Before the

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * | WC Docket No. 07-38          |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Development of Nationwide        | ) |                              |
| Broadband Data to Evaluate       | * |                              |
| Reasonable and Timely Deployment | * |                              |
| of Advanced Services to All      |   |                              |
| Americans, Improvement of        | * |                              |
| Wireless Broadband               | * |                              |
| Subscribership Data, and         | ) |                              |
| Development of Data on           | * |                              |
| Interconnected Voice over        | * |                              |
| Internet Protocol (VoIP)         |   |                              |
| Subscribership                   | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

**NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING**

**Adopted: February 26, 2007 Released: April 16, 2007**

**Comment Date: 30 days after publication in the Federal Register**

**Reply Comment Date: 60 days after publication in the Federal
Register**

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

# INTRODUCTION 

1.  The Commission has consistently recognized the critical importance
    of broadband services to the nation's present and future prosperity
    and is committed to adopting policies to promote the development of
    broadband services, including broadband Internet access
    services.[^1] In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice), we
    seek comment about how the Commission can continue to acquire the
    information it needs to develop and maintain appropriate broadband
    policies. First, we seek comment about how the Commission can best
    ensure that it receives sufficient information about the
    availability and deployment of broadband services nationwide,
    particularly in rural and other hard-to-serve areas, including
    tribal lands. Second, we seek comment about how the Commission can
    improve the data about wireless broadband Internet access services
    that it currently collects on FCC Form 477. Third, we ask whether we
    should modify the speed tier information we currently collect.
    Fourth and finally, we seek comment about how the Commission can
    best collect information about subscribership to interconnected
    voice over Internet Protocol (interconnected VoIP) service.
    Information about broadband availability and deployment throughout
    the nation is essential to enable us to assess the success of our
    broadband policies in order to further discharge our statutory
    mandate, pursuant to section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of
    1996, to "encourage the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis
    of advanced telecommunications capability to all \[Americans\]."[^2]
    Improved information about subscribership to the new communications
    services that are enabled by the widespread availability, and
    consumer adoption, of end user broadband connections would enable us
    to better understand how subscriber choice among communications
    services is affecting the federal universal service fund, and will
    thereby assist us in discharging our statutory mandate to secure the
    viability of universal service.[^3] More generally, improved VoIP
    subscribership information would enable us to continue monitoring
    evolving competition for local telephone service customers. One of
    the major goals of Congress in enacting the Telecommunications Act
    of 1996 was encouraging local telephone service competition.[^4]

2.  Since 2000, broadband data collected pursuant to the FCC Form 477
    data collection program have significantly helped the Commission and
    the public understand the extent of broadband deployment
    nationwide.[^5] The proposals discussed in this Notice would allow
    us to deepen and refine our current understanding of broadband
    availability and deployment, and would improve our understanding of
    the role of advanced wireless technologies in making broadband
    Internet access service available to all Americans. They also would
    provide us with improved data about subscribership to interconnected
    VoIP services. Although we recognize that additional data collection
    could impose an increased burden on reporting entities, in the event
    we decide to adopt additional data collection requirements, those
    requirements would be tailored to minimize costs imposed on the
    subject providers.[^6] We specifically solicit public comment about
    this balance between the burden of additional data collection and
    the benefits such information provides.

# BACKGROUND

3.  To date, the Commission has based its analysis of nationwide
    broadband deployment on three sources of information: data submitted
    on FCC Form 477; public comment submitted in response to section
    706(b) inquiries;[^7] and ancillary information gathered by
    Commission staff from publicly available sources. The Form 477 data
    have proven to be particularly valuable. The Commission adopted the
    Form 477 program after concluding that the collected information
    would materially improve its ability to develop, evaluate, and
    revise policy regarding broadband deployment and local telephone
    service competition, and provide valuable benchmarks for Congress,
    the Commission, other policy makers, and consumers.[^8] Since the
    Form 477 was adopted in 2000, broadband service providers and local
    telephone service providers have reported data fourteen times,[^9]
    and we have issued regular reports based in significant part on this
    information.[^10] Pursuant to the broadband portions of the Form
    477, facilities-based providers of broadband connections list, by
    state, those Zip Codes in which they have at least one broadband
    subscriber.[^11] Reporting entities include incumbent and
    competitive LECs, cable companies, operators of terrestrial and
    satellite wireless facilities, municipalities, and any other
    facilities-based provider of broadband connections to end
    users.[^12]

4.  The Commission significantly improved the Form 477 in the *2004 Data
    Gathering Order* by extending the data collection program for five
    years beyond its original sunset; eliminating reporting thresholds
    which effectively exempted small entities from reporting
    requirements; requiring more granular reporting of broadband data,
    *e.g*., about services offered at speeds in excess of 200 kbps,
    about symmetric xDSL connections as distinguished from T-1/DS1 and
    other "traditional wireline" connections, and about power line
    connections; requiring technology-specific lists of Zip Codes;
    requiring cable companies to report, by state, the extent to which
    cable modem service is available to the households to whom they can
    provide cable TV service, and requiring incumbent LECs to report
    comparable information about their DSL connections; and adopting
    various other modifications.[^13] The Commission acknowledged that
    mobile broadband services differ in particular respects from fixed
    broadband services -- noting that the end user of a mobile wireless
    broadband service must be within a mobile wireless broadband service
    coverage area to make use of the service, but may move around within
    and among coverage areas -- and made provisions for such differences
    in the data collection.[^14] The Commission rejected suggestions to
    add to the Form 477 questions specifically about VoIP service,
    noting that only a very small portion of local telephone service was
    being provided by entities exclusively utilizing VoIP and that LECs
    may already include information about VoIP subscribers in their Form
    477 filings.[^15]

5.  Based in large part on analysis of Form 477 data, the Commission's
    various reports have demonstrated significant and steady progress in
    broadband deployment and availability nationwide. For example, the
    Form 477 data for June 2006 reflect broadband connections in every
    state in the nation.[^16] Fully 99% of all U.S. Zip Codes report the
    presence of subscribers who utilize *high-speed lines* (which
    include advanced service lines and lines that deliver speeds
    exceeding 200 kbps in one but not both directions).[^17] Broadband
    providers report that 64.6 million high-speed lines were in service
    nationwide, of which 50.3 million primarily served residential end
    users.[^18] During the twelve months ending June 30, 2006,
    high-speed lines increased by 52% (or 22.2 million lines).[^19]
    Moreover, we estimate that high-speed DSL connections were available
    to 79% of households to whom incumbent LECs could provide local
    telephone service in June 2006, and that high-speed cable modem
    service was available to 93% of the households to whom cable
    companies could provide cable TV service.[^20] Reflecting such
    robust deployment statistics, the Commission's section 706 reports
    have consistently concluded that broadband is being deployed
    nationwide in a reasonable and timely fashion.[^21]

6.  A report 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.[^22] The
    report concludes that, while broadband deployment is extensive
    nationwide, it remains very difficult to assess the extent of
    deployment gaps in rural areas.[^23] It 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."[^24]

7.  Mobile wireless services have developed rapidly since the Commission
    adopted the *2004 Data Gathering Order*, as nationwide mobile
    telephone operators Verizon Wireless, Sprint Nextel, and Cingular,
    and some regional wireless carriers such as Alltel, have expanded or
    initiated their deployment of Third Generation (or "3G") wireless
    networks based on the EV-DO and WCDMA/HSDPA standards.[^25] The
    number of mobile wireless broadband connections in service, as
    reported on FCC Form 477, has increased rapidly, from 380,000 in
    June 2005, to 3.1 million in December 2005, and to 11 million in
    June 2006.[^26]

8.  Interconnected VoIP subscribership in the United States also appears
    to have grown rapidly since the *2004 Data Collection Order* was
    adopted, reportedly increasing from 1.2 million subscribers in 2004
    to 4.2 million subscribers at the end of 2005,[^27] and to over 8
    million subscribers by September 2006.[^28] In a separate
    proceeding, we have explained that the growth of interconnected VoIP
    services is one of the changing market conditions that are placing
    under significant strain the existing system to preserve and advance
    universal service, which is a fundamental goal of communications
    policy in the United States.[^29]

# Discussion

## Sufficiency of Currently-Available Broadband and Interconnected VoIP Data

9.  Notwithstanding the robust statistics and the more granular
    broadband data that have been reported on FCC Form 477 beginning
    September 1, 2005, the Commission continues to consider the need to
    improve its data collection, particularly regarding data reflecting
    broadband deployment and availability in rural and other
    hard-to-serve areas, and also regarding subscribership to new
    broadband-enabled services such as interconnected VoIP service.

### Broadband Deployment Data

10. In rural and other hard-to-serve areas, we question whether
    submission of simple Zip Code information such as that currently
    required by the Form 477 is sufficient to provide a truly accurate
    picture of the state of broadband deployment. We currently require
    wireline broadband service providers filing Form 477 to list those
    Zip Codes where they have at least one broadband subscriber.[^30] In
    sparsely populated rural Zip Codes this could mean that a given
    provider has just one broadband subscriber who is located in a small
    town or at some other location convenient to telephone or cable
    facilities. Broadband "availability" could be non-existent for that
    carrier's other customers located a few blocks or many miles away
    from that single customer. In other words, and notwithstanding the
    value of data currently submitted on the Form 477, there is more
    precise information that we could gather to give us a more accurate
    picture of current broadband deployment. Ideally, we would have
    information about the choices that a customer faces on a
    house-by-house and business-by-business basis. We discuss several
    options in a later section of this Notice that might move us closer
    to that ideal.[^31]

### Wireless Broadband Data

11. We believe we should modify the Form 477 reporting instructions for
    wireless broadband providers in certain respects, and we seek
    comment on how best to do so.

12. First, we believe that we should modify the reporting instructions
    for terrestrial mobile wireless providers to solicit data that will
    enable us to distinguish among the numbers of subscribers to
    month-to-month or longer term broadband Internet access packages and
    casual users. In the current Form 477, which was adopted in the
    *2004 Data Gathering Order*, information about numbers and types of
    broadband connections is collected in Part I.A, where filers are
    directed to "\[c\]omplete Part I.A if you provide one or more lines
    or wireless channels in the state that connect end users to the
    Internet \[at broadband speed\]."[^32] However, the detailed
    reporting instructions for terrestrial mobile wireless providers are
    to "\[r\]eport the number of subscribers to broadband services
    provided over terrestrial mobile wireless facilities . . . ."[^33]
    More specifically, the instructions are to "report the number of end
    users whose mobile device, such as wireless modem laptop cards,
    smartphones, or handsets, are capable of sending or receiving data
    at speeds in excess of 200 kbps . . . ."[^34] We find that we are
    currently unable to determine from the reported data the number of
    subscribers who make regular use of a broadband Internet access
    service as part of their mobile service package. Moreover, we
    believe the current instructions make it likely that more and more
    mobile voice service subscribers will be reported as mobile
    broadband subscribers merely by virtue of purchasing a
    broadband-capable handset, rather than a specific Internet plan.

