all technology metrics, including fixed. CSBO Comments at 7. We use the Ookla data to supplement our Form 477 analysis, allowing us to better evaluate the extent to which the typical consumer is receiving speeds of 10 Mbps/3 Mbps or higher. We currently lack Ookla data for 2012 and 2013, so we present in this Report data with respect to a median of 10 Mbps/3 Mbps mobile LTE or higher from 2014 onwards. 138 See, e.g., 20 th Mobile Competition Report, 32 FCC Rcd at 9036-37, paras. 91-92. 139 We note that generally, crowd-sourced data can provide the benefit of generating a large volume of data at a very low cost and of measuring actual consumer experience on a network in a wide variety of locations, indoor and outdoor. Crowd-sourced data, however, are often not collected pursuant to statistical sampling techniques, and may require adjustments to construct a representative sample from the raw data. For instance, crowd-sourced mobile data come from a self-selected group of users, and there often is little control for most tests regarding such parameters as when people implement the test, whether the test is performed indoors or outdoors, the geographic location of the tester, and the vintage of the consumer’s device. See, e.g., Implementation of Section 6002(b) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993; Annual Report and Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions With Respect to Mobile Wireless, Including Commercial Mobile Services, Seventeenth Report, 29 FCC Rcd 15311, 15405-06, para. 191 (2014). 140 The data collected by the Ookla Speedtest mobile app include test results for download speed, upload speed, and latency, as well as other information, such as the location of the test and operating system of the handset. The results presented in this Report are based on tests that were executed in the second half of 2014, second half of 2015, and second half of 2016, on the smartphone’s cellular connection, and using LTE technology. Any test with a reported download or upload speed equal to or less than zero, or greater than 100 Mbps, was dropped. Any test without GPS location data was dropped. Multiple tests by a single phone in the same locality and in the same day were averaged (using the median). Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 21 the analysis. 141 When analyzing the Ookla data, although we do not have reliable on-the-ground speed data for every county in the United States, the data we do have nevertheless cover well over 90 percent of the population of the United States, 142 and as such, can reasonably be used to show progress over time. 48. Schools. For purposes of this Report, we assess deployment in elementary and secondary schools based upon publicly available data from EducationSuperHighway’s 2017 State of the States Report and the Consortium for School Networking (CoSN) 2017 Annual Infrastructure Survey Report. 143 The 2017 State of the States Report tracks public schools’ progress toward the Commission’s goals for K- 12 connectivity using the Commission’s FCC Form 471 data and additional outreach efforts to E-rate applicants for clarifications on their broadband purchases. 144 CoSN’s report summarizes the results of its survey of a much smaller number of school districts regarding the current state of broadband and technology infrastructure in U.S. school systems. 145 B. Broadband Deployment Estimates 49. In Tables 1-3 below, we present our measurement of deployment to all Americans, evaluating progress by comparing deployment in the present year to deployment in previous years. We conclude, as previous reports have, that reporting deployment by urban, rural, and Tribal lands shows three relevant categories for purposes of our statutory obligation to consider deployment to “all Americans.” Unlike in the past, we report on deployment for each combination of fixed and mobile deployment, as we believe a clear reporting of the data is the best way for us to holistically consider the question before us. 141 A county is considered to have a sufficient sample size if there are at least 300 total observations after the cleaning and trimming rules have been applied. This sample size threshold applies to each county for each time frame (2H2014, 2H2015, and 2H2016): If a county does not have at least 300 observations during any of these time frames, it is not included in the actual speed analysis. This threshold of 300 observations is a conservative estimate, and is based on a general mean and median sample size analysis. County geography is assigned using the latitude and longitude coordinates that are collected during each Ookla speed test, via the device’s GPS. This allows us to evaluate actual median upload and download speeds at the county level, in each year of the three-year time period, for counties in which approximately 93 percent of the U.S. population live (not including the U.S. Territories). If a census block has LTE coverage of at least 5 Mbps/1 Mbps based on the Form 477 minimum advertised speeds, it is assigned the median upload and download speeds that are calculated for the county in which it is located, which allows us to evaluate the mobile broadband speeds for each census block within the United States. 142 The percentage of the population in our analysis is based on the total U.S. population, not including the U.S. Territories, for which we separately report our results. The Ookla speed data population in Table 2b is a subset of the total U.S. population evaluated in Table 2a, and refers to the population in those counties for which we believe we have a statistically significant number of on-the-ground speed test observations. In 2016, for example, the U.S. population, not including the U.S. territories, was 322.518 million, whereas in Table 2b, we use 300.036 million as the basis for our 2016 calculations, which excludes counties (approximately 7 percent of the U.S. population evaluated in Table 2a) where we do not have a sufficient number of reliable on-the-ground speed test data observations. We use a threshold of 300 observations at the county level as providing us with a sufficient number of observations. This threshold of 300 observations is a conservative estimate, and is based on a general mean and median sample size analysis. 143 See EducationSuperHighway, 2017 State of the States: Fulfilling Our Promise to America’s Students (Sept. 2017) https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/esh-sots- pdfs/educationsuperhighway_2017_state_of_the_states.pdf (2017 State of the States Report); Comments of the Consortium for School Networking (CoSN) at 5, WC Docket 13- 184 (filed Nov. 7, 2017) (CoSN 2017 Annual Infrastructure Survey Report). 144 See EducationSuperHighway, 2017 State of the States: Fulfilling Our Promise to America’s Students: Methodology, at 1-2 (Sept. 2017) (2017 State of the States Methodology). EducationSuperHighway uses a sample of public school districts receiving broadband services including, but not limited to, fiber services in funding year 2017 in its dataset. See id. at 7. 145 CoSN 2017 Annual Infrastructure Survey Report at 3. Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 22 1. Deployment of Fixed Advanced Telecommunications Capability 50. Table 1 shows the deployment of fixed terrestrial broadband at speeds of 25 Mbps/3 Mbps. As of year-end 2016, 92.3 percent of the overall population had such access, up from 89.6 percent in 2015 and 81.2 percent in 2012. Nonetheless, over 24 million Americans still lack fixed terrestrial broadband at speeds of 25 Mbps/3 Mbps. And the gap in rural and Tribal America remains notable: 30.7 percent of Americans in rural areas and 35.4 percent of Americans in Tribal lands lack access to fixed terrestrial 25 Mbps/3 Mbps broadband, as compared to only 2.1 percent of Americans in urban areas. Such a gap has narrowed over the last few years, especially between 2012 and 2014; in 2012, fixed terrestrial 25 Mbps/3 Mbps service was unavailable to 54.3 percent and 67.8 percent of Americans in rural and Tribal lands, respectively. Table 1 Deployment (Millions) of Fixed Terrestrial 25 Mbps/3 Mbps Services 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % United States 254.395 81.2% 263.971 83.6% 284.277 89.4% 286.911 89.6% 297.766 92.3% Rural Areas 27.694 45.7 29.077 47.6 37.202 60.4 37.795 60.7 43.604 69.3 Urban Areas 226.701 89.7 234.893 92.3 247.075 96.4 249.116 96.5 254.162 97.9 Tribal Lands 1.247 32.2 1.449 37.1 2.250 57.2 2.289 57.8 2.578 64.6 Pop. Evaluated 313.389 100.0% 315.596 100.0% 317.954 100.0% 320.289 100.0% 322.518 100.0% 51. As noted above, 2016 marked the first instance where 25 Mbps/3 Mbps satellite service was reported in the Form 477 data. 146 The 2017 launches of the high throughput Jupiter 2 and ViaSat 2 satellites by Hughes and ViaSat, respectively, could further increase 25 Mbps/3 Mbps satellite offerings in the future. 147 As of December 2016 and including satellite service in our estimate, we find that just over 14 million Americans are unserved by fixed 25 Mbps/3 Mbps service. Overall fixed deployment of 25 Mbps/3 Mbps service in 2016 is 95.6 percent, with deployment to 81.7 percent of Americans in rural areas and 99 percent in urban areas. 148 2. Deployment of Mobile LTE 52. Table 2a shows that as of December 2016, over 99 percent of the American population has access to mobile LTE with a minimum advertised speed of 5 Mbps/1 Mbps, according to our Form 477 data, while the SBI maximum advertised speed data show that 89.8 percent had such access in 2012. Further, the percentage of Americans living in rural areas with access to LTE at 5 Mbps/1 Mbps was 62.6 146 See ViaSat Comments at 3. 147 See Hughes Network Systems, LLC, Hughes Announces HughesNet Gen5 High-Speed Satellite Internet Service (Mar. 7, 2017), https://www.hughes.com/who-we-are/resources/press-releases/hughes-announces-hughesnet-gen5- high-speed-satellite-internet; ViaSat Inc., High Capacity Satellite System, Transforming Satellite Broadband, https://www.viasat.com/products/high-capacity-satellites (last visited Jan. 9, 2018). 148 See FCC, Fixed Broadband Deployment Data from FCC Form 477, Data as of December 31, 2016, https://www.fcc.gov/general/broadband-deployment-data-fcc-form-477 (last visited Jan. 17, 2018). We acknowledge that these data could overstate the availability of these services. While satellite operators may be able to offer service to wide swaths of the country, overall satellite capacity may limit the number of consumers that can actually subscribe to satellite service at any one time. See Notice, 32 FCC Rcd at 7041, para. 42. Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 23 percent in 2012 based on the SBI data, while the Form 477 data show that 98.2 percent of Americans living in rural areas had such access by the end of 2016 with almost all of that improvement occurring by 2014. 149 Considered separately, rural areas continue to lag behind urban areas in deployment. Also, the percentage of Americans living in Tribal lands with access to mobile LTE was 70 percent in 2012 based on the SBI data, while by 2016, it was 94.9 percent based on Form 477 with most of that gap closed by 2014. Table 2b shows some improvement since 2014 in deployment of mobile LTE services at median speeds of 10 Mbps/3 Mbps across the United States as a whole, 150 but consistent with our Form 477 data, there was little change in mobile LTE deployment at these speeds in rural and Tribal lands from 2014 to 2016. Table 2a Deployment (Millions) of Mobile LTE with a Speed of 5 Mbps/1 Mbps 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % United States 281.329 89.8% 308.527 97.8% 315.506 99.2% 318.923 99.6% 321.347 99.6% Rural Areas 37.918 62.6 55.044 90.2 59.463 96.5 60.969 97.9 61.802 98.2 Urban Areas 243.411 96.3 253.483 99.6 256.043 99.9 257.954 100.0 259.545 100.0 Tribal Lands 2.712 70.0 3.386 86.7 3.626 92.2 3.722 93.9 3.788 94.9 Pop. Evaluated 313.389 100.0% 315.596 100.0% 317.954 100.0% 320.289 100.0% 322.518 100.0% 149 We note that the results reported in Table 2a for 2012 and 2013 are based upon SBI data for mobile services at maximum advertised speeds of 6 Mbps/768 kbps as compared to the Form 477 data which are based on minimum advertised speeds of 5 Mbps/1 Mbps. See supra Section IV.A. 150 We note that for the counties where we do not have sufficient Ookla data to create a statistically significant county sample that can be included in our analysis, Americans are receiving minimum advertised or expected speeds of 5 Mbps/1 Mbps, and likely will be receiving speeds higher than that. Any county (and associated census block) for which we do not have reliable Ookla data, however, is excluded from our 10 Mbps/3 Mbps analysis. Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 24 Table 2b Deployment (Millions) of Mobile LTE with a Median Speed of 10 Mbps/3 Mbps 2014 2015 2016 Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % United States 237.210 80.1% 244.644 83.1% 261.898 87.3% Rural Areas 32.638 70.3 31.559 70.3 32.962 70.1 Urban Areas 204.573 81.9 213.085 85.4 228.936 90.5 Tribal Lands 151 2.159 64.5 * * 2.125 63.7 Pop. Evaluated 152 296.204 93.2% 294.568 92.0% 300.036 93.0% 3. Deployment of Fixed Services and Mobile LTE 53. Table 3a shows deployment across all geographic areas when considering access to both fixed terrestrial 25 Mbps/3 Mbps services and 5 Mbps/1 Mbps mobile LTE. Overall, approximately 25 million Americans lack access to both 25 Mbps/3 Mbps fixed terrestrial service and 5 Mbps/1 Mbps mobile LTE. This means that approximately 92 percent of the population has access to both fixed terrestrial service at 25 Mbps/3 Mbps and mobile LTE at speeds of 5 Mbps/1 Mbps, up from approximately 89 percent in 2014 and 77 percent in 2012. 153 In rural areas, 68.6 percent of Americans have access to both services, as opposed to 97.9 percent of Americans in urban areas, up from 59.2 percent and 96.3 percent, respectively, in 2014 and 33.5 percent and 87.4 percent, respectively, in 2012. Table 3b shows deployment of fixed terrestrial speeds of 25 Mbps/3 Mbps and median mobile LTE speeds of 10 Mbps/3 Mbps. As of December 2016, approximately 49.5 million Americans in the evaluated areas lack access to both services. This indicates that approximately 84 percent of the (sub-set) population evaluated has access to both services, up from approximately 75 percent in 2014. 151 We do not report the results for Tribal lands in 2015 in Table 2b above that relies on the Ookla data because of our concerns about the reliability of the Ookla data for Tribal land areas during this time period. 152 From 2014 through 2016, the total population in the United States—not including U.S. Territories, for which we report the results separately—was, respectively, 317.954 million, 320.289 million, and 322.518 million. Based on this sub-sample of the total U.S. population, our analysis indicates that we have reliable on-the-ground speed test data for counties for the vast majority—approximately 93 percent—of Americans during this time period. The census block population estimates are based upon the 2010 U.S. Census Data that the Commission staff has updated to account for population growth. Staff have updated the 2010 census block population estimates based upon annual U.S. Census mid-year county (or county-equivalent) level population and housing unit estimates for the fifty states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. These data are used in conjunction with U.S. Census Bureau Tiger data to indicate new roads, i.e., new housing development, to distribute population amongst the census blocks comprising each county (or county-equivalent). See infra Appendix C, para. 4. 153 We again note that the results reported for 2012 and 2013 are based upon SBI data for mobile services at maximum advertised speeds of 6 Mbps/768 kbps as compared to the Form 477 data which are based on minimum advertised speeds of 5 Mbps/1 Mbps. See supra Section IV.A. Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 25 Table 3a Deployment (Millions) of Fixed Terrestrial 25 Mbps/3 Mbps Services and Mobile LTE with a Speed of 5 Mbps/1 Mbps 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % United States 241.292 77.0% 261.977 83.0% 283.417 89.1% 286.447 89.4% 297.304 92.2% Rural Areas 20.266 33.5 27.776 45.5 36.517 59.2 37.366 60.0 43.164 68.6 Urban Areas 221.025 87.4 234.200 92.0 246.900 96.3 249.081 96.5 254.141 97.9 Tribal Lands 1.117 28.8 1.385 35.5 2.212 56.2 2.258 57.0 2.550 63.9 Pop. Evaluated 313.389 100.0% 315.596 100.0% 317.954 100.0% 320.289 100.0% 322.518 100.0% Table 3b Deployment (Millions) of Fixed Terrestrial 25 Mbps/3 Mbps Services and Mobile LTE with a Median Speed of 10 Mbps/3 Mbps 2014 2015 2016 Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % United States 221.255 74.7% 229.189 77.8% 250.494 83.5% Rural Areas 22.637 48.8 22.046 49.1 25.411 54.0 Urban Areas 198.617 79.5 207.144 83.0 225.082 89.0 Tribal Lands 1.537 45.9 * * 1.666 50.0 Pop. Evaluated 154 296.204 93.2% 294.568 92.0% 300.036 93.0% 54. As of December 2016, and including satellite service in our estimate, we find that approximately 14.9 million Americans lack access to both fixed 25 Mbps/3 Mbps service and 5 Mbps/1 Mbps mobile LTE. 155 Overall, 95.4 percent of Americans have access to both services, including 80.7 percent in rural areas and 99 percent in urban areas. With respect to fixed 25 Mbps/3 Mbps and 10 Mbps/3 Mbps LTE, approximately 44 million Americans lack access to both services. Overall, 85.3 percent of Americans have such access, including 61 percent in evaluated rural areas and 89.8 percent in evaluated urban areas. 55. Turning now to our analysis of the areas that have access to fixed terrestrial 25 Mbps/3 Mbps service or mobile LTE at speeds of 5 Mbps/1 Mbps, Table 3c shows that over 99 percent of the American population has access to either fixed terrestrial service at 25 Mbps/3 Mbps or mobile LTE at minimum advertised speeds of 5 Mbps/1 Mbps in 2016. As shown in Table 3d, approximately 5.7 154 As with Table 2b above, this table reports the results of our analysis based not on the total U.S. population, but on a sub-sample of the total U.S. population where certain counties are excluded for lack of reliable Ookla data, and the U.S. Territories are separately reported. 155 See FCC, Fixed Broadband Deployment Data from FCC Form 477, Data as of December 31, 2016, https://www.fcc.gov/general/broadband-deployment-data-fcc-form-477 (last visited Jan. 17, 2018). Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 26 million Americans in the evaluated areas do not have access to either 25 Mbps/3 Mbps fixed terrestrial service or 10 Mbps/3 Mbps mobile LTE. This is largely due to gaps in coverage in rural and Tribal lands, where 10.3 percent and 17 percent of Americans living in these respective areas lack access to either service. Table 3c Deployment (Millions) of Fixed Terrestrial 25 Mbps/3 Mbps Services or Mobile LTE with a Speed of 5 Mbps/1 Mbps 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % United States 294.432 94.0% 310.521 98.4% 316.366 99.5% 319.386 99.7% 321.809 99.8% Rural Areas 45.345 74.9 56.345 92.3 60.148 97.6 61.397 98.6 62.242 98.9 Urban Areas 249.087 98.5 254.176 99.9 256.218 100.0 257.989 100.0 259.567 100.0 Tribal Lands 2.843 73.3 3.449 88.3 3.664 93.2 3.753 94.7 3.816 95.6 Pop. Evaluated 313.389 100.0% 315.596 100.0% 317.954 100.0% 320.289 100.0% 322.518 100.0% Table 3d Deployment of Fixed Terrestrial 25 Mbps/3 Mbps Services or Mobile LTE with a Median Speed of 10 Mbps/3 Mbps 2014 2015 2016 Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % United States 288.119 97.3% 287.714 97.7% 294.341 98.1% Rural Areas 40.332 86.9 39.710 88.4 42.192 89.7 Urban Areas 247.787 99.2 248.004 99.3 252.149 99.7 Tribal Lands 2.684 80.2 2.544 76.4 2.769 83.0 Pop. Evaluated 156 296.204 93.2% 294.568 92.0% 300.036 93.0% 56. As of December 2016, and including satellite service in our estimate, approximately 470,000 Americans lack access to either fixed 25 Mbps/3 Mbps service or 5 Mbps/1 Mbps mobile LTE. 157 Overall, approximately 99.9 percent of Americans have access to one of these services, including 99.3 percent in rural areas and nearly all Americans in urban areas. With respect to fixed 25 Mbps/3 Mbps or 10 Mbps/3 Mbps LTE, approximately 3.6 million Americans in the evaluated areas lack access to one of these services when satellite deployment is included. Overall, 98.8 percent of Americans in the 156 As with Tables 2b and 3b above, Table 3d reports the results of our analysis based not on the total U.S. population, but on a sub-sample of the total U.S. population where certain counties are excluded for lack of reliable Ookla data, and the U.S. Territories are separately reported. 157 See FCC, Fixed Broadband Deployment Data from FCC Form 477, Data as of December 31, 2016, https://www.fcc.gov/general/broadband-deployment-data-fcc-form-477 (last visited Jan. 17, 2018). Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 27 evaluated areas have access to one service, including 93.5 percent in evaluated rural areas and 99.8 percent in evaluated urban areas. 