**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington DC 20554**

In the Matter of )

)

Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of )

Advanced Telecommunications )

Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable ) GN Docket No. 07-45

and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps )

to Accelerate Such Deployment )

Pursuant to Section 706 of the )

Telecommunications Act of 1996 )

##### NOTICE OF INQUIRY {#notice-of-inquiry .unnumbered}

**Adopted: March 12, 2007** **Released:** **April 16, 2007**

**Comment Date: May 16, 2007**

**Reply Comment Date: May 31, 2007**

By the Commission: Chairman Martin and Commissioners Copps, Adelstein,
Tate, and McDowell issuing separate statements.

# INTRODUCTION

1.  This Notice of Inquiry (Notice) begins our fifth inquiry under
    section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the 1996 Act)
    into "whether advanced telecommunications capability is being
    deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion."[^1]
    We seek comment on various market, investment, and technological
    trends in order for the Commission to analyze and assess whether
    infrastructure capable of supporting advanced services is being made
    available to all Americans.

2.  In section 706, Congress directed the Commission and the states to
    encourage the deployment of advanced telecommunications capability
    to all Americans.[^2] In conjunction with this objective, Congress
    instructed the Commission to conduct regular inquiries concerning
    the availability of advanced telecommunications capability. In so
    doing, Congress recognized that broadband or advanced services are
    critical to the future of our nation.[^3] Indeed, advanced services
    have already played a vital role in the nation's economy and the
    lives of its people. Many U.S. companies, both large and small,
    depend on advanced services to run various facets of their
    businesses, including tracking inventory, monitoring consumer
    relations, and forecasting product sales. Moreover, advanced
    services have created new jobs, while enabling skilled employees to
    work more effectively in their current jobs. Advanced services have
    also created greater flexibility and opportunity in the workplace,
    particularly in the increased use of telecommuting by employees who
    remain connected to their jobs despite distance and other factors.

3.  In addition to their benefits to the economy, advanced services have
    a dramatic impact on individual citizens. Advanced services improve
    the educational opportunities of children and adults everywhere.
    High-speed connections to the Internet allow children in rural areas
    from Alaska to Florida to access the same information as
    schoolchildren in urban areas. Moreover, distance learning provides
    more choices for children and adults to access educational materials
    provided by distant learning institutions.

4.  Telemedicine networks made possible by advanced services save lives
    and improve the standard of healthcare in sparsely populated, rural
    areas. These services bring the skills and knowledge of specialized
    doctors and other medical professionals to people that would
    otherwise have to travel long distances to reach them. Advanced
    services also permit rural healthcare providers to utilize the
    latest medical information, which, in turn, improves the general
    provision of healthcare in areas of the country that have
    traditionally been underserved.

5.  Monitoring the progress of deployment of advanced telecommunications
    platforms and determining if steps can or should be taken to further
    encourage this growth is one of the Commission's most important
    duties. We therefore strongly encourage commenters to provide data
    and new ideas on how to conduct this and future section 706
    inquiries. We also invite the Federal-State Joint Conference on
    Advanced Telecommunications Services to submit any information that
    it deems appropriate into this docket.

# BACKGROUND 

6.  The Commission has conducted four inquiries pursuant to section 706
    to date, concluding in each proceeding that the deployment of
    advanced telecommunications capability was reasonable and timely on
    a general, nationwide basis.[^4] In the initial section 706 inquiry,
    the Commission presented a snapshot at the early stages of the
    deployment of advanced services. The Commission surveyed anecdotal
    evidence relating to trends in investment in broadband facilities,
    deployment of facilities that serve the "last mile" to consumers,
    and demand for broadband.[^5]

7.  In its second section 706 inquiry, the Commission expanded its
    information collection efforts to gain a more comprehensive
    understanding of the availability of advanced telecommunications
    capability. Among other things, the Commission launched a formal
    data collection program to gather standardized information from
    providers of advanced telecommunications capability through FCC Form
    477.[^6] The Commission also convened a Joint Conference, consisting
    of federal and state regulators, to provide a forum for an ongoing
    dialogue among the Commission, the states, and regional and local
    entities regarding the deployment of advanced telecommunications
    capability.[^7] Finally, the Commission undertook a series of
    in-depth case studies to gain a detailed understanding of how
    advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed and used in
    different communities.

8.  In its third section 706 inquiry, the Commission again examined the
    advanced services marketplace, using the same framework for
    information collection and analysis as previous inquiries.[^8] In
    reaching its conclusions, the Commission relied upon standardized
    information from providers of advanced telecommunications capability
    derived from FCC Form 477, as well as information gathered from
    commenters, analysts, and other sources.

9.  In its fourth section 706 inquiry, the Commission's report included
    a thorough discussion of developments in last-mile broadband
    technologies, as well as analysis of broadband deployment nationwide
    and in more specific categories, such as rural areas, schools,
    low-income populations, and minority groups.[^9] The Commission
    again relied on information from FCC Form 477 and on information
    provided by other publicly available sources.

10. Aside from its formal section 706 inquiries, the Commission has
    published semiannual statistical reports every year since 2000,
    summarizing the FCC Form 477 data relating to high-speed
    connections.[^10] In 2004, the Commission extended the data
    collection program for five years beyond its original sunset date of
    March 2005 and made significant improvements to FCC Form 477,
    including eliminating reporting thresholds that effectively exempted
    small entities from reporting requirements, and generally requiring
    more granular reporting of broadband data.[^11] The Commission
    continues to explore ways to refine and improve our broadband
    deployment data. Most recently, we adopted a notice of proposed
    rulemaking in which we seek comment on various ideas for improving
    our data collection and identifying more precisely the areas of the
    country where broadband is not available.[^12]

# ISSUES FOR INQUIRY

11. At the outset, we solicit information consistent with the framework
    utilized in past reports: (1) how should we define "advanced
    telecommunications capability"? (2) is advanced telecommunications
    capability being deployed to all Americans? (3) is the current level
    of deployment reasonable and timely? and (4) what actions, if any,
    can be taken to accelerate deployment? As the Commission did in its
    last section 706 inquiry, we examine additional questions of
    potential interest to policymakers. In particular, we seek to
    develop a better understanding of the economic considerations that
    support the deployment of advanced telecommunications capability. We
    hope to analyze available information relating to consumer adoption
    and usage of services requiring advanced telecommunications
    capability. In addition, we seek comment on the competitiveness of
    the broadband market and whether there is evidence of
    anticompetitive conduct in this market.[^13] We welcome any
    additional information that commenters believe would further public
    understanding and dialogue on these critical issues.