13. The Commission has observed that many mobile data services are
    marketed primarily as an add-on to mobile voice service.[^35] These
    services include mobile data services that enable subscribers to
    send text and multimedia messages, download ringtones and games, and
    access other content on handsets, as well as mobile data services
    that enable subscribers to browse web sites customized for
    handsets.[^36] We have discussed how mobile service subscribers who
    wish to browse web sites customized for handsets generally may
    choose a month-to-month plan that includes such browsing, and that
    some carriers also offer a casual usage plan.[^37] And we have
    observed that, aside from handset-based applications, mobile
    wireless carriers offer month-to-month Internet access packages for
    data users who access the Internet through laptop computers or
    certain Personal Digital Assistants ("PDAs"), including mobile
    wireless Internet access packages for wireless broadband
    networks.[^38]

14. Based on these observations about various mobile wireless data
    services, we seek comment on whether we should revise the Form 477
    instructions to require mobile wireless providers to report,
    separately, the number of month-to-month (or longer term)
    subscriptions to broadband Internet access service designed for
    wireless devices that have their own browsers ("full Internet
    browsing" for purposes of this Notice), such as laptop computers and
    PDAs. We also ask whether we should require mobile wireless
    providers to report, separately, the number of month-to-month (or
    longer term) subscriptions for broadband-speed browsing of
    customized-for-mobile web sites ("mobile web browsing" for purposes
    of this Notice). Further, we seek comment on whether we should
    require mobile wireless providers to report, separately, the number
    of *unique* mobile voice service subscribers who are not
    month-to-month (or longer term) subscribers to an Internet access
    service, as discussed above, but who nevertheless made *any* news,
    music, video, or other entertainment downloads to the subscriber's
    handset *at broadband speed* during the month preceding the Form 477
    reporting date (*i.e.*, during June, or during December). We seek
    specific comment on whether the above-described delineations among
    types and levels of service are appropriate in light of market and
    technological factors. Commenters should explain how an alternative
    approach would ensure that mobile voice service subscribers will not
    be reported as mobile broadband subscribers merely by virtue of
    purchasing a broadband-capable handset, rather than a specific
    Internet plan.[^39]

15. We also seek comment about whether we should modify any other parts
    of the Form 477 instructions for mobile wireless broadband
    providers. We note that the current instructions direct these
    providers to include in their subscriber counts those end users
    "whose billing addresses are within the areas of terrestrial mobile
    wireless broadband availability. . . ."[^40] The idea behind this
    instruction is that end users should not be reported as broadband
    subscribers if they are not generally present in an area where
    mobile broadband service is available. While this may become less
    likely as wireless broadband networks are more extensively deployed,
    it appears that some voice service subscribers are reported as
    mobile broadband subscribers only because they have
    broadband-capable handsets and that this may include persons who do
    not reside (or work) where mobile broadband is available. However,
    we also recognize that the billing address for some business end
    users may not indicate where the broadband Internet access service
    is primarily used, *i.e.,* if a single corporate address is the
    billing address for subscriptions used by employees working in
    various areas. Therefore, we invite comments on how this particular
    instruction might be improved, while keeping in mind that we do not
    want to count, as broadband subscribers, mobile voice service
    subscribers who have purchased a broadband-capable handset but not
    an Internet plan.

16. We also seek comment about how we could improve the Form 477
    instructions for reporting the percentage of mobile wireless
    broadband subscribers who are residential end users.[^41] Experience
    with the current Form 477 suggests to us that mobile wireless
    broadband providers are not using comparable methodologies to
    estimate the residential percentage. In the latest aggregated Form
    477 data, about 11 percent of mobile wireless broadband subscribers
    are reported as residential. This percentage may be low, since
    broadband-capable handsets are widely available and appear to be an
    increasingly popular consumer product. Therefore, we seek comment on
    whether we should modify the instructions for mobile wireless
    broadband providers to require that they report, as residential
    subscribers, all subscriptions that are not billed to a corporate
    customer account, to a non-corporate business customer account, or
    to a government or institutional account. Would this modification
    result in more accurate estimates of residential end users than we
    receive now? Are there different modifications to the current
    reporting instructions that would yield even better estimates? Or,
    instead, should we explicitly require providers to undertake special
    studies for this purpose?

17. Regarding wireless broadband Internet-access services more
    generally, we invite comment in three areas. First, we ask whether,
    and how, we could modify our Form 477 instructions to collect useful
    information about households and businesses who subscribe to
    commercially deployed community Wi-Fi broadband Internet access
    service, for primary use at the subscriber's residence or business
    location.[^42] Second, we specifically invite comment on whether we
    should add a terrestrial portable (or nomadic) wireless broadband
    technology category to the Form 477.[^43] Adding this technology
    category could provide the Commission with an improved ability to
    monitor the development of terrestrial wireless broadband services,
    including services over WiMax infrastructures,[^44] which need not
    be used on a fixed basis but cannot be used while traveling at high
    speeds with signal handoff.[^45] Third, we seek comment on whether
    we need to clarify how the Form 477 instructions apply to satellite
    broadband capabilities provided by carriers to enterprise customers
    who operate their own corporate networks.

### Speed Tiers

18. We seek comment on whether we should refine the speed tier
    information we currently collect on Form 477 by splitting into two
    tiers the speed tier defined by information transfer rates greater
    than 200 kbps and less than 2.5 mbps.[^46] We specifically ask
    whether it would be appropriate to define the lower of the resulting
    two tiers by information transfer rates greater than 200 kbps and
    less than 1.0 mbps.[^47]

19. We ask whether the Commission should develop a higher or more varied
    measurement of broadband speed in the Form 477 program. Do our
    current speed tier definitions enable us to understand the evolving
    dynamics of the broadband marketplace as providers offer faster and
    faster connections? Would our understanding of the rapidly evolving
    broadband marketplace be enhanced if we raised the current minimum
    threshold for reporting the speed tier information specified on Form
    477 (*i.e.*, greater than 200 kbps in both directions)? More
    generally, should the Commission's definition of broadband allow
    different upstream and downstream speeds? We also ask if we should
    raise the current minimum threshold for reporting *any* connections
    on the Form 477 (*i.e.,* greater than 200 kbps in at least one
    direction, which is generally "downstream" to the end user)? Do
    services with downstream connection speeds only slightly greater
    than 200 kbps continue to be an important stepping stone for
    broadband adoption by households, including households in rural and
    other hard-to-serve areas?

20. We seek comment on whether and how the Commission could establish a
    system whereby the Form 477 speed tiers would be automatically
    adjusted upwards over time to reflect technological advances. What
    information would we need to design a meaningful system? Would the
    bandwidth requirements of particular services and applications
    provide useful guidance? We specifically invite comment on the
    extent to which there is general industry agreement on the bandwidth
    requirements of such regularly cited applications as distance
    learning, telemedicine, downloading of movies, latency-sensitive
    video services, and high definition TV. How should we account for
    differences in the bandwidth requirements of particular applications
    across different delivery platforms (*e.g.*, high definition TV
    requires about half of a 6 MHz channel on a cable system using 264
    QAM modulation and MPEG-2 compression encoding, but about half that
    bandwidth when MPEG-4 encoding is used)?

21. We ask whether broadband providers are placing their reported
    broadband connections into speed tiers in a consistent manner. We
    seek comment on industry practices for matching advertised "up to"
    speeds with probable customer experience. We also wish to refresh
    the record on whether we effectively could modify the Form 477
    reporting instructions to require filers to categorize broadband
    connection by the download and upload speeds experienced by actual
    customers rather than the theoretical maximum that a given network
    can support or the particular service configuration allow. Are there
    existing, administratively workable industry standards or practices
    for measuring typical or actual speeds delivered to end users?

### Interconnected VoIP Subscribership Data

22. At present, only some LECs include interconnected VoIP subscribers
    in the local telephone service information they report on Form 477.
    Interconnected VoIP service providers who are not LECs are not
    required to file Form 477. Therefore, we invite comment on how we
    could modify the Form 477 to collect useful information about the
    number of interconnected VoIP service subscribers in service in the
    least burdensome manner.[^48] We specifically invite comment on
    whether collecting the following state-level information, from all
    retail and wholesale providers of interconnected VoIP service, would
    yield sufficient information for us to track deployment and adoption
    of VoIP service across the nation. We propose requiring all
    retailers of interconnected VoIP service to report: (1) the number
    of interconnected VoIP subscribers in service for whom the filer is
    the service retailer, (2) the percentage of retail interconnected
    VoIP subscribers who are residential, as opposed to business, end
    users, and (3) the percentage of retail interconnected VoIP
    subscribers who receive that service over a broadband connection
    provided by the filer (or by the filer's affiliate).[^49] Also, we
    propose requiring wholesalers of interconnected service to report
    the number of interconnected VoIP service subscribers the filer
    serves on a wholesale basis.[^50]

## Proposals for Refining Commission Analysis of Broadband Deployment and Availability 

23. In this section, we discuss several possible methods for increasing
    our understanding of broadband deployment and availability. We begin
    with approaches for increasing our understanding of broadband
    deployment that place little or no additional burdens on data filers
    but that may yield commensurately modest analytic benefits. We
    proceed to describe other approaches that could in fact yield a more
    detailed and dynamic understanding of broadband deployment, some of
    which could prove to be costly to data reporters or impractical. We
    seek comment about whether, and how, data filers should be required
    to report information about the prices at which they offer broadband
    services. We seek comment about the technical feasibility, costs and
    benefits of each of the approaches we discuss below. In order to
    appropriately analyze the costs and benefits of each
    approach/proposal, the Commission seeks evidence that quantifies the
    costs of each alternative, including initial set up costs, recurring
    direct costs and reasonably attributable indirect costs. Commenters
    should identify all costs with as much precision as they can and
    should identify and analyze the potential benefits that each
    approach yields. We also invite commenters to suggest and to explain
    in detail alternative methods of data collection beyond those
    identified herein.

24. In the *2004 Data Collection Order* the Commission concluded that
    the benefits to the policy making process that derive from requiring
    all filers -- including smaller entities that serve sparse
    populations over wide geographical areas -- to report the same data
    outweigh the reporting burdens on new Form 477 filers (*i.e.,*
    entities required to file Form 477 once mandatory reporting
    thresholds were eliminated.)[^51] The Commission recognized,
    however, the particular concerns about reporting burden of some
    smaller carriers, and consequently decided not to pursue at that
    time certain options similar to options about which we seek comment
    in this Notice. Therefore, we seek comment whether, if we require
    the submission of additional information, we should require *all*
    filers to report those data. We also invite comment on ways to
    mitigate the burden on smaller filers short of implementing
    reporting thresholds or other exemptions.

### Additional Analysis of Current Broadband Subscribership Data

25. We begin by asking whether the Commission could more closely analyze
    the broadband subscribership data it currently collects to identify
    more precisely the areas where broadband is not available,
    particularly to households.[^52] For example, currently available
    data suggest that about 12% of 5-digit geographical Zip Codes have
    no providers of primarily residential, wired high-speed Internet
    access services delivered over "last mile" facilities the provider
    primarily owns. These Zip Codes contain about 2% of the U.S.
    population.[^53] Should we simply identify such areas for further,
    individual study? For these identified areas, should we analyze the
    full range of competitive choices including deployed broadband
    infrastructure, service offerings in the marketplace, and service
    offering prices? How should we conduct such studies? Do existing
    data sources available to the Commission, including the Form 477
    data, allow us to study the needs of discrete communities of users,
    for example, Native Americans on tribal lands?[^54] Are there better
    and more fruitful ways to frame questions about Form 477 data in the
    context of particular technologies utilized by broadband providers,
    for example, providers using satellite technology?