4. Additional Deployment Estimates 57. Table 4 shows deployment from 2012 through 2016 of fixed terrestrial services at 10 Mbps/1 Mbps, 25 Mbps/3 Mbps and 50 Mbps/5 Mbps. By presenting data for speed tiers in addition to our current benchmark, we are able to provide a more holistic look at the pace and patterns of broadband deployment. As of December 2016, fixed terrestrial service of 10 Mbps/1 Mbps is available to 96 percent of all Americans, up from 92.8 percent in 2012. Meanwhile, fixed terrestrial 25 Mbps/3 Mbps service is available to 92.3 percent of the population overall, up from 81.2 percent in 2012, and deployment of fixed terrestrial 50 Mbps/5 Mbps service is available to 90.8 percent of the population, up from 49.7 percent in 2012. Deployment in rural and Tribal lands lags behind that of urban areas at all three speeds, but the data shows year-over-year improvements at all three speeds in these areas. Table 4 Deployment (Millions) of Fixed Terrestrial Services at Different Speed Tiers (2012-2016) 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % Fixed 10 Mbps/1 Mbps United States 290.731 92.8% 294.244 93.2% 297.826 93.7% 303.201 94.7% 309.614 96.0% Rural Areas 41.761 69.0 42.573 69.7 46.219 75.0 48.942 78.6 52.767 83.9 Urban Areas 248.970 98.5 251.671 98.9 251.608 98.2 254.258 98.5 256.847 98.9 Tribal Lands 2.460 63.5 2.622 67.1 2.709 68.9 2.970 74.9 3.264 81.8 Fixed 25 Mbps/3 Mbps United States 254.395 81.2% 263.971 83.6% 284.277 89.4% 286.911 89.6% 297.766 92.3% Rural Areas 27.694 45.7 29.077 47.6 37.202 60.4 37.795 60.7 43.604 69.3 Urban Areas 226.701 89.7 234.893 92.3 247.075 96.4 249.116 96.5 254.162 97.9 Tribal Lands 1.247 32.2 1.449 37.1 2.250 57.2 2.289 57.8 2.578 64.6 Fixed 50 Mbps/5 Mbps United States 155.692 49.7% 187.416 59.4% 270.771 85.2% 282.364 88.2% 292.804 90.8% Rural Areas 12.138 20.0 15.571 25.5 32.127 52.1 34.831 55.9 40.252 64.0 Urban Areas 143.553 56.8 171.844 67.5 238.644 93.1 247.533 95.9 252.552 97.3 Tribal Lands 0.204 5.3 1.161 29.7 1.919 48.8 2.116 53.4 2.328 58.3 Pop. Evaluated 313.389 100.0% 315.596 100.0% 317.954 100.0% 320.289 100.0% 322.518 100.0% 58. Table 5 shows deployment on Tribal lands from 2012 through 2016 of both fixed terrestrial 25 Mbps/3 Mbps service and mobile LTE service with a speed of at least 5 Mbps/1 Mbps. Overall, in 2016, 63.9 percent of Tribal lands have access to fixed terrestrial 25 Mbps/3 Mbps services Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 28 and mobile LTE services with a speed of 5 Mbps/1 Mbps based on Form 477 data, while in 2012 (based on SBI data), 28.8 percent of all Tribal lands had such access. 158 Rural areas continue to lag behind urban areas, with only 40.9 percent of all Tribal lands in rural areas having access to both services, as compared to 88.5 percent of Tribal lands in urban areas. Table 5 Deployment (Ten Thousands) on Tribal Lands with Access to Fixed Terrestrial 25 Mbps/3 Mbps Services and Mobile LTE with a Speed of 5 Mbps/1 Mbps 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % All Tribal Lands 111.653 28.8% 138.505 35.5% 221.177 56.2% 225.788 57.0% 254.954 63.9% Rural Areas 14.228 7.2 28.306 14.1 59.658 29.5 61.377 30.1 84.452 40.9 Urban Areas 97.425 51.5 110.198 57.9 161.519 84.5 164.412 85.6 170.502 88.5 Alaskan Villages 0.022 0.1% 7.126 28.2% 11.329 44.4% 11.027 42.7% 13.483 51.5% Rural Areas 0.013 0.1 2.113 13.1 4.214 25.8 3.920 23.7 6.096 36.2 Urban Areas 0.010 0.1 5.013 54.9 7.115 77.4 7.107 76.7 7.387 79.0 Hawaiian Homelands 2.850 89.8% 2.924 90.6% 3.169 96.9% 2.955 88.9% 2.961 88.6% Rural Areas 0.250 50.9 0.235 45.0 0.455 83.0 0.246 43.9 0.250 43.5 Urban Areas 2.600 96.9 2.688 99.4 2.715 99.8 2.709 98.0 2.711 98.0 Lower 48 States 21.111 19.9% 32.069 30.0% 41.861 38.8% 45.187 41.5% 49.278 44.6% Rural Areas 5.680 8.1 13.364 18.9 18.512 25.8 20.668 28.4 23.360 31.6 Urban Areas 15.432 43.0 18.705 51.9 23.349 64.8 24.519 67.8 25.918 71.2 Tribal Statistical Areas 87.669 34.6% 96.386 37.8% 164.818 64.2% 166.619 64.5% 189.232 73.0% Rural Areas 8.285 7.4 12.594 11.2 36.477 32.1 36.542 32.0 54.746 47.6 Urban Areas 79.384 56.1 83.793 58.8 128.341 89.7 130.077 90.3 134.486 93.3 158 We again note that the results reported for 2012 and 2013 are based upon SBI data for mobile services at maximum advertised speeds of 6 Mbps/768 kbps as compared to the Form 477 data which are based on minimum advertised speeds of 5 Mbps/1 Mbps. See supra Section IV.A. Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 29 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % Pop. Evaluated 387.603 100% 390.508 100% 393.310 100% 396.401 100% 399.114 100% 59. Table 6 presents deployment data for fixed terrestrial 25 Mbps/3 Mbps service and mobile LTE service with a speed of at least 5 Mbps/1 Mbps from 2012 through 2016 for the U.S. Territories. The data show that as of December 2016, 83 percent of Americans in the U.S. Territories had access to 25 Mbps/3 Mbps fixed terrestrial service and 5 Mbps/1 Mbps mobile LTE, which represented an increase of approximately 53 percentage points from 2012. However, we note that the 2016 data may significantly overstate current deployment in the U.S. Territories due to the inclusion of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, which account for over 92 percent of the total combined population of the U.S. Territories. Although the Form 477 data as of December 31, 2016 suggest that fixed 25 Mbps/3 Mbps and mobile LTE 5 Mbps/1 Mbps services were deployed in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, we are uncertain as to the current deployment of services in these areas due to infrastructure damage from Hurricanes Maria and Irma. 159 We note that the data presented in Table 6 appear to show some potential anomalies with respect to the fixed terrestrial services data. First, the data show a decrease of 30 percentage points in rural areas between 2013 and 2014, which could reflect differences in SBI and Form 477 methodologies. 160 In addition, the Form 477 fixed data for 2015 show a significant decrease in fixed deployment in the U.S. Territories from 2014 to 2015, and show a subsequent increase in deployment above the 2014 deployment levels from 2015 to 2016. The changes in reported deployment from December 2014 to December 2016 are likely due to fluctuations in the Form 477 data from providers in Puerto Rico during this time period and may not reflect actual changes in deployment. Table 6 Deployment (Millions) in U.S. Territories of Fixed Terrestrial 25 Mbps/3 Mbps and Mobile LTE with a Speed of 5 Mbps/1 Mbps 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % Fixed Terrestrial 25 Mbps/3 Mbps U.S. Territories 1.274 31.8% 2.627 66.2% 3.217 82.4% 2.368 61.5% 3.151 83.2% Rural Areas 0.210 81.8 0.218 85.5 0.135 53.5 0.095 38.1 0.143 57.9 Urban Areas 1.064 28.4 2.409 64.9 3.082 84.4 2.273 63.1 3.008 85.0 Mobile LTE with a Speed of 5 Mbps/1 Mbps U.S. Territories 3.884 96.9% 3.866 97.5% 3.762 96.3% 3.701 96.1% 3.717 98.2% Rural Areas 0.219 85.1 0.228 89.5 0.226 89.4 0.224 89.5 0.230 93.0 Urban Areas 3.665 97.7 3.638 98.1 3.537 96.8 3.477 96.5 3.487 98.6 159 See supra Section IV.A. 160 The data from 2013 is SBI data while the data from 2014 is Form 477 data. Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 30 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % Fixed Terrestrial 25 Mbps/3 Mbps and Mobile LTE with a Speed of 5 Mbps/1 Mbps U.S. Territories 1.211 30.2% 2.576 65.0% 3.214 82.3% 2.365 61.4% 3.147 83.1% Rural Areas 0.183 71.1 0.199 78.0 0.132 52.3 0.093 37.0 0.139 56.2 Urban Areas 1.028 27.4 2.377 64.1 3.082 84.3 2.272 63.1 3.008 85.0 Fixed Terrestrial 25 Mbps/3 Mbps or Mobile LTE with a Speed of 5 Mbps/1 Mbps U.S. Territories 3.948 98.5% 3.917 98.8% 3.766 96.4% 3.704 96.1% 3.722 98.3% Rural Areas 0.246 95.9 0.247 97.0 0.229 90.5 0.227 90.5 0.234 94.6 Urban Areas 3.701 98.7 3.669 98.9 3.537 96.8 3.477 96.5 3.488 98.6 C. Demographic Data 60. Table 7 compares the available demographic data across urban, rural, and Tribal lands for Americans with and without access to both fixed terrestrial 25 Mbps/3 Mbps service and mobile LTE with a minimum advertised speed of 5 Mbps/1 Mbps in 2016. Americans with access to these services typically live in census block groups with a lower percentage of households living in poverty, and with higher average populations, population densities, per capita incomes, and median household incomes than Americans living in areas without access to these services. Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 31 Table 7 Comparison of Demographic Data Between Areas with and without Fixed Terrestrial 25 Mbps/3 Mbps Services and Mobile LTE with a Minimum Advertised Speed of 5 Mbps/1 Mbps 161 Average Population Average Population Density Average Per Capita Income ($2016) Average Median Household Income ($2016) Average Poverty Rate United States (All Areas) With Access 1,498.4 *** 7,621.9 *** $30,812.65 *** $63,167.03 *** 15.0% *** Without Access 1,407.7 1,100.9 $25,363.26 $50,629.48 15.8% U.S. Rural Areas With Access 1,437.8 *** 216.0 *** $30,385.91 *** $62,163.65 *** 11.1% *** Without Access 1,312.1 79.1 $25,350.53 $50,775.16 14.4% U.S. Urban Areas With Access 1,504.2 *** 8,327.7 *** $30,853.29 *** $63,263.70 *** 15.4% *** Without Access 1,622.2 3,396.2 $25,392.10 $50,290.76 19.0% Tribal Lands With Access 1,363.5 2,208.2 *** $25,545.06 *** $49,664.58 *** 17.0% *** Without Access 1,334.7 278.5 $21,299.63 $43,962.16 21.0% Tribal Rural Areas With Access 1,367.2 174.3 *** $25,010.78 *** $50,139.99 *** 16.2% *** Without Access 1,320.2 79.2 $21,460.70 $44,095.06 20.6% Tribal Urban Areas With Access 1,362.7 2,671.9 *** $25,665.36 *** $49,557.39 *** 17.2% *** Without Access 1,385.3 971.3 $20,742.71 $43,499.45 22.3% We test for a statistical difference in the reported means between areas with and without access. The level of statistical significance is indicated by a superscript: * signifies statistical significance at a 90% level of confidence, ** signifies statistical significance at a 95% level of confidence, and *** signifies statistical significance at a 99% level of confidence. 161 To compare the demographic data between areas with and without these services, we aggregate the census block data up to the census block group level, the lowest aggregation level for which demographic information is available. Because this aggregation can result in rural and urban census blocks falling within the same census block group, we designate a census block group as rural if more than 50 percent of the population in the census block group resides in rural areas. In addition, the aggregation of census blocks up to the census block group level can result in the aggregation of census blocks with and without access to these services falling within a census block group. We designate a census block group as without access if more than five percent of the population in the census block group is without services. Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 32 61. Table 8 compares the available demographic data across urban, rural, and Tribal lands for Americans with and without access to both fixed terrestrial 25 Mbps/3 Mbps service and mobile LTE service with a median speed of 10 Mbps/3 Mbps in 2016. Like Table 7, Table 8 shows that Americans with access to these services typically live in census block groups with a lower percentage of households living in poverty, and with higher average populations, population densities, per capita incomes, and median household incomes than Americans living in areas without access to these services. Table 8 Comparison of Demographic Data Between Areas with and without Fixed Terrestrial 25 Mbps/3 Mbps Services and Mobile LTE with a Median Speed of 10 Mbps/3 Mbps 162 Average Population Average Population Density Average Per Capita Income ($2016) Average Median Household Income ($2016) Average Poverty Rate United States (All Areas) With Access 1,509.5 *** 8,378.6 *** $31,743.58 *** $65,198.39 *** 14.7% *** Without Access 1,413.1 2,131.3 $25,926.11 $52,491.68 16.0% U.S. Rural Areas With Access 1,552.9 *** 222.6 *** $32,693.71 *** $68,394.65 *** 9.5% *** Without Access 1,234.4 99.8 $26,384.25 $53,335.00 13.5% U.S. Urban Areas With Access 1,506.8 *** 8,897.1 *** $31,683.36 *** $64,993.61 *** 15.0% *** Without Access 1,583.0 4,064.1 $25,489.00 $51,671.95 18.4% Tribal Lands With Access 1,361.6 ** 2,425.9 *** $26,765.87 *** $51,779.18 *** 16.4% *** Without Access 1,285.2 610.9 $21,754.84 $45,033.15 20.3% Tribal Rural Areas With Access 1,470.6 *** 148.8 *** $26,875.93 *** $53,703.25 *** 14.5% *** Without Access 1,229.8 87.4 $21,722.81 $45,170.98 20.3% Tribal Urban Areas With Access 1,345.0 2,776.4 *** $26,749.08 *** $51,484.94 *** 16.7% *** 162 To compare the demographic data between areas with and without these services, we aggregate the census block data up to the census block group level, the lowest aggregation level for which demographic information is available. Because this aggregation can result in rural and urban census blocks falling within the same census block group, we designate a census block group as rural if more than 50 percent of the population in the census block group resides in rural areas. In addition, the aggregation of census blocks up to the census block group level can result in census blocks with and without access to these services falling within a census block group. We designate a census block group as without access if more than five percent of the population in the census block group is without services. Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 33 Average Population Average Population Density Average Per Capita Income ($2016) Average Median Household Income ($2016) Average Poverty Rate Without Access 1,397.9 1,675.1 $21,819.49 $44,752.56 20.2% We test for a statistical difference in the reported means between areas with and without access. The level of statistical significance is indicated by a superscript: * signifies statistical significance at a 90% level of confidence, ** signifies statistical significance at a 95% level of confidence, and *** signifies statistical significance at a 99% level of confidence. 62. Table 9 shows how the average proportion of the population with access to fixed terrestrial 25 Mbps/3 Mbps service and mobile LTE service with a minimum advertised speed of 5 Mbps/1 Mbps varies with the county-level median household income, the county-level population density, the county-level poverty rate, and the proportion of the population categorized as living in a rural area in 2016. On average, the proportion of the population with access to each type of service is highest in counties with the highest median household income, the highest population density, the lowest poverty rate, and the lowest rural population rate. Table 9 Average Percentage of Population with Fixed Terrestrial 25 Mbps/3 Mbps Service and Mobile LTE with a Minimum Advertised Speed of 5 Mbps/1 Mbps by County Level Demographic Variable Fixed Services Mobile LTE Fixed Services and Mobile LTE County Median Household Income ($2016) First Quartile (Lowest Median Household Income) 58.2% 95.4% 56.2% Second Quartile 69.7 98.1 69.3 Third Quartile 76.2 97.6 75.3 Fourth Quartile (Highest Median Household Income) 84.1 97.7 83.6 County Population Density First Quartile (Lowest Population Density) 55.4% 92.4% 53.4% Second Quartile 63.1 97.7 61.9 Third Quartile 75.9 98.7 75.2 Fourth Quartile (Highest Population Density) 93.8 99.9 93.8 County Poverty Rate Fourth Quartile (Highest Poverty Rate) 61.9% 96.1% 60.2% Third Quartile 72.4 97.7 71.8 Second Quartile 73.5 98.0 73.0 First Quartile (Lowest Poverty Rate) 80.4 97.1 79.4 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 34 Fixed Services Mobile LTE Fixed Services and Mobile LTE County Rural Population Rate Fourth Quartile (Highest Rural Population Rate) 52.8% 92.4% 50.3% Third Quartile 65.6 97.8 64.7 Second Quartile 77.5 98.8 77.2 First Quartile (Lowest Rural Population Rate) 92.3 99.7 92.1 63. Table 10 shows how the average proportion of the population with access to fixed terrestrial services by speed tier varies with county-level median household income, county-level population density, the county-level poverty rate, and the proportion of the population categorized as living in a rural area in 2016. On average, the proportion of the population with access to each speed tier is highest in counties with the highest median household income, the highest population density, the lowest poverty rate, and the lowest rural population rate. Table 10 Average Percentage of Population with Fixed Terrestrial Services by County Level Demographic Variable 10 Mbps/ 1 Mbps 25 Mbps/ 3 Mbps 50 Mbps/ 5 Mbps County Median Household Income ($2016) First Quartile (Lowest Median Household Income) 76.4% 58.2% 53.7% Second Quartile 85.5 69.7 64.6 Third Quartile 89.3 76.2 71.0 Fourth Quartile (Highest Median Household Income) 91.8 84.1 80.2 County Population Density First Quartile (Lowest Population Density) 79.0% 55.4% 47.8% Second Quartile 79.6 63.1 57.5 Third Quartile 87.8 75.9 71.9 Fourth Quartile (Highest Population Density) 96.6 93.8 92.3 County Poverty Rate Fourth Quartile (Highest Poverty Rate) 77.9% 61.9% 57.6% Third Quartile 86.0 72.4 67.7 Second Quartile 87.9 73.5 68.5 First Quartile (Lowest Poverty Rate) 91.2 80.4 75.8 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 35 10 Mbps/ 1 Mbps 25 Mbps/ 3 Mbps 50 Mbps/ 5 Mbps County Rural Population Rate Fourth Quartile (Highest Rural Population Rate) 75.0% 52.8% 45.8% Third Quartile 81.6 65.6 60.4 Second Quartile 89.6 77.5 73.1 First Quartile (Lowest Rural Population Rate) 96.7 92.3 90.3 D. International Data 64. The Sixth International Broadband Data Report compares fixed and mobile broadband speeds, prices, and deployment in the United States with up to 28 selected countries (which are all members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)) to the extent data are available. 163 With regard to speeds, the Sixth International Broadband Data Report presents data on actual fixed and mobile broadband speeds based on data gathered by Ookla, 164 which are collected primarily from software-based tests on an end user’s device using speedtest.net. With regard to pricing, the report improves upon our pricing comparison from previous reports by providing a more comprehensive assessment of the competitiveness of broadband in each country and the value that broadband providers are delivering to consumers. With regard to deployment, the report includes a comparison of high-speed fixed and mobile broadband deployment in the United States and in Europe. More generally, the international comparisons of broadband speeds, prices, and deployment summarized below reflect that the sources, definitions, and/or time periods of available data often differ by country and by dataset. 165 65. Speeds. The Sixth International Broadband Data Report presents data on actual fixed and mobile broadband speeds based on data gathered by Ookla for the United States and 27 comparison countries for a ranking of fastest actual speed (1st) to slowest (28th). 166 The data are aggregated at the city level and include observations in 2014, 2015, and 2016 for both U.S. and international cities. In 2016, with respect to fixed broadband speed, for example, the United States ranked 10th out of a total 28 countries in terms of actual download speeds (55.07 Mbps) 167 when weighted by the number of tests in 163 The OECD Member countries chosen for the comparison are Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Luxembourg, Mexico, Korea, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. 164 We obtained speed data through a contractual arrangement with Ookla. Ookla Speedtest (Ookla), http://www.speedtest.net (last visited Jan. 17, 2018). Ookla’s mobile speed measurements are derived from customer tests run by Ookla Speedtest mobile apps that measure the performance of mobile connections. Ookla Speedtest Mobile Apps, http://www.speedtest.net/mobile/ (last visited Jan. 17, 2018). 165 The data relied upon in the Sixth International Broadband Data Report come from a variety of sources, including contractual arrangements with TeleGeography, S&P Global (formerly SNL Kagan), and Ookla, staff research, and publicly available records. For example, to compare U.S. and European deployment, the Sixth International Broadband Data Report relies on Form 477 data as of June 2016 to match the European data as of June 2016, while this Report relies on Form 477 data as of December 2016. 166 Due to data availability, the broadband speed comparison in the Sixth International Broadband Data Report does not include Latvia. Sixth International Broadband Data Report, Appendix B at para. 11. 167 In the Sixth International Broadband Data Report, “actual speed” refers to mean actual speed unless otherwise specified. See id., Appendix B at para. 2, n.4. Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 36 each city—an improvement from a ranking of 11th in 2015 (40.38 Mbps) and 15th in 2014 (28.09 Mbps). 168 In 2016, with regard to actual mobile broadband speeds, the United States ranked 24th out of 28 countries (19.98 Mbps); in 2015, the United States ranked 24th (15.58 Mbps); and in 2014, it ranked 18th (12.62 Mbps). 169 Notwithstanding the reported decline in rank, actual mobile download speeds in the United States increased by approximately 58 percent from 2014 to 2016. 170 66. Pricing. The Sixth International Broadband Data Report also examines advertised broadband prices for both fixed and mobile service plans in the United States and up to 28 comparison countries depending on data availability (for a total of up to 29 countries). 171 Between June and August of 2017, staff collected a stratified random sample of advertised prices and terms for almost 3,000 fixed and mobile broadband plans from the websites of broadband providers in the United States and the selected countries. 