## What Is "Advanced Telecommunications Capability"?

12. We seek comment on how we should define "advanced telecommunications
    capability" for purposes of this inquiry. Since 1999, the Commission
    has used the terms "advanced telecommunications capability" and
    "high-speed, switched, broadband telecommunications capability," but
    has not definitively specified what speeds should be encompassed
    within these terms.[^14] In the past, the Commission has used the
    terms "advanced telecommunications capability" and "advanced
    services" to describe services and facilities with an upstream
    (customer-to-provider) and downstream (provider-to-customer)
    transmission speed of more than 200 kilobits per second (kbps).[^15]
    The Commission has also used the term "high-speed" to describe
    services and facilities with more than 200 kbps capability in at
    least one direction.[^16] Given the rapid technological changes in
    the marketplace, we seek comment on the need to alter the
    definitional framework utilized in prior inquiries.[^17] Has
    technology or the marketplace evolved such that we should redefine
    the term "advanced services" to require a minimum speed higher than
    200 kbps in one or both directions? Should we adopt a definition
    that establishes different tiers based on information transfer
    rates? Have consumer expectations with respect to bandwidth needs
    changed since prior reports?[^18] To what extent is mobility
    important to consumers when considering broadband alternatives? How
    has the development of new broadband technologies like wireless
    affected the marketplace evolution? Has development of the wireless
    broadband marketplace been affected by ownership of wireless
    companies by companies with substantial wireline broadband and
    public switched telephone network (PSTN) facilities? Do these
    cross-owned wireless companies offer different services or service
    bundles than wireless companies not controlled by or affiliated with
    a wireline carrier? What sources of information currently exist
    regarding the deployment of advanced telecommunications capability
    under alternative definitions? Are any other attributes, besides the
    speed in which a particular quantity of information can be
    transmitted, relevant to the definition of advanced
    telecommunications capability? Finally, should we adopt a system
    under which our definition would automatically adjust upwards over
    time to reflect technological advances? Are there data sources
    measuring the state of technology in other countries that can guide
    the Commission in defining 'advanced telecommunication capacity' for
    the United States? For example, what speed do consumers in other
    industrialized nations expect from mainstream wireline residential
    broadband technologies?

## Is Advanced Telecommunications Capability Being Deployed to All Americans?

13. We seek comment on whether advanced telecommunications capability is
    being deployed to all Americans. In particular, we seek comment on
    three general areas in order to facilitate our analysis: (1) the
    availability of advanced telecommunications capability and whether
    it has changed since the *Fourth Report*; (2) the economics
    underlying investment in advanced infrastructure and service
    deployment; and (3) technological improvements in advanced services
    technology.

14. [Availability.]{.underline} As previously noted, the Commission
    began gathering data about the provision of high-speed and advanced
    services to end users in 2000.[^19] All facilities-based providers
    of broadband connections to end users must report broadband data to
    the Commission.[^20] Each filer provides data on the total number of
    lines or wireless channels by technology (such as digital subscriber
    line (DSL), cable modem, wireless, satellite, or power line). For
    each "technology subtotal," providers report additional detail
    concerning the percentage of lines that are connected to residential
    end user premises, and they break down their high-speed lines into
    five speed categories, ranging from 200 kbps to greater than 100
    Mbps. From this data, we obtain a verifiable count of how much
    service within specified parameters is being delivered. Given the
    association between subscription and deployment, such data
    collection provides a means to assess the pace at which advanced
    telecommunications capabilities are being made available in
    different parts of the country and across different demographic
    groups. Additionally, for June 2005 and later data, the Commission's
    data gathering program requires incumbent LECs to report the extent
    to which their DSL broadband connections are available to the
    households to whom they can provide local telephone service, and
    requires cable companies to report the extent to which their cable
    modem service is available to the households to whom they can
    provide cable TV service.[^21]

15. We now have semiannual data about subscribership to high-speed and
    advanced services dating from December 1999 through June 2006. These
    data represent a significant time series for analysis and
    discussion. Now that we have several years of data, we are
    particularly interested in analyzing the trends that have developed
    over time. These data show a continued, steady increase in
    residential high-speed lines since our last section 706 report.[^22]
    We request comment on what conclusions we should draw from these
    data. We also seek comment on sources of data about other countries'
    development of advanced telecommunications facilities---including
    speed, availability, adoption, and price---that provide context
    about or a basis of comparison for the development of broadband
    facilities in this country.

16. We welcome additional data from external sources that will enable us
    to make informed judgments about whether advanced telecommunications
    capability is being made available to consumers in a reasonable and
    timely manner. We request objective, empirical data from companies,
    think tanks, governments, analysts, consumer groups, and others. We
    also seek data that would shed additional light on the extent to
    which consumers have a choice of competing providers of advanced or
    high-speed services. Ideally, we would have information about the
    choices available to consumers on a house-by-house and
    business-by-business basis. We welcome comments about how the
    Commission can develop or acquire data that best approaches this
    ideal, including from private parties, commercial vendors, or state
    agencies. We also seek information on whether such data exists for
    selected cities, states, or regions of the country, as well as
    comments about how and whether these selected data sets are
    representative of other cities, states, or regions of the country.
    Further, we seek comment on whether there are any specific,
    verifiable examples of anticompetitive conduct in the broadband
    market that are occurring today. We also seek examples of
    anticompetitive conduct---such as blocking or feature disabling---in
    the markets for wireless broadband service and/or wireless broadband
    devices. In addition, we seek comment on whether there are other
    ways of analyzing our existing FCC Form 477 data.

17. [Economics of Network Investment and Service
    Deployment.]{.underline} In the *Fourth Report*, the Commission
    concluded that incentives to invest in infrastructure for most
    high-speed and advanced services markets remained strong, and that
    the market would continue to expand while availability
    increases.[^23] We seek comment on current investment trends and the
    extent to which they may reflect the availability of high-speed and
    advanced services. We seek comment on the relationship between the
    pace of investment, consumer demand, and general market
    expectations. We also seek comment on whether providers of
    high-speed and advanced services have access to sufficient levels of
    capital to fund infrastructure build-out and whether additional
    steps should be taken to accelerate deployment. Additionally, what
    effect have recent market changes, including technological and
    regulatory changes, in the industry had on broadband
    deployment?[^24]

18. We seek to develop a greater understanding of the economics
    underlying deployment of advanced telecommunications capability and
    services that utilize that capability. How do the economics change
    over time as certain levels of deployment and/or penetration are
    achieved? Do the economics of deploying advanced telecommunications
    capability limit its availability in some geographic areas? How do
    providers differentiate their product among different consumer
    groups? What strategies, tactics, plans, organization, and
    operational structures do firms utilize to deliver new technologies
    and applications services to consumers?

19. We also seek comment on the pricing of broadband services, and what
    impact different pricing structures might have on broadband
    deployment and consumer usage. We note that some companies offer
    tiered service schemes, which permit both entry level and more
    sophisticated, higher-bandwidth services to be delivered over the
    same infrastructure.[^25] To what extent could the availability of
    different product tiers affect penetration in today's marketplace?
    To what extent should the existence of product tiering affect our
    assessment of whether advanced telecommunications capability is
    being deployed on a reasonable and timely basis? We seek information
    relating price points to various speeds at which high-speed and
    advanced services are being made available to consumers. We seek
    specific comment on how the Commission can incorporate into the
    section 706 report information about the price of broadband services
    in the United States and how these prices compare to comparable
    services in other countries. How should the Commission gather
    information about broadband prices in the United States and how can
    it most usefully present it? Is aggregation at the national level
    appropriate, or does price vary by region (and if so, how should
    region be defined)? Should pricing information be disaggregated by
    type of service (e.g., wireless, DSL, fiber to the home (FTTH),
    satellite, cable modem, and so forth) or by speed tier? Or should it
    be presented in some other fashion?