26. As we consider the possible need for additional data, we remain
    vigilant for ways to use the data we have currently as effectively
    as possible. GAO worked with a state broadband alliance
    (ConnectKentucky) to use their data to troubleshoot Form 477 data
    regarding broadband availability in Kentucky.[^55] Based on its
    comparison analysis, GAO concluded that the Form 477 data "may
    overstate the availability and competitive deployment of
    nonsatellite broadband."[^56] Should the Commission explore
    collaborations, such as the one between GAO and ConnectKentucky, to
    troubleshoot its own data or to prepare discrete state or
    region-specific reports? How feasible is this given related costs
    and company concerns about sharing confidential information with
    private/commercial third parties? Would information developed by
    collaboration with various third parties be consistent? Which states
    have public-private economic development or other initiatives that
    have developed comprehensive localized information about broadband
    availability?[^57] Where such information exists, can it be shared
    with the Commission? Where such information does not exist, are
    there plans to develop it? For example, might the ConnectKentucky
    approach be readily adaptable in other states? In sum, we invite
    comment regarding methods of analyzing currently available data that
    could provide better or more focused insights into the dynamics of
    broadband deployment and availability nationwide or in particular
    geographic regions, in connection with specific technologies, or
    with regards to the needs of discrete communities of users.

27. We seek comment on ways to better utilize Zip Code data currently
    submitted by Form 477 filers. Would requiring filers to submit
    customer counts along with Zip Code lists facilitate better analysis
    of broadband availability/deployment in specific Zip Codes? We are
    skeptical that analysis of customer totals submitted at the 5-digit
    level of aggregation could significantly increase our understanding
    of the dynamics of broadband availability and deployment, *i.e.*,
    because any methodology based on a 5-digit Zip Code aggregation will
    continue to yield results that do not accurately depict broadband
    availability in particular, localized areas within a Zip Code.
    Nevertheless, we seek comment whether such an approach could be
    fruitful. In particular, we seek detailed comment regarding the
    costs as well as the benefits of such an approach. We ask commenting
    providers to provide projected costs and related analysis at a level
    of detail sufficient to support their assertions, as well as other
    relevant information. For example, what steps would providers have
    to implement to furnish this information per available
    network/system technology and personnel and other resources? Do the
    characteristics of particular technologies make counting subscribers
    by Zip Code problematic and, if so, are there useful substitute
    approaches for those technologies?[^58] We ask commenters to
    estimate separately the cost for an initial collection, which would
    presumably entail certain start-up costs, and the cost of subsequent
    collections, which might be able to realize certain efficiencies.

28. We invite comment on whether we should require all broadband
    providers to report the number of residential customers served (in
    place of the current requirement to report the percentage of total
    broadband connections in service that are residential connections)
    and also the number of homes "passed" by their broadband-enabled
    infrastructure. Collecting both the number of residential customers
    served and the number of homes passed by each Form 477 filer's
    broadband-enabled infrastructure could enable us to calculate and
    compare consumer broadband uptake figures (*i.e*., the ratio between
    adoption and availability).[^59] We seek specific comment on how
    "passing" should be defined for this purpose, for each of the
    broadband technologies specified in the current Form 477, to enable
    us meaningfully to compare consumer uptake figures.[^60]

29. We ask generally whether there are other ways in which we could make
    better use of the broadband data we currently collect on Form 477.
    For example, the semiannual report based on the Form 477 data
    include tables showing how broadband Internet subscribership varies
    among 5-digit geographical Zip Codes based on population density and
    household incomes. We are able to develop these tables because a
    commercial vendor has translated Census Bureau data (which is not
    collected by Zip Code) into Zip Code-level data for those particular
    variables (*i.e.,* population density and income). We invite
    commenters to identify, with specificity, comparable commercial
    products that translate, to the Zip Code-level, Census Bureau
    information about household education, race (including tribal
    lands), or disability status, so that we might include in our
    semiannual report tables showing how broadband Internet
    subscribership varies among Zip Codes based on these demographic
    variables.

30. We also invite comment on whether the Commission's semiannual report
    should include figures about international broadband adoption,
    prices, or other measures that are developed by the Organization for
    Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) or the International
    Telecommunications Union (ITU). We ask for comment about which such
    figures we should include. Ideally, any such figure will be
    published regularly and will be based on comparable definitions,
    measurement standards, and reporting practices. We ask, in
    particular, if a regularly published, reliably comparable figure is
    available on the cost per bit in leading industrial nations (for
    both residential and business customers). More generally, how could
    the Commission conduct a regular analysis of broadband policies in
    other nations and how their regulatory policies have played out? We
    seek specific comment on whether and how we should present such
    analysis, *e.g.*, either in our semiannual report or the less
    frequent section 706 report.

### Subscribers per 9-digit Zip Code

31. We seek comment about whether we should require Form 477 data filers
    to submit 9-digit Zip Codes and associated customer counts. A
    9-digit level of geographic aggregation coupled with such customer
    information could provide more granular information about deployment
    than 5-digit information. Nevertheless, we recognize that associated
    costs could be greater. We ask, specifically, whether current Form
    477 filers, including any of their affiliates, or their marketing
    partners or agents maintain information about the end-user
    termination locations (*e.g.*, service addresses) of wired and fixed
    wireless broadband connections that includes the 9-digit Zip Code of
    that location -- particularly information about *residential*
    end-user termination locations. If not, do Form 477 filers maintain
    billing address information at the 9-digit Zip Code level, and would
    such data be a sufficiently accurate proxy for service location? Do
    Form 477 filers typically maintain any other types of information
    that could be used to identify the 9-digit Zip Codes of end-user
    termination locations? We ask commenters to undertake the same kind
    of cost/benefit analysis regarding 9-digit Zip Code data as
    discussed in the previous paragraphs, *i.e*., by discussing costs
    associated with implementation and associated potential benefits. We
    also seek comment about whether there is significant value
    associated with simply requiring data filers to report lists of
    9-digit Zip Codes where they have at least one customer, but without
    requiring associated customer counts by Zip Code.

### Purchase of Commercial Databases or Services 

32. We seek specific comment regarding the availability of commercial
    sources of broadband deployment data or data-processing programs
    that could augment or otherwise add value to our use of Form 477
    data, or reduce the associated costs and other burdens imposed on
    reporting providers. What existing databases could we combine
    productively with the current Form 477 data? Are such databases
    accurate, current, and national in scope? We ask, specifically,
    whether the online-search software, and associated databases, that
    many broadband providers have developed to allow households to check
    whether broadband service is available at their home telephone
    number, street address, or Zip Code can readily be adapted to
    provide localized broadband deployment information. Do
    data-processing or consulting companies exist whose operations or
    services could add value, or diminish associated collection burdens?
    For example, if (as discussed below) we decide to require additional
    Zip Code information (9-digit codes) or subscriber information per
    Zip Code in connection with the current Form 477 program, would it
    be feasible and/or desirable for a data-processing company, rather
    than the provider itself, to add 5-digit or 9-digit Zip Codes to
    subscriber lists, and to identify the number of subscribers per Zip
    Code? Would there be economies of scope and scale to a region- or
    nationwide contract that would make such private assistance
    affordable to providers? Would such an approach raise special
    concerns about confidentially-submitted company information or
    consumer privacy, and how could such concerns be addressed? As we
    seek to understand more clearly the cost to providers of gathering
    and reporting additional broadband data, should we also explore
    engaging commercial data processors to conduct sample surveys and
    report sample information? We encourage commenters to carefully
    consider such approaches to current data augmentation as well as
    ways to reduce associated burdens.

### Geocoded Information about Subscriber Locations

33. We also seek comment about non-Zip Code based approaches to using
    subscriber-based information to more precisely identify the
    geographic areas where broadband is deployed, such as requiring
    providers to report geocoded information (*e.g.,* latitude and
    longitude) for the premises of their subscribers.[^61] Requiring
    subscriber counts by Zip Code could prove to be the least costly and
    most feasible change to our Form 477 data collection, *i.e*., to
    most efficiently produce additional information that would
    materially advance our understanding of broadband availability. Are
    there other, more exact and accurate means of attaining that goal?
    How would such a method of data collection operate? We encourage
    suggestions from commenters that envision a non-Zip Code based
    approach to data collection, particularly alternatives that would
    yield data that is at least as granular as 9-digit Zip Code data
    augmented with customer counts by Zip Code.

### Develop Automated System of Voluntary Reporting by Non-served Households 

34. We also seek comment about the feasibility and value of implementing
    a voluntary self-reporting system by non-served households,
    patterned after the National Do-Not-Call Registry. Under this
    proposal, non-served households could identify themselves at a
    Commission-maintained electronic bulletin board (web page address)
    and/or telephone number call-in address where they would provide the
    limited information, *e.g.*, home address with (preferably 9-digit)
    Zip Code, and the wired or fixed wireless telephone number at that
    particular location, that is needed to identify the particular
    non-served location. Would such a system be an effective and
    efficient way to identify localized areas where broadband services
    are not available? Would the reported information be accurate or,
    for example, might potential subscribers not be aware of all
    broadband options available to them? Would such a system in fact
    enable the Commission and other governmental entities to focus
    (limited) government resources to encourage broadband availability
    more efficiently, *i.e*., by targeting areas where there is evidence
    of actual demand for broadband services? We seek comment on the
    costs and potential benefits of such a proposal.

### Broadband-enabled Service Territory Report by Provider

35. In each of the previously discussed approaches we rely on *broadband
    subscription* as a proxy for broadband availability. We assume that
    in Zip Codes where none or very few of the residents subscribe to
    broadband services, such services are unavailable, and vice versa.
    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.[^62] Alternatively, we could
    require data filers to report information about their customers and
    the *broadband-enabled service territory* -- *i.e.*, the specific
    geographic area, which might include only parts of particular Zip
    Codes -- where they offer and/or currently deploy broadband
    services, particularly residential services. By collecting and
    studying such data comparatively, we could arrive at a far clearer
    understanding of the actual dynamics of broadband availability in
    discrete geographic areas and to different communities of users. We
    seek comment about the need for and feasibility of requiring
    broadband providers to report information that delineates in detail
    the boundaries of their broadband-enabled service territories. What
    methodologies are available for developing such information? What
    requirements would we need to specify to ensure that providers apply
    a methodology with enough uniformity to yield useful information?
    Terrestrial mobile wireless broadband service providers are
    currently required to report Zip Codes that best represent their
    coverage areas. Does this standard yield a sufficient level of
    detail about the deployment of those services? Are there alternate
    or additional reporting requirements that would provide more useful
    data on mobile wireless broadband deployment without imposing an
    undue burden on the providers? We ask commenters to undertake the
    same kind of cost/benefit analysis that we discussed earlier with
    respect to 5-digit and/or 9-digit Zip Code information, *i.e.,* by
    discussing costs associated with implementation and associated
    potential benefits.[^63]

36. While we are aware that, at present, precise information about the
    boundaries of the localized areas where broadband is generally
    available might be difficult for certain broadband providers to
    gauge, results achieved by broadband mapping initiatives such as
    those in Kentucky and Wyoming suggest that the difficulties are not
    insurmountable.[^64] We understand, for example, that municipal
    cable systems and the Kentucky Cable Telecommunications Association
    (KCTA) are working with ConnectKentucky to map in fine detail
    (*e.g.,* street-by-street, and sometimes block-by-block) the
    boundaries of the areas where cable modem broadband is
    available.[^65] We also understand that the Kentucky mapping
    initiative has identified localized areas of DSL broadband
    availability by obtaining, from at least some carriers, detailed
    location information (*i.e.*, latitude and longitude) for the
    carrier's DSL-enabled wire centers *and remote terminals*, and
    assuming that DSL service is available within a 13,200-foot
    (2.5-mile) radius around the DSL-enabled equipment.[^66] The
    Kentucky initiative has also collected detailed facilities
    information (*e.g.*, latitude and longitude of towers, type of
    antenna technology, whether coverage is omni-directional or partial)
    from at least some commercial providers of wireless broadband
    service.[^67] Therefore, the Kentucky experience suggests that
    providers can delineate their areas of broadband deployment at much
    finer levels of detail than the Zip Code based data we now collect
    on Form 477. We are also aware that, in localized areas where
    broadband is generally available, site-specific factors may impede
    availability to individual households.[^68] What steps, if any,
    should we take to enable providers to report broadband availability,
    not by subscriber proxy but by actual territory served (*e.g.*, a
    data collection or mapping system)?