172 The report ranks the countries by fixed and mobile prices from the least expensive (1st) to most expensive (e.g., 29th) according to three different methodologies. As in previous reports, the first method compares countries according to unweighted average prices for standalone fixed broadband plans within certain download speed ranges and mobile plans within bands of data usage allowances. To more closely match the characteristics of the comparison communities and their broadband offerings with those in the United States, the Sixth International Broadband Data Report presents country rankings by two additional methodologies: a broadband price index 173 and a hedonic price index. 174 The additional assessments seek to better assess how the U.S. market is performing relative to other markets after accounting for quality differences as well as market-level cost and demographic differences that are known to affect pricing, such as population density, income, and education levels. The hedonic price index also allows an adjustment for observable differences in broadband quality across countries (e.g., speed and usage limits) and generates prices for a set of standardized broadband plans in every country to produce a price index that accounts for all of these factors and is comparable across countries. 175 The fixed and mobile analyses demonstrate that accounting for country differences in cost, demographic, and quality factors give different assessments of the state of the U.S. broadband economy relative to other countries. 168 Id., Appendix B at para. 2. 169 Id., Appendix B at para. 5. 170 Id. 171 47 U.S.C. § 1303(b). 172 Fixed broadband price data include prices for both standalone broadband and bundles consisting of broadband and video service. Mobile broadband price data include primarily postpaid smartphone plans (both single and shared line) that allowed both unlimited voice calling and texting. Additionally, postpaid plans refer to plans that are paid after usage (i.e., not prepaid or “pay-as-you-go” plans), and smartphone plans refer only to plans that have a data component. Sixth International Broadband Data Report, Appendix C at paras. 14-15, and, n.84. 173 The price index measures the dollar amount that U.S. broadband subscribers would need to have added or subtracted from their incomes to purchase the same basket of broadband services under the pricing structures in other countries. Quantity weights for the price index are the share of broadband subscribers in the United States that subscribe to each of the four broadband speed tiers chosen for analysis. See id., Appendix C at paras. 23-28. 174 A hedonic regression provides an empirical summary of how prices vary with the characteristics of a good. In the Sixth International Broadband Data Report, the hedonic regression builds on the price index by allowing adjustment of prices for cost and demographic differences across countries and then predicting broadband prices for each country at the average U.S. values of these variables. Id., Appendix C at paras. 29-32. 175 The pricing analysis in the Sixth International Broadband Data Report is designed to account for: (1) the different costs of deploying and operating broadband networks; (2) demographic differences that affect demand for broadband service; (3) multi-product bundling in broadband pricing; (4) different product offerings in each country; and (5) the availability and quality of complementary content and applications. Id., Appendix C at para. 7. Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 37 67. For fixed broadband prices, under the first method comparing unweighted average prices, the Sixth International Broadband Data Report finds that the United States ranks 18th out of 23 countries that offer fixed standalone broadband plans with download speeds of at least 25 Mbps and less than 100 Mbps, and 26th out of 28 countries that have fixed standalone plans with download speeds of 100 Mbps or greater. 176 When taking into account fixed broadband bundled with video service, the United States ranks 10th out of 20 countries with download speeds of at least 25 Mbps and less than 100 Mbps. 177 For the highest speed bundle plans with download speeds of 100 Mbps or greater, fixed broadband in the United States ranks 23rd out of 25 countries that offer such plans. 178 Using the second approach, the fixed broadband price index analysis, the United States ranks 21st out of 29 countries aggregating both standalone and bundled broadband products. 179 However, using the third approach, the fixed hedonic price index analysis that adjusts for cost, demographic, and quality differences across the countries, shows that the United States ranks 7th out of the 29 countries. 180 68. For mobile broadband prices, under the first method, the United States ranks 18th out of 22 countries based on unweighted average prices of individual plans with usage allowances of 2 GB or less. 181 For the highest usage individual plans with data usage allowances greater than 10 GB, the United States ranks 21st out of the 28 countries that offer such plans. 182 According to the second method, the mobile broadband price index, the United States ranks 25th out of the 29 countries in individual plan pricing, and 18th out of the 29 countries in shared data plan pricing (i.e., ”family plans” with multiple lines). 183 Combining individual and shared data plan pricing, the overall rank of the United States is 20th out of the 29 countries in the mobile broadband price index. 184 Relying on the third approach, the mobile hedonic price index that adjusts for country-level cost, demographic, and quality differences, the United States ranks 10th out of the 29 countries. 185 69. High-Speed Broadband Deployment. The Sixth International Broadband Data Report relies on the Form 477 deployment data to present fixed-terrestrial “high-speed” broadband deployment at download speeds of 30 Mbps or higher to match and compare the available European Union data. 186 The Sixth International Broadband Data Report compares international fixed high-speed broadband deployment in the United States and 21 European countries (EU21). 187 To match the fixed technologies used in the EC Broadband Report, the Sixth International Broadband Data Report does not include 176 Id., Appendix C at para. 22, Tbl. 1b. 177 Id., Appendix C at para. 70, Tbl. C6. 178 Id. 179 Id., Appendix C at paras. 4, 28, Tbl. 3. 180 Id., Appendix C at paras. 4, 32, Tbl. 4. 181 Id., Appendix C at paras. 5, 47, Tbl. 5. 182 Id. 183 Id., Appendix C at paras. 5, 52, Tbl. 7. 184 Id. 185 Id., Appendix C at paras. 5, 54, Tbl. 8. 186 Id., Appendix D at para. 1. For an appropriate comparison, the Sixth International Broadband Data Report uses the European Union’s definition of “high-speed” broadband, which is 30 Mbps. Id. 187 The deployment comparison in the Sixth International Broadband Data Report assesses 21 countries that overlap with the European countries selected for the comparison overall (rather than all of the European countries presented in the European Union data). Sixth International Broadband Data Report, Appendix D at para. 1; European Commission, Broadband Coverage in Europe 2016: Mapping Progress Towards the Coverage Objectives of the Digital Agenda (2017) (EC Broadband Report), https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/study- broadband-coverage-europe-2016. Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 38 satellite technology in the comparison of U.S. and European deployment. 188 The report relies on data gathered in June 2015 and June 2016 by the FCC and the European Commission. With respect to fixed- terrestrial high-speed broadband deployment, as of June 2016, the United States led Europe in both non- rural and rural areas, with 90 percent of all U.S. households having access compared to 76 percent of all households in the EU21 countries. 189 By June 2016, 62 percent of rural households in the United States had access to fixed-terrestrial high-speed broadband services, compared to 41 percent of rural households in the EU21 countries. 190 The report also presents mobile LTE broadband coverage in the United States and the EU21. As of June 2016, mobile LTE coverage in the United States reached nearly 100 percent of all households and 98 percent of rural households. 191 In the EU21, by June 2016, mobile LTE coverage reached 97 percent of all households and 83 percent of rural households. 192 E. Schools and Classrooms Data 70. As supported by the record, 193 we continue to measure availability of advanced telecommunications capability in “elementary and secondary schools and classrooms” 194 using a short- term and long-term goal for broadband connectivity to schools of 100 Mbps per 1,000 students and staff and 1 Gbps per 1,000 students and staff, respectively. 195 According to the 2017 State of the States Report, 94 percent of school districts, 88 percent of schools, and 39.2 million students, now meet the Commission’s short-term connectivity goal of 100 Mbps per 1,000 users, up from 24.5 million students in 2015 and 34.9 million students in 2016. 196 Thus, six percent of public school districts and 6.5 million students are not receiving broadband service that meets the short-term connectivity goal and 10,000 schools report insufficient Wi-Fi networks in their classrooms. 197 This data is generally consistent with the responses to the CoSN survey showing that four percent of school districts report that none of their schools meet the Commission’s short-term connectivity goals. 198 Regarding the long-term connectivity goal for schools, the 2017 State of the States Report estimates that, based on the most recent FCC Form 471 data, 22 percent of school districts currently meet the goal, which is up from just nine percent in 2015. 199 71. The 2017 State of the States Report findings also indicate that the ability to meet connectivity targets is not uniform across different types of school districts. The report estimates that 97 percent of schools have access to fiber and that 88 percent of schools report having sufficient Wi-Fi 188 EC Broadband Report at 11; Sixth International Broadband Data Report, Appendix D at para. 9 & n.26. 189 Sixth International Broadband Data Report, Appendix D at para. 12 and Fig. 2. 190 Id., Appendix D at para. 14 and Fig. 4. 191 Id., Appendix D at para. 21. 192 Id. 193 See, e.g., CoSN Comments at 2; EdLiNC Comments at 1-4; SHLB Reply Comments at 5. 194 47 U.S.C. § 1302(b). 195 See Modernizing the E-rate Program for Schools and Libraries, WC Docket No. 13-184, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 29 FCC Rcd 8870, 8885, para. 34 (2014) (2014 E-rate Order). 196 See 2017 State of the States Report at 6, 18. EducationSuperHighway reports the Commission’s short-term goal in terms of 100 kbps per user rather than 100 Mbps per 1,000 users. 2014 E-rate Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 8885, para. 34. 197 2017 State of the States Report at 9. 198 CoSN 2017 Annual Infrastructure Survey Report at 5. CoSN’s survey is based on survey results from 445 districts. Of those districts, 85 percent stated that they were meeting the Commission’s short-term connectivity goal in all of their schools. Id. 199 2017 State of the States Report at 12. Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 39 networks in their classrooms in 2017. 200 While EducationSuperHighway estimates that 2,049 schools still need access to fiber in order to meet connectivity goals, that number is down significantly from 2015, when 9,500 schools lacked such a connection. 201 Over three-quarters of the 2,049 schools that lack access to fiber infrastructure necessary to meet short term goals are rural or small-town schools. 202 According to the 2017 State of the States Report, when these school districts sought fiber services in 2016, nearly half did not receive any bids from service providers. 203 Similarly, CoSN’s report found that 52 percent of rural respondents only had one available provider, compared to 13 percent of urban respondents. 204 F. Adoption Data 72. Prior reports have included an assessment of a number of factors indicative of fixed broadband availability, including adoption by consumers. 205 More to the point, adoption also is necessarily a lower bound on deployment and therefore may help guide our inquiry into deployment. 73. Table 11 shows the overall adoption rates, using Form 477 subscribership data, from 2012 through 2016 for fixed terrestrial services for the U.S. as a whole, urban and non-urban core areas, 206 and Tribal lands. 207 The data show year-to-year increases across the vast majority of areas, including Tribal lands, for adoption of 10 Mbps/3 Mbps, 25 Mbps/3 Mbps, and 50 Mbps/3 Mbps fixed 200 Id. at 6. EducationSuperHighway makes a number of assumptions in calculating how many schools lack access to fiber. See 2017 State of the States Methodology at 9-10. 201 2017 State of the States Report at 13. 202 Id. 203 Id. at 14. 204 CoSN 2017 Annual Infrastructure Survey Report at 12. CoSN uses a different definition of rural from the designation used for FCC Form 471 applications. CoSN’s analysis divides schools into one of four categories— city, suburban, small town, and rural—according to the National Center for Education Statistics classifications. For the purposes of E-rate applications, Commission rules designate “urban” schools and libraries as schools and libraries located in an “Urbanized Area” or “Urban Cluster” with a population of 25,000 or more as determined by the U.S. census bureau, and designate all non-urban entities as rural. 205 See, e.g., 2015 Report, 30 FCC Rcd at 1411, para. 65; 2012 Report, 27 FCC Rcd at 10363, para. 27; 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, 8020-21, paras. 18-20 (2011). The Commission has previously found that deployment, competition, and adoption are tightly linked. 2015 Report, 30 FCC Rcd at 1455, para. 141. 206 A census tract is designated as “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. A census tract is designated as “Non-Urban Core” if we have not designated the census tract as Urban Core. 207 The adoption rate is the ratio of the total number of subscribers to fixed services meeting that reported speed threshold, divided by the number of households with access to fixed services meeting the reported speed threshold. See infra Appendix C. We have insufficient information to determine the proportion of the population with access to 50 Mbps/5 Mbps prior to December 31, 2014 because of the limitations of the data at that time. See 2015 Report, 30 FCC Rcd at 1413, para. 69 n.278. The reported adoption rates for 2014 to 2016 are based upon the FCC Form 477 deployment data and subscriber data as of December 31, 2014, December 31, 2015, and December 31, 2016. The reported adoption rates for 2012 to 2013 are based upon the SBI Deployment data as of December 31, 2012, and December 31, 2013, and the FCC Form 477 subscriber data as of December 31, 2012, and December 31, 2013. For the years 2012 to 2013, a 768 kbps upload speed is used as a proxy for a 1 Mbps upload speed because this is the speed closest to 1 Mbps that was collected in the SBI data collection and the FCC’s Form 477 data during this time period. See id., 30 FCC Rcd at 1413. Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 40 terrestrial services. 208 Table 11 Overall Adoption Rate for Fixed Terrestrial Services (2012-2016) 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Fixed 10 Mbps/1 Mbps United States 43.1% 53.4% 55.8% 62.0% 66.2% Non-Urban Core Areas 40.6 48.9 49.6 55.4 60.1 Urban Core Areas 45.0 56.7 60.5 67.0 71.1 Tribal Lands 26.0% 33.0% 37.5% 41.1% 42.2% Non-Urban Core Areas 32.9 41.6 46.0 56.8 59.0 Urban Core Areas 22.5 28.9 33.5 34.6 35.9 Fixed 25 Mbps/3 Mbps United States 11.1% 29.7% 38.2% 48.3% 53.3% Non-Urban Core Areas 11.4 28.5 34.0 43.5 48.5 Urban Core Areas 11.0 30.4 41.0 51.5 56.9 Tribal Lands 6.5% 31.9% 28.5% 31.7% 32.6% Non-Urban Core Areas 6.7 36.6 33.9 37.1 39.4 Urban Core Areas 6.4 27.8 25.3 28.5 29.2 Fixed 50 Mbps/5 Mbps United States N.A. N.A. 24.6% 34.1% 44.2% Non-Urban Core Areas N.A. N.A. 19.5 28.1 40.7 Urban Core Areas N.A. N.A. 27.8 38.0 46.7 Tribal Lands N.A. N.A. 22.7% 25.0% 28.2% Non-Urban Core Areas N.A. N.A. 28.9 32.0 34.9 Urban Core Areas N.A. N.A. 18.0 20.4 24.4 74. Table 12 reports average county level overall adoption rates for fixed terrestrial services by speed tier against the quartile ranking for median household income, population density, the poverty rate, and the proportion of the population that resides in a rural area. These data suggest that the average household adoption rate increases with median household income and population density, although the adoption rate decreases as the poverty rate and rural population rate increase. 208 Prior to the Commission’s revision of the Form 477 data collection, which is reflected for the first time in the 2014 data, Form 477 filers did not report subscribers specifically at a 50 Mbps/5 Mbps (or above) service tier. Therefore, we are unable to provide adoption rates for 50 Mbps/5 Mbps service prior to 2014. To be clear, this does not indicate there were no subscribers in 2012 and 2013 that received service at 50 Mbps/5 Mbps or above. Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 41 Table 12 Average County Overall Adoption Rate for Fixed Terrestrial Services by County Level Demographic Variable 10 Mbps/1 Mbps 25 Mbps/3 Mbps 50 Mbps/5 Mbps County Median Household Income ($2016) First Quartile (Lowest Median Household Income) 28.8% 21.7% 21.1% Second Quartile 38.9 30.7 25.6 Third Quartile 45.2 32.5 27.4 Fourth Quartile (Highest Median Household Income) 59.7 48.6 42.3 County Population Density First Quartile (Lowest Population Density) 34.3% 24.4% 25.5% Second Quartile 31.4 25.5 21.5 Third Quartile 41.5 32.2 27.5 Fourth Quartile (Highest Population Density) 65.0 50.8 41.4 County Poverty Rate First Quartile (Lowest Poverty Rate) 54.9% 43.7% 38.2% Second Quartile 44.8 37.6 32.1 Third Quartile 41.6 29.8 27.2 Fourth Quartile (Highest Poverty Rate) 31.2 22.6 18.9 County Rural Population Rate First Quartile (Lowest Rural Population Rate) 63.5% 51.3% 42.4% Second Quartile 44.3 37.6 33.9 Third Quartile 33.7 26.5 20.6 Fourth Quartile (Highest Rural Population Rate) 30.7 17.3 18.4 75. The chart below 209 demonstrates typical technology diffusion patterns and how the pace of technological change has accelerated since the beginning of the 21st century. The significantly steeper slope of the curves for technologies introduced more recently indicate faster adoption rates. But also notable is that technology adoption typically increases slowly at first, then experiences a rapid increase, and finally transitions to a slow or even flat pace of increase. 210 For our inquiry this is relevant because it guides us in how we might think about whether the pace of diffusion of advanced telecommunications services is reasonable and timely. 209 Rick Rieder, The Topic We Should All Be Paying Attention to (in 3 Charts), BlackRock Blog (Dec. 11, 2015), https://www.blackrockblog.com/2015/12/11/economic-trends-in-charts/. 210 See Frank Bass, A New Product Growth for Model Consumer Durables, 15 Management Science 215 (1969), https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/mnsc.15.5.215. Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 42 76. We now consider the pattern of adoption for various broadband speeds in the United States in recent years. 211 Chart 1 below displays five-year adoption curves for fixed broadband services at varying speeds across the United States. If we evaluate broadband deployment progress by comparing historical adoption rates of other innovative technologies with that for broadband, we see that broadband adoption in many instances has much steeper curves, indicating a more rapid rate of adoption than for other historic technologies such as landline telephones, electricity, or automobiles. 211 We do not assert that adoption is equivalent to deployment or that analyzing adoption will fulfill our statutory obligation. We do note, however, that as we continue to collect Form 477 deployment data, we will be able to chart broadband deployment curves. Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 43 Chart 1 Increase in Adoption of Fixed Terrestrial Broadband Services from 2011 to 2016 212 77. Our Form 477 data show that adoption of service at 25 Mbps/3 Mbps, our current speed benchmark for fixed advanced telecommunications capability, grew from just under 10 percent in 2011 to just over 50 percent in 2016, an increase of approximately 40 percentage points in just five years. This growth rate is similar to that for television adoption rates between 1950 and 1955; though only nine percent of American homes owned television sets in 1950, that figure exploded to 64.5 percent a mere five years later. 213 78. We note also that smartphone penetration rates have almost doubled over the past five years, from approximately 42 percent in 2011 to approximately 81 percent in 2016. 214 In contrast, landline telephones did not reach 50 percent penetration until the late 1940s, 215 some 70 years after their commercial introduction in 1877, 216 while cable television took almost 20 years to surpass a 50 percent 212 As noted previously, the Form 477 data did not provide specific subscribership information for 50 Mbps/5 Mbps service prior to 2014. While subscribership levels for that service between 2011 and 2013 were almost assuredly lower than those for 25 Mbps/3 Mbps service, that does not mean there was zero subscribership of 50 Mbps/5 Mbps service as Chart 1 appears to indicate. 