20. [Trends in Developing Technologies.]{.underline} In prior reports,
    the Commission looked closely at the various technologies currently
    capable of providing high-speed and advanced services as well as
    those technologies that are likely to emerge in the near future.
    Most recently, the *Fourth Report* described in detail several
    last-mile technologies used to provide high-speed systems: (1) cable
    modem service; (2) DSL (especially asymmetric DSL, or ADSL); (3)
    fiber-based wireline technologies, specifically FTTH and
    fiber-to-the-curb (FTTC); (4) licensed and unlicensed wireless
    technologies; (5) broadband over power lines (BPL); and (6)
    satellite service.[^26] The Commission determined that competition
    among providers within certain technologies is emerging and that
    there is potential for several different technological options for
    providing high-speed and advanced services.[^27]

21. We seek comment on technological developments that have occurred
    since the *Fourth Report*. What new technologies are now being used
    to provide high-speed or advanced services, or are likely to be used
    in the near future?[^28] How widely have these new technologies been
    deployed, and what percentage of customers utilizes such services?
    To what extent have these developments improved the speed and range
    of services offered to consumers? Are certain technological
    developments likely to be particularly beneficial to specific groups
    of customers, such as rural customers or customers with
    disabilities? In particular, what is the role of mobile network
    technologies, such as EV-DO and WCDMA/HSDPA,[^29] that allow
    high-speed Internet access on wireless devices and have been widely
    deployed since the *Fourth Report*? What role will emerging
    technologies such as FTTH, WiMAX,[^30] and BPL play in broadband
    access? Have there been any other changes in the industry that
    affect the Commission's conclusions in the *Fourth Report*?

22. We note that the Commission's Form 477 data collection program
    captures the marketplace presence of broadband services that utilize
    new and innovative technologies once consumer up-take of the
    services reaches a certain level. Our data collection does not,
    however, directly monitor the development of new technologies with
    likely, or possible, application to advanced services. Nor does our
    data collection program directly monitor the development of
    innovative applications that utilize advanced telecommunications
    capability. We therefore invite parties to bring to our attention
    technologies that might be used by current or potential providers to
    deliver new advanced services to consumers. In addition, we are
    interested in technologies that might be used directly by consumers,
    *e.g*., within the consumer's premises, to lower the cost or
    difficulty of installing or using advanced services. We also are
    interested in technologies that might enable new broadband
    applications of interest to consumers.

## Is Deployment Reasonable and Timely?

23. Once we have gathered information on the deployment of advanced
    telecommunications capability, section 706 requires that we
    determine whether such capability is being deployed to all Americans
    "in a reasonable and timely fashion." We generally seek comment on
    whether advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed to
    all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion and ask commenters
    to describe the empirical basis for their conclusions. We request
    comment on whether to modify our analytical framework in this
    inquiry, and welcome suggestions of additional or alternative
    criteria. Are there other areas of inquiry that would be informative
    for the Commission to explore? Are there other ways in which we
    could make better use of the broadband data the Commission currently
    collects?

24. In the *Fourth Report*, the Commission specifically considered the
    availability of advanced services for several groups of consumers,
    including businesses, residential consumers, rural communities,
    elementary and secondary students, low-income customers, minority
    consumers, and persons with disabilities.[^31] Should we separately
    examine these specific categories in this inquiry? Are there other
    types of consumers or geographic areas that are likely to experience
    broadband deployment at a different pace such that we should also
    monitor the rate of deployment to those customers and areas? For
    example, should we examine whether, within specific metropolitan
    areas, high-speed services are available equally in suburban and
    more urban areas?

25. We specifically seek comment on the status of deployment of
    high-speed and advanced services to consumers living in rural and
    other hard-to-serve areas. Our data collection shows that
    subscriptions to high-speed services in sparsely populated zip codes
    have increased, and the gap between the numbers of densely and
    sparsely populated zip codes that have high-speed subscribers has
    shrunk. For example, in June 2006, 89.3% of the most sparsely
    populated zip codes had high-speed subscribers, compared to 73.4%
    two years earlier.[^32] Moreover, over the last two years, the gap
    between the most densely populated zip codes and most sparsely
    populated zip codes had shrunk from 25.5 percentage points to 10.1
    percentage points, largely due to increases in the number of most
    sparsely populated zip codes with subscribers.[^33] What are some of
    the reasons for this reduction in the gap between the most densely
    populated and the most sparsely populated zip codes? To what extent
    can changes in data over the past two years be attributed to the
    more precise information that the Commission has collected?[^34]
    Should the Commission more closely analyze the data it currently
    collects to identify more precisely areas where broadband is not
    available? Do consumers in rural and other hard-to-serve areas enjoy
    choices among technologies and tiers of high-speed services
    comparable to those available to consumers in urban areas?[^35] Are
    high-speed services available to consumers in rural and other
    hard-to-serve areas at rates comparable to those rates charged in
    urban areas?

26. We also seek focused comment on the deployment of advanced
    telecommunications capability to low-income individuals. We note
    that, as of June 2006, 99.3% of the highest-income zip codes had
    high-speed lines, and 90.6% of the lowest-income zip codes had
    high-speed lines.[^36] By comparison, as of June 2004, 98.7% of the
    highest-income zip codes had high-speed lines, and 81.3% of the
    lowest income zip codes had high-speed lines.[^37] As a result, over
    the last two years, the gap between the highest- and lowest-income
    zip codes shrank from 17.4 to 8.7 percentage points, primarily due
    to increases in the number of low-income zip codes with subscribers.
    Why has the gap between the highest-income zip codes and the
    lowest-income zip codes decreased over the past two years? Have any
    specific developments occurred that account for these changes? To
    what extent are firms marketing lower-priced tiers of services to
    low-income consumers?

27. In addition, we seek comment on the availability of advanced
    telecommunications capability to individuals living on tribal lands
    and in the U.S. territories. The United States Government
    Accountability Office has found that subscribership to
    Internet-access services by Native American households on tribal
    lands is unknown because no federal survey has been designed to
    track this information.[^38] At this time, service providers report
    high-speed lines in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American
    Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands.[^39] Does the information
    from our data collection program adequately capture the availability
    of high-speed or advanced services in these areas? In areas where
    services are being made available, are they being deployed to all
    consumers, or just a limited number of consumers? What types of
    unique challenges are associated with the deployment of advanced
    services in tribal areas or U.S. territories? Are these challenges
    similar to or distinguishable from those encountered by consumers
    living in rural areas of the nation? What types of technology are
    being used to provide advanced services on tribal lands? What types
    of technology are most widely deployed on tribal lands and why? Are
    there certain types of technological developments that may be
    especially promising for future deployment in tribal areas or the
    U.S. territories?