37. We invite comment on whether this approach is feasible for tribal
    lands and how it could most effectively be implemented on tribal
    lands. As GAO has found, subscribership to Internet-access services
    (of any speed) by Native American households on tribal lands is
    unknown because no federal survey has been designed to track this
    information.[^69] As GAO also found, the Commission's Form 477 data
    cannot be used to determine the number of residential Internet
    subscribers on tribal lands.[^70] We seek specific comment on how
    the Commission can best measure broadband deployment/availability
    and adoption on tribal lands.

### Other Alternatives

38. We ask whether there are other alternatives we can explore to better
    identify the extent of broadband deployment in rural areas and
    tribal lands across the nation.

### Extrapolating Nationwide Competitive Conditions from Conditions in Representative Areas

39. We invite comment on whether, even if more granular data cannot
    reasonably be collected across the entire country, it would be
    appropriate and feasible for the Commission to develop more accurate
    estimates of the competitive choices in representative urban,
    metropolitan, exurban, low-income, tribal, and rural areas and then
    use weighted extrapolation techniques to get a picture of nationwide
    competitive conditions. We ask whether detailed infrastructure
    deployment maps for representative areas could be developed, based
    on the location of municipal cable system facilities and local
    exchange carrier DSLAMs, which would give a house-by-house picture
    of where those broadband infrastructures are deployed.

40. We seek comment on whether we should collect key demographic
    information (*e*.g., income, education, race (including tribal
    status), and disability status) about households located in those
    parts of the representative areas in which cable modem or DSL
    infrastructures have been deployed, to illustrate the relationship
    between these factors and broadband adoption.[^71] Which demographic
    variables should we measure? Does conducting meaningful analysis
    require demographic information about individual households? If it
    does, could the cable system and/or DSL service provider in the
    representative area provide that information? Alternatively, could
    we effectively use publicly available Census Bureau detailed
    demographic information (which would not identify individual
    households)? In general, are there public sources of detailed
    demographic information for representative areas? Commenters who are
    aware of such sources should identify them with specificity and
    explain why they are appropriate to use.

41. Should the Commission also collect income, education, and other
    demographic information about households located in the parts of the
    representative areas where broadband infrastructures have not been
    deployed, to illustrate the relationship between these factors and
    broadband deployment?[^72] Which demographic variables should we
    measure? Could the cable system and DSL service provider (or the
    local exchange carrier, if DSL infrastructure has not been deployed)
    provide that information? Would it be more cost effective or
    appropriate to use demographic information that is publicly
    available from the Census Bureau (which does not identify individual
    households)? Are there publicly available commercial sources of
    geographically detailed demographic data that we could use? We ask
    commenters to identify such sources with specificity and to explain
    why they are appropriate to use.

42. We ask whether collecting detailed information about deployment of
    two broadband technologies (*i.e.*, cable modem and DSL) would be
    sufficient to inform broadband policy making. Are there any other
    broadband technologies for which it is feasible to develop a
    house-by-house picture of infrastructure deployment and key
    household demographic variables (*e*.g., income, education, race
    (including tribal status), and disability status) in representative
    areas?

43. We invite specific comment on how we should identify particular
    areas as representative areas, to ensure that weighted extrapolation
    techniques will provide a statistically accurate picture of
    nationwide competitive conditions. Is there at this time a known set
    of such representative areas? If not, what is the Census Bureau or
    other source of data that can be used to select specific areas to
    represent urban, metropolitan, exurban, low-income, tribal, and
    rural areas, respectively? We ask commenters to identify that data
    source, or sources, with specificity and to explain why the source
    is appropriate to use. Should the extent of broadband deployment in
    an area be taken into account in selecting the representative areas?
    If so, how should it be taken into account? As we have noted, there
    is a detailed broadband deployment mapping initiative underway in
    Kentucky.[^73] While there are no tribal lands in Kentucky, we ask
    for comment on whether it would be would be appropriate to select
    Kentucky areas to represent each of the other types of areas
    (*i.e.*, urban, metropolitan, exurban, low-income, and rural).

44. We ask for comment about how to select a representative area for
    tribal lands, in particular. As GAO has found, tribal lands vary
    dramatically in size, demographics, and location.[^74] GAO conducted
    interviews with 26 tribes and 12 Alaska regional native nonprofit
    organizations and visited 6 of the tribes that have taken action to
    improve their telecommunications.[^75] We seek comment on whether,
    and why, a particular one of the 6 tribes would be an appropriate
    choice for the representative tribal lands area.

### Price, Broadband Availability, and Consumer Uptake

45. We seek comment on whether and how we could collect price
    information that depicts competitive choice in representative areas.
    Would it be sufficient to collect price information only for cable
    modem and DSL service options? If so, should we collect price
    information for the full range of cable modem and DSL service
    options in the representative areas? How should we treat the prices
    of introductory offers and bundled services? Should we calculate
    separate representative prices for residential and non-residential
    service offerings? How should we treat service offerings that appear
    both in advertisements for residential services and in
    advertisements for business services?

46. We also ask whether we should modify Form 477 to collect price
    information from all entities that report broadband connections.
    What price information should we collect? Should we collect the
    price information at the Zip Code, state, regional, or national
    level? What would be an appropriate way to define a region for this
    purpose? Should we require filers to estimate and report the cost of
    residential broadband services measured as price per bit?

47. We seek specific comment on whether and how the Commission could
    provide a deeper understanding of the market for broadband services
    by collecting price information and comparing it to consumer uptake
    of broadband (*i.e.,* the ratio between adoption and
    deployment).[^76] Commenters should address how non-price variables
    found to be correlated with consumer broadband uptake (*e.g.*,
    income, education, race (including tribal lands), and disability
    status) should be incorporated into the comparison.

# PROCEDURAL MATTERS

## Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

48. This document does not contain proposed information collection(s)
    subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law
    104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or
    modified "information collection burden for small business concerns
    with fewer than 25 employees," pursuant to the Small Business
    Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, *see* 44 U.S.C.
    3506(c)(4).

## Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

49. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),[^77] the
    Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
    (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities
    of the policies and rules proposed in this Notice. The IRFA is set
    forth in the Appendix to this Notice.

## Comment Filing Procedures

50. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission\'s rules, 47
    C.F.R. §§ 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](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]{.underline} 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 must be
    addressed to 445 12^th^ Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554.

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).

51. This matter shall be treated as a \"permit-but-disclose\" proceeding
    in accordance with the Commission\'s ex parte rules. *See* 47 C.F.R.
    §§ 1.1200 and 1.1206. Persons making oral ex parte presentations are
    reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentations must contain
    summaries of the substance of the presentations and not merely a
    listing of the subjects discussed. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b).
    Other rules pertaining to oral and written ex parte presentations in
    permit-but-disclose proceedings are set forth in section 1.1206(b)
    of the Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b).

# ORDERING CLAUSES

52. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 1-5, 10, 11,
    201-205, 215, 218-220, 251-271, 303(r), 332, 403, 502, and 503 of
    the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-155,
    160, 161, 201-205, 215, 218-220, 251-271, 303(r), 332, 403, 502, and
    503, and section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47
    U.S.C. § 157 nt, this NOTICE, with all attachments, IS ADOPTED.

53. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission\'s Consumer and
    Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL
    SEND a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the
    Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for
    Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

    Marlene H. Dortch

Secretary

**APPENDIX**

**Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis**

1.  As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
    (RFA),[^78] the Commission has prepared the present Initial
    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant
    economic impact on small entities that might result from today's
    Notice. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments
    must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the
    deadlines for comments on the Notice provided above. The Commission
    will send a copy of the Notice, including this IRFA, to the Chief
    Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.[^79] In
    addition, the Notice and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be
    published in the Federal Register.[^80]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
A.  **Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
2.  In the Notice, we seek comment on various proposals that would
    deepen and refine our current understanding of broadband
    availability and deployment and our understanding of end user
    adoption of relatively new broadband-enabled services such as
    interconnected VoIP service.[^81] Although we have recently refined
    the Form 477 data collection program, we seek comment on whether
    Form 477 is sufficient to provide a truly accurate picture of
    broadband deployment -- particularly in rural and hard-to-serve
    areas -- or whether there are alternative methods for collecting
    and/or analyzing data to obtain more precise information.[^82]
    Recognizing the critical importance of broadband services to the
    nation's present and future prosperity, we believe that a better
    understanding would assist us in our commitment to adopt policies to
    promote the deployment of broadband services.[^83] At the same time,
    we recognize that certain methods of collecting more precise data
    might impose burdens on small entities, and invite comment on ways
    to mitigate burdens on smaller entities.[^84] In this regard, the
    Notice proposes many methods for collecting further data and
    analyzing current data that would impose little or no burden on
    small entities whatsoever.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
B.  **Legal Basis**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
3.  The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to the
    Notice is contained in sections 1-5, 10, 11, 201-205, 215, 218-220,
    251-271, 303(r), 332, 403, 502, and 503 of the Communications Act of
    1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-155, 160, 161, 201-205, 215,
    218-220, 251-271, 303(r), 332, 403, 502, and 503, and section 706 of
    the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 157 nt.

**C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules May Apply**

4.  The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where
    feasible, an estimate of, the number of small entities that may be
    affected by the proposed rules.[^85] The RFA generally defines the
    term "small entity" as having the same meaning as the terms "small
    business," "small organization," and "small governmental
    jurisdiction."[^86] In addition, the term "small business" has the
    same meaning as the term "small business concern" under the Small
    Business Act.[^87] A "small business concern" is one which: (1) is
    independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field
    of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established
    by the Small Business Administration (SBA).[^88] As discussed in
    sections D and E below, many of the proposals contained in the
    Notice would not impose any burden whatsoever on small entities.
    However, to the extent that other proposals contained in the Notice
    might impact small entities, we list those possible entities below.
    We have perhaps been overbroad in our list of entities directly
    affected, below, in an effort to encourage comment.