213 Gordon, Robert J., The Rise and Fall of American Growth: The U.S. Standard of Living Since the Civil War (Princeton Univ. Press, 2016) (American Growth), at 414-15; see also id. at 416 Fig. 12-1. “This increase in percentage ownership [between 1950 and 1955] by 13 points per year is the fastest diffusion of any appliance in history, faster than the smartphone after 2003 or the tablet after 2010.” Id. at 415. The first U.S. patent for an electric television was issued in 1930, but television technology did not become commercially viable until approximately 1939, when it was introduced at the New York World’s Fair. Id. at 412-13. The FCC approved commercial standards for television on July 1, 1941, but the United States’ subsequent entrance into World War II later that year delayed the expansion of television until after the end of the war. Id. at 413. 214 comScore, U.S. Smartphone Penetration Surpassed 80 Percent in 2016 (Feb. 3, 2017), https://www.comscore.com/Insights/Blog/US-Smartphone-Penetration-Surpassed-80-Percent-in-2016. 215 American Growth at 431, Figure 12-4. 216 Id. at 181. Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 44 adoption level in the late 1980s. 217 Both landline telephone and cable have some similar characteristics to broadband as networks and so provide a particularly interesting point of comparison. Our analysis of whether deployment is reasonable and timely is necessarily qualitative, although we note that advanced telecommunications capability in the United States appears to be progressing at a rapid pace that is better or comparable to other inventions of the past. V. COMMISSION EFFORTS TO CLOSE THE DIGITAL DIVIDE 79. While more Americans than ever before have access to advanced telecommunications capability, we remain committed to closing the digital divide. The 2016 Report concluded that deployment of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans was not reasonable and timely, 218 triggering section 706’s mandate to 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.” 219 As described below, since issuing the 2016 Report, the Commission has undertaken a variety of actions aimed at closing the digital divide. 80. Wireline Infrastructure. In April 2017, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Notice of Inquiry, and Request for Comment addressing barriers to investment in and deployment of wireline infrastructure. 220 In November 2017, the Commission adopted a Report and Order, Declaratory Ruling, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 221 The Report and Order addressed pole attachment, copper retirement and 214(a) discontinuance issues. The Declaratory Ruling reversed the “functional test” standard to determine if a service is being discontinued, reduced, or impaired under section 214(a). The Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking sought further comment on the issues addressed in the Report and Order to continue reducing barriers to broadband deployment. 81. Wireless Infrastructure. Also in April 2017, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry to comprehensively review the regulatory barriers to wireless network infrastructure deployment and examine how the Commission could act to remove or reduce these barriers. 222 The Commission subsequently adopted a Report and Order eliminating the historic preservation review requirement for replacement utility poles that have no potential effect on historic properties. The Order also consolidated the Commission’s historic preservation review rules and procedures into a single rule. 223 In December 2017, the Commission sought comment on a plan to exclude the collocation of wireless communications equipment on Twilight Towers from routine historic preservation review, in order to make existing infrastructure available for additional wireless 217 Id. at 422, Figure 12-3, & 426. 218 2016 Report, 31 FCC Rcd at 701-02, 750, paras. 4-5, 119. 219 47 U.S.C. § 1302(b). 220 Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, WC Docket No. 17-84, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Notice of Inquiry, and Request for Comment, 32 FCC Rcd 3266 (2017). (Wireline Infrastructure NPRM). 221 Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, WC Docket No. 17-84, Report and Order, Declaratory Ruling, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 17-154 (rel. Nov. 29, 2017) (Wireline Infrastructure Order and FNPRM). 222 Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, WT Docket No. 17-79, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry, 32 FCC Rcd 3330 (2017). 223 Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, WT Docket No. 17-79, Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd 9760 (2017) (FCC Streamlines Requirements for Utility Pole Replacements). Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 45 deployments. 224 82. Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee. In March 2017, the Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee (BDAC) was chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act for a two-year term to make recommendations on how to accelerate broadband deployment. 225 The BDAC held a two-day meeting in January 2018 and held three meetings in 2017, and has adopted recommendations from several working groups to facilitate broadband deployment relating to pole attachment and federal siting issues. 226 The BDAC’s working groups are also developing drafts of state 227 and municipal model codes 228 to encourage broadband deployment. 83. Alternative Connect America Cost Model and Legacy Rate of Return Carriers. In the March 2016 Rate of Return Reform Order, the Commission established a voluntary path for rate-of-return carriers to receive model-based support for a term of 10 years in exchange for meeting defined buildout obligations. 229 Carriers that did not opt to receive model-based support would receive legacy Connect America Fund Broadband Loop Support and High Cost Loop Support. The Order also adopted deployment obligations for all rate-of-return carriers. In December 2016, the Commission adopted an Order allocating an additional $500 million in funding over ten years to enable electing carriers to receive model-based support. 230 In April 2017, the Commission adopted an Order on Reconsideration 231 allowing carriers to pay for the portion of high-cost projects that exceeds the total project cap with their own funds, rather than disallowing support for such projects altogether. 84. Connect America Fund Phase II. The Commission has taken steps to prepare for the Connect America Fund Phase II, which will award up to $1.98 billion over 10 years to service providers that commit to offer voice and broadband services to fixed locations in unserved high-cost areas. In May 2016, the Commission adopted a Report and Order establishing high-level rules for the Phase II competitive bidding process. 232 In February 2017, the Commission adopted a Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration finalizing bidding rules and establishing weights to compare bids in the 224 Comment Sought on Draft Program Comment for the Federal Communications Commission’s Review of Collocations on Certain Towers Constructed without Section 106 Review, WT Docket No. 17-79, Public Notice, FCC 17-165 (WTB Dec. 14, 2017). 225 Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee Charter (March 1, 2017), https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/bdac-charter.pdf; FCC Announces the Establishment of the Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee and Solicits Nominations for Membership, Public Notice, 32 FCC Rcd 1037 (2017). 226 See Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee, Approved Recommendations, https://www.fcc.gov/broadband- deployment-advisory-committee. 227 Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee, Model Code for States – Discussion Draft (Jan. 23-24, 2018), https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/bdac-modelcode-012018.pdf. 228 Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee, Model Code for Municipalities – Discussion Draft (Jan. 18, 2018), https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/bdac-municipalcode-012018.pdf. 229 Connect America Fund et al., WC Docket Nos. 10-90 et al., Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 31 FCC Rcd 3087 (2016). 230 Connect America Fund, WC Docket No. 10-90, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 31 FCC Rcd 13775 (2016). 231 Connect America Fund et al., WC Docket Nos. 10-90 et al., Order on Reconsideration, 32 FCC Rcd 3258 (2017). 232 Connect America Fund et al., WC Docket Nos. 10-90 et al., Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 31 FCC Rcd 5949 (2016). Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 46 auction. 233 In August 2017, the Commission released a Public Notice proposing procedures to implement the Phase II auction. The Commission plans for the auction to take place in 2018. 234 85. State-Specific Plans. To address the availability of broadband service in high-cost areas of Alaska, the Commission adopted a plan in August 2016 to provide Alaskan rate-of-return carriers with the option of receiving fixed amounts of support over the next ten years to deploy and maintain their fixed and mobile networks. 235 In October 2016, the Commission adopted tailored service obligations for the carrier receiving Connect America Fund Phase II frozen support under the Alaska Plan. 236 In January 2017, the Commission allocated up to $170 million over the next decade to the state of New York to expand broadband buildout in eligible areas in coordination with New York’s New NY Broadband Program. 237 In October 2017, the Commission pledged up to $77 million to repair communications networks in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands damaged by Hurricane Maria. 238 86. Mobility Fund Phase II. In February 2017, the Commission established a framework for the Mobility Fund Phase II auction, which will allocate up to $4.53 billion over the next decade to advance the deployment of 4G LTE to unserved areas and to preserve service where it might not otherwise exist. 239 In August 2017, the Commission established a challenge process for resolving eligible areas disputes, 240 and shortly thereafter sought comment on procedures to implement the challenge process. 241 87. Lifeline. In March 2016, the Commission adopted reforms to the Lifeline program in the Third Report and Order, Further Report and Order, and Order on Reconsideration. 242 The item enabled qualifying low-income consumers to apply the Lifeline monthly subsidy to standalone broadband service and set minimum service standards for broadband and voice services supported by the program. In November 2017, the Commission adopted a Fourth Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, Memorandum Opinion and Order, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and Notice of Inquiry targeting enhanced Lifeline support to residents of rural Tribal lands receiving service from facilities-based providers, as well as seeking comment on targeting Lifeline funds to encourage buildout in lower-income 233 Connect America Fund et al., WC Docket Nos. 10-90 et al., Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, 32 FCC Rcd 1624 (2017). 234 Comment Sought on Competitive Bidding Procedures and Certain Program Requirements for the Connect America Fund Phase II Auction, AU Docket No. 17-182, Public Notice, 32 FCC Rcd 6238 (2017). 235 Connect America Fund et al., WC Docket Nos. 10-90 et al., Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 31 FCC Rcd 10139 (2016). 236 Connect America Fund, WC Docket No. 10-90, Order, 31 FCC Rcd 12086 (2016). 237 Connect America Fund et al., WC Docket Nos. 10-90 et al., Order, 32 FCC Rcd 968 (2017). 238 Connect America Fund, WC Docket No. 10-90, Order, 32 FCC Rcd 7981 (2017). 239 Connect America Fund et al., WC Docket Nos. 10-90 et al., Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 32 FCC Rcd 2152 (2017). 240 Connect America Fund et al., WC Docket Nos. 10-90 et al., Order on Reconsideration and Second Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd 6282 (2017). 241 Comment Sought on Mobility Fund Phase II Challenge Process Procedures and Technical Implementation, WC Docket No. 10-90, WT Docket No. 10-208, Public Notice, 32 FCC Rcd 7596 (WTB/WCB 2017). 242 Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization et al, WC Docket Nos. 17-287 et al., Third Report and Order, Further Report and Order, and Order on Reconsideration, 31 FCC Rcd 3962 (2016). Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 47 communities. 243 88. Rural Health Care. In December 2017, the Commission launched a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to review the Rural Health Care program and sought comment on ways to improve connectivity for health care providers in rural areas including whether to lift the program’s funding cap to make additional money available for broadband to rural health care providers. In an accompanying Order, the Commission granted relief to rural health care providers facing potential funding cuts in funding year 2017. 244 89. Business Data Services. In April 2017, the Commission released a Report and Order that recognized widespread competition in the business data services market and eliminated pricing regulation and tariffing requirements for most types of business data services. 245 90. Spectrum. In March 2017, the Commission updated technical rules and power limitations in the 800 MHz Cellular band to promote increased broadband deployment. 246 In August 2017, the Commission sought comment on whether increasing construction obligations could help to close the digital divide, 247 and on expanding opportunities for next generation wireless broadband services using spectrum in the range between 3.7 and 24 GHz. 248 In October 2017, the Commission proposed revisions to rules for the 3.5 GHz band designed to facilitate investment in and deployment of 5G networks. 249 In November 2017, the Commission took its most recent step in the Spectrum Frontiers proceeding, opening an additional 1,700 MHz of millimeter wave (mmW) spectrum for terrestrial 5G wireless use. 250 91. Satellite Issues. In January 2017, the International Bureau granted ViaSat’s request to launch and operate its latest generation satellite, ViaSat-2, 251 which is expected to be operational in early 2018 and is designed to double ViaSat’s broadband bandwidth, as well as provide it with seven times the broadband coverage. 252 In June 2017, the Commission adopted an order granting market access to 243 Bridging the Digital Divide for Low-Income Consumers, WC Docket Nos. 17-287 et al., Fourth Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, Memorandum Opinion and Order, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and Notice of Inquiry, FCC 17-155 (rel. Dec. 1, 2017). 244 Promoting Telehealth in Rural America, WC Docket No. 17-310, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order, FCC 17-164 (rel. Dec 18, 2017). 245 Business Data Services in an Internet Protocol Environment et al., WC Docket No. 16-143 et al., Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd 3459 (2017) (2017 Business Data Services Report and Order). 246 Amendment of Parts 1 and 22 of the Commission’s Rules with Regard to the Cellular Service, Including Changes in Licensing of Unserved Area et al., WT Docket No. 12-40 et al., Second Report and Order, Report and Order, and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 32 FCC Rcd 2518 (2017). 247 Amendment of Parts 1, 22, 24, 27, 74, 80, 90, 95, and 101 To Establish Uniform License Renewal, Discontinuance of Operation, and Geographic Partitioning and Spectrum Disaggregation Rules and Policies for Certain Wireless Radio Services, WT Docket No. 10-112, Second Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 32 FCC Rcd 8874, 8911, para. 100 (2017). 248 Expanding Flexible Use in Mid-Band Spectrum Between 3.7 and 24 GHz, GN Docket No. 17-183, Notice of Inquiry, 32 FCC Rcd 6373 (2017). 249 Promoting Investment in the 3550-3700 MHz Band et al., GN Docket No. 17-258 et al., Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order Terminating Petitions, 32 FCC Rcd 8071 (2017). 250 Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz for Mobile Radio Services, et al., Second Report and Order, Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Order on Reconsideration, and Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 17- 152 (rel. Nov. 22, 2017). 251 Policy Branch Information: Actions Taken, Public Notice, 32 FCC Rcd 347 (IB 2017). 252 ViaSat Inc., High Capacity Satellite System: Transforming Satellite Broadband, https://www.viasat.com/products/high-capacity-satellites (last visited Jan. 9, 2018). Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 48 WorldVu d/b/a OneWeb for its non-geostationary satellite orbit (NGSO) fixed-satellite service (FSS) system, which OneWeb plans to use to further its goal to “‘provide high-speed, affordable broadband connectivity to anyone, anywhere’” in the United States. 253 The Commission has granted two other NGSO applications since that time. 254 In September 2017, the Commission adopted an updated regulatory framework to facilitate the delivery of broadband services through satellite constellations, modernizing, clarifying, and streamlining the rules governing NGSO FSS systems to better reflect current technology and promote additional operational flexibility. 255 92. Restoring Internet Freedom. In May 2017, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing to restore the pre-2015 “information service” classification of broadband Internet access service and remove the impediments that Title II classification had put on broadband investment and deployment. 256 In December 2017, the Commission adopted a Declaratory Ruling, Report and Order, and Order 257 that reinstated the pre-2015 “information service” classification of broadband Internet access service 258 and restored the determination that mobile broadband is not a “commercial mobile service.” 259 The Commission found that these measures would “encourage broadband investment and innovation, furthering our goal of making broadband available to all Americans.” 260 93. In the Notice, the Commission also sought comment on whether other actions, in addition to those already under way, might encourage more expansive and rapid deployment of networks that provide advanced telecommunications capability, as well as whether federal, Tribal, state, and local efforts to increase broadband deployment can be better coordinated. 261 Commenters offered a wide variety of suggestions in response to this request, ranging from addressing or banning “digital redlining,” 262 to creating tax incentives to spur investment and deployment, 263 to focusing on increasing deployment of new infrastructure or ensuring all-fiber deployment. 264 In addition to expressing support for current Commission proceedings, the most frequently proffered suggestions for additional 253 WorldVu Satellites Limited; Petition for a Declaratory Ruling Granting Access to the U.S. Market for the OneWeb NGSO FSS System, IBFS File No. SAT-LOI-20160428-00041, Call Sign S2963, Order and Declaratory Ruling, 32 FCC Rcd 5366, 5366, para. 1 (2017). 254 See Space Norway AS, Petition for Declaratory Ruling Granting Access to the U.S. Market for the Space Norway NGSO FSS System, Order and Declaratory Ruling, FCC 17-146 (2017); Telesat Canada, Petition for Declaratory Ruling Granting Access to the U.S. Market for the Telesat NGSO FSS System, Order and Declaratory Ruling, FCC 17-147 (2017). 255 Update to Parts 2 and 25 Concerning Non-Geostationary, Fixed-Satellite Service Systems and Related Matters, IB Docket No. 16-408, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 32 FCC Rcd 7809 (2017). 256 Restoring Internet Freedom, WC Docket No. 17-108, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 32 FCC Rcd 4434 (2017). 257 Restoring Internet Freedom, WC Docket No. 17-108, Declaratory Ruling, Report and Order, and Order, FCC 17- 166 (rel. Jan. 4, 2018), https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2018/db0105/FCC-17-166A1.pdf. 258 Id. at 8-42, paras. 20-64. 259 Id. at 42-52, paras. 65-85. 260 Id. at 52, para. 86. 261 Notice, 32 FCC Rcd at 7043-44, paras. 48-50. 262 NDIA Comments at 4; MMTC Comments at 5-6. 263 ADTRAN Comments at 16-17; CWA Comments at 18. 264 CO SBO Comments at 8; Fiber Broadband Comments at 6. Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 49 Commission actions involved identifying and allocating more spectrum for broadband use 265 and further efforts to address access to pole attachments and rights of way. 266 VI. SECTION 706 FINDING 94. We conclude that advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion. As discussed above, this finding does not mean that all Americans now have broadband access. Rather, it means that we are back on the right track when it comes to deployment. 95. When the Commission issued the report for this inquiry in 2010, it concluded that a positive finding under section 706 would not be possible “without changes to present policies.” 267 Consistent with this conclusion, we find that following the Commission’s negative finding in 2016, the Commission’s policy efforts are now encouraging the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of advanced telecommunications capability. 96. In the time since the last report, the Commission has acted aggressively “to accelerate deployment of [advanced telecommunications capability] by removing barriers to infrastructure investment and by promoting competition in the telecommunications market.” 