28. We also seek specific comment on the deployment of advanced
    telecommunications capability to elementary and secondary schools
    and classrooms, an area in which the federal universal service fund
    provides substantial support for advanced services.[^40] The U.S.
    Department of Education publishes on an annual basis various
    statistics relating to Internet access in U.S. public schools and
    classrooms. Among other things, the most recent study documents the
    steady increase in the number of schools with Internet access, and
    the number of instructional classrooms with Internet access.[^41]
    For instance, in 2005, the most recent year for which figures have
    been published, nearly 100% of public schools had access to the
    Internet, compared to 35% in 1994.[^42] Moreover, in 2005, 94% of
    public school classrooms had access to the Internet, compared to 3%
    in 1994.[^43] In 2005, 97% of public schools with Internet access
    reported using broadband connections for Internet access, compared
    to 85% in 2001.[^44] Do these figures support a conclusion that
    advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed to
    elementary and secondary schools and classrooms on a reasonable and
    timely basis? Are there any other sources of information that would
    provide insight into whether the deployment of advanced
    telecommunications services to elementary and secondary schools and
    classrooms is occurring on a reasonable and timely basis?

29. To what extent do persons with disabilities have access to advanced
    telecommunications? What types of barriers do persons with
    disabilities encounter with respect to accessing advanced
    telecommunications? Have there been recent developments in adaptive
    technologies that improve access to advanced telecommunications for
    persons with disabilities? Does the availability of Internet-based
    forms of telecommunications relay services (TRS), including Video
    Relay Service, play a role in promoting demand for and access to
    high-speed services among persons with disabilities? To what extent
    do income, employment, and related factors affect the ability of
    persons with disabilities to access advanced or high-speed services?
    How should the Commission evaluate the "availability" of advanced
    telecommunications services for persons with disabilities, given the
    unique challenges that persons with disabilities may encounter in
    accessing advanced services? Are advanced services being made
    available to medically underserved rural communities?

30. If granular data cannot reasonably be collected across the entire
    country for each of the categories listed above, we seek comment on
    any other sources of data that may exist that would provide a better
    picture of broadband deployment. Would it be reasonable for the
    Commission to draw any conclusions based on this more limited data?
    Furthermore, we seek comment on data that may illustrate the
    relationship between broadband adoption and specific household
    demographic information, such as income, education, race, tribal
    status and disability status.

31. Finally, we seek comment on how the availability of advanced
    telecommunications services in the United States as compared to
    other nations affects the ability of our citizens to compete in a
    global economy. What effect do any trends in this area have on
    international trade and the U.S. economic position in the global
    economy? We also seek comment on what data we should use to consider
    the question of international comparisons. Are there regularly
    published, reliable data that use comparable definitions,
    measurement standards and reporting practices? Should the Commission
    analyze broadband policies adopted by other nations and how those
    regulatory policies had affected the availability of broadband?
    Should we present such an analysis in the 706 Report or some other
    report?

## What Actions Can Accelerate Deployment?

32. Pursuant to the 1996 Act, "the Commission and each State commission
    . . . shall encourage the deployment on a reasonable and timely
    basis of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans . .
    . by utilizing . . . price cap regulation, regulatory forbearance,
    measures that promote competition in the local telecommunications
    market, or other regulating methods that remove barriers to
    infrastructure investment."[^45] To the extent commenters advocate
    that we should undertake additional actions to encourage the
    deployment of advanced telecommunications capability, they should
    set forth those proposals with specificity. We also note that if we
    find that advanced telecommunications capability is not being
    deployed in a reasonable and timely manner, Congress requires 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."
    [^46] Are there groups of Americans for whom the pace of deployment
    justifies action under section 706 to remove barriers to
    infrastructure investment or to promote competition? If so, what
    would those specific actions entail, and what would the costs and
    benefits of those actions be?

## What Are Patterns of Consumer Adoption and Usage of Services Utilizing Advanced Telecommunications Capability? 

33. We seek information about how and why consumers, both individuals
    and businesses, adopt and use services utilizing advanced
    telecommunications capability. We seek specific comment on research
    or data that addresses which factors besides availability of
    broadband services---such as price, speed, consumer awareness of
    availability, quality of customer service, waiting period for
    installation of broadband service after an order is placed, cost of
    customer premise equipment, existence of broadband service at the
    workplace, and demographic variables like age, gender, education,
    income, tribal status, etc...---affect consumers' decisions to
    acquire broadband service. As GAO has found, while broadband
    infrastructure deployment is extensive, information about where
    subscribers are served may not depict with a high degree of accuracy
    the local deployment of broadband, especially in rural areas.[^47]
    We seek to develop a better understanding of the specific
    applications and services that utilize advanced platforms. If the
    application or service existed prior to the advent of advanced
    infrastructure capable of transmitting information at higher speeds,
    how has it benefited by the deployment of such infrastructure? To
    what degree, if any, could these applications and services be
    improved if advanced infrastructure was more ubiquitous? Are there
    certain economies of scale that could be achieved if broadband was
    used by more individuals or businesses? Would the same be true if
    advanced telecommunications capability was deployed in more places?

34. We also seek information about consumers of advanced services. How
    integral have advanced services become to these consumers?  To what
    degree do businesses and individuals rely on advanced services to
    conduct business, sell products, or educate their children?  Do
    customers of businesses that utilize advanced services enjoy lower
    prices, greater choices, or faster service? Moreover, what
    applications and services used by such individuals require access to
    advanced services themselves? We request that commenters not only
    discuss specific, current services and applications, but possible
    future ones as well.

# Procedural Matters

## Ex Parte Presentations

35. This is an exempt proceeding in which ex parte presentations are
    permitted (except during the Sunshine Agenda period) and need not be
    disclosed.[^48]

## Comment Filing Procedures

36. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47
    CFR §§ 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply
    comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this
    document. Comments may be filed using: (1) the Commission's
    Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal
    Government's eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. *See
    Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings*, 63 FR
    24121 (1998).

-   Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the
    Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ or the
    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Filers
    should follow the instructions provided on the website for
    submitting comments.

    -   For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear
        in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one
        electronic copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking
        number referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal
        screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal
        Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking
        number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by
        Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, filers should send
        an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the following words in
        the body of the message, "get form." A sample form and
        directions will be sent in response.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an
    original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or
    rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers
    must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
    rulemaking number.

> Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial
> overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service
> mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S.
> Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the
> Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal
> Communications Commission.

-   The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or
    messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at
    236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The
    filing hours at this location are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand
    deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any
    envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building.

-   Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express
    Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive,
    Capitol Heights, MD 20743.

-   U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail should
    be addressed to 445 12^th^ Street, SW, Washington DC 20554.

37. People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats
    for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic
    files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the
    Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice),
    202-418-0432 (tty).

38. In addition, one copy of each pleading must be sent to each of the
    following:

39. The Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing,
    Inc, 445 12^th^ Street, S.W., Room CY-B402, Washington, D.C. 20554;
    website: www.bcpiweb.com; phone: 1-800-378-3160

    \(1\) Jeremy Miller, Competition Policy Division, Wireline
    Competition Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12^th^
    Street, S.W., Room 5-B540, Washington, D.C. 20554; e-mail:
    Jeremy.Miller@fcc.gov.