5.  As noted above, in addition to covering small businesses, the RFA
    covers small organizations. A "small organization" is generally "any
    not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
    and is not dominant in its field."[^89] Nationwide, as of 2002,
    there were approximately 1.6 million small organizations.[^90] The
    term "small governmental jurisdiction" is defined generally as
    "governments of cities, towns, townships, villages, school
    districts, or special districts, with a population of less than
    fifty thousand."[^91] Census Bureau data for 2002 indicate that
    there were 87,525 local governmental jurisdictions in the United
    States.[^92] We estimate that, of this total, 84,377 entities were
    "small governmental jurisdictions."[^93] Thus, we estimate that most
    governmental jurisdictions are small.

6.  The most reliable source of information regarding the total numbers
    of certain common carrier and related providers nationwide, as well
    as the number of commercial wireless entities, is the data that the
    Commission publishes in its *Trends in Telephone Service*
    report.[^94] The SBA has developed small business size standards for
    wireline and wireless small businesses within the three commercial
    census categories of Wired Telecommunications Carriers,[^95]
    Paging,[^96] and Cellular and Other Wireless
    Telecommunications.[^97] Under these categories, a business is small
    if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Below, using the above size
    standards and others, we discuss the total estimated numbers of
    small businesses that might be affected by our actions.

7.  We have included small incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) in
    this present RFA analysis. As noted above, a "small business" under
    the RFA is one that, *inter alia*, meets the pertinent small
    business size standard (*e.g.*, a telephone communications business
    having 1,500 or fewer employees), and "is not dominant in its field
    of operation."[^98] The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for
    RFA purposes, small incumbent LECs are not dominant in their field
    of operation because any such dominance is not "national" in
    scope.[^99] We have therefore included small incumbent LECs in this
    RFA analysis, although we emphasize that this RFA action has no
    effect on Commission analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA
    contexts.

### Wireline Carriers and Service Providers

8.  We have included small incumbent local exchange carriers in this
    present RFA analysis. As noted above, a "small business" under the
    RFA is one that, *inter* *alia*, meets the pertinent small business
    size standard (*e.g*., a telephone communications business having
    1,500 or fewer employees), and "is not dominant in its field of
    operation."[^100] The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for
    RFA purposes, small incumbent local exchange carriers are not
    dominant in their field of operation because any such dominance is
    not "national" in scope.[^101] We have therefore included small
    incumbent local exchange carriers in this RFA analysis, although we
    emphasize that this RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses
    and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.

9.  *Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs)*. Neither the Commission
    nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses
    specifically applicable to incumbent local exchange services. The
    closest applicable size standard under SBA rules is for Wired
    Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a
    business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.[^102]
    According to Commission data,[^103] 1,307 carriers reported that
    they were engaged in the provision of local exchange services. Of
    these 1,307 carriers, an estimated 1,019 have 1,500 or fewer
    employees and 288 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the
    Commission estimates that most providers of incumbent local exchange
    service are small businesses that may be affected by our action.

10. *Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs), Competitive Access
    Providers (CAPs), "Shared-Tenant Service Providers," and "Other
    Local Service Providers."* Neither the Commission nor the SBA has
    developed a small business size standard specifically for these
    service providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is
    for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size
    standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
    employees.[^104] According to Commission data,[^105] 859 carriers
    reported that they were engaged in the provision of either
    competitive local exchange carrier or competitive access provider
    services. Of these 859 carriers, an estimated 741 have 1,500 or
    fewer employees and 118 have more than 1,500 employees.[^106] In
    addition, 16 carriers have reported that they are "Shared-Tenant
    Service Providers," and all 16 are estimated to have 1,500 or fewer
    employees. In addition, 44 carriers have reported that they are
    "Other Local Service Providers." Of the 44, an estimated 43 have
    1,500 or fewer employees and one has more than 1,500 employees.
    Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of
    competitive local exchange service, competitive access providers,
    "Shared-Tenant Service Providers," and "Other Local Service
    Providers" are small entities that may be affected by our action.

11. *Local Resellers.* The SBA has developed a small business size
    standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under
    that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or
    fewer employees.[^107] According to Commission data,[^108] 184
    carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of
    local resale services. Of these, an estimated 181 have 1,500 or
    fewer employees and three have more than 1,500 employees.
    Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of local
    resellers are small entities that may be affected by our action.

12. *Toll Resellers.* The SBA has developed a small business size
    standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under
    that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or
    fewer employees.[^109] According to Commission data,[^110] 881
    carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of
    toll resale services. Of these, an estimated 853 have 1,500 or fewer
    employees and 28 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the
    Commission estimates that the majority of toll resellers are small
    entities that may be affected by our action.

13. *Payphone Service Providers (PSPs)*. Neither the Commission nor the
    SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for
    payphone services providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA
    rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under
    that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or
    fewer employees.[^111] According to Commission data,[^112] 657
    carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of
    payphone services. Of these, an estimated 653 have 1,500 or fewer
    employees and four have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the
    Commission estimates that the majority of payphone service providers
    are small entities that may be affected by our action.

14. *Interexchange Carriers (IXCs)*. Neither the Commission nor the SBA
    has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically
    applicable to interexchange services. The closest applicable size
    standard under SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers.
    Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500
    or fewer employees.[^113] According to Commission data,[^114] 330
    companies reported that their primary telecommunications service
    activity was the provision of interexchange services. Of these 330
    companies, an estimated 309 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 21
    have more than 1,500 employees.[^115] Consequently, the Commission
    estimates that the majority of interexchange service providers are
    small entities that may be affected by our action.

15. *Operator Service Providers (OSPs)*. Neither the Commission nor the
    SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for
    operator service providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA
    rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under
    that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or
    fewer employees.[^116] According to Commission data,[^117] 23
    carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of
    operator services. Of these, an estimated 22 have 1,500 or fewer
    employees and one has more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the
    Commission estimates that the majority of OSPs are small entities
    that may be affected by our action.

16. *Prepaid Calling Card Providers*. Neither the Commission nor the SBA
    has developed a small business size standard specifically for
    prepaid calling card providers. The appropriate size standard under
    SBA rules is for the category Telecommunications Resellers. Under
    that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or
    fewer employees.[^118] According to Commission data,[^119] 104
    carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of
    prepaid calling cards. Of these, an estimated 102 have 1,500 or
    fewer employees and two have more than 1,500 employees.
    Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of prepaid
    calling card providers are small entities that may be affected by
    our action.

17. *800 and 800-Like Service Subscribers*.[^120] Neither the Commission
    nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard
    specifically for 800 and 800-like service ("toll free") subscribers.
    The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category
    Telecommunications Resellers. Under that size standard, such a
    business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.[^121] The most
    reliable source of information regarding the number of these service
    subscribers appears to be data the Commission collects on the 800,
    888, 877, and 866 numbers in use.[^122] According to our data, at
    the beginning of July 2006, the number of 800 numbers assigned was
    7,647,941; the number of 888 numbers assigned was 5,318,667; the
    number of 877 numbers assigned was 4,431,162; and the number of 866
    numbers assigned was 6,008,976. We do not have data specifying the
    number of these subscribers that are not independently owned and
    operated or have more than 1,500 employees, and thus are unable at
    this time to estimate with greater precision the number of toll free
    subscribers that would qualify as small businesses under the SBA
    size standard. Consequently, we estimate that there are 7,647,941 or
    fewer small entity 800 subscribers; 5,318,667 or fewer small entity
    888 subscribers; 4,431,162 or fewer small entity 877 subscribers;
    and 5,318,667 or fewer small entity 866 subscribers.

### Wireless Carriers and Service Providers

18. Below, for those services subject to auctions, we note that, as a
    general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small
    businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent
    the number of small businesses currently in service. Also, the
    Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless,
    in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues
    are implicated.

19. *Wireless Service Providers*. The SBA has developed a small business
    size standard for wireless firms within the two broad economic
    census categories of "Paging"[^123] Cellular and Other Wireless
    Telecommunications."[^124] Under both categories, the SBA deems a
    wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
    For the census category of Paging, Census Bureau data for 2002 show
    that there were 807 firms in this category that operated for the
    entire year.[^125] Of this total, 804 firms had employment of 999 or
    fewer employees, and three firms had employment of 1,000 employees
    or more.[^126] Thus, under this category and associated small
    business size standard, the majority of firms can be considered
    small. For the census category of Cellular and Other Wireless
    Telecommunications, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were
    1,397 firms in this category that operated for the entire
    year.[^127] Of this total, 1,378 firms had employment of 999 or
    fewer employees, and 19 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or
    more.[^128] Thus, under this second category and size standard, the
    majority of firms can, again, be considered small.

20. *Cellular Licensees.* The SBA has developed a small business size
    standard for wireless firms within the broad economic census
    category "Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications."[^129]
    Under this SBA category, a wireless business is small if it has
    1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 432 carriers
    reported that they were engaged in the provision of cellular
    service, Personal Communications Service (PCS), or Specialized
    Mobile Radio (SMR) Telephony services, which are placed together in
    the data.[^130] We have estimated that 221 of these are small, under
    the SBA small business size standard.[^131] Thus, under this
    category and size standard, about half of firms can be considered
    small. This information is also included in paragraph 23.

21. *Common Carrier Paging.* The SBA has developed a small business size
    standard for Paging, under which a business is small if it has 1,500
    or fewer employees.[^132] According to Commission data,[^133] 365
    carriers have reported that they are engaged in Paging or Messaging
    Service. Of these, an estimated 360 have 1,500 or fewer employees,
    and 5 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission
    estimates that the majority of paging providers are small entities
    that may be affected by our action. In addition, in the Paging
    *Third Report and Order*, we developed a small business size
    standard for "small businesses" and "very small businesses" for
    purposes of determining their eligibility for special provisions
    such as bidding credits and installment payments.[^134] A "small
    business" is an entity that, together with its affiliates and
    controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding
    \$15 million for the preceding three years. Additionally, a "very
    small business" is an entity that, together with its affiliates and
    controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not more
    than \$3 million for the preceding three years.[^135] The SBA has
    approved these small business size standards.[^136] An auction of
    Metropolitan Economic Area licenses commenced on February 24, 2000,
    and closed on March 2, 2000.[^137] Of the 985 licenses auctioned,
    440 were sold. Fifty-seven companies claiming small business status
    won.

22. *Wireless Communications Services*. This service can be used for
    fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and digital audio broadcasting
    satellite uses. The Commission established small business size
    standards for the wireless communications services (WCS) auction. A
    "small business" is an entity with average gross revenues of \$40
    million for each of the three preceding years, and a "very small
    business" is an entity with average gross revenues of \$15 million
    for each of the three preceding years. The SBA has approved these
    small business size standards.[^138] The Commission auctioned
    geographic area licenses in the WCS service. In the auction, held in
    April 1997, there were seven winning bidders that qualified as "very
    small business" entities, and one that qualified as a "small
    business" entity.