268 As the above discussion details, we are hard at work facilitating deployment—for instance, by reducing regulatory barriers to the deployment of wireline and wireless infrastructure, reforming the universal service program to make it more efficient and accessible to new entrants, modernizing the business data service rules to facilitate facilities-based competition, freeing up additional spectrum for terrestrial and satellite services, and ending the adverse impact on investment caused by the Title II Order. 97. While the December 2016 Form 477 data in this report does not yet reflect the beneficial effects of the Commission’s actions in 2017, the marketplace is already responding to the more deployment-friendly regulatory environment now in place. For instance, several companies, including AT&T, Verizon, Frontier, and Alaska Communications either commenced or announced new deployments in 2017. 269 These new deployments are initial indicators that deployment is likely to 265 ADTRAN Comments at 15; CTIA Comments at 20-21; Microsoft Comments at 10, 12; Mimosa Comments at 9- 10; OTI Comments at 21-22; Verizon Comments at 18; WISPA Comments at 12-13; OneWeb Reply at 3-5. 266 AT&T Comments at 14; CTIA Comments at 22-23; Fiber Broadband Comments at 7; ILSR & NCC Comments at 2; INCOMPAS Comments at 22-23; NCBIO Comments at 2; NTCA Comments at 22-23; Verizon Comments at 19-20; R Street Ex Parte at 2. 267 2010 Report, 25 FCC Rcd at 9574, para. 28. 268 47 U.S.C. § 1302(b). 269 See Press Release, AT&T, AT&T Launched an Internet Connection to Over 440,000 Homes and Small Businesses in Hard to Reach Areas in 2017 (Jan. 4, 2018), http://about.att.com/story/att_delivers_internet_connection_in_hard_to_reach_areas.html (describing AT&T’s deployment of high-speed internet services to over 440,000 homes and small businesses in hard to reach locations across 18 states in 2017); Jeff Baumgartner, Verizon Tips Launch of 5G-Based Residential Broadband Service: Plans to offer service in up to five markets in 2018 (Nov. 29, 2017), http://www.multichannel.com/news/finance/verizon-tips-launch-5g-based-residential-broadband-service/416824 (describing Verizon’s plans to launch 5G-based residential broadband services to as many as 30 million homes in 2018, following its testing of “pre-commercial” gigabit broadband service in 2017 using millimeter wave spectrum in 11 markets); Press Release, Christy Reap, Frontier Communications, Frontier Communications Continues to Deploy Rural Broadband Ahead of Schedule, Reaching Connect America Fund Milestones in Eight Additional States (Dec. 18, 2017), http://investor.frontier.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=1052131 (noting that Frontier has exceeded 2017 milestone requirements of the Connect America Fund program in Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin); Press Release, Alaska Communications, Alaska Communications Expands Network with Satellite Offering (Nov. 7, 2017), https://www.alaskacommunications.com/- /media/Files/Press-Releases/2017/ALSK_News_2017_11_7_General.pdf (announcing an agreement between (continued….) Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 50 accelerate again in part due to our recent efforts. 98. We recognize that despite our positive finding today, our work to close the digital divide is not complete. Several Commission proceedings remain open with more work to be done to continue to close the digital divide. The further deployment of advanced telecommunications capability will remain a top priority as we continue our efforts to help deliver the benefits of broadband to all Americans. VII. ORDERING CLAUSE 99. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 1302 and 1303, this Report IS ADOPTED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary (Continued from previous page) Alaska Communications and Eutelsat Americas that will enable the former to provide middle mile broadband capacity to customers in remote areas, including St. Paul Island, a community north of the Aleutian Island chain almost 300 miles out in the Bering Sea). Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-XXX 51 APPENDIX A List of Comments and Reply Comments Comments Abbreviation ADTRAN, Inc. ADTRAN AT&T Services, Inc. AT&T Benton Foundation Benton Foundation Boulder Regional Emergency Telephone Service Authority California Public Utilities Commission CPUC City of New York NYC Communications Workers of America CWA Consortium for School Networking CoSN CTIA CTIA Deere & Company Deere Education and Libraries Networks Coalition EducationSuperHighway EducationSuperHighway Fiber Broadband Association Fiber Broadband The Free State Foundation Free State Foundation INCOMPAS INCOMPAS Institute for Local Self-Reliance, Next Century Cities ILSR & NCC ITTA ITTA Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Cable MDTC Microsoft Corporation Microsoft Mimosa Networks, Inc. Mimosa MMTC MMTC National Digital Inclusion Alliance NDIA National Electrical Manufacturers Association NEMA National Rural Electric Cooperative Association NRECA NCTA - The Internet & Television Association NCTA New Networks Institute, IRREGULATORS New Networks Nez Perce Tribe Nez Perce Tribe North Carolina Broadband Infrastructure Office NCBIO NTCA-The Rural Broadband Association NTCA Open Technology Institute OTI Public Knowledge; Access Humboldt; Access Sonoma; Appalshop; Benton Foundation; Broadband Alliance; California Center for Rural Policy; Center for Rural Strategies; National Consumer Law Center, on behalf of its low-income clients; National Hispanic Media Coalition; and X-Lab PK AH et al. Satellite Industry Association Senator Al Franken, Senator Sherrod Brown, Senator Tammy Baldwin, Senator Richard Blumenthal, Senator Heidi Heitkamp, Senator Amy Klobuchar, Senator Elizabeth Warren, Senator Brian Schatz, Senator Edward J. Markey, Senator Tom Udall, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Senator Ron Wyden Senator Al Franken et al. SES and O3b Limited State Educational Technology Directors Association State of Colorado Broadband Office CSBO Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc., National Association of the Deaf, Deaf and Hard of Hearing Consumer Advocacy Network, Cerebral Palsy and Deaf Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 52 Organization, Communication Service for the Deaf, Inc., Hearing Loss Association of America TDI Town of Leverett, Massachusetts Leverett MA Tukwila City Council USTelecom Association USTelecom ViaSat, Inc. ViaSat Wireless Internet Service Providers Association WISPA WorldVu Satellites Limited Verizon Verizon Replies Abbreviation ADT Corporation ADT Advanced Analytical Consulting Group American Library Association AT&T Services, Inc. AT&T Cities of Boston, Massachusetts, Portland, Oregon, Anne Arundel County, Maryland, Mt. Hood Cable Regulatory Commission Local Authorities Comcast Corporation Comcast Communications Workers of America CWA CTIA CTIA Entertainment Software Association Entertainment Software Association EveryoneOn Fiber Broadband Association Fiber Broadband HUGHES NETWORK SYSTEMS, LLC Institute for Local Self-Reliance, Next Century Cities ILSR & NCC Mescalero Apache Telecom, Inc. Mobile Future Mobile Future NATOA New Networks Institute, IRREGULATORS New Networks NTCA-The Rural Broadband Association NTCA Open Technology Institute OTI Representative Jared Huffman, Senator Al Franken, Representative Mark Pocan, Representative Keith Ellison, Senator Edward J. Markey, Senator Brian Schatz, Senator Ron Wyden, Senator Chris Van Hollen, Senator Maggie Hassan, Senator Heidi Heitkamp, Senator Richard Blumenthal, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Representative Cheri Bustos, Representative David Cicilline, Representative Earl Blumenauer, Representative Ro Khanna, Representative Jared Polis, Representative Sanford Bishop, Representative Mark DeSaulnier, Representative Colleen Hanabusa, Representative John Conyers, Representative Mike Thompson, Representative Raul Grijavla, Representative Louise Slaughter, Representative Anna Eshoo, Representative James McGovern, Representative Paul Tonko, Representative Peter Welch, Representative Seth Moulton, Representative Chellie Pingree, Representative John Lewis, Representative Betty McCollum, Representative Jose Serrano, Representative Gwen Moore, Representative Michael Doyle, Representative John Garamendi, Representative Tulsi Gabbard, Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, Representative Alcee Hastings, Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 53 Representative Darren Soto, Representative Emanuel Cleaver, Representative Timothy Walz, Representative Tom O'Halleran, Representative John Yarmuth, Representative Rick Nolan Smith Bagley, Inc. Wireless Internet Service Providers Association WISPA Wireless RERC WorldVu Satellites Limited Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 54 APPENDIX B Table and Chart Index Tables Para. Table 1: Deployment (Millions) of Fixed Terrestrial 25 Mbps/3 Mbps Services 50 Table 2a Deployment (Millions) of Mobile LTE with a Speed of 5 Mbps/1 Mbps 52 Table 2b: Deployment (Millions) of Mobile LTE with a Median Speed of 52 10 Mbps/3 Mbps Table 3a: Deployment (Millions) of Fixed Terrestrial 25 Mbps/3 Mbps Services and 53 Mobile LTE with a Speed of 5 Mbps/1 Mbps Table 3b: Deployment (Millions) of Fixed Terrestrial 25 Mbps/3 Mbps Services and 53 Mobile LTE with a Median Speed of 10 Mbps /3 Mbps Table 3c: Deployment (Millions) of Fixed Terrestrial 25 Mbps/3 Mbps Services or 55 Mobile LTE with a Speed of 5 Mbps/1 Mbps Table 3d: Deployment (Millions) of Fixed Terrestrial 25 Mbps/3 Mbps Services or 55 Mobile LTE with a Median Speed of 10 Mbps/3 Mbps Table 4: Deployment (Millions) of Fixed Terrestrial Services at Different Speed Tiers 57 (2014-2016) Table 5: Deployment (Ten Thousands) on Tribal Lands with Access to Fixed Terrestrial 58 25 Mbps/3 Mbps Services and Mobile LTE with a Speed of 5 Mbps/1 Mbps Table 6: Deployment (Millions) in U.S. Territories of Fixed Terrestrial 25 Mbps/3 59 Mbps and Mobile LTE with a Minimum Advertised Speed of 5 Mbps/1 Mbps Table 7: Comparison of Demographic Data Between Areas with and without Terrestrial 60 Fixed 25 Mbps/3 Mbps Services and Mobile LTE with a Minimum Advertised Speed of 5 Mbps/1 Mbps Table 8: Comparison of Demographic Data Between Areas with and without 61 Fixed Terrestrial 25 Mbps/3 Mbps Services and Mobile LTE with a Median Speed of 10 Mbps/3 Mbps Table 9: Average Percentage of Population with Fixed Terrestrial 25 Mbps/3 Mbps 62 Service and Mobile LTE with a Minimum Advertised Speed of 5 Mbps/1 Mbps by County Level Demographic Variable Table 10: Average Percentage of Population with Fixed Terrestrial Services by County 63 Level Demographic Variable Table 11: Overall Adoption Rate for Fixed Terrestrial Services (2014-2016) 73 Table 12: Average County Overall Adoption Rate for Fixed Terrestrial Services by County 74 Level Demographic Variable Charts Chart 1: Increase in Adoption of Fixed Terrestrial Broadband Services from 2011 to 2016 76 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 55 APPENDIX C Additional Data Source Information and Definitions Data Sources 1. Deployment Data - Form 477 Data. Form 477 deployment data as of December 31, 2014, December 31, 2015 and December 31, 2016 are used to present deployment estimates for fixed services in 2014, 2015, and 2016. We report deployment data for fixed services meeting three speed thresholds, 10 Mbps/1 Mbps, 25 Mbps/3 Mbps and 50 Mbps/5 Mbps. The deployment estimates for fixed services reported in the tables are for fixed terrestrial services that meet the reported speed thresholds. We separately report deployment estimates for fixed terrestrial and satellite services in the text of the Report. We report deployment data for mobile services based upon two speed thresholds, 5 Mbps/1 Mbps and 10 Mbps/3 Mbps. Our mobile estimates are based upon our Form 477 data for Terrestrial Mobile Wireless – LTE with a minimum advertised speed of 5 Mbps/1 Mbps as of December 31, 2014, December 31, 2015 and December 31, 2016. 1 We also report deployment estimates based upon Ookla Speed Test Data with a median speed of 10 Mbps/3 Mbps based on Ookla actual speed test data. These speed test data were collected in the second half of 2014, the second half of 2015, and the second half of 2016, on the smartphone’s cellular connection using LTE technology. Test data was dropped if the test data was without GPS locations data or if the reported download or upload speed was less than zero or greater than 100 Mbps. We report the results separately for the U.S. Territories because the 2016 data may significantly overstate current deployment in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, which account for over 92 percent of the total combined population of the U.S. Territories. 2 Given the damage to infrastructure in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands from Hurricanes Maria and Irma, we are uncertain as to the current state of deployment of broadband services in these areas, and do not wish to present an inaccurate picture of current deployment. 2. SBI Data. SBI data as of December 31, 2012 and December 31, 2013 are used to present deployment estimates for fixed terrestrial services and mobile services in 2012 and 2013. The fixed terrestrial estimates are based upon deployment data for the following services: Asymmetric xDSL, Symmetric xDSL, Other Wireline (all copper-wire based technologies other than xDSL), Cable Modem— DOCSIS 3.0, Cable Modem—Other, optical carrier (fiber to the home or FTTH), Fixed Terrestrial Wireless (provisioned/equipped over licensed spectrum or over spectrum used on an unlicensed basis), Electric Power Line, and All Other. The mobile services estimates are based upon deployment data for terrestrial mobile wireless. Because the SBI data collection used predetermined speed tiers, we use 6 Mbps/768 kbps as a proxy for 5 Mbps/1 Mbps, 10 Mbps/768 kbps as a proxy for 10 Mbps/1 Mbps and 50 Mbps/6 Mbps as a proxy for 50 Mbps/5 Mbps. 3. Adoption Data – Form 477 Data. The fixed terrestrial adoption rates rely on Form 477 subscription data for residential services as of December 31, 2012, December 31, 2013, December 31, 2014, December 31, 2015, and December 31, 2016. Unless otherwise stated, we include only fixed terrestrial services reported on Form 477 that meet the three speed thresholds included in this Report. 3 4. Demographic Data. We rely on the Commission’s estimates of population and household count data from 2012 to 2016. This data is based upon the 2010 U.S. Census Data that the 1 FCC, Instructions for Local Telephone Competition and Broadband Reporting (FCC Form 477), at 30-31, Tables 1 & 3, http://transition.fcc.gov/Forms/Form477/477inst.pdf (FCC Form 477). 2 See infra Appendix E. 3 FCC Form 477 at 30, Table 2. Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 56 Commission has updated to account for population growth and economic development. 4 We rely on the American Community Survey (ACS) Five-Year Estimates 2012–2016 for income and poverty measures. These data are based upon surveys conducted from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2016. The ACS collects survey information continuously nearly every day of the year and then aggregates the results over five years. 5 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. 6 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. 7 We rely upon the 2010 Census for land area and American Indian Area Alaska Native Area Hawaiian Home Land Class Code (AIANHHCC) affiliation. Definitions 5. Fixed Deployment Rate. The reported percentages of population with access to fixed terrestrial services and/or mobile services are calculated by using the ratio population with access to the services divided by the total population in the area. We report deployment rates for the following geographic areas: the U.S. as a whole, all Tribal Lands, all rural census blocks, all urban census blocks, all urban census block groups, all rural census block groups, each county (or county equivalent), and for each state, the District of Columbia and U.S. Territory. 6. Fixed Adoption Rate. The reported adoption rates are calculated by using the ratio of residential connections to fixed terrestrial services at the designated speed divided by the total number of households in the area with access to these fixed terrestrial services. Although our FCC Form 477 deployment data are at the census block level, we must aggregate these data up to the census tract level because the Form 477 subscription data for broadband services are collected at the census tract level. We calculate adoption rates for the following geographic areas: the U.S. as a whole, all urban core census tracts, all non-urban core census tracts, the county (or county equivalent), and for each state and the District of Columbia. 7. Income Measures. ACS Five-Year Estimates 2012-2016. We use three income measures: per capita income, median household income, and the poverty rate (the proportion of households living below the poverty level). 8 Per capita income and median household income in the past twelve months are measured in 2016 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars. We use these income measures at two aggregation levels, census block groups and counties. 8. Land Area. The land area is based upon the 2010 Census boundaries and measured in square miles of land. 9. Non-Urban Core Area. A census tract that is not part of the “urban core.” This definition is only used to calculate adoption rates for fixed advanced telecommunications capability reported in Table 11. 10. 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. 4 FCC, Staff Block Estimates, https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/data/staff-block-estimates. 5 U.S. Census Bureau, A Compass for Understanding and Using American Community Survey Data, What Data Users Need to know, Appendix 1 (Understanding and Users Single-year and Multiyear Estimates) at 1-2 (2008) http://www.census.gov/library/publications/2008/acs/general.html (What Data Users Needs to Know, Appendix 1). 6 Id. 7 Id. 8 U.S. Census, American Community Survey, Puerto Rico Community Survey, 2014 Subject Definitions, at 80-86 (2014) (discussing Income Measures in the Past 12 Months and adjustments to the data for inflation); id. at 104-107 (discussing poverty status for the past 12 months). Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 57 11. Rural Area. Census blocks are designated as rural based upon the designation used in the 2010 Census. The term ‘‘rural’’ encompasses all population, housing, and territory not included within an urban area. 9 We also identify rural census block groups for our demographic analysis in Tables 7 and 8. Census block groups are designated as rural if more than 50 percent of the population in the census block group reside in rural census blocks. 12. 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 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 land, specifically a Tribal designated statistical area (TDSA) or Oklahoma Tribal Statistical Area (OTSA); 10 (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. We note that the Tribal Statistical Areas are largely in Oklahoma, but they also include areas in California, New York, and Washington. 13. For purposes of this Report, we aggregate federally recognized 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 Villages (area 6 defined above) and Hawaiian Home Lands (area 7 defined above). For purposes of our demographic analysis in Tables 7 and 8, we designate a census block group as Tribal lands if Tribal lands comprise more than 50 percent of the total land area of the census block group. For purposes of our presentation of adoption rates in Table 11, we designate a census tract as Tribal lands if Tribal lands comprise more than 50 percent of the total land area of the census tract. 14. Urban Area. The designation of a census block as urban is based upon the 2010 Census. The term ‘‘urban’’ encompasses all population, housing, and territory included within an urban area. 11 We also identify urban census block groups for our demographic analysis in Tables 7 and 8. We designate a census block group as urban if we have not designated it as a rural census block group. 15. Urban Core Area. In table 11 we designate a census tract as either an “Urban Core Area” or a “Non-Urban Core Area.” A census tract is designated as “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. 12 A census tract is designated as “Non-Urban Core” if we have not designated the census tract as Urban Core. 9 See 2011 Census Bureau Notice, 76 Fed. Reg. at 53039. 10 The statistical areas are largely in Oklahoma, but also include areas in California, New York, and Washington. 11 See 2011 Census Bureau Notice, 76 Fed. Reg. at 53039. 12 See id. Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 58 APPENDIX D Americans (Millions) With Access to Fixed Terrestrial 25 Mbps/3 Mbps Service and Mobile LTE by State and District of Columbia Table D1 Americans (Millions) With Access to Fixed Terrestrial 25 Mbps/3 Mbps; Mobile LTE with a Minimum Advertised Speed of 5 Mbps/1 Mbps; and Mobile LTE with a Median Speed of 10 Mbps/3 Mbps by State and District of Columbia 1 Fixed 25 Mbps/ 3 Mbps Mobile LTE 5 Mbps/ 1 Mbps Mobile LTE 10 Mbps/3 Mbps Pop. Evaluated Pop. With Access % of Pop. Pop. With Access % of Pop. Pop. Evaluated Pop. With Access % of Pop. United States 322.518 297.766 92.3% 321.347 99.6% 300.036 261.898 87.3% Rural Areas 62.926 43.604 69.3% 61.802 98.2% 47.025 32.962 70.1% Urban Areas 259.592 254.162 97.9% 259.545 100.0% 253.011 228.936 90.5% Alabama 4.857 4.036 83.1% 4.826 99.4% 4.189 3.966 94.7% Rural Areas 2.002 1.277 63.8% 1.970 98.4% 1.475 1.323 89.7% Urban Areas 2.856 2.759 96.6% 2.856 100.0% 2.713 2.644 97.4% Alaska 0.738 0.582 78.8% 0.626 84.8% 0.695 0.429 61.8% Rural Areas 0.259 0.120 46.4% 0.169 65.2% 0.236 0.072 30.5% Urban Areas 0.479 0.461 96.4% 0.457 95.4% 0.459 0.357 77.8% Arizona 6.915 5.917 85.6% 6.850 99.1% 6.810 5.299 77.8% Rural Areas 0.798 0.275 34.4% 0.740 92.7% 0.749 0.276 36.8% Urban Areas 6.116 5.642 92.2% 6.110 99.9% 6.061 5.023 82.9% Arkansas 2.982 2.316 77.6% 2.971 99.6% 2.242 1.682 75.0% Rural Areas 1.318 0.758 57.6% 1.306 99.2% 0.790 0.570 72.2% Urban Areas 1.665 1.557 93.5% 1.665 100.0% 1.452 1.112 76.5% California 39.171 37.114 94.7% 39.126 99.9% 39.071 36.530 93.5% Rural Areas 2.255 1.042 46.2% 2.210 98.0% 2.190 1.735 79.2% Urban Areas 36.916 36.072 97.7% 36.916 100.0% 36.880 34.795 94.3% 1 As with Tables 1, 2a, and 2b presented in this Report, the results shown for fixed 25 Mbps/3 Mbps and Mobile LTE 5 Mbps/1 Mbps are based upon the U.S. Population, excluding the U.S. Territories, whereas the results shown for Mobile LTE 10 Mbps/3 Mbps are based on a sub-sample of the total U.S. population where certain counties and the U.S. Territories are excluded. Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 59 Fixed 25 Mbps/ 3 Mbps Mobile LTE 5 Mbps/ 1 Mbps Mobile LTE 10 Mbps/3 Mbps Pop. Evaluated Pop. With Access % of Pop. Pop. With Access % of Pop. Pop. Evaluated Pop. With Access % of Pop. Colorado 5.520 5.241 94.9% 5.503 99.7% 5.074 4.294 84.6% Rural Areas 0.834 0.601 72.1% 0.816 97.9% 0.557 0.425 76.3% Urban Areas 4.686 4.640 99.0% 4.686 100.0% 4.517 3.869 85.7% Connecticut 3.571 3.538 99.1% 3.570 100.0% 3.571 3.570 100.0% Rural Areas 0.431 0.427 99.2% 0.430 99.9% 0.431 0.430 99.9% Urban Areas 3.140 3.111 99.1% 3.140 100.0% 3.140 3.140 100.0% Delaware 0.950 0.925 97.4% 0.950 100.0% 0.950 0.731 76.9% Rural Areas 0.166 0.153 92.2% 0.166 100.0% 0.166 0.075 45.0% Urban Areas 0.784 0.772 98.4% 0.784 100.0% 0.784 0.656 83.7% District of Columbia 2 0.678 0.665 98.1% 0.678 100.0% 0.678 0.678 100.0% Florida 20.564 19.698 95.8% 20.557 100.0% 20.245 19.829 97.9% Rural Areas 1.955 1.469 75.2% 1.947 99.6% 1.722 1.476 85.7% Urban Areas 18.609 18.229 98.0% 18.609 100.0% 18.522 18.354 99.1% Georgia 10.284 9.341 90.8% 10.266 99.8% 8.861 8.451 95.4% Rural Areas 2.521 1.812 71.9% 2.503 99.3% 1.512 1.270 84.0% Urban Areas 7.763 7.529 97.0% 7.763 100.0% 7.348 7.181 97.7% Hawaii 1.425 1.358 95.3% 1.423 99.8% 1.425 0.434 30.4% Rural Areas 0.130 0.082 63.1% 0.128 98.3% 0.130 0.117 90.1% Urban Areas 1.295 1.276 98.5% 1.295 100.0% 1.295 0.317 24.5% Idaho 1.680 1.490 88.7% 1.657 98.6% 1.362 0.910 66.8% Rural Areas 0.512 0.346 67.6% 0.489 95.6% 0.314 0.160 50.8% Urban Areas 1.168 1.144 98.0% 1.168 100.0% 1.048 0.751 71.6% Illinois 12.791 12.114 94.7% 12.785 100.0% 12.005 11.779 98.1% Rural Areas 1.473 0.935 63.5% 1.468 99.6% 0.973 0.877 90.1% 2 We only present this data for the District of Columbia because there are only urban areas in the District of Columbia. Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 60 Fixed 25 Mbps/ 3 Mbps Mobile LTE 5 Mbps/ 1 Mbps Mobile LTE 10 Mbps/3 Mbps Pop. Evaluated Pop. With Access % of Pop. Pop. With Access % of Pop. Pop. Evaluated Pop. With Access % of Pop. Urban Areas 11.317 11.179 98.8% 11.317 100.0% 11.032 10.902 98.8% Indiana 6.626 5.759 86.9% 6.624 100.0% 5.921 5.383 90.9% Rural Areas 1.829 1.070 58.5% 1.828 99.9% 1.328 0.988 74.4% Urban Areas 4.797 4.689 97.8% 4.797 100.0% 4.594 4.396 95.7% Iowa 3.130 2.832 90.5% 3.125 99.8% 2.105 2.101 99.8% Rural Areas 1.130 0.875 77.4% 1.126 99.6% 0.437 0.433 99.0% Urban Areas 2.000 1.957 97.9% 2.000 100.0% 1.668 1.668 100.0% Kansas 2.901 2.589 89.2% 2.901 100.0% 2.277 2.195 96.4% Rural Areas 0.751 0.499 66.5% 0.750 99.9% 0.338 0.306 90.6% Urban Areas 2.151 2.090 97.2% 2.151 100.0% 1.939 1.889 97.4% Kentucky 4.428 3.799 85.8% 4.301 97.1% 3.443 2.941 85.4% Rural Areas 1.823 1.255 68.8% 1.697 93.1% 1.004 0.678 67.6% Urban Areas 2.605 2.544 97.7% 2.604 100.0% 2.439 2.263 92.8% Louisiana 4.670 3.948 84.5% 4.669 100.0% 4.231 2.862 67.6% Rural Areas 1.252 0.713 56.9% 1.251 99.9% 0.938 0.730 77.9% Urban Areas 3.418 3.235 94.7% 3.418 100.0% 3.293 2.132 64.7% Maine 1.332 1.198 89.9% 1.298 97.4% 1.231 0.369 30.0% Rural Areas 0.826 0.708 85.7% 0.792 95.9% 0.732 0.244 33.4% Urban Areas 0.506 0.490 96.9% 0.506 100.0% 0.499 0.125 25.0% Maryland 6.001 5.850 97.5% 6.001 100.0% 5.861 4.895 83.5% Rural Areas 0.790 0.740 93.7% 0.790 100.0% 0.695 0.356 51.2% Urban Areas 5.211 5.110 98.1% 5.211 100.0% 5.166 4.539 87.9% Massachusetts 6.794 6.634 97.7% 6.793 100.0% 6.783 6.712 99.0% Rural Areas 0.544 0.492 90.3% 0.544 99.9% 0.542 0.503 92.8% Urban Areas 6.249 6.143 98.3% 6.249 100.0% 6.241 6.209 99.5% Michigan 9.934 8.965 90.2% 9.926 99.9% 9.450 8.953 94.7% Rural Areas 2.547 1.692 66.4% 2.538 99.7% 2.213 1.846 83.4% Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 61 Fixed 25 Mbps/ 3 Mbps Mobile LTE 5 Mbps/ 1 Mbps Mobile LTE 10 Mbps/3 Mbps Pop. Evaluated Pop. With Access % of Pop. Pop. With Access % of Pop. Pop. Evaluated Pop. With Access % of Pop. Urban Areas 7.387 7.273 98.5% 7.387 100.0% 7.238 7.107 98.2% Minnesota 5.513 5.102 92.6% 5.506 99.9% 4.843 4.768 98.5% Rural Areas 1.466 1.099 74.9% 1.459 99.5% 1.001 0.951 95.0% Urban Areas 4.046 4.003 98.9% 4.046 100.0% 3.842 3.817 99.3% Mississippi 2.986 2.157 72.3% 2.977 99.7% 1.979 1.359 68.7% Rural Areas 1.515 0.756 49.9% 1.507 99.4% 0.752 0.449 59.8% Urban Areas 1.470 1.401 95.3% 1.470 100.0% 1.227 0.910 74.1% Missouri 6.086 5.080 83.5% 6.065 99.7% 5.097 4.297 84.3% Rural Areas 1.814 0.897 49.5% 1.793 98.9% 1.084 0.708 65.4% Urban Areas 4.272 4.183 97.9% 4.272 100.0% 4.013 3.589 89.4% Montana 1.041 0.803 77.1% 0.981 94.2% 0.722 0.306 42.4% Rural Areas 0.474 0.280 59.2% 0.419 88.5% 0.271 0.066 24.4% Urban Areas 0.568 0.523 92.1% 0.561 98.9% 0.450 0.240 53.2% Nebraska 1.903 1.692 88.9% 1.901 99.9% 1.284 1.246 97.0% Rural Areas 0.509 0.333 65.5% 0.507 99.5% 0.140 0.126 90.5% Urban Areas 1.394 1.359 97.5% 1.394 100.0% 1.144 1.120 97.8% Nevada 2.937 2.820 96.0% 2.926 99.6% 2.864 0.602 21.0% Rural Areas 0.197 0.104 53.0% 0.185 94.1% 0.160 0.082 51.1% Urban Areas 2.741 2.716 99.1% 2.741 100.0% 2.704 0.520 19.2% New Hampshire 1.334 1.258 94.2% 1.329 99.6% 1.262 0.711 56.3% Rural Areas 0.530 0.465 87.9% 0.524 98.9% 0.483 0.163 33.7% Urban Areas 0.805 0.792 98.4% 0.805 100.0% 0.779 0.548 70.3% New Jersey 8.933 8.842 99.0% 8.933 100.0% 8.933 8.778 98.3% Rural Areas 0.466 0.454 97.3% 0.466 100.0% 0.466 0.432 92.6% Urban Areas 8.466 8.388 99.1% 8.466 100.0% 8.466 8.347 98.6% New Mexico 2.075 1.672 80.6% 2.058 99.2% 1.844 0.817 44.3% Rural Areas 0.487 0.208 42.8% 0.470 96.4% 0.364 0.059 16.2% Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 62 Fixed 25 Mbps/ 3 Mbps Mobile LTE 5 Mbps/ 1 Mbps Mobile LTE 10 Mbps/3 Mbps Pop. Evaluated Pop. With Access % of Pop. Pop. With Access % of Pop. Pop. Evaluated Pop. With Access % of Pop. Urban Areas 1.588 1.464 92.2% 1.588 100.0% 1.480 0.757 51.2% New York 19.721 19.328 98.0% 19.692 99.9% 19.263 17.349 90.1% Rural Areas 2.351 1.992 84.7% 2.322 98.8% 2.020 1.025 50.7% Urban Areas 17.370 17.336 99.8% 17.370 100.0% 17.242 16.325 94.7% North Carolina 10.123 9.481 93.7% 10.045 99.2% 9.440 7.540 79.9% Rural Areas 3.375 2.768 82.0% 3.302 97.8% 2.807 1.722 61.3% Urban Areas 6.749 6.714 99.5% 6.743 99.9% 6.633 5.818 87.7% North Dakota 0.756 0.689 91.2% 0.753 99.6% 0.458 0.455 99.3% Rural Areas 0.334 0.281 84.1% 0.331 99.1% 0.119 0.116 97.4% Urban Areas 0.422 0.408 96.7% 0.422 100.0% 0.339 0.339 100.0% Ohio 11.610 10.724 92.4% 11.600 99.9% 11.101 10.061 90.6% Rural Areas 2.570 1.827 71.1% 2.561 99.6% 2.199 1.715 78.0% Urban Areas 9.039 8.896 98.4% 9.039 100.0% 8.902 8.346 93.8% Oklahoma 3.915 3.014 77.0% 3.906 99.8% 3.518 2.727 77.5% Rural Areas 1.341 0.617 46.0% 1.331 99.3% 1.046 0.649 62.0% Urban Areas 2.574 2.397 93.1% 2.574 100.0% 2.471 2.078 84.1% Oregon 4.086 3.717 91.0% 4.052 99.2% 3.907 3.744 95.8% Rural Areas 0.813 0.521 64.0% 0.780 95.8% 0.717 0.641 89.3% Urban Areas 3.273 3.196 97.7% 3.273 100.0% 3.190 3.103 97.3% Pennsylvania 12.774 12.124 94.9% 12.753 99.8% 12.178 11.626 95.5% Rural Areas 2.724 2.252 82.7% 2.703 99.2% 2.307 2.010 87.1% Urban Areas 10.050 9.871 98.2% 10.050 100.0% 9.871 9.616 97.4% Rhode Island 1.056 1.036 98.1% 1.056 100.0% 1.056 1.056 100.0% Rural Areas 0.097 0.095 97.6% 0.097 100.0% 0.097 0.097 100.0% Urban Areas 0.958 0.941 98.2% 0.958 100.0% 0.958 0.958 100.0% South Carolina 4.950 4.373 88.3% 4.948 100.0% 4.451 3.669 82.4% Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 63 Fixed 25 Mbps/ 3 Mbps Mobile LTE 5 Mbps/ 1 Mbps Mobile LTE 10 Mbps/3 Mbps Pop. Evaluated Pop. With Access % of Pop. Pop. With Access % of Pop. Pop. Evaluated Pop. With Access % of Pop. Rural Areas 1.676 1.165 69.5% 1.674 99.9% 1.302 1.107 85.0% Urban Areas 3.274 3.208 98.0% 3.274 100.0% 3.148 2.562 81.4% South Dakota 0.863 0.762 88.3% 0.860 99.6% 0.387 0.383 99.2% Rural Areas 0.384 0.288 75.1% 0.381 99.2% 0.090 0.086 96.4% Urban Areas 0.479 0.474 98.9% 0.479 100.0% 0.297 0.297 100.0% Tennessee 6.640 6.049 91.1% 6.606 99.5% 5.705 5.206 91.2% Rural Areas 2.235 1.716 76.8% 2.200 98.5% 1.483 1.177 79.4% Urban Areas 4.406 4.332 98.3% 4.406 100.0% 4.222 4.029 95.4% Texas 27.764 25.943 93.4% 27.754 100.0% 26.660 20.521 77.0% Rural Areas 4.512 3.260 72.3% 4.503 99.8% 3.826 2.113 55.2% Urban Areas 23.251 22.683 97.6% 23.251 100.0% 22.834 18.408 80.6% Utah 3.040 2.936 96.6% 3.022 99.4% 2.882 2.170 75.3% Rural Areas 0.361 0.265 73.4% 0.343 95.2% 0.263 0.116 44.1% Urban Areas 2.679 2.671 99.7% 2.679 100.0% 2.619 2.054 78.4% Vermont 0.624 0.538 86.1% 0.599 96.0% 0.394 0.000 0.0% Rural Areas 0.383 0.301 78.5% 0.358 93.4% 0.199 0.000 0.0% Urban Areas 0.241 0.237 98.3% 0.241 100.0% 0.195 0.000 0.0% Virginia 8.387 7.617 90.8% 8.347 99.5% 7.457 5.549 74.4% Rural Areas 2.053 1.459 71.1% 2.014 98.1% 1.372 0.340 24.8% Urban Areas 6.334 6.158 97.2% 6.334 100.0% 6.085 5.209 85.6% Washington 7.269 7.147 98.3% 7.234 99.5% 7.157 6.806 95.1% Rural Areas 1.226 1.124 91.7% 1.193 97.4% 1.154 0.964 83.5% Urban Areas 6.043 6.023 99.7% 6.040 99.9% 6.003 5.842 97.3% West Virginia 1.830 1.504 82.2% 1.710 93.4% 1.148 0.287 25.0% Rural Areas 0.934 0.647 69.2% 0.816 87.4% 0.453 0.089 19.6% Urban Areas 0.896 0.857 95.7% 0.894 99.7% 0.696 0.199 28.5% Wisconsin 5.775 4.992 86.4% 5.738 99.4% 5.228 4.824 92.3% Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 64 Fixed 25 Mbps/ 3 Mbps Mobile LTE 5 Mbps/ 1 Mbps Mobile LTE 10 Mbps/3 Mbps Pop. Evaluated Pop. With Access % of Pop. Pop. With Access % of Pop. Pop. Evaluated Pop. With Access % of Pop. Rural Areas 1.736 0.988 56.9% 1.699 97.9% 1.293 1.055 81.6% Urban Areas 4.039 4.004 99.1% 4.039 100.0% 3.935 3.768 95.8% Wyoming 0.585 0.457 78.2% 0.574 98.2% 0.341 0.048 14.2% Rural Areas 0.217 0.099 45.5% 0.207 95.1% 0.084 0.015 18.2% Urban Areas 0.367 0.358 97.6% 0.367 100.0% 0.257 0.033 12.8% Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 65 Table D2 Americans (Millions) With Access to Fixed Terrestrial 25 Mbps/3 Mbps and Mobile LTE with a Minimum Advertised Speed of 5 Mbps/1 Mbps; Americans With Access to Fixed Terrestrial 25 Mbps/3 Mbps and Mobile LTE with a Median Speed of 10 Mbps/3 Mbps by State and District of Columbia 3 Fixed 25 Mbps 3 Mbps and Mobile LTE 5 Mbps/1 Mbps Fixed 25 Mbps 3 Mbps and Mobile LTE 10 Mbps/3 Mbps Pop. Evaluated Pop. With Access % of Pop. Pop. Evaluated Pop. With Access % of Pop. United States 322.518 297.304 92.2% 300.036 250.494 83.5% Rural Areas 62.926 43.164 68.6% 47.025 25.411 54.0% Urban Areas 259.592 254.141 97.9% 253.011 225.082 89.0% Alabama 4.857 4.029 82.9% 4.189 3.554 84.9% Rural Areas 2.002 1.270 63.5% 1.475 0.977 66.2% Urban Areas 2.856 2.759 96.6% 2.713 2.577 95.0% Alaska 0.738 0.563 76.3% 0.695 0.411 59.2% Rural Areas 0.259 0.108 41.8% 0.236 0.055 23.2% Urban Areas 0.479 0.454 94.9% 0.459 0.356 77.6% Arizona 6.915 5.917 85.6% 6.810 4.864 71.4% Rural Areas 0.798 0.274 34.4% 0.749 0.129 17.3% Urban Areas 6.116 5.642 92.2% 6.061 4.734 78.1% Arkansas 2.982 2.312 77.5% 2.242 1.484 66.2% Rural Areas 1.318 0.755 57.3% 0.790 0.412 52.2% Urban Areas 1.665 1.557 93.5% 1.452 1.072 73.8% California 39.171 37.105 94.7% 39.071 34.938 89.4% Rural Areas 2.255 1.033 45.8% 2.190 0.865 39.5% Urban Areas 36.916 36.072 97.7% 36.880 34.073 92.4% Colorado 5.520 5.235 94.8% 5.074 4.203 82.8% Rural Areas 0.834 0.595 71.4% 0.557 0.360 64.6% Urban Areas 4.686 4.640 99.0% 4.517 3.843 85.1% Connecticut 3.571 3.537 99.1% 3.571 3.537 99.1% Rural Areas 0.431 0.427 99.1% 0.431 0.427 99.1% Urban Areas 3.140 3.111 99.1% 3.140 3.111 99.1% 3 As with Tables 3a and 3b presented in this Report, the results shown for fixed 25 Mbps/3 Mbps and Mobile LTE 5 Mbps/1 Mbps are based upon the U.S. Population, excluding the U.S. Territories, whereas the results shown for fixed 25 Mbps/3 Mbps and Mobile LTE 10 Mbps/3 Mbps are based on a sub-sample of the total U.S. population where certain counties and the U.S. Territories are excluded. Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 66 Fixed 25 Mbps 3 Mbps and Mobile LTE 5 Mbps/1 Mbps Fixed 25 Mbps 3 Mbps and Mobile LTE 10 Mbps/3 Mbps Pop. Evaluated Pop. With Access % of Pop. Pop. Evaluated Pop. With Access % of Pop. Delaware 0.950 0.925 97.3% 0.950 0.715 75.2% Rural Areas 0.166 0.153 92.2% 0.166 0.070 42.0% Urban Areas 0.784 0.772 98.4% 0.784 0.645 82.3% District of Columbia 4 0.678 0.665 98.1% 0.678 0.665 98.1% Florida 20.564 19.695 95.8% 20.245 19.222 94.9% Rural Areas 1.955 1.466 75.0% 1.722 1.220 70.8% Urban Areas 18.609 18.229 98.0% 18.522 18.003 97.2% Georgia 10.284 9.333 90.8% 8.861 8.054 90.9% Rural Areas 2.521 1.805 71.6% 1.512 1.048 69.3% Urban Areas 7.763 7.529 97.0% 7.348 7.007 95.4% Hawaii 1.425 1.357 95.2% 1.425 0.380 26.7% Rural Areas 0.130 0.081 62.4% 0.130 0.073 55.9% Urban Areas 1.295 1.276 98.5% 1.295 0.308 23.7% Idaho 1.680 1.486 88.4% 1.362 0.854 62.7% Rural Areas 0.512 0.342 66.7% 0.314 0.104 33.2% Urban Areas 1.168 1.144 98.0% 1.048 0.750 71.5% Illinois 12.791 12.113 94.7% 12.005 11.432 95.2% Rural Areas 1.473 0.934 63.4% 0.973 0.647 66.5% Urban Areas 11.317 11.179 98.8% 11.032 10.785 97.8% Indiana 6.626 5.759 86.9% 5.921 4.947 83.5% Rural Areas 1.829 1.070 58.5% 1.328 0.647 48.7% Urban Areas 4.797 4.689 97.8% 4.594 4.300 93.6% Iowa 3.130 2.829 90.4% 2.105 1.980 94.0% Rural Areas 1.130 0.872 77.2% 0.437 0.346 79.1% Urban Areas 2.000 1.957 97.8% 1.668 1.634 97.9% Kansas 2.901 2.589 89.2% 2.277 2.079 91.3% Rural Areas 0.751 0.499 66.5% 0.338 0.221 65.4% Urban Areas 2.151 2.090 97.2% 1.939 1.858 95.8% Kentucky 4.428 3.729 84.2% 3.443 2.718 78.9% Rural Areas 1.823 1.185 65.0% 1.004 0.493 49.1% Urban Areas 2.605 2.543 97.6% 2.439 2.225 91.2% 4 We only present this data for the District of Columbia because there are only urban areas in the District of Columbia. Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 67 Fixed 25 Mbps 3 Mbps and Mobile LTE 5 Mbps/1 Mbps Fixed 25 Mbps 3 Mbps and Mobile LTE 10 Mbps/3 Mbps Pop. Evaluated Pop. With Access % of Pop. Pop. Evaluated Pop. With Access % of Pop. Louisiana 4.670 3.948 84.5% 4.231 2.577 60.9% Rural Areas 1.252 0.713 56.9% 0.938 0.531 56.6% Urban Areas 3.418 3.235 94.7% 3.293 2.046 62.1% Maine 1.332 1.178 88.4% 1.231 0.321 26.1% Rural Areas 0.826 0.688 83.3% 0.732 0.204 27.8% Urban Areas 0.506 0.490 96.9% 0.499 0.117 23.5% Maryland 6.001 5.850 97.5% 5.861 4.794 81.8% Rural Areas 0.790 0.740 93.6% 0.695 0.343 49.3% Urban Areas 5.211 5.110 98.1% 5.166 4.451 86.2% Massachusetts 6.794 6.634 97.6% 6.783 6.567 96.8% Rural Areas 0.544 0.491 90.3% 0.542 0.465 85.7% Urban Areas 6.249 6.143 98.3% 6.241 6.103 97.8% Michigan 9.934 8.962 90.2% 9.450 8.323 88.1% Rural Areas 2.547 1.689 66.3% 2.213 1.318 59.6% Urban Areas 7.387 7.273 98.4% 7.238 7.005 96.8% Minnesota 5.513 5.098 92.5% 4.843 4.484 92.6% Rural Areas 1.466 1.095 74.7% 1.001 0.707 70.6% Urban Areas 4.046 4.003 98.9% 3.842 3.777 98.3% Mississippi 2.986 2.156 72.2% 1.979 1.188 60.0% Rural Areas 1.515 0.755 49.8% 0.752 0.308 41.0% Urban Areas 1.470 1.401 95.3% 1.227 0.880 71.7% Missouri 6.086 5.075 83.4% 5.097 4.037 79.2% Rural Areas 1.814 0.893 49.2% 1.084 0.472 43.5% Urban Areas 4.272 4.183 97.9% 4.013 3.565 88.8% Montana 1.041 0.777 74.6% 0.722 0.303 42.0% Rural Areas 0.474 0.258 54.5% 0.271 0.063 23.3% Urban Areas 0.568 0.519 91.5% 0.450 0.240 53.2% Nebraska 1.903 1.692 88.9% 1.284 1.211 94.3% Rural Areas 0.509 0.332 65.3% 0.140 0.104 74.6% Urban Areas 1.394 1.359 97.5% 1.144 1.106 96.7% Nevada 2.937 2.816 95.9% 2.864 0.566 19.8% Rural Areas 0.197 0.100 51.1% 0.160 0.051 32.0% Urban Areas 2.741 2.716 99.1% 2.704 0.515 19.1% New Hampshire 1.334 1.256 94.1% 1.262 0.697 55.2% Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 68 Fixed 25 Mbps 3 Mbps and Mobile LTE 5 Mbps/1 Mbps Fixed 25 Mbps 3 Mbps and Mobile LTE 10 Mbps/3 Mbps Pop. Evaluated Pop. With Access % of Pop. Pop. Evaluated Pop. With Access % of Pop. Rural Areas 0.530 0.464 87.6% 0.483 0.156 32.3% Urban Areas 0.805 0.792 98.4% 0.779 0.541 69.5% New Jersey 8.933 8.842 99.0% 8.933 8.695 97.3% Rural Areas 0.466 0.454 97.3% 0.466 0.424 90.9% Urban Areas 8.466 8.388 99.1% 8.466 8.271 97.7% New Mexico 2.075 1.671 80.5% 1.844 0.793 43.0% Rural Areas 0.487 0.207 42.5% 0.364 0.039 10.8% Urban Areas 1.588 1.464 92.2% 1.480 0.753 50.9% New York 19.721 19.315 97.9% 19.263 17.224 89.4% Rural Areas 2.351 1.979 84.2% 2.020 0.931 46.1% Urban Areas 17.370 17.336 99.8% 17.242 16.292 94.5% North Carolina 10.123 9.426 93.1% 9.440 7.308 77.4% Rural Areas 3.375 2.715 80.5% 2.807 1.509 53.8% Urban Areas 6.749 6.710 99.4% 6.633 5.799 87.4% North Dakota 0.756 0.687 90.9% 0.458 0.417 91.0% Rural Areas 0.334 0.279 83.6% 0.119 0.090 75.6% Urban Areas 0.422 0.408 96.7% 0.339 0.327 96.4% Ohio 11.610 10.721 92.3% 11.101 9.535 85.9% Rural Areas 2.570 1.825 71.0% 2.199 1.322 60.1% Urban Areas 9.039 8.896 98.4% 8.902 8.213 92.3% Oklahoma 3.915 3.011 76.9% 3.518 2.274 64.7% Rural Areas 1.341 0.614 45.8% 1.046 0.316 30.2% Urban Areas 2.574 2.397 93.1% 2.471 1.958 79.2% Oregon 4.086 3.712 90.8% 3.907 3.482 89.1% Rural Areas 0.813 0.516 63.4% 0.717 0.439 61.2% Urban Areas 3.273 3.196 97.7% 3.190 3.043 95.4% Pennsylvania 12.774 12.115 94.8% 12.178 11.185 91.8% Rural Areas 2.724 2.243 82.4% 2.307 1.730 75.0% Urban Areas 10.050 9.871 98.2% 9.871 9.456 95.8% Rhode Island 1.056 1.036 98.1% 1.056 1.036 98.1% Rural Areas 0.097 0.095 97.6% 0.097 0.095 97.6% Urban Areas 0.958 0.941 98.2% 0.958 0.941 98.2% South Carolina 4.950 4.372 88.3% 4.451 3.359 75.5% Rural Areas 1.676 1.164 69.4% 1.302 0.831 63.8% Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 69 Fixed 25 Mbps 3 Mbps and Mobile LTE 5 Mbps/1 Mbps Fixed 25 Mbps 3 Mbps and Mobile LTE 10 Mbps/3 Mbps Pop. Evaluated Pop. With Access % of Pop. Pop. Evaluated Pop. With Access % of Pop. Urban Areas 3.274 3.208 98.0% 3.148 2.528 80.3% South Dakota 0.863 0.760 88.1% 0.387 0.370 95.7% Rural Areas 0.384 0.287 74.7% 0.090 0.075 83.4% Urban Areas 0.479 0.474 98.9% 0.297 0.295 99.4% Tennessee 6.640 6.031 90.8% 5.705 4.925 86.3% Rural Areas 2.235 1.699 76.0% 1.483 0.961 64.8% Urban Areas 4.406 4.332 98.3% 4.222 3.964 93.9% Texas 27.764 25.940 93.4% 26.660 19.858 74.5% Rural Areas 4.512 3.258 72.2% 3.826 1.802 47.1% Urban Areas 23.251 22.683 97.6% 22.834 18.056 79.1% Utah 3.040 2.932 96.5% 2.882 2.138 74.2% Rural Areas 0.361 0.260 72.2% 0.263 0.088 33.5% Urban Areas 2.679 2.671 99.7% 2.619 2.050 78.3% Vermont 0.624 0.523 83.8% 0.394 0.000 0.0% Rural Areas 0.383 0.286 74.7% 0.199 0.000 0.0% Urban Areas 0.241 0.237 98.3% 0.195 0.000 0.0% Virginia 8.387 7.595 90.6% 7.457 5.353 71.8% Rural Areas 2.053 1.437 70.0% 1.372 0.296 21.6% Urban Areas 6.334 6.158 97.2% 6.085 5.057 83.1% Washington 7.269 7.119 97.9% 7.157 6.710 93.7% Rural Areas 1.226 1.099 89.7% 1.154 0.888 76.9% Urban Areas 6.043 6.020 99.6% 6.003 5.822 97.0% West Virginia 1.830 1.440 78.7% 1.148 0.275 23.9% Rural Areas 0.934 0.584 62.6% 0.453 0.080 17.7% Urban Areas 0.896 0.855 95.5% 0.696 0.195 28.0% Wisconsin 5.775 4.982 86.3% 5.228 4.409 84.3% Rural Areas 1.736 0.978 56.3% 1.293 0.671 51.9% Urban Areas 4.039 4.004 99.1% 3.935 3.737 95.0% Wyoming 0.585 0.453 77.5% 0.341 0.043 12.7% Rural Areas 0.217 0.095 43.5% 0.084 0.011 12.6% Urban Areas 0.367 0.358 97.6% 0.257 0.033 12.7% Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 70 Table D3 Americans (Millions) With Access to Fixed Terrestrial 25 Mbps/3 Mbps or Mobile LTE with a Minimum Advertised Speed of 5 Mbps/1 Mbps or Mobile LTE with a Median Speed of 10 Mbps/3 Mbps by State and District of Columbia 5 Fixed 25 Mbps 3 Mbps or Mobile LTE 5 Mbps/1 Mbps Fixed 25 Mbps 3 Mbps or Mobile LTE 5 Mbps/1 Mbps Pop. Evaluated Pop. With Access % of Pop. Pop. Evaluated Pop. With Access % of Pop. United States 322.518 321.809 99.8% 300.036 294.341 98.1% Rural Areas 62.926 62.242 98.9% 47.025 42.192 89.7% Urban Areas 259.592 259.567 100.0% 253.011 252.149 99.7% Alabama 4.857 4.833 99.5% 4.189 4.096 97.8% Rural Areas 2.002 1.977 98.8% 1.475 1.392 94.4% Urban Areas 2.856 2.856 100.0% 2.713 2.704 99.6% Alaska 0.738 0.645 87.4% 0.695 0.567 81.6% Rural Areas 0.259 0.181 69.9% 0.236 0.125 52.9% Urban Areas 0.479 0.464 96.9% 0.459 0.443 96.4% Arizona 6.915 6.851 99.1% 6.810 6.311 92.7% Rural Areas 0.798 0.740 92.7% 0.749 0.417 55.6% Urban Areas 6.116 6.110 99.9% 6.061 5.895 97.3% Arkansas 2.982 2.974 99.7% 2.242 2.121 94.6% Rural Areas 1.318 1.309 99.4% 0.790 0.692 87.6% Urban Areas 1.665 1.665 100.0% 1.452 1.430 98.4% California 39.171 39.136 99.9% 39.071 38.657 98.9% Rural Areas 2.255 2.220 98.4% 2.190 1.892 86.4% Urban Areas 36.916 36.916 100.0% 36.880 36.765 99.7% Colorado 5.520 5.508 99.8% 5.074 5.016 98.9% Rural Areas 0.834 0.822 98.6% 0.557 0.504 90.5% Urban Areas 4.686 4.686 100.0% 4.517 4.512 99.9% Connecticut 3.571 3.571 100.0% 3.571 3.571 100.0% Rural Areas 0.431 0.431 100.0% 0.431 0.431 100.0% Urban Areas 3.140 3.140 100.0% 3.140 3.140 100.0% 5 As with Tables 3c and 3d presented in this Report, the results shown for fixed 25 Mbps/3 Mbps or Mobile LTE 5 Mbps/1 Mbps are based upon the U.S. Population, excluding the U.S. Territories, whereas the results shown for fixed 25 Mbps/3 Mbps or Mobile LTE 10 Mbps/3 Mbps are based on a sub-sample of the total U.S. population where certain counties and the U.S. Territories are excluded. Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 71 Fixed 25 Mbps 3 Mbps or Mobile LTE 5 Mbps/1 Mbps Fixed 25 Mbps 3 Mbps or Mobile LTE 5 Mbps/1 Mbps Pop. Evaluated Pop. With Access % of Pop. Pop. Evaluated Pop. With Access % of Pop. Delaware 0.950 0.950 100.0% 0.950 0.941 99.0% Rural Areas 0.166 0.166 100.0% 0.166 0.158 95.2% Urban Areas 0.784 0.784 100.0% 0.784 0.782 99.8% District of Columbia 6 0.678 0.678 100.0% 0.678 0.678 100.0% Florida 20.564 20.560 100.0% 20.245 20.114 99.4% Rural Areas 1.955 1.950 99.8% 1.722 1.608 93.4% Urban Areas 18.609 18.609 100.0% 18.522 18.506 99.9% Georgia 10.284 10.274 99.9% 8.861 8.777 99.1% Rural Areas 2.521 2.511 99.6% 1.512 1.442 95.4% Urban Areas 7.763 7.763 100.0% 7.348 7.335 99.8% Hawaii 1.425 1.424 99.9% 1.425 1.411 99.0% Rural Areas 0.130 0.128 98.9% 0.130 0.126 97.3% Urban Areas 1.295 1.295 100.0% 1.295 1.285 99.2% Idaho 1.680 1.661 98.9% 1.362 1.330 97.6% Rural Areas 0.512 0.494 96.4% 0.314 0.283 90.2% Urban Areas 1.168 1.168 100.0% 1.048 1.047 99.8% Illinois 12.791 12.786 100.0% 12.005 11.955 99.6% Rural Areas 1.473 1.469 99.7% 0.973 0.929 95.4% Urban Areas 11.317 11.317 100.0% 11.032 11.026 100.0% Indiana 6.626 6.625 100.0% 5.921 5.732 96.8% Rural Areas 1.829 1.828 99.9% 1.328 1.143 86.1% Urban Areas 4.797 4.797 100.0% 4.594 4.589 99.9% Iowa 3.130 3.129 99.9% 2.105 2.104 99.9% Rural Areas 1.130 1.129 99.9% 0.437 0.436 99.6% Urban Areas 2.000 2.000 100.0% 1.668 1.668 100.0% Kansas 2.901 2.901 100.0% 2.277 2.262 99.4% Rural Areas 0.751 0.750 99.9% 0.338 0.331 97.9% Urban Areas 2.151 2.151 100.0% 1.939 1.932 99.6% Kentucky 4.428 4.371 98.7% 3.443 3.338 96.9% Rural Areas 1.823 1.766 96.9% 1.004 0.900 89.7% Urban Areas 2.605 2.605 100.0% 2.439 2.437 99.9% 6 We only present this data for the District of Columbia because there are only urban areas in the District of Columbia. Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 72 Fixed 25 Mbps 3 Mbps or Mobile LTE 5 Mbps/1 Mbps Fixed 25 Mbps 3 Mbps or Mobile LTE 5 Mbps/1 Mbps Pop. Evaluated Pop. With Access % of Pop. Pop. Evaluated Pop. With Access % of Pop. Louisiana 4.670 4.669 100.0% 4.231 4.034 95.3% Rural Areas 1.252 1.251 99.9% 0.938 0.815 87.0% Urban Areas 3.418 3.418 100.0% 3.293 3.218 97.7% Maine 1.332 1.318 98.9% 1.231 1.175 95.4% Rural Areas 0.826 0.812 98.3% 0.732 0.681 93.1% Urban Areas 0.506 0.506 100.0% 0.499 0.493 98.9% Maryland 6.001 6.001 100.0% 5.861 5.824 99.4% Rural Areas 0.790 0.790 100.0% 0.695 0.671 96.5% Urban Areas 5.211 5.211 100.0% 5.166 5.153 99.7% Massachusetts 6.794 6.793 100.0% 6.783 6.768 99.8% Rural Areas 0.544 0.544 99.9% 0.542 0.528 97.3% Urban Areas 6.249 6.249 100.0% 6.241 6.240 100.0% Michigan 9.934 9.928 99.9% 9.450 9.296 98.4% Rural Areas 2.547 2.541 99.8% 2.213 2.060 93.1% Urban Areas 7.387 7.387 100.0% 7.238 7.236 100.0% Minnesota 5.513 5.510 99.9% 4.843 4.832 99.8% Rural Areas 1.466 1.464 99.8% 1.001 0.990 98.9% Urban Areas 4.046 4.046 100.0% 3.842 3.842 100.0% Mississippi 2.986 2.978 99.7% 1.979 1.850 93.5% Rural Areas 1.515 1.508 99.5% 0.752 0.637 84.7% Urban Areas 1.470 1.470 100.0% 1.227 1.213 98.9% Missouri 6.086 6.070 99.7% 5.097 4.864 95.4% Rural Areas 1.814 1.798 99.1% 1.084 0.867 80.0% Urban Areas 4.272 4.272 100.0% 4.013 3.997 99.6% Montana 1.041 1.007 96.7% 0.722 0.625 86.6% Rural Areas 0.474 0.441 93.2% 0.271 0.178 65.6% Urban Areas 0.568 0.565 99.5% 0.450 0.447 99.2% Nebraska 1.903 1.902 99.9% 1.284 1.281 99.8% Rural Areas 0.509 0.508 99.7% 0.140 0.136 97.8% Urban Areas 1.394 1.394 100.0% 1.144 1.144 100.0% Nevada 2.937 2.930 99.7% 2.864 2.819 98.4% Rural Areas 0.197 0.189 96.1% 0.160 0.121 75.9% Urban Areas 2.741 2.741 100.0% 2.704 2.698 99.8% New Hampshire 1.334 1.330 99.7% 1.262 1.214 96.2% Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 73 Fixed 25 Mbps 3 Mbps or Mobile LTE 5 Mbps/1 Mbps Fixed 25 Mbps 3 Mbps or Mobile LTE 5 Mbps/1 Mbps Pop. Evaluated Pop. With Access % of Pop. Pop. Evaluated Pop. With Access % of Pop. Rural Areas 0.530 0.526 99.2% 0.483 0.441 91.2% Urban Areas 0.805 0.805 100.0% 0.779 0.773 99.3% New Jersey 8.933 8.933 100.0% 8.933 8.925 99.9% Rural Areas 0.466 0.466 100.0% 0.466 0.462 99.0% Urban Areas 8.466 8.466 100.0% 8.466 8.464 100.0% New Mexico 2.075 2.060 99.2% 1.844 1.581 85.7% Rural Areas 0.487 0.471 96.7% 0.364 0.188 51.6% Urban Areas 1.588 1.588 100.0% 1.480 1.394 94.1% New York 19.721 19.705 99.9% 19.263 19.082 99.1% Rural Areas 2.351 2.335 99.3% 2.020 1.841 91.1% Urban Areas 17.370 17.370 100.0% 17.242 17.241 100.0% North Carolina 10.123 10.101 99.8% 9.440 9.203 97.5% Rural Areas 3.375 3.354 99.4% 2.807 2.580 91.9% Urban Areas 6.749 6.747 100.0% 6.633 6.623 99.8% North Dakota 0.756 0.755 99.8% 0.458 0.457 99.7% Rural Areas 0.334 0.333 99.6% 0.119 0.118 99.0% Urban Areas 0.422 0.422 100.0% 0.339 0.339 100.0% Ohio 11.610 11.602 99.9% 11.101 10.932 98.5% Rural Areas 2.570 2.563 99.7% 2.199 2.037 92.6% Urban Areas 9.039 9.039 100.0% 8.902 8.895 99.9% Oklahoma 3.915 3.908 99.8% 3.518 3.301 93.8% Rural Areas 1.341 1.334 99.5% 1.046 0.852 81.5% Urban Areas 2.574 2.574 100.0% 2.471 2.448 99.1% Oregon 4.086 4.057 99.3% 3.907 3.856 98.7% Rural Areas 0.813 0.784 96.4% 0.717 0.670 93.4% Urban Areas 3.273 3.273 100.0% 3.190 3.186 99.9% Pennsylvania 12.774 12.762 99.9% 12.178 12.103 99.4% Rural Areas 2.724 2.712 99.5% 2.307 2.237 97.0% Urban Areas 10.050 10.050 100.0% 9.871 9.866 99.9% Rhode Island 1.056 1.056 100.0% 1.056 1.056 100.0% Rural Areas 0.097 0.097 100.0% 0.097 0.097 100.0% Urban Areas 0.958 0.958 100.0% 0.958 0.958 100.0% South Carolina 4.950 4.949 100.0% 4.451 4.384 98.5% Rural Areas 1.676 1.674 99.9% 1.302 1.248 95.9% Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 74 Fixed 25 Mbps 3 Mbps or Mobile LTE 5 Mbps/1 Mbps Fixed 25 Mbps 3 Mbps or Mobile LTE 5 Mbps/1 Mbps Pop. Evaluated Pop. With Access % of Pop. Pop. Evaluated Pop. With Access % of Pop. Urban Areas 3.274 3.274 100.0% 3.148 3.136 99.6% South Dakota 0.863 0.861 99.8% 0.387 0.385 99.6% Rural Areas 0.384 0.382 99.6% 0.090 0.088 98.2% Urban Areas 0.479 0.479 100.0% 0.297 0.297 100.0% Tennessee 6.640 6.624 99.7% 5.705 5.624 98.6% Rural Areas 2.235 2.218 99.2% 1.483 1.407 94.9% Urban Areas 4.406 4.406 100.0% 4.222 4.217 99.9% Texas 27.764 27.756 100.0% 26.660 25.964 97.4% Rural Areas 4.512 4.505 99.8% 3.826 3.249 84.9% Urban Areas 23.251 23.251 100.0% 22.834 22.715 99.5% Utah 3.040 3.026 99.6% 2.882 2.852 99.0% Rural Areas 0.361 0.347 96.3% 0.263 0.236 89.7% Urban Areas 2.679 2.679 100.0% 2.619 2.616 99.9% Vermont 0.624 0.614 98.3% 0.394 0.359 91.1% Rural Areas 0.383 0.372 97.2% 0.199 0.168 84.3% Urban Areas 0.241 0.241 100.0% 0.195 0.191 97.9% Virginia 8.387 8.369 99.8% 7.457 7.129 95.6% Rural Areas 2.053 2.035 99.1% 1.372 1.060 77.3% Urban Areas 6.334 6.334 100.0% 6.085 6.069 99.7% Washington 7.269 7.262 99.9% 7.157 7.145 99.8% Rural Areas 1.226 1.219 99.4% 1.154 1.142 99.0% Urban Areas 6.043 6.043 100.0% 6.003 6.003 100.0% West Virginia 1.830 1.774 96.9% 1.148 1.034 90.0% Rural Areas 0.934 0.878 94.0% 0.453 0.357 79.0% Urban Areas 0.896 0.896 100.0% 0.696 0.676 97.2% Wisconsin 5.775 5.748 99.5% 5.228 5.094 97.4% Rural Areas 1.736 1.709 98.4% 1.293 1.162 89.9% Urban Areas 4.039 4.039 100.0% 3.935 3.932 99.9% Wyoming 0.585 0.578 98.9% 0.341 0.314 92.0% Rural Areas 0.217 0.211 97.1% 0.084 0.058 68.5% Urban Areas 0.367 0.367 100.0% 0.257 0.256 99.7% Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 75 APPENDIX E Americans (Thousands) With Access to Fixed Terrestrial 25 Mbps/3 Mbps Services and/or Mobile LTE with a Minimum Advertised Speed of 5 Mbps/1 Mbps in the U.S. Territories 1 Fixed 25 Mbps/3 Mbps Mobile LTE 5 Mbps/1 Mbps Fixed 25 Mbps/3 Mbps and Mobile LTE 5 Mbps/1 Mbps Fixed 25 Mbps/3 Mbps or Mobile LTE 5 Mbps/1 Mbps Total Pop. Pop. with Access % of Pop. Pop. with Access % of Pop. Pop. with Access % of Pop. Pop. with Access % of Pop. U.S. Territories 3,785.540 3,151.384 83.2% 3,717.469 98.2% 3,146.895 83.1% 3,721.958 98.3% Rural Areas 247.536 143.225 57.9 230.215 93.0 139.221 56.2 234.219 94.6 Urban Areas 3,538.004 3008.159 85.0 3,487.254 98.6 3,007.674 85.0 3,487.739 98.6 American Samoa 54.193 0.000 0.0 0.000 0.0 0.000 0.0 0.000 0.0 Rural Areas 7.975 0.000 0.0 0.000 0.0 0.000 0.0 0.000 0.0 Urban Areas 46.218 0.000 0.0 0.000 0.0 0.000 0.0 0.000 0.0 Guam 159.358 2.439 1.5 159.144 99.9 2.408 1.5 159.175 99.9 Rural Areas 9.440 0.152 1.6 9.407 99.7 0.121 1.3 9.438 100.0 Urban Areas 149.918 2.287 1.5 149.737 99.9 2.287 1.5 149.737 99.9 Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Isl. 53.467 0.000 0.0 47.981 89.7 0.000 0.0 47.981 89.7 Rural Areas 5.848 0.000 0.0 3.000 51.3 0.000 0.0 3.000 51.3 Urban Areas 47.619 0.000 0.0 44.981 94.5 0.000 0.0 44.981 94.5 Puerto Rico 3,415.571 3,046.003 89.2 3,407.789 99.8 3,041.941 89.1 3,411.851 99.9 Rural Areas 218.499 137.308 62.8 212.287 97.2 133.588 61.1 216.007 98.9 Urban Areas 3,197.072 2,908.695 91.0 3,195.502 100.0 2,908.353 91.0 3,195.844 100.0 U. S. Virgin Isl. 102.951 102.942 100.0 102.555 99.6 102.546 99.6 102.951 100.0 Rural Areas 5.774 5.765 99.8 5.521 95.6 5.512 95.5 5.774 100.0 Urban Areas 97.177 97.177 100.0 97.034 99.9 97.034 99.9 97.177 100.0 1 These data may significantly overstate current deployment in the U.S. Territories, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands account for over 92 percent of the total combined population of the U.S. Territories. Although the Form 477 data as of December 31, 2016 suggests that fixed 25 Mbps/3 Mbps and mobile LTE 5 Mbps /1 Mbps services were deployed in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, we are uncertain as to the current deployment of services in these areas because of the damage to infrastructure in these areas from Hurricanes Maria and Irma. Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 76 APPENDIX F –Demographic Analysis of Americans With Access to Fixed Terrestrial 25 Mbps/3 Mbps Services and/or Mobile LTE with a Minimum Advertised Speed of 5 Mbps/1 Mbps by State, County or County Equivalent APPENDIX F1 Americans With Access to Fixed Terrestrial 25 Mbps/3 Mbps Services and/or Mobile LTE with a Minimum Advertised Speed of 5 Mbps/1 Mbps by State, County or County Equivalent https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-349000A1.xlsx APPENDIX F2 Americans With Access to Fixed Terrestrial 25 Mbps/3 Mbps Services and/or Mobile LTE with a Minimum Advertised Speed of 5 Mbps/1 Mbps by State, County or County Equivalent (Segmented by Urban and Rural Areas) https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-349001A1.xlsx Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 77 APPENDIX G Americans (Thousands) Living on Tribal Lands with Access to Fixed Terrestrial 25 Mbps/3 Mbps Services and/or Mobile LTE with a Minimum Advertised Speed of 5 Mbps/1 Mbps by State Fixed 25 Mbps/3 Mbps Mobile LTE 5 Mbps/1 Mbps Fixed 25 Mbps/3 Mbps and Mobile LTE 5 Mbps/1 Mbps Fixed 25 Mbps/3 Mbps or Mobile LTE 5 Mbps/1 Mbps Total Pop. Pop. with Access % of Pop. Pop. with Access % of Pop. Pop. with Access % of Pop. Pop. with Access % of Pop. Tribal Lands 3,991.141 2,578.205 64.6% 3,787.640 94.9% 2,549.540 63.9% 3,816.305 95.6% Alaskan Villages 261.818 145.035 55.4 173.249 66.2 134.831 51.5 183.453 70.1 Hawaiian Homelands 33.409 29.612 88.6 33.322 99.7 29.609 88.6 33.325 99.7 Lower 48 States 1,103.942 510.490 46.2 996.042 90.2 492.782 44.6 1,013.750 91.8 Alabama 0.283 0.088 31.1 0.283 100.0 0.088 31.1 0.283 100.0 Alaska 1.452 0.000 0.0 0.949 65.4 0.000 0.0 0.949 65.4 Arizona 197.979 16.203 8.2 137.805 69.6 16.203 8.2 137.805 69.6 California 69.976 36.447 52.1 68.394 97.7 36.447 52.1 68.394 97.7 Colorado 16.132 1.900 11.8 16.033 99.4 1.900 11.8 16.033 99.4 Connecticut 0.354 0.351 99.2 0.354 100.0 0.351 99.2 0.354 100.0 Florida 4.768 3.301 69.2 4.765 99.9 3.301 69.2 4.765 99.9 Idaho 32.955 5.599 17.0 29.710 90.2 5.458 16.6 29.851 90.6 Iowa 0.992 0.349 35.2 0.992 100.0 0.349 35.2 0.992 100.0 Kansas 5.692 0.541 9.5 5.692 100.0 0.541 9.5 5.692 100.0 Louisiana 0.768 0.096 12.5 0.768 100.0 0.096 12.5 0.768 100.0 Maine 2.364 1.627 68.8 1.337 56.6 1.104 46.7 1.860 78.7 Massachusetts 0.075 0.073 97.3 0.075 100.0 0.073 97.3 0.075 100.0 Michigan 34.970 29.269 83.7 34.834 99.6 29.269 83.7 34.834 99.6 Minnesota 38.884 29.428 75.7 37.732 97.0 28.655 73.7 38.505 99.0 Mississippi 7.179 4.467 62.2 7.179 100.0 4.467 62.2 7.179 100.0 Montana 69.268 33.959 49.0 49.673 71.7 23.170 33.4 60.462 87.3 Nebraska 8.643 1.653 19.1 8.622 99.8 1.653 19.1 8.622 99.8 Nevada 13.666 5.771 42.2 13.137 96.1 5.770 42.2 13.138 96.1 New Mexico 142.167 34.037 23.9 135.062 95.0 34.027 23.9 135.072 95.0 New York 13.607 7.968 58.6 13.607 100.0 7.968 58.6 13.607 100.0 North Carolina 9.178 0.215 2.3 7.797 85.0 0.215 2.3 7.797 85.0 North Dakota 25.195 20.049 79.6 24.848 98.6 19.836 78.7 25.061 99.5 Oklahoma 91.616 53.307 58.2 91.387 99.8 53.307 58.2 91.387 99.8 Oregon 9.297 3.246 34.9 9.082 97.7 3.246 34.9 9.082 97.7 Rhode Island 0.003 0.001 33.3 0.003 100.0 0.001 33.3 0.003 100.0 South Carolina 0.977 0.977 100.0 0.977 100.0 0.977 100.0 0.977 100.0 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 78 Fixed 25 Mbps/3 Mbps Mobile LTE 5 Mbps/1 Mbps Fixed 25 Mbps/3 Mbps and Mobile LTE 5 Mbps/1 Mbps Fixed 25 Mbps/3 Mbps or Mobile LTE 5 Mbps/1 Mbps Total Pop. Pop. with Access % of Pop. Pop. with Access % of Pop. Pop. with Access % of Pop. Pop. with Access % of Pop. South Dakota 64.913 34.483 53.1 62.825 96.8 33.045 50.9 64.263 99.0 Texas 1.866 1.395 74.8 1.866 100.0 1.395 74.8 1.866 100.0 Utah 36.183 14.961 41.3 32.851 90.8 14.725 40.7 33.087 91.4 Washington 136.549 127.443 93.3 133.718 97.9 124.620 91.3 136.541 100.0 Wisconsin 39.634 27.685 69.9 37.778 95.3 27.071 68.3 38.392 96.9 Wyoming 26.357 13.601 51.6 25.907 98.3 13.454 51.0 26.054 98.9 Tribal Statistical Areas 2591.972 1893.068 73.0 2585.027 99.7 1892.318 73.0 2585.777 99.8 California 3.177 3.166 99.7 3.177 100.0 3.166 99.7 3.177 100.0 New York 2.711 1.375 50.7 2.711 100.0 1.375 50.7 2.711 100.0 Oklahoma 2547.261 1849.705 72.6 2540.347 99.7 1848.986 72.6 2541.066 99.8 Washington 38.823 38.822 100.0 38.792 99.9 38.791 99.9 38.823 100.0 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 79 APPENDIX H Overall Adoption Rate for Fixed Terrestrial Services by State and District of Columbia (2016) 1 Fixed 10 Mbps/1 Mbps Fixed 25 Mbps/3 Mbps Fixed 50 Mbps/5 Mbps United States 66.2% 53.3% 44.2% Alabama 52.7 40.5 34.2 Alaska 62.9 * * Arizona 63.3 57.6 48.2 Arkansas 44.9 29.3 26.9 California 72.7 57.4 53.1 Colorado 63.9 61.5 48.8 Connecticut 75.0 61.0 48.1 Delaware 83.7 81.2 68.8 District of Columbia 75.4 71.9 54.5 Florida 77.8 61.5 50.5 Georgia 63.7 48.3 40.3 Hawaii 88.2 * * Idaho 42.3 35.5 6.7 Illinois 64.1 50.4 41.3 Indiana 58.5 44.2 35.5 Iowa 46.3 40.9 36.2 Kansas 58.3 39.8 37.9 Kentucky 52.2 30.8 24.6 Louisiana 55.1 40.6 38.6 Maine 60.7 30.2 11.2 Maryland 78.1 73.5 60.4 Massachusetts 82.2 79.1 65.1 Michigan 64.3 52.4 42.2 Minnesota 58.7 54.3 45.8 Mississippi 44.9 28.8 18.9 Missouri 55.9 42.8 40.9 Montana 53.3 54.9 * 1 Asterisks in the chart indicate the data has been withheld for confidentiality reasons. Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 80 Fixed 10 Mbps/1 Mbps Fixed 25 Mbps/3 Mbps Fixed 50 Mbps/5 Mbps Nebraska 55.4 42.7 36.1 Nevada 69.1 53.7 * New Hampshire 76.7 71.9 50.2 New Jersey 84.4 81.7 64.0 New Mexico 40.1 40.6 29.2 New York 77.4 65.4 49.2 North Carolina 61.9 49.8 48.5 North Dakota 62.3 48.2 39.9 Ohio 64.7 32.2 13.2 Oklahoma 49.3 36.4 33.6 Oregon 65.5 61.5 48.9 Pennsylvania 65.0 59.5 47.1 Rhode Island 81.2 72.7 * South Carolina 63.6 36.7 26.9 South Dakota 65.9 51.3 44.8 Tennessee 58.8 46.8 41.1 Texas 60.7 41.4 36.5 Utah 61.3 54.3 42.1 Vermont 63.5 58.1 45.2 Virginia 69.9 65.3 57.1 Washington 67.5 62.9 54.6 West Virginia 47.9 45.2 42.7 Wisconsin 63.9 40.4 31.4 Wyoming 56.1 54.8 * Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 81 STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN AJIT PAI Re: Inquiry Concerning Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, GN Docket No. 17-199. In Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress tasked the Commission with encouraging the deployment of broadband on a reasonable and timely basis and issuing an annual report on our progress. This report carries out this statutory responsibility. The report maintains the same benchmark speed for fixed broadband service previously adopted by the Commission, which we earlier proposed to retain: 25 Mbps download/3 Mbps upload. The report also concludes that mobile broadband service is not a full substitute for fixed service. Instead, it notes there are differences between the two technologies, including clear variations in consumer preferences and demands. As a result, the report evaluates progress in deploying fixed broadband service as well as progress in deploying mobile broadband service and takes a holistic approach to evaluating the deployment of these services. The report also indicates that the pace of both fixed and mobile broadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the prior Commission’s Title II Order. However, the report also discusses how, over the course of the past year, the current Commission has taken steps to reduce barriers to infrastructure investment and promote competition in the broadband marketplace. Taken together, these policies indicate that the current FCC is now meeting its statutory mandate to encourage the deployment of broadband on a reasonable and timely basis. But while we are now headed in the right direction, we have much to do. Far too many Americans still lack access to high-speed Internet. That’s why the FCC’s top priority under my leadership remains bridging the digital divide and bringing digital opportunity to all Americans. Many staff members have been hard at work to bring you this report today: from the Wireline Competition Bureau: Adam Copeland, Nicole Desbois, Lauren Garry, Trent Harkrader, Alex Johns, Dan Kahn, Pam Megna, Kris Monteith, Steve Rosenberg, Arielle Roth, and John Visclosky; from the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau: Monica DeLong, Judith Dempsey, Chas Eberle, Nese Guendelsberger, Kate Matraves, Don Stockdale, Patrick Sun, Matt Warner, and Joe Wyer; from the International Bureau: Stacey Ashton, Denise Coca, Ena Dekanic, Jerry Duvall, Francis Gutierrez, Gabrielle Kim, Heidi Kroll, Arthur Lechtman, Michael Mullinix, Kerry Murray, Jim Schlichting, Walt Strack, Thomas Sullivan, Jacqueline (Lindsay) Tello, and Michele Wu-Bailey; from the Office of General Counsel: Billy Layton, Rick Mallen, Linda Oliver, William Richardson; and from the Office of Strategic Planning and Policy: Paul Lafontaine and Sean Sullivan. Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 82 DISSENTING STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER MIGNON L. CLYBURN Re: Inquiry Concerning Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, GN Docket No. 17-199. If one were to take quick glance at this report, you would immediately conclude that a whole lot has changed over the past year when it comes to the state of broadband deployment in America. The now-titled 2018 Broadband Deployment Report boldly concludes that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is meeting its section 706(a) mandate to “encourage the deployment of broadband on a reasonable and timely basis.” But what a more critical read of the report reveals is that this year’s findings misinterpret “the plain text of section 706,” endorse a self-serving and amorphous measurement of “progress,” make changes to critical factors in its analysis, and rely heavily on projected deployment following actions taken by the FCC in 2017. Simply put, this report is biased, flawed, and woefully incomplete. The statistics are glaringly clear: persistent digital and opportunities divides remain for far too many in our nation. With respect to fixed 25 Mbps/3 Mbps and 10 Mbps/3 Mbps mobile LTE, approximately 44 million Americans lack access to both services. A whopping 66.2% of Americans living in rural and Tribal areas—as compared to 2.1% of Americans living in urban areas—still lack access to fixed 25/3 broadband. These are tens of millions of our fellow citizens who lack access to broadband putting them at a severe disadvantage when it comes to robust opportunities in education, healthcare, government services, and civic participation. Instead of grappling with this unfortunate reality, this report blatantly suggests that Congress did not intend for the FCC to meet a rigid requirement that each and every American be served. Pardon me? Congress’ intent when it comes to these reports could not have been any clearer. The plain language of Section 706 states “the Commission shall determine whether advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.” Similarly, the Broadband Data Improvement Act of 2008 requires the Commission to consider a plethora of factors and “compile a list of geographical areas that are not served by any provider of advanced telecommunications capability.” Those statutes clearly mandate that the Commission determine if broadband is being deployed to all Americans. Instead of evaluating how close we are to connecting all Americans, this report now measures progress by comparing deployment in the present year to deployment in previous years. I am blown away that what is supposed to provide a comprehensive analysis of broadband deployment to all Americans— particularly those living in rural and Tribal lands— instead creates a new measurement of progress and misinterprets Congressional intent in order to declare “Mission Accomplished.” Even as it sets a new metric, the report adopts no standards by which we should judge any progress, nor does it back up its unsourced and breathless assertions that the 2015 Open Internet Order caused a drop in deployment. As if manipulating Congressional intent and altering the fundamental analysis were not enough, the report goes further by removing price as a factor in its analysis. Price is a well-known indicator for assessing broadband availability. A previous study found that 71% of those without broadband identified affordability as a major factor What is painfully clear, is that a service cannot truly be available if you cannot afford it. But in the majority’s rush to declare victory and rack up brownie points, they once again disregard the plight of low-income Americans. Additionally, the report includes satellite service in its analysis — a factor that has been recognized by previous reports as likely to overstate deployment to a significant degree. Despite this report’s recognition of the same potential overstatement, the majority opted to include such data in their analysis — resulting in a significant increase in statistics showing access to broadband. For example, 25 million Americans lack access to both fixed and mobile broadband at 25 Mbps/3 Mbps and 5 Mbps/1Mbps respectively. However, when satellite is included, the estimate of unserved Americans drops to 14 million. While admittedly there have been noteworthy improvements when it comes to satellite Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 83 services, just ask those I met last year in Marietta, Ohio and the year before in Raymond, Mississippi whether their broadband needs are being truly met. Last, but certainly not least, the report bases its finding of timely broadband deployment pursuant to section 706(b) on projected deployment based off a laundry list of actions the FCC took in 2017. Specifically, the report states “while the December 2016 Form 477 data in the report does not yet reflect the beneficial effects of the Commission’s actions in 2017, the marketplace is already responding to the more deployment-friendly regulatory environment now in place.” This reminds me of the majority’s approach to competition in the Business Data Services Order, where potential competition equated to actual competition. Here the majority unsurprisingly and incorrectly states that projected reasonable and timely deployment is the same as actual reasonable and timely deployment. Critical progress reports should not rely on the “hypothetical” when it comes to reaching a conclusion. Analysis based on data that shows the current state of “Broadband Progress,” not misinterpreted measurements and cavalier explications of Congressional intent that tilts the scale against the needs of the consumer longing for broadband is what we need. Indeed, the deployments the majority loudly touts pale greatly in comparison to the deployments that occurred in the year after the adoption of the 2015 Open Internet Order. But if you are desperate to justify flawed policy, I think the straw-grasping conclusions contained in this report is for you. I dissent. Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 84 STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER MICHAEL O’RIELLY Re: Inquiry Concerning Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, GN Docket No. 17-199 Overall, this item faithfully and sensibly meets the obligations required by Congress as provided for in Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. While I may not agree with all of the findings contained within, it is worthy of my support and I lend it such. Given the tortured process previous Commissions have used to conduct this work, it is refreshing to see one conducted and completed in an honest and straightforward manner. Instead of presupposing the answer and then working backwards or, alternatively, being afraid to make any determination, the Commission started with a public inquiry to secure the appropriate collection of data, proceeded to its analysis, and reached a corresponding conclusion detailed in this report. This Commission was actually willing to do the expected work and let the plethora of data provided prove the case. What a novel concept! The Data Support A Positive Finding Fundamentally, the question that this item must answer is “whether advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.” 1 By any account, the picture with regards to the availability of advanced telecommunications services (i.e., broadband) is very robust and growing. In examining the data, it indicates that 95.6 percent of all Americans have access to fixed broadband with speeds exceeding the 25/3 Mbps threshold that was set by the last Commission. 2 And this excludes consumers that have service at or above 10/1 Mbps, which is a standard supported by my fellow Commissioners for purposes of our universal service High-Cost programs. Moreover, this report reflects a snapshot in time from over one year ago, meaning that deployment is actually more extensive today, as broadband providers have further expanded their networks and/or reach since that time period. To argue that deployment is not sufficient to meet the statutory test ignores the wording of the law and its context. At no point should – and the statute doesn’t require – the standard for a positive finding to be 100 percent, perfection. Instead, a finding should be positive as long as deployment is “reasonable and timely.” That is, the provision focuses on year-to-year progress, not achieving a particular threshold any given year. Certainly, we should acknowledge the progress that has been made. For instance, broadband delivered over fixed terrestrial networks with speeds above 25/3 has increased by over 10 percentage points in four years, from 81.2 to 92.3 percent. 3 Indeed, I continue to be impressed by the progress that has been made given that, as deployment edges closer to universal access, the remaining unserved communities are among the hardest and costliest to serve. Commission’s Work Continues Notwithstanding this Finding Importantly, the report’s conclusion does not mean that there is no additional work necessary to reach those Americans who do not have broadband today. There most certainly is. According to our data, 14 million Americans remain without broadband at the 25/3 threshold, not 24 million as some have 1 47 U.S.C. § 157 nt. 2 Supra para. 51. This figure includes satellite provided service as it should not matter what technology is used to achieve the result. 3 Supra Table 1. Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 85 claimed. 4 Not to diminish this figure, but it is important that we accurately describe the problem. Addressing this unserved population is why I have worked so hard on modernizing our universal service High-Cost programs. It’s why I pushed for quick completion and specifically multi-round, reverse auctions for Connect America Fund (CAF) Phase II. It’s why I have publicly commented and testified in Congress for the need for preemption of state, local and Tribal barriers to deployment for broadband infrastructure. It’s why I helped lead the passage of needed reforms for rate-of-return standalone broadband reform. It’s why I took the lead in seeking passage of the Alaska broadband plan. And, it’s why I have been a lone voice at the Commission seeking to stand-up the Remote Areas Fund (RAF), which seems to be nothing more than wishful thinking at this point. I think it is fair to ask any item naysayers, if you truly care so much about the unserved, why have you barely lifted one finger to help me develop and deploy the RAF? Contrary to the criticism of some, a positive finding under this item does not mean that the Commission will stop its efforts to ensure every American who wants broadband access has it. It personally pains me to know that there are so many Americans who have inadequate broadband with little hope of improvement. Nothing in this item or any other will keep me from pushing to address this situation in a timely, thoughtful, and cost-efficient manner. To be abundantly clear, passage of this item does not disrupt the work that will come tomorrow, the next day, or the many days to come. I am committed to ensuring the Commission does all it can, including removing barriers to deployment as referenced in the law, to bring broadband throughout our diverse, geographic landscape. Misinformation & Missteps There has been a tremendous amount of misinformation spewed on this item since the Notice of Inquiry (NOI) stage. 5 Take for instance the 25/3 Mbps benchmark for wireline broadband adopted a few years ago, which the NOI clearly proposed that the Commission retain. 6 Accusation after accusation was made that the Commission was watering down the 25/3 benchmark, while nothing could have been farther from the truth. Instead, the NOI explored whether to adopt a different standard – as it is obligated and must do to actually conduct a real review. But there was never any magical conspiracy to snooker everyone into thinking every household had “broadband” by shifting the benchmark. Pure goofiness. That being said, I strongly disagreed with how the 25/3 benchmark came to be as a result of the Commission’s 2015 report. Specifically, I firmly believe that it was adopted under an intellectually- broken process to achieve a political outcome. Moreover, I questioned at its adoption whether such a standard was defensible since it was based on laughable scenarios involving then early-stage 4K television or multiple users and/or devices in a household simultaneously engaging in extremely high- bandwidth activities, which certainly could have occurred but was nowhere near any relative societal norm. It may not be today either. But, while I still have some serious doubts about this benchmark, I tend to see some value in maintaining it, particularly since it allows an apples-to-apples comparison over previous years. Where I think the item gets it completely wrong is its treatment of wireless broadband. On multiple fronts, the report minimizes the enormous value and market realities brought forth by wireless broadband. In particular, I disagree with the unwillingness of the Commission to set a wireless benchmark. To argue year after year that the data is lacking amounts to an insufficient excuse. The Commission is more than capable of determining a justifiable, sensible benchmark for wireless broadband services, and indeed it has done so for purposes of Mobility Fund Phase II. The 10/1 Mbps suggested in 4 The 14 million figure also includes satellite provided service that meets the 25/3 threshold. 5 Inquiry Concerning Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, GN Docket No. 17-199, Thirteenth Section 706 Report Notice of Inquiry, 32 FCC Rcd 7029 (2017), http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db0808/FCC-17-109A1.pdf 6 Id. at 7033, para. 12. Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 86 the NOI was a reasonable place to start, but I was willing to be convinced of some other standard. However, abdicating this responsibility, as the report does, boggles the mind and diminishes the value of this report. More importantly, I disagree with the Commission’s reluctance to firmly acknowledge that wireless broadband is a substitute for wireline service. It is not a mere complement. Every day, more and more consumers are flocking to wireless broadband and the mobile experience it provides despite the differences in speed. In other words, consumers, especially in the less affluent and younger populations, are willing to trade speed for flexibility. This is not too dissimilar to how consumers were willing in the early 2000s to trade wireline voice call quality for inferior wireless voice service that offered mobility. Today, wireline voice service subscription is a mere pittance compared to its former self. Further, the number of U.S. consumers that have gone completely wireless has exceeded 52 percent. 7 That trend will continue, if not accelerate, especially with the near ubiquitous availability of 4G LTE. One only has to go visit and talk with actual American consumers to realize what is happening in the marketplace. Given the choice between gigabit speed wireline broadband and slower, data-capped wireless service, consumers that I have met with and providers deploying service in neighborhoods will make clear that the wireless service is preferable – by far. No media stunts or wireline-fasting contests can prove otherwise. And, the day is fast approaching when any speed differential between the two will disappear completely. New wireless technologies are in the deployment stage, and many more in the development stage, that will eviscerate any perceived speed barriers. Mobile 5G will be here in only a matter of time and it’s likely much sooner than the Commission envisions in this item. Maybe next year’s report will allow the Commission to fully recognize marketplace and technological reality as it pertains to wireless broadband. * * * For the myriad of reasons provided, I support the adoption and release of the Commission’s 2018 Broadband Deployment Report. 7 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, Wireless Substitution: Early Release of Estimates From the National Health Interview Survey, January–June 2017 (released December 2017), https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/wireless201712.pdf. Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 87 STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER BRENDAN CARR Re: Inquiry Concerning Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, GN Docket No. 17-199. For the past few years, the FCC has used the Section 706 Broadband Deployment Report to determine whether all Americans have access to advanced telecommunications capability. Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with such an inquiry. But it answers the wrong question—or, more specifically, it fails to answer the question Congress posed to the Commission in Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Commission corrects this error with this 2018 Broadband Deployment Report. In Section 706, Congress determined that the Commission “shall encourage the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans.” 1 It then directs the Commission to conduct an inquiry to determine “whether advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.” 2 If it is not, Section 706 states that the Commission “shall take immediate action to accelerate deployment of such capability.” 3 As this year’s Broadband Deployment Report explains, Section 706 thus directs the Commission to measure the progress that providers of advanced telecommunications capability are making in deploying those capabilities to all Americans and to determine whether such progress is reasonable and timely. Reading Section 706 as directing the Commission to determine whether advanced telecommunications capability has been deployed to all Americans, as the FCC has in past Reports, reads the “reasonable and timely” language out of the statute and is inconsistent with Congress’s use of the present progressive tense “is being deployed.” This conclusion is further reinforced by the language Congress used for FCC inquiries that result in a negative determination. In such cases, Congress states that the Commission “shall take immediate action to accelerate deployment,” 4 thus confirming Congress’s focus in Section 706 on the pace of deployment and the progress that providers are making. As a policy matter, it makes sense that Congress would task the Commission with this type of progress-based inquiry. Assessing the pace at which advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed provides far more—and more helpful—information than a binary inquiry into whether or not all Americans already have access to such capability. But of course, the Commission’s approach to Section 706 during the prior Administration did not reflect fealty to the statutory text as much as an interest in expanding the scope of the Commission’s authority. 5 I am glad that this year’s Report answers the question posed by Congress. The Report correctly determines that advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed in a reasonable and timely manner. Among other things, the data show that 99% of Americans have access to mobile LTE, 95.4% have access to both mobile LTE and fixed broadband at 25 Mbps, and 99.9% have access to either fixed broadband or mobile LTE. Now, none of this is to say that our job at the FCC is done. As the Report makes clear, far too many Americans remain unable to access high-speed broadband, and we have much more work to do if we are going to encourage the deployment of broadband to all Americans. 1 47 U.S.C. § 1302(a). 2 47 U.S.C. § 1302(b). 3 47 U.S.C. § 1302(b). 4 47 U.S.C. § 1302(b) (emphasis added). 5 With the recent Restoring Internet Freedom Order, the Commission returned to its earlier (and proper) view that Section 706 does not constitute an affirmative grant of regulatory authority. Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 88 Nor do I have any objection to identifying aggressive speed or deployment goals. By all means, let’s shoot for the moon. But the question we must answer in this Report is the one Congress set out in Section 706. Congress specifically defined advanced telecommunications capability “without regard to any transmission media or technology, as high-speed, switched, broadband telecommunications capability that enables users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications.” 6 Whatever one thinks we should be aiming for as an agency or a country, the benchmarks identified in this Report certainly enable users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video within the meaning of Section 706. Indeed, the record shows that the technologies meeting the Report’s benchmarks enable HD video streaming, online gaming, and HD video calling, among other advanced capabilities. Going forward, we must continue to move with dispatch at the FCC. Over the past year, we turned the corner and moved away from policies that created regulatory headwinds. Over the next year, our success as an agency should and will be measured by whether, in the words of Section 706, we continue to “encourage the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans.” That means we must continue to streamline our wireless and wireline infrastructure deployment rules. We must continue to free up even more spectrum for consumer use. And we must continue to create the incentives that will spur innovation from the edge to the core of the networks. I look forward to working with my colleagues on efforts that will do just that. 6 47 U.S.C. § 1302(d)(1). Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-10 89 DISSENTING STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER JESSICA ROSENWORCEL Re: Inquiry Concerning Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, GN Docket No. 17-199. I believe the future belongs to the connected. That’s because a broadband connection is more than a technology—it’s a platform for opportunity. No matter who you are or where you live in this country, you need access to modern communications to have a fair shot at 21 st century success. That’s a fact. There are also many facts in this Broadband Deployment Report, but what stands out most is a single finding. This report concludes that in the United States the deployment of broadband to all Americans is reasonable and timely. This is ridiculous—and irresponsible. Today there are 24 million Americans without access to broadband. There are 19 million Americans in rural areas who lack the ability to access high-speed services at home. There are 12 million school-aged children who are falling into the Homework Gap because they do not have the broadband at home they need for nightly schoolwork. Ask any one of them if they think the deployment of the most essential digital age infrastructure is reasonable and timely and you will get a resounding “No.” To call these numbers a testament to our national success is insulting and not credible. To be sure, there are communications providers across the country that have done yeoman’s work to deploy more high-speed services in hard-to-reach places. They deserve kudos for their effort. But it is premature for this agency to declare mission accomplished. Moreover, I believe that the future belongs to the bold. This is the country that put a man on the moon. We invented the Internet. History demonstrates that when we set audacious goals we can do big things. We need to do better than dream small if we want to lead the world. It’s past time for the FCC to go big and update its national broadband standard from 25 Megabits to 100 Megabits. On this point we have work to do—because at this speed when you factor in price the United States ranks only 26 th in the world. Our unwillingness to own up to this here has consequences—we shortchange our children, our future, and our digital economy. I dissent.