40. Filings and comments are also available for public inspection and
    copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference
    Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room CY-A257,
    Washington, D.C., 20554. Copies may also be purchased from the
    Commission\'s duplicating contractor, BCPI, 445 12th Street, S.W.,
    Room CY-B402, Washington, D.C. 20554. Customers may contact BCPI
    through its website: www.bcpiweb.com, by e-mail at fcc@bcpiweb.com,
    by telephone at (202) 488-5300 or (800) 378-3160, or by facsimile
    at (202) 488-5563.

41. For further information regarding this proceeding, contact Jeremy
    Miller, Wireline Competition Bureau, at (202) 418-1500.

# Ordering Clauses

42. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 706 of the
    Telecommunications Act of 1996, this Notice of Inquiry IS ADOPTED.

#### FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION {#federal-communications-commission .unnumbered}

####  {#section .unnumbered}

#### Marlene H. Dortch Secretary  {#marlene-h.-dortch-secretary .unnumbered}

**STATEMENT OF**

**CHAIRMAN KEVIN J. MARTIN**

*Re: Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications
Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable And Timely Fashion, and
Possible Steps To Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of
the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (GN Docket No. 07-45)*

The United States is the largest broadband market in the world with over
56 million broadband subscribers according to the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Encouraging the deployment
of affordable broadband services to all Americans is a top priority of
mine and of the Commission. I am proud of the progress we have made in
broadband deployment by creating an environment that better facilitates
infrastructure investment.

Since I arrived at the Commission in July 2001, high speed lines in the
U.S. have gone from 9 million to nearly 65 million. According to the
Commission's most recent data, high-speed connections increased by 26%
in the first half of 2006 and by 52% from June 2005 to June 2006.

A recent independent study by Pew confirmed this trend, finding that
from March 2005 to March 2006, overall broadband adoption increased by
40% -- from 60 to 84 million -- twice the growth rate of the year
before. The study found that, although overall penetration rates in
rural areas still lags behind urban areas, broadband adoption in rural
America also grew at approximately the same rate (39%). Perhaps most
importantly, the Pew study found that the significant increase in
broadband adoption was widespread and cut across all demographics. For
example, broadband adoption grew by more than 120% among African
Americans and grew by almost 70% among middle-income households (those
with incomes between \$40,000 and \$50,000 per year).

The Pew data also confirms that the price of broadband service has
dropped in the past two years. Specifically, the Pew Report found that
between February 2004 and December 2005, the average price for
high-speed service declined from \$39 per month to \$36 per month.
Currently, Verizon and Comcast each offer promotional broadband packages
for \$19.99 per month, for example, and AT&T has committed to providing
new retail broadband customers a \$10 a month broadband Internet access
service throughout the combined region.

While we have made progress recently, as I have said before, there is
more we can do. For example, the Commission is committed to obtaining
the best information possible about the deployment, access, and
affordability of broadband services nationwide. Last year for instance,
for the first time we began reporting information regarding different
speeds of broadband connections (e.g., about services offered at speeds
in excess of 200 kbps).

The Broadband Data NPRM we adopt today will allow the Commission to gain
an even better picture of broadband deployment in this country. The
Notice asks questions about how we can obtain more specific information
about broadband deployment and consumer acceptance in specific
geographic areas and how we can combine our data with those collected at
the state level or by other public sources. By improving our data
collection, we will be able to identify more precisely those areas of
the country where additional broadband deployment is needed.

We also launch today our fifth inquiry into "whether advanced
telecommunications capability is being deployed to all Americans in a
reasonable and timely fashion." 47 U.S.C. §157 nt. In this Notice, we
seek comment on all aspects of broadband availability, including price
and bandwidth speeds. In particular, we seek comment on whether, given
the evolution of technology and the marketplace, we should redefine the
term "advanced services" to require higher minimum speeds.

Between these two proceedings, it is my hope that the Commission will
solicit the information necessary to better assess the competitive
progress in the broadband market. We have already taken some steps to
improve the information we collect and report, but the items we adopt
today will provide additional important progress towards our goal of
universal affordable broadband access for Americans.

**STATEMENT OF\
COMMISSIONER** **MICHAEL J. COPPS**

 

Re:       *Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced
Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and
Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment
Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996*

 

It has been more than three years since the Commission last sought
comment on America's broadband market in order to prepare its fourth
section 706 report.  I stated then my great dismay that our nation had
fallen to 11^th^ in the world in broadband deployment.  And I dissented
from the Commission's conclusion several months later that 11^th^ in the
world was somehow an acceptable state of affairs. 

 

Never in my wildest imagination did I believe that 11^th^ in the world
would feel like the good old days.  But it turns out that things
***could**---*and ***did**---*get worse.* *

* *

To be sure, more Americans are connected to the Internet than three
years ago and more have upgraded from dial-up.  But that is cold comfort
indeed.  I doubt that anything in the world could prevent companies and
consumers from taking at least ***some*** advantage of the astonishing
advances in technology in the intervening years, in spite of the
commercial and regulatory missteps that have dotted the road.  The fact
remains that America is now 15^th^ in the world in broadband penetration
according to the ITU, or 21^st^ according the same organization's newer
Digital Opportunity Index.  Whatever the measurement, the rest of the
world is connecting and upgrading faster than us.  And we continue to
fall further and further behind even as broadband edges closer and
closer to the center of our nation's economy and the world economy. 

 

Can we finally agree that something drastic needs to be done?

 

We can start by facing up to our problem and doing our level best to
diagnose its causes.  We need to know ***why*** so many Americans do not
have broadband, and ***why*** those who do (or think they do) are paying
twice as much for connections one-twentieth as fast those enjoyed by
customers in some other countries.  This is not just an exercise in
self-flagellation (though we certainly deserve that by now).  Rather, it
is the first step in coming up with some solutions that can start to
reverse our nation's slide into technological and communications
mediocrity.

 

If the Commission had prudently invested in better broadband
data-gathering a decade ago, I believe we'd all be better off---not just
the government, but more importantly, consumers and industry.  We'd have
a better handle on how to fix the problem because we'd have a better
understanding of the problem.  We would already have granular data,
reported by carriers, on the range of broadband speeds and prices that
consumers in urban, suburban, exurban, rural and tribal areas currently
face. We would know which factors---like age, gender, education, race,
income, disability status, and so forth---most affect consumer broadband
decisions.  We would understand how various markets respond to numerous
variables.  We could already be using our section 706 reports to inform
Congress and the country of the realities of the broadband world as the
basis for charting, finally, a strategy for the ubiquitous penetration
of truly competitive high-speed broadband.  I don't believe we'd be
21^st^ in the world had we gone down that road.  But that was the road
not taken. 

 

Fast forward to 2007 and---good news, bad news---we are asking, in a
companion item released today, ***how*** to go about gathering such
information.  I think everyone at this table agrees on the need for
improvements in our data collection objectives and procedures.  But
reality is that it will be years before we will have the benefit of the
kind of FCC data we need to fill the gaps I have mentioned.  This
decade-long refusal to update our methodology is just not an acceptable
outcome when we are, by statute, charged with encouraging the deployment
of advanced communications services to all our citizens. 