23. *Wireless Telephony*. Wireless telephony includes cellular, personal
    communications services (PCS), and specialized mobile radio (SMR)
    telephony carriers. As noted earlier, the SBA has developed a small
    business size standard for "Cellular and Other Wireless
    Telecommunications" services.[^139] Under that SBA small business
    size standard, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
    employees.[^140] According to Commission data, 432 carriers reported
    that they were engaged in the provision of wireless telephony.[^141]
    We have estimated that 221 of these are small under the SBA small
    business size standard.

24. *Broadband Personal Communications Service.* The broadband Personal
    Communications Service (PCS) spectrum is divided into six frequency
    blocks designated A through F, and the Commission has held auctions
    for each block. The Commission defined "small entity" for Blocks C
    and F as an entity that has average gross revenues of \$40 million
    or less in the three previous calendar years.[^142] For Block F, an
    additional classification for "very small business" was added and is
    defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates, has average
    gross revenues of not more than \$15 million for the preceding three
    calendar years."[^143] These standards defining "small entity" in
    the context of broadband PCS auctions have been approved by the
    SBA.[^144] No small businesses, within the SBA-approved small
    business size standards bid successfully for licenses in Blocks A
    and B. There were 90 winning bidders that qualified as small
    entities in the Block C auctions. A total of 93 small and very small
    business bidders won approximately 40 percent of the 1,479 licenses
    for Blocks D, E, and F.[^145] On March 23, 1999, the Commission
    re-auctioned 347 C, D, E, and F Block licenses. There were 48 small
    business winning bidders. On January 26, 2001, the Commission
    completed the auction of 422 C and F Broadband PCS licenses in
    Auction No. 35. Of the 35 winning bidders in this auction, 29
    qualified as "small" or "very small" businesses. Subsequent events,
    concerning Auction 35, including judicial and agency determinations,
    resulted in a total of 163 C and F Block licenses being available
    for grant.

25. *Narrowband Personal Communications Services.* To date, two auctions
    of narrowband personal communications services (PCS) licenses have
    been conducted. For purposes of the two auctions that have already
    been held, "small businesses" were entities with average gross
    revenues for the prior three calendar years of \$40 million or less.
    Through these auctions, the Commission has awarded a total of 41
    licenses, out of which 11 were obtained by small businesses. To
    ensure meaningful participation of small business entities in future
    auctions, the Commission has adopted a two-tiered small business
    size standard in the *Narrowband PCS Second Report and Order*.[^146]
    A "small business" is an entity that, together with affiliates and
    controlling interests, has average gross revenues for the three
    preceding years of not more than \$40 million. A "very small
    business" is an entity that, together with affiliates and
    controlling interests, has average gross revenues for the three
    preceding years of not more than \$15 million. The SBA has approved
    these small business size standards.[^147] In the future, the
    Commission will auction 459 licenses to serve Metropolitan Trading
    Areas (MTAs) and 408 response channel licenses. There is also one
    megahertz of narrowband PCS spectrum that has been held in reserve
    and that the Commission has not yet decided to release for
    licensing. The Commission cannot predict accurately the number of
    licenses that will be awarded to small entities in future actions.
    However, four of the 16 winning bidders in the two previous
    narrowband PCS auctions were small businesses, as that term was
    defined under the Commission's Rules. The Commission assumes, for
    purposes of this analysis, that a large portion of the remaining
    narrowband PCS licenses will be awarded to small entities. The
    Commission also assumes that at least some small businesses will
    acquire narrowband PCS licenses by means of the Commission's
    partitioning and disaggregation rules.

26. *220 MHz Radio Service -- Phase I Licensees.* The 220 MHz service
    has both Phase I and Phase II licenses. Phase I licensing was
    conducted by lotteries in 1992 and 1993. There are approximately
    1,515 such non-nationwide licensees and four nationwide licensees
    currently authorized to operate in the 220 MHz band. The Commission
    has not developed a small business size standard for small entities
    specifically applicable to such incumbent 220 MHz Phase I licensees.
    To estimate the number of such licensees that are small businesses,
    we apply the small business size standard under the SBA rules
    applicable to "Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications"
    companies. Under this category, the SBA deems a wireless business to
    be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. [^148] The Commission
    estimates that nearly all such licensees are small businesses under
    the SBA's small business size standard.

27. *220 MHz Radio Service -- Phase II Licensees.* The 220 MHz service
    has both Phase I and Phase II licenses. The Phase II 220 MHz service
    is a new service, and is subject to spectrum auctions. In the *220
    MHz Third Report and Order*, we adopted a small business size
    standard for "small" and "very small" businesses for purposes of
    determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding
    credits and installment payments.[^149] This small business size
    standard indicates that a "small business" is an entity that,
    together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average
    gross revenues not exceeding \$15 million for the preceding three
    years.[^150] A "very small business" is an entity that, together
    with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross
    revenues that do not exceed \$3 million for the preceding three
    years. The SBA has approved these small business size
    standards.[^151] Auctions of Phase II licenses commenced on
    September 15, 1998, and closed on October 22, 1998.[^152] In the
    first auction, 908 licenses were auctioned in three different-sized
    geographic areas: three nationwide licenses, 30 Regional Economic
    Area Group (EAG) Licenses, and 875 Economic Area (EA) Licenses. Of
    the 908 licenses auctioned, 693 were sold. Thirty-nine small
    businesses won licenses in the first 220 MHz auction. The second
    auction included 225 licenses: 216 EA licenses and 9 EAG licenses.
    Fourteen companies claiming small business status won 158
    licenses.[^153]

28. *800 MHz and 900 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio Licenses.* The
    Commission awards "small entity" and "very small entity" bidding
    credits in auctions for Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) geographic
    area licenses in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands to firms that had
    revenues of no more than \$15 million in each of the three previous
    calendar years, or that had revenues of no more than \$3 million in
    each of the previous calendar years, respectively.[^154] These
    bidding credits apply to SMR providers in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz
    bands that either hold geographic area licenses or have obtained
    extended implementation authorizations. The Commission does not know
    how many firms provide 800 MHz or 900 MHz geographic area SMR
    service pursuant to extended implementation authorizations, nor how
    many of these providers have annual revenues of no more than \$15
    million. One firm has over \$15 million in revenues. The Commission
    assumes, for purposes here, that all of the remaining existing
    extended implementation authorizations are held by small entities,
    as that term is defined by the SBA. The Commission has held auctions
    for geographic area licenses in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz SMR bands.
    There were 60 winning bidders that qualified as small or very small
    entities in the 900 MHz SMR auctions. Of the 1,020 licenses won in
    the 900 MHz auction, bidders qualifying as small or very small
    entities won 263 licenses. In the 800 MHz auction, 38 of the 524
    licenses won were won by small and very small entities.

29. *700 MHz Guard Band Licensees.* In the *700 MHz Guard Band Order*,
    we adopted a small business size standard for "small businesses" and
    "very small businesses" for purposes of determining their
    eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and
    installment payments.[^155] A "small business" as an entity that,
    together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average
    gross revenues not exceeding \$15 million for the preceding three
    years. Additionally, a "very small business" is an entity that,
    together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average
    gross revenues that are not more than \$3 million for the preceding
    three years. An auction of 52 Major Economic Area (MEA) licenses
    commenced on September 6, 2000, and closed on September 21,
    2000.[^156] Of the 104 licenses auctioned, 96 licenses were sold to
    nine bidders. Five of these bidders were small businesses that won a
    total of 26 licenses. A second auction of 700 MHz Guard Band
    licenses commenced on February 13, 2001 and closed on February
    21, 2001. All eight of the licenses auctioned were sold to three
    bidders. One of these bidders was a small business that won a total
    of two licenses.[^157]

30. *Rural Radiotelephone Service.* The Commission has not adopted a
    size standard for small businesses specific to the Rural
    Radiotelephone Service.[^158] A significant subset of the Rural
    Radiotelephone Service is the Basic Exchange Telephone Radio System
    (BETRS).[^159] The Commission uses the SBA's small business size
    standard applicable to "Cellular and Other Wireless
    Telecommunications," *i.e.*, an entity employing no more than 1,500
    persons.[^160] There are approximately 1,000 licensees in the Rural
    Radiotelephone Service, and the Commission estimates that there are
    1,000 or fewer small entity licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone
    Service that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted
    herein.

31. *Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service.* The Commission has not adopted
    a small business size standard specific to the Air-Ground
    Radiotelephone Service.[^161] We will use SBA's small business size
    standard applicable to "Cellular and Other Wireless
    Telecommunications," *i.e.*, an entity employing no more than 1,500
    persons.[^162] There are approximately 100 licensees in the
    Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service, and we estimate that almost all
    of them qualify as small under the SBA small business size standard.

32. *Aviation and Marine Radio Services.* Small businesses in the
    aviation and marine radio services use a very high frequency (VHF)
    marine or aircraft radio and, as appropriate, an emergency
    position-indicating radio beacon (and/or radar) or an emergency
    locator transmitter. The Commission has not developed a small
    business size standard specifically applicable to these small
    businesses. For purposes of this analysis, the Commission uses the
    SBA small business size standard for the category "Cellular and
    Other Telecommunications," which is 1,500 or fewer employees.[^163]
    Most applicants for recreational licenses are individuals.
    Approximately 581,000 ship station licensees and 131,000 aircraft
    station licensees operate domestically and are not subject to the
    radio carriage requirements of any statute or treaty. For purposes
    of our evaluations in this analysis, we estimate that there are up
    to approximately 712,000 licensees that are small businesses (or
    individuals) under the SBA standard. In addition, between December
    3, 1998 and December 14, 1998, the Commission held an auction of 42
    VHF Public Coast licenses in the 157.1875-157.4500 MHz (ship
    transmit) and 161.775-162.0125 MHz (coast transmit) bands. For
    purposes of the auction, the Commission defined a "small" business
    as an entity that, together with controlling interests and
    affiliates, has average gross revenues for the preceding three years
    not to exceed \$15 million dollars. In addition, a "very small"
    business is one that, together with controlling interests and
    affiliates, has average gross revenues for the preceding three years
    not to exceed \$3 million dollars.[^164] There are approximately
    10,672 licensees in the Marine Coast Service, and the Commission
    estimates that almost all of them qualify as "small" businesses
    under the above special small business size standards.

33. *Fixed Microwave Services.* Fixed microwave services include common
    carrier,[^165] private operational-fixed,[^166] and broadcast
    auxiliary radio services.[^167] At present, there are approximately
    22,015 common carrier fixed licensees and 61,670 private
    operational-fixed licensees and broadcast auxiliary radio licensees
    in the microwave services. The Commission has not created a size
    standard for a small business specifically with respect to fixed
    microwave services. For purposes of this analysis, the Commission
    uses the SBA small business size standard for the category "Cellular
    and Other Telecommunications," which is 1,500 or fewer
    employees.[^168] The Commission does not have data specifying the
    number of these licensees that have more than 1,500 employees, and
    thus are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the
    number of fixed microwave service licensees that would qualify as
    small business concerns under the SBA's small business size
    standard. Consequently, the Commission estimates that there are up
    to 22,015 common carrier fixed licensees and up to 61,670 private
    operational-fixed licensees and broadcast auxiliary radio licensees
    in the microwave services that may be small and may be affected by
    the rules and policies adopted herein. We noted, however, that the
    common carrier microwave fixed licensee category includes some large
    entities.