 

It is good news that the item we launch today, while late, is much, much
better that its forerunners.  And I do want to thank the Chairman for
working with us to develop a set of questions that take us where we have
not gone before.  Today's item asks important questions about how the
FCC can employ data and analysis from localities, states, private
researchers, private-public partnerships, other federal agencies (like
the General Accounting Office) and industry in order to fill in the gaps
in our own data and analysis.  Specifically, we seek comment on how to
gather information on speed, price, international comparisons, and the
many, many other factors that are part of a full picture of broadband in
America.  These are the right questions, and I am hopeful that
interested parties will do everything they can to help the Commission
develop an accurate picture about the true state of broadband in our
country.  I will certainly be watching to make sure that we make good
use of the comments we receive to write an honest, revealing report on
the state of broadband in American *circa* 2007---the year, some will
remember, when the nation was promised access for all to broadband.  We
didn't achieve that goal, but a late start is better than no start and
the time to re-dedicate ourselves to change is certainly now. 

 

I thank the Bureau, too, for the significant improvements contained in
this item and I look forward to frequent updates on how this is all
proceeding.

**STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN**

Re: *Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications
Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and
Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of
the Telecommunications Act of 1996*, Notice of Inquiry (2007).

Today we take the first step toward a long-awaited and much-needed
review of the broadband marketplace, focusing the spotlight on
deployment, availability, affordability, and competitiveness. In the
three years since the Commission commenced its last Section 706 Report,
affordable and high quality broadband services have only become more
critical to our economy and quality of life. Yet, even as we see the
importance of these services increasing, we have witnessed a precipitous
decline in our international standing, with the U.S. falling further
behind our global competitors not just in broadband penetration but in
broadband value. So, in order to develop a comprehensive strategy for
moving ourselves back into a leadership position for the digital age, it
is is critical that we engage in a candid assessment of the availability
and affordability of broadband for *all* Americans.

One of America's central challenges is promoting the widespread
deployment of higher-bandwidth broadband facilities to carry the vast
array of new innovative services that are transforming virtually every
aspect of the way we communicate, and to make sure that these facilities
are affordable for consumers. We stand at the forefront of a revolution
in the applications that will ride over this infrastructure. They are
reshaping the way we work, educate our children, provide health care to
our citizens, govern, practice democracy, and interact with one another.
These are tools that can play a crucial role in driving our economy,
enhancing public safety, and revitalizing our communities. Recognizing
the importance of these tools, Congress directed this Commission, in
Section 706 of the 1996 Act, to ensure that all Americans have
reasonable and timely access to broadband services and to issue regular
reports on its deployment.

This is the second such inquiry since I have been at the Commission. I
have long called for a more comprehensive, detailed, and accurate
assessment of where we stand. Good and instructive stories abound, and I
am optimistic that this Commission can take a greater role documenting
these successes and helping other communities and providers work
together to meet their challenges. At the same time, we must confront
head-on the uncomfortable reality that every year we slip further down
the rankings of broadband penetration, according to the leading
international reports. More troubling, there is growing evidence that
citizens of other countries are getting a much greater broadband value,
in the form of more megabits for less money. According to the ITU, the
digital opportunity afforded to U.S. citizens is not even near the top,
it is 21st in the world. Right now, it appears that U.S. consumers pay
nearly twice as much as Japanese customers for connections that are
twenty times as slow. This is more than a public relations problem, it's
a productivity problem. We need an honest picture of how we have fallen
to best learn how to pick ourselves up again.

It has become increasingly apparent that an issue of this importance to
the economy and the success of our communities demands a coherent,
cohesive, and comprehensive strategy \-- one that seriously addresses
our successes and failures, and strives to improve our broadband status.
The first step in addressing this challenge is to collect better data
about the state of the marketplace and to perform a realistic assessment
of our success and failures. Our efforts in this proceeding can be
tremendously valuable. We can either assess carefully our current
strengths and weakness and develop responsive solutions as a foundation
for success, or don an emperor's robe.

So, I am grateful to my colleagues that this *Notice* asks so many of
the right questions. Most importantly, it asks whether broadband
services are being made to *all* Americans, as the statute directs. The
Notice asks important questions about how we should assess our progress
on this front. In that respect, we must find ways to move beyond our
current methodology for assessing broadband availability and
competition, which are now recognized almost universally as flawed and
broken beyond the point of usefulness. In our companion item, also
released today, we seek comment once again on proposals for revising our
formal broadband data gathering program. Unfortunately, the timing of
these items is less than optimal. Given that the Commission has
typically completed its Section 706 Reports within 180 days, it will
take a Herculean effort to derive any benefit from any changes we might
make to our formal data gathering program.

I am pleased, nevertheless, that this *Notice* asks fundamental
questions about broadband deployment to consumers in rural areas,
persons with disabilities, and Native Americans. The record we develop
in this proceeding can improve our understanding of the challenges of
providing broadband to these consumers, and on the unique opportunities
that broadband services can bring. In many ways, these customers stand
to benefit most from the services that broadband enables. Broadband
gives businesses in rural and Native American communities the tools they
need to compete across the globe. By giving these citizens access to
telemedicine and distance learning, not to mention the vast array and
ever growing resources available through the Internet, we give rural
residents and their children the same opportunities that others enjoy.
We have also seen so many success stories in providing broadband to
consumers with disabilities, and I encourage commenters to help us
understand the secrets of their successes.

This *Notice* also explores what lessons we can learn from those nations
that may be deploying broadband more quickly, and seeks critical
information on the prices and speeds available in the U.S. and other
markets. We need to put a spotlight on the cost per megabit of
broadband, the telecom equivalent of what you pay at the pump for a
gallon of gas. I am also pleased that this *Notice* explicitly seeks
comment on the *competitiveness* of the broadband market, by launching
an inquiry that we committed to do as part of our review of the major
BOC-IXC mergers in late 2005. Consumers won't be well-served if we let
the U.S. broadband market stagnate into duopoly, so I hope that our
assessment of the state of competition for broadband services will be
analytically-sound and rigorous.

As we shoot for real high-bandwidth broadband deployment, we must set
ambitious goals but we must also take stock, in a honest and
comprehensive manner, of where we stand today. I commend the Chairman,
my colleagues, and the Bureau for their efforts to improve both this
*Notice* and the *Broadband Data Gathering Notice*, over the course of
our review. I look forward to working with all my colleagues here and
the many interested outside parties -- including Members of Congress,
state and local policymakers, providers, consumers, and academics \-- as
we take on this critical task. Working together, we must develop a
comprehensive and honest report that gives us a roadmap back to the top
of the mountain, not to somewhere in the valley.

**STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER DEBORAH TAYLOR TATE**

> *Re: Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications
> Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and
> Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706
> of the Telecommunications Act of 1996*

As a state official, I witnessed first-hand the incredible impact
broadband networks and services have on real communities and families
across Tennessee. From watching our state become the first to connect
every school to the Internet, to celebrating the 10^th^ anniversary of
the E-rate program, I've seen how millions of children all across this
country are benefiting in ways we never dreamed possible before. From
Appalachia to Alaska, I have also seen the impact of broadband services
to improve the quality and availability of health care services to more
Americans, particularly those in the most rural and isolated
communities. Pockets of incredible stories, uses, and innovative
projects abound, but we need to do more in order to ensure that *all*
Americans enjoy the benefits that broadband can bring.

While a state member of the Federal-State Joint Conference on Advanced
Telecommunications Services, I encouraged the Commission to do more, and
am now pleased that we are doing just that. Congress charged us with
regularly inquiring into the availability of advanced telecommunications
capability to all Americans and, through this proceeding, we are
fulfilling our obligation. But, more importantly, we will be providing
information to CEOs deciding where to locate a new business, to
consumers seeking e-learning, and to healthcare providers sharing
medical records to better coordinate patient care. I also hope this will
enable us to showcase some of the most innovative and exciting
public-private initiatives across the country and serve as a
clearinghouse for local officials, businesses, providers, and consumers
seeking to bring all the opportunities and promise that broadband
provides to their communities.

Meeting the goal of providing broadband to this vast and geographically
challenging country will not be easy. It cannot and should not be up to
government alone. But with American ingenuity, corporate commitment, the
promise of new jobs to economically depressed areas, and reduced
healthcare costs, we all can be part of the solution. We must be in
order to continue our role of global leadership and to ensure that we
prepare, educate, and provide the tools necessary for tomorrow's
innovators.

**STATEMENT**

**COMMISSIONER ROBERT M. McDOWELL**

*Re: Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications
Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and
Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of
the Telecommunications Act of 1996,*

*GN Docket No. 07-45, Notice of Inquiry*

By adopting these two items, we are taking important steps to update and
refine the Commission's efforts to determine the current state of
broadband deployment in the U.S., including the market, investment and
technological trends of advanced telecommunications capabilities. In the
*Data Collection* *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, we seek comment on
how we can further refine our information collection on broadband
deployment to more accurately reflect service to rural areas and to
include advanced wireless technologies. In the *Section 706* *Notice of
Inquiry*, we expect to receive comments that will focus our
understanding of how to define advanced telecommunications capability,
the status of deployment of broadband capability to all Americans, the
reasonableness and timeliness of the current level of deployment, and
what actions can or should be taken to accelerate deployment. I look
forward to receiving the comments in both of these proceedings as part
of the Commission's ongoing effort to continue to increase the rate of
broadband penetration and foster more choices for all types of
consumers. We should continue to seize every opportunity to move America
forward in this important area.

[^1]: *See* § 706(b) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L.
    104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996) (1996 Act), reproduced in the notes
    under 47 U.S.C. § 157.

[^2]: Congress specified that the term "advanced telecommunications
    capability" is defined "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 using any
    technology." *See* § 706(c) of the 1996 Act.

[^3]: For purposes of this inquiry, we use the terms "advanced" and
    "broadband" service interchangeably.

[^4]: *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 (1999) (*First Report*); *Inquiry Concerning
    the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All
    Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion and Possible Steps to
    Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the
    Telecommunications Act of 1996*, CC Docket No. 98-146, Second
    Report, 15 FCC Rcd 20913 (2000) (*Second Report*); *Inquiry
    Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability
    to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion and Possible
    Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the
    Telecommunications Act of 1996*, CC Docket No. 98-146, Report, 17
    FCC Rcd 2844 (2002) (*Third Report*); *Availability of Advanced
    Telecommunications Capability in the United States*, GN Docket No.
    04-54, Fourth Report to Congress, 19 FCC Rcd 20540 (2004) (*Fourth
    Report*).

[^5]: *First Report*, 14 FCC Rcd 2398.

[^6]: *Local Competition and Broadband Reporting,* CC Docket No. 99-301,
    Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 7717 (2000) (*2000 Data Gathering
    Order*).

[^7]: The Federal-State Joint Conference on Advanced Telecommunications
    Services was convened by the Commission on October 8, 1999 to
    further the vision of section 706 of the 1996 Act. To that end, the
    Joint Conference has held several field hearings to gather
    information on the deployment of advanced services, and issued a
    report regarding the availability and demand for broadband services
    in the United States. *See* *Broadband Services in the United
    States: An Analysis of Availability and Demand*, Federal-State Joint
    Conference on Advanced Services, October 2002.

[^8]: *Third Report*, 17 FCC Rcd at 2847-50, para. 7.

[^9]: *Fourth Report*, 19 FCC Rcd 20540.

[^10]: FCC Form 477 collects on a semiannual basis information relating
    to the provision of services that deliver an information-carrying
    capability in excess of 200 kbps in at least one direction. We have,
    to date, collected and published information 14 times under this
    program. The most recently published report, attached as Appendix A
    to this Notice, presents data as of June 2006. *See* Federal
    Communications Commission, Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry
    Analysis and Technology Division, *High-Speed Services for Internet
    Access: Status as of June 30, 2006* (rel. Jan. 31, 2007) (*June 2006
    Statistical Summary*), *available at*
    http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270128A1.pdf.

[^11]: *See Local Telephone Competition and Broadband Reporting*, WC
    Docket No. 04-141, Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 22340 (2004) (*2004
    Data Gathering Order*). The first report to reflect these changes
    was released in April 2005. *See* Federal Communications Commission,
    Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry Analysis and Technology
    Division, *High-Speed Services for Internet Access: Status as of
    June 30, 2005* (rel. Apr. 3, 2006), *available at*
    http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/iatd/comp.html.

[^12]: *Development of Nationwide Broadband Data to Evaluate Reasonable
    and Timely Deployment of Advanced Services to All Americans*, WC
    Docket No. 07-38, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 07-17 (rel.
    Apr. 16, 2007). A report recently issued by the United States
    Government Accountability Office (GAO) reviews the strengths and
    weaknesses of available data about broadband availability, including
    FCC Form 477 data. United States Government Accountability Office,
    *Broadband Deployment Is Extensive Throughout the United States, But
    It Is Difficult to Assess the Extent of Deployment Gaps in Rural
    Areas*, GAO-06-426 (May 2006) (*GAO Broadband Report*). The GAO
    report concludes that, while broadband deployment is extensive
    nationwide, it remains very difficult to assess the extent of
    deployment gaps in rural areas. *Id.* at 38-39. The GAO report
    recommends that, in order to develop a better understanding of the
    dynamics of broadband deployment and availability in rural areas
    particularly, the Commission should "develop information regarding
    the degree of cost and burden that would be associated with various
    options for improving the information about broadband deployment."
    *Id*. GAO conducted its work from April 2005 through February 2006,
    before Commission staff finished reviewing and compiling the first
    data submitted to the Commission (on September 1, 2005) pursuant to
    the modified Form 477 adopted in the *2004 Data Gathering Order*,
    and the GAO report discusses those modifications as well as GAO
    conversations with Commission staff. GAO's discussion assumes that
    the modified data would be available for Commission use.