34. *Offshore Radiotelephone Service.* This service operates on several
    UHF television broadcast channels that are not used for television
    broadcasting in the coastal areas of states bordering the Gulf of
    Mexico.[^169] There are presently approximately 55 licensees in this
    service. We are unable to estimate at this time the number of
    licensees that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business
    size standard for "Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications"
    services.[^170] Under that SBA small business size standard, a
    business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.[^171]

35. *39 GHz Service.* The Commission created a special small business
    size standard for 39 GHz licenses -- an entity that has average
    gross revenues of \$40 million or less in the three previous
    calendar years.[^172] An additional size standard for "very small
    business" is: an entity that, together with affiliates, has average
    gross revenues of not more than \$15 million for the preceding three
    calendar years.[^173] The SBA has approved these small business size
    standards.[^174] The auction of the 2,173 39 GHz licenses began on
    April 12, 2000 and closed on May 8, 2000. The 18 bidders who claimed
    small business status won 849 licenses. Consequently, the Commission
    estimates that 18 or fewer 39 GHz licensees are small entities that
    may be affected by our action.

36. *Multipoint Distribution Service, Multichannel Multipoint
    Distribution Service, and ITFS.* Multichannel Multipoint
    Distribution Service (MMDS) systems, often referred to as "wireless
    cable," transmit video programming to subscribers using the
    microwave frequencies of the Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS)
    and Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS).[^175] In
    connection with the 1996 MDS auction, the Commission established a
    small business size standard as an entity that had annual average
    gross revenues of less than \$40 million in the previous three
    calendar years.[^176] The MDS auctions resulted in 67 successful
    bidders obtaining licensing opportunities for 493 Basic Trading
    Areas (BTAs). Of the 67 auction winners, 61 met the definition of a
    small business. MDS also includes licensees of stations authorized
    prior to the auction. In addition, the SBA has developed a small
    business size standard for Cable and Other Program Distribution,
    which includes all such companies generating \$13.5 million or less
    in annual receipts.[^177] According to Census Bureau data for 2002,
    there were a total of 1,191 firms in this category that operated for
    the entire year.[^178] Of this total, 1,087 firms had annual
    receipts of under \$10 million, and 43 firms had receipts of \$10
    million or more but less than \$25 million.[^179] Consequently, we
    estimate that the majority of providers in this service category are
    small businesses that may be affected by the rules and policies
    adopted herein. This SBA small business size standard also appears
    applicable to ITFS. There are presently 2,032 ITFS licensees. All
    but 100 of these licenses are held by educational institutions.
    Educational institutions are included in this analysis as small
    entities.[^180] Thus, we tentatively conclude that at least 1,932
    licensees are small businesses.

37. *Local Multipoint Distribution Service.* Local Multipoint
    Distribution Service (LMDS) is a fixed broadband point-to-multipoint
    microwave service that provides for two-way video
    telecommunications.[^181] The auction of the 1,030 Local Multipoint
    Distribution Service (LMDS) licenses began on February 18, 1998 and
    closed on March 25, 1998. The Commission established a small
    business size standard for LMDS licenses as an entity that has
    average gross revenues of less than \$40 million in the three
    previous calendar years.[^182] An additional small business size
    standard for "very small business" was added as an entity that,
    together with its affiliates, has average gross revenues of not more
    than \$13.5 million for the preceding three calendar years.[^183]
    The SBA has approved these small business size standards in the
    context of LMDS auctions.[^184] There were 93 winning bidders that
    qualified as small entities in the LMDS auctions. A total of 93
    small and very small business bidders won approximately 277 A Block
    licenses and 387 B Block licenses. On March 27, 1999, the Commission
    re-auctioned 161 licenses; there were 40 winning bidders. Based on
    this information, we conclude that the number of small LMDS licenses
    consists of the 93 winning bidders in the first auction and the 40
    winning bidders in the re-auction, for a total of 133 small entity
    LMDS providers. The license terms require the licensees to build
    their wireless facilities within ten years of the grant. As a
    result, more information on the licensees will become available in
    the year 2008, when the licensees are required to show the
    Commission that they have achieved substantial service as part of
    the application renewal process.

38. *218-219 MHz Service.* The first auction of 218-219 MHz spectrum
    resulted in 170 entities winning licenses for 594 Metropolitan
    Statistical Area (MSA) licenses. Of the 594 licenses, 557 were won
    by entities qualifying as a small business. For that auction, the
    small business size standard was an entity that, together with its
    affiliates, has no more than a \$6 million net worth and, after
    federal income taxes (excluding any carry over losses), has no more
    than \$2 million in annual profits each year for the previous two
    years.[^185] In the *218-219 MHz Report and Order and Memorandum
    Opinion and Order*, we established a small business size standard
    for a "small business" as an entity that, together with its
    affiliates and persons or entities that hold interests in such an
    entity and their affiliates, has average annual gross revenues not
    to exceed \$15 million for the preceding three years.[^186] A "very
    small business" is defined as an entity that, together with its
    affiliates and persons or entities that hold interests in such an
    entity and its affiliates, has average annual gross revenues not to
    exceed \$3 million for the preceding three years.[^187] These size
    standards will be used in future auctions of 218-219 MHz spectrum.

39. *24 GHz -- Incumbent Licensees.* This analysis may affect incumbent
    licensees who were relocated to the 24 GHz band from the 18 GHz
    band, and applicants who wish to provide services in the 24 GHz
    band. The applicable SBA small business size standard is that of
    "Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications" companies. This
    category provides that such a company is small if it employs no more
    than 1,500 persons.[^188] We believe that there are only two
    licensees in the 24 GHz band that were relocated from the 18 GHz
    band, Teligent[^189] and TRW, Inc. It is our understanding that
    Teligent and its related companies have less than 1,500 employees,
    though this may change in the future. TRW is not a small entity.
    Thus, only one incumbent licensee in the 24 GHz band is a small
    business entity.

40. *24 GHz -- Future Licensees.* With respect to new applicants in the
    24 GHz band, the small business size standard for "small business"
    is an entity that, together with controlling interests and
    affiliates, has average annual gross revenues for the three
    preceding years not in excess of \$15 million.[^190] "Very small
    business" in the 24 GHz band is an entity that, together with
    controlling interests and affiliates, has average gross revenues not
    exceeding \$3 million for the preceding three years.[^191] The SBA
    has approved these small business size standards.[^192] These size
    standards will apply to the future auction, if held.

### Satellite Service Providers

41. *Satellite Telecommunications and Other Telecommunications*. There
    is no small business size standard developed specifically for
    providers of international service. The appropriate size standards
    under SBA rules are for the two broad census categories of
    "Satellite Telecommunications" and "Other Telecommunications." Under
    both categories, such a business is small if it has \$13.5 million
    or less in average annual receipts.[^193]

42. The first category of Satellite Telecommunications "comprises
    establishments primarily engaged in providing point-to-point
    telecommunications services to other establishments in the
    telecommunications and broadcasting industries by forwarding and
    receiving communications signals via a system of satellites or
    reselling satellite telecommunications."[^194] For this category,
    Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were a total of 371
    firms that operated for the entire year.[^195] Of this total, 307
    firms had annual receipts of under \$10 million, and 26 firms had
    receipts of \$10 million to \$24,999,999.[^196] Consequently, we
    estimate that the majority of Satellite Telecommunications firms are
    small entities that might be affected by our action.

43. The second category of Other Telecommunications "comprises
    establishments primarily engaged in (1) providing specialized
    telecommunications applications, such as satellite tracking,
    communications telemetry, and radar station operations; or (2)
    providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities
    operationally connected with one or more terrestrial communications
    systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to or
    receiving telecommunications from satellite systems."[^197] For this
    category, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were a total
    of 332 firms that operated for the entire year.[^198] Of this total,
    259 firms had annual receipts of under \$10 million and 15 firms had
    annual receipts of \$10 million to \$24,999,999.[^199] Consequently,
    we estimate that the majority of Other Telecommunications firms are
    small entities that might be affected by our action.

### Cable and OVS Operators

44. In addition to the estimates provided above, we consider certain
    additional entities that may be affected by the data collection from
    broadband service providers. Because section 706 requires us to
    monitor the deployment of broadband regardless of technology or
    transmission media employed, we anticipate that some broadband
    service providers will not provide telephone service. Accordingly,
    we describe below other types of firms that may provide broadband
    services, including cable companies, MDS providers, and utilities,
    among others.

45. *Cable and Other Program Distribution.* The Census Bureau defines
    this category as follows: "This industry comprises establishments
    primarily engaged as third-party distribution systems for broadcast
    programming. The establishments of this industry deliver visual,
    aural, or textual programming received from cable networks, local
    television stations, or radio networks to consumers via cable or
    direct-to-home satellite systems on a subscription or fee basis.
    These establishments do not generally originate programming
    material."[^200] The SBA has developed a small business size
    standard for Cable and Other Program Distribution, which is: all
    such firms having \$13.5 million or less in annual receipts.[^201]
    According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were a total of
    1,191 firms in this category that operated for the entire
    year.[^202] Of this total, 1,087 firms had annual receipts of under
    \$10 million, and 43 firms had receipts of \$10 million or more but
    less than \$25 million.[^203] Thus, under this size standard, the
    majority of firms can be considered small.

46. *Cable Companies and Systems.* The Commission has also developed its
    own small business size standards, for the purpose of cable rate
    regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a "small cable company" is
    one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers, nationwide.[^204] Industry
    data indicate that, of 1,076 cable operators nationwide, all but
    eleven are small under this size standard.[^205] In addition, under
    the Commission's rules, a "small system" is a cable system serving
    15,000 or fewer subscribers.[^206] Industry data indicate that, of
    7,208 systems nationwide, 6,139 systems have under 10,000
    subscribers, and an additional 379 systems have 10,000-19,999
    subscribers.[^207] Thus, under this second size standard, most cable
    systems are small.

47. *Cable System Operators*. The Communications Act of 1934, as
    amended, also contains a size standard for small cable system
    operators, which is "a cable operator that, directly or through an
    affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all
    subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any
    entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate
    exceed \$250,000,000."[^208] The Commission has determined that an
    operator serving fewer than 677,000 subscribers shall be deemed a
    small operator, if its annual revenues, when combined with the total
    annual revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed \$250 million
    in the aggregate.[^209] Industry data indicate that, of 1,076 cable
    operators nationwide, all but ten are small under this size
    standard.[^210] We note that the Commission neither requests nor
    collects information on whether cable system operators are
    affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed \$250
    million,[^211] and therefore we are unable to estimate more
    accurately the number of cable system operators that would qualify
    as small under this size standard.

48. *Open Video Services.* Open Video Service (OVS) systems provide
    subscription services.[^212] As noted above, the SBA has created a
    small business size standard for Cable and Other Program
    Distribution.[^213] This standard provides that a small entity is
    one with \$13.5 million or less in annual receipts. The Commission
    has certified approximately 45 OVS operators to serve 75 areas, and
    some of these are currently providing service.[^214] Affiliates of
    Residential Communications Network, Inc. (RCN) received approval to
    operate OVS systems in New York City, Boston, Washington, D.C., and
    other areas. RCN has sufficient revenues to assure that they do not
    qualify as a small business entity. Little financial information is
    available for the other entities that are authorized to provide OVS
    and are not yet operational. Given that some entities authorized to
    provide OVS service have not yet begun to generate revenues, the
    Commission concludes that up to 44 OVS operators (those remaining)
    might qualify as small businesses that may be affected by the rules
    and policies adopted herein.