[^13]: *See infra*, para. 16; *see also SBC Communications, Inc. and
    AT&T Corp. Applications for Approval of Transfer of Control*, WC
    Docket No. 05-65, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 18290,
    18392, para. 208 (2005) (*SBC/AT&T Order*) ("More generally, due to
    the Commission's interest in widespread broadband availability, the
    Commission commits to seek comment and issue an annual report
    assessing the competitiveness of the broadband market and whether
    there is evidence of anticompetitive conduct in this market.");
    *Verizon Communications, Inc. and MCI, Inc. Applications for
    Approval of Transfer of Control*, WC Docket No. 05-75, Memorandum
    Opinion and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 18433, 18537, para. 218 (2005)
    (*Verizon/MCI Order*) (same).

[^14]: *See* *supra* n.Error: Reference source not found.

[^15]: *See, e.g.*, *Fourth Report*, 19 FCC Rcd at 20551-52.

[^16]: *See, e.g.*, *id.* at 20551.

[^17]: The Commission requires FCC Form 477 filers to determine what
    percentage of their broadband or high-speed connections is faster
    than 200 kbps in both directions, and to categorize these
    connections into five "speed tiers" based on the information
    transfer rate in the connection's faster direction: (1) greater than
    200 kbps and less than 2.5 Mbps; (2) greater than or equal to 2.5
    Mbps and less than 10 Mbps; (3) greater than or equal to 10 Mbps and
    less than 25 Mbps; (4) greater than or equal to 25 Mbps and less
    than 100 Mbps; and (5) greater than or equal to 100 Mbps. *See 2004
    Data Gathering Order*, 19 FCC Rcd at 22347, para. 14.

[^18]: For example, AT&T and Verizon offer residential DSL products with
    maximum downstream capacities of up to 3.0 Mbps. *See* AT&T DSL
    Plans and Pricing, http://www.usa.att.com/dsl/index.jsp (visited
    Feb. 12, 2007); Verizon DSL for Home Packages and Pricing,
    http://www22.verizon.com/content/consumerdsl/plans/all+plans/all+plans.htm
    (visited Feb. 12, 2007). Time Warner Cable offers residential cable
    modem service products with maximum downstream capacities of up to
    6.0 Mbps. *See* Time Warner Cable -- Why Road Runner?,
    http://www.timewarnercable.com/corporate/products/highspeedinternet/whyroadrunner.html
    (visited Feb. 12, 2007). Verizon recently began offering its FiOS
    service, which may include Internet access speeds of up to 30 Mbps.
    *See* Verizon FiOS Internet Packages & Pricing,
    http://www22.verizon.com/content/fiostv/
    packages+and+prices/packages+and+prices.htm (visited Feb. 12, 2007).

[^19]: The Commission chose to collect data relating to high-speed
    services "because we believe that these services are an important
    stepping stone in the deployment of advanced telecommunications
    services and that these services may be priced to be particularly
    attractive to residential customers seeking, for example, high-speed
    Internet access." *2000 Data Gathering Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 7731,
    para. 22.

[^20]: *See 2004 Data Gathering Order*, 19 FCC Rcd at 22345, para. 8.
    The *2004 Data Gathering Order* eliminated reporting thresholds that
    effectively exempted small entities from reporting requirements.
    *Id.*

[^21]: See *id.* at 22349, para. 16.

[^22]: *See, e.g.*, *June 2006 Statistical Summary* at 2 & Chart 1
    (stating that the total number of high-speed lines in service
    increased from 42.4 million to 64.6 million during the twelve-month
    period ending on June 30, 2006).

[^23]: *See Fourth Report*, 19 FCC Rcd at 20585.

[^24]: *See, e.g.*, *Appropriate Framework for Broadband Access to the
    Internet Over Wireline Facilities; Universal Service Obligations of
    Broadband Providers; Review of Regulatory Requirements for Incumbent
    LEC Broadband Telecommunications Services; Computer III Further
    Remand Proceedings*, CC Docket Nos. 02-33, 01-337, 95-20, 98-10,
    Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 14853 (2005) (classifying wireline
    broadband Internet access service as an information service).

[^25]: *See, e.g.*, Verizon Packages and Prices, Verizon DSL for Home
    Packages and Pricing,
    http://www22.verizon.com/content/consumerdsl/plans/all+plans/all+plans.htm
    (visited Feb. 12, 2007) (offering Verizon DSL at two different
    maximum connection speeds for two different prices).

[^26]: *See Fourth Report*, 19 FCC Rcd at 20553-62.

[^27]: *See id.*

[^28]: The Commission has addressed issues relating to emerging
    technologies in various proceedings. *See, e.g.*, *Amendment of Part
    15 Regarding New Requirements and Measurement Guidelines for Access
    Broadband Over Power Line Systems, Carrier Current Systems,
    Including Broadband Over Power Line Systems*, ET Docket Nos. 04-37,
    03-104, Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 06-113 (rel. Aug. 7,
    2006).

[^29]: EV-DO, short for CDMA (Code Division Multiple Access) 1x EV-DO
    (Evolution-Data Optimized), is a mobile network technology that has
    been deployed by certain CDMA wireless network operators in the U.S.
    and allows typical download speeds of 400-800 kbps. HSDPA (High
    Speed Downlink Packet Access) is a technology overlay for WCDMA
    (Wireless CDMA, also called UMTS) networks that allows typical
    download speeds of 400-700 kbps.

[^30]: The term Wi-MAX, short for Worldwide Interoperability for
    Microwave Access, refers to the family of IEEE 802.16 standards
    developed for wireless broadband access systems. Wi-MAX systems have
    a maximum speed of around 75 Mbps and a range of up to 30 miles.

[^31]: *Fourth Report*, 19 FCC Rcd at 20569-76.

[^32]: *June 2006 Statistical Summary*, Table 18.

[^33]: *Id.* In June 2006, 99.4% of the most densely populated zip codes
    reported at least one high-speed subscriber, compared to 98.9% two
    years earlier. *Id.*

[^34]: *See 2004 Data Gathering Order*, 19 FCC Rcd at 22345, para. 8.

[^35]: A recent study on broadband deployment concluded that Americans
    living in rural areas are less likely than customers in nonrural
    areas to have more than one broadband provider to choose from. Pew
    Internet & American Life Project, *Home Broadband Adoption 2006*, at
    7-8 (May 28, 2006), *available at* http://www.pewinternet.org.

[^36]: *June 2006 Statistical Summary*, Table 19.

[^37]: *Id.*

[^38]: United States Government Accountability Office, *Challenges to
    Assessing and Improving Telecommunications for Native Americans on
    Tribal Lands,* GAO-06-189 (Jan. 2006).

[^39]: *June 2006 Statistical Summary*, Table 10.

[^40]: *See, e.g.*, *Schools and Libraries Second Report and Order*, 18
    FCC Rcd 9202.

[^41]: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences,
    Pub. No. 2007-020*, Internet Access in U.S. Public Schools and
    Classrooms: 1994 -- 2005* (Nov. 2006).

[^42]: *Id.* at 4.

[^43]: *Id.*

[^44]: *Id.* at 5.

[^45]: *See* § 706(a) of the 1996 Act.

[^46]: *See* § 706(b) of the 1996 Act.

[^47]: *GAO Broadband Report* at GAO Highlights (unnumbered page
    following report cover).

[^48]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.1204(b)(1).