### Electric Power Generation, Transmission and Distribution

49. *Electric Power Generation, Transmission and Distribution.* The
    Census Bureau defines this category as follows: "This industry group
    comprises establishments primarily engaged in generating,
    transmitting, and/or distributing electric power. Establishments in
    this industry group may perform one or more of the following
    activities: (1) operate generation facilities that produce electric
    energy; (2) operate transmission systems that convey the electricity
    from the generation facility to the distribution system; and (3)
    operate distribution systems that convey electric power received
    from the generation facility or the transmission system to the final
    consumer."[^215] The SBA has developed a small business size
    standard for firms in this category: "A firm is small if, including
    its affiliates, it is primarily engaged in the generation,
    transmission, and/or distribution of electric energy for sale and
    its total electric output for the preceding fiscal year did not
    exceed 4 million megawatt hours."[^216] According to Census Bureau
    data for 2002, there were 1,644 firms in this category that operated
    for the entire year.[^217] Census data do not track electric output
    and we have not determined how many of these firms fit the SBA size
    standard for small, with no more than 4 million megawatt hours of
    electric output. Consequently, we estimate that 1,644 or fewer firms
    may be considered small under the SBA small business size standard.

### Internet Service Providers

50. *Internet Service Providers*. The SBA has developed a small business
    size standard for Internet Service Providers (ISPs). ISPs "provide
    clients access to the Internet and generally provide related
    services such as web hosting, web page designing, and hardware or
    software consulting related to Internet connectivity."[^218] Under
    the SBA size standard, such a business is small if it has average
    annual receipts of \$23 million or less.[^219] According to Census
    Bureau data for 2002, there were 2,529 firms in this category that
    operated for the entire year. [^220] Of these, 2,437 firms had
    annual receipts of under \$10 million, and an additional 47 firms
    had receipts of between \$10 million and \$24,999,999. Consequently,
    we estimate that the majority of these firms are small entities that
    may be affected by our action.

### Other Internet-Related Entities

51. *Web Search Portals*. Our action pertains to VoIP services, which
    could be provided by entities that provide other services such as
    email, online gaming, web browsing, video conferencing, instant
    messaging, and other, similar IP-enabled services. The Commission
    has not adopted a size standard for entities that create or provide
    these types of services or applications. However, the Census Bureau
    has identified firms that "operate web sites that use a search
    engine to generate and maintain extensive databases of Internet
    addresses and content in an easily searchable format. Web search
    portals often provide additional Internet services, such as e-mail,
    connections to other web sites, auctions, news, and other limited
    content, and serve as a home base for Internet users."[^221] The SBA
    has developed a small business size standard for this category; that
    size standard is \$6.5 million or less in average annual
    receipts.[^222] According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were
    342 firms in this category that operated for the entire year.[^223]
    Of these, 303 had annual receipts of under \$5 million, and an
    additional 15 firms had receipts of between \$5 million and
    \$9,999,999. Consequently, we estimate that the majority of these
    firms are small entities that may be affected by our action.

52. *Data Processing, Hosting, and Related Services.* Entities in this
    category "primarily ... provid\[e\] infrastructure for hosting or
    data processing services."[^224] The SBA has developed a small
    business size standard for this category; that size standard is \$23
    million or less in average annual receipts.[^225] According to
    Census Bureau data for 2002, there were 6,877 firms in this category
    that operated for the entire year.[^226] Of these, 6,418 had annual
    receipts of under \$10 million, and an additional 251 firms had
    receipts of between \$10 million and \$24,999,999. Consequently, we
    estimate that the majority of these firms are small entities that
    may be affected by our action.

53. *All Other Information Services*. "This industry comprises
    establishments primarily engaged in providing other information
    services (except new syndicates and libraries and archives)."[^227]
    Our action pertains to VoIP services, which could be provided by
    entities that provide other services such as email, online gaming,
    web browsing, video conferencing, instant messaging, and other,
    similar IP-enabled services. The SBA has developed a small business
    size standard for this category; that size standard is \$6.5 million
    or less in average annual receipts.[^228] According to Census Bureau
    data for 2002, there were 155 firms in this category that operated
    for the entire year.[^229] Of these, 138 had annual receipts of
    under \$5 million, and an additional four firms had receipts of
    between \$5 million and \$9,999,999. Consequently, we estimate that
    the majority of these firms are small entities that may be affected
    by our action.

54. *Internet Publishing and Broadcasting*. "This industry comprises
    establishments engaged in publishing and/or broadcasting content on
    the Internet exclusively. These establishments do not provide
    traditional (non-Internet) versions of the content that they publish
    or broadcast."[^230] The SBA has developed a small business size
    standard for this census category; that size standard is 500 or
    fewer employees.[^231] According to Census Bureau data for 2002,
    there were 1,362 firms in this category that operated for the entire
    year.[^232] Of these, 1,351 had employment of 499 or fewer
    employees, and six firms had employment of between 500 and 999.
    Consequently, we estimate that the majority of these firms small
    entities that may be affected by our action.

55. *Software Publishers*. These companies may design, develop or
    publish software and may provide other support services to software
    purchasers, such as providing documentation or assisting in
    installation. The companies may also design software to meet the
    needs of specific users.[^233] The SBA has developed a small
    business size standard of \$23 million or less in average annual
    receipts for all of the following pertinent categories: Software
    Publishers, Custom Computer Programming Services, and Other Computer
    Related Services.[^234] For Software Publishers, Census Bureau data
    for 2002 indicate that there were 6,155 firms in the category that
    operated for the entire year.[^235] Of these, 7,633 had annual
    receipts of under \$10 million, and an additional 403 firms had
    receipts of between \$10 million and \$24, 999,999. For providers of
    Custom Computer Programming Services, the Census Bureau data
    indicate that there were 32,269 firms that operated for the entire
    year.[^236] Of these, 31,416 had annual receipts of under \$10
    million, and an additional 565 firms had receipts of between \$10
    million and \$24,999,999. For providers of Other Computer Related
    Services, the Census Bureau data indicate that there were 6,357
    firms that operated for the entire year.[^237] Of these, 6,187 had
    annual receipts of under \$10 million, and an additional 101 firms
    had receipts of between \$10 million and \$24,999,999. Consequently,
    we estimate that the majority of the firms in each of these three
    categories are small entities that may be affected by our action.

**D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements**

56. In the Notice, many of the proposals to increase our understanding
    of broadband availability would impose no reporting, recordkeeping
    or other compliance requirements on small entities. However, we
    invite comment on several other proposals that would impose further
    reporting and recordkeeping requirements on current Form 477 filers.
    Specifically, the Notice invites comment on whether current Form 477
    filers should (1) report numbers of subscribers per 5-digit Zip
    Code, (2) report 9-digit Zip Codes where there is at least one
    subscriber or report numbers of subscribers per 9-digit Zip
    Code, (3) report geocoded information about subscriber locations,
    or (4) report information that delineates in detail the boundaries
    of their broadband-enabled service territories.[^238] The Notice
    also seeks comment on whether the Commission should (1) refine the
    speed tier information the Commission currently collects by
    splitting an existing speed tier into two;[^239] (2) require all
    broadband filers to report the number of residential customers
    served and also the number of homes "passed" by their broadband
    enabled infrastructure;[^240] (3) collect demographic information
    about households from filers located in representative areas;[^241]
    and (4) collect price information from filers in representative
    areas or from filers more generally.[^242] In addition, we invite
    comment whether there are any alternatives not discussed in the
    Notice that would also serve the objectives of the Notice.[^243] We
    invite comment on ways to mitigate the burden that might be imposed
    on small entities by proposals discussed in the Notice.[^244] We
    also invite comment on alternatives to these proposals that would
    meet the objectives of the Notice but would impose lesser burdens on
    small entities.

**E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered**

57. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives
    that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may
    include (among others) the following four alternatives: (1) the
    establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or
    timetables that take into account the resources available to small
    entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of
    compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small
    entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards;
    and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof,
    for small entities.[^245]

58. From the outset, the Notice invites comments on significant
    alternatives to improving data about broadband availability
    throughout the nation -- particularly availability in rural and
    other hard-to-serve areas -- that would impose no burden on small
    entities whatsoever. These alternatives ask whether the Commission
    would be able to meet its objectives by conducting further analysis
    of current data, conducting its own studies, or purchasing databases
    from other entities to supplement Commission data. The Notice asks
    whether the Commission should simply identify for further,
    individual study those Zip Code areas where deployment appears to be
    particularly limited.[^246] The Notice invites comment on whether
    the Commission might collaborate with state public-private economic
    development or other initiatives to supplement and refine Commission
    data.[^247] Furthermore, the Notice invites comment whether it might
    purchase commercial databases or services that would provide data
    without imposing additional burdens on filers.[^248] Finally, the
    Commission inquires whether it might rely on a voluntary
    self-reporting system by non-served households, patterned after the
    National Do-Not-Call Registry, to identify localized areas where
    broadband services are not available.[^249] None of these
    alternatives would impose burdens on small entities, but commenters
    are invited to comment on whether these alternatives would provide
    sufficient information for the Commission to assess whether it
    should institute new policies to encourage deployment of broadband
    services to rural and hard-to-serve areas.

59. With regard to proposals that would increase the reporting
    requirements of small entities, the Notice invites comments on how
    these proposals might be tailored to mitigate the burden on smaller
    entities but nevertheless obtain data that would enable the
    Commission to determine whether subscribers in those territories
    have access to broadband services.[^250] As noted above, the Notice
    invites comment on whether current Form 477 filers should (1) report
    numbers of subscribers per 5-digit Zip Code, (2) report 9-digit Zip
    Codes where there is at least one subscriber or report numbers of
    subscribers per 9-digit Zip Code, (3) report geocoded information
    about subscriber locations, or (4) report information that
    delineates in detail the boundaries of their broadband-enabled
    service territories.[^251] The Notice also seeks comment on whether
    the Commission should (1) refine the speed tier information the
    Commission currently collects by splitting an existing speed tier
    into two;[^252] (2) require all broadband filers to report the
    number of residential customers served and also the number of homes
    "passed" by their broadband enabled infrastructure;[^253] (3)
    collect demographic information about households from filers located
    in representative areas;[^254] and (4) collect price information
    from filers in representative areas or from filers more
    generally.[^255] To analyze the impact on small entities, the Notice
    specifically asks whether entities maintain these types of
    information in billing or marketing databases and asks commenters to
    demonstrate the burden for the entities to collect and report this
    type of information. This information will assist the Commission in
    determining whether these various proposals would impose a
    significant economic impact on small entities. Commenters are
    invited to comment on whether there are alternative methods that
    would obtain the same information while lessening the economic
    impact on small entities.

60. The Notice also invites comment on how we should modify the
    reporting requirements for wireless broadband providers and
    interconnected VoIP providers. Specifically, the Notice invites
    comment on whether mobile wireless providers should (1) report the
    number of month-to-month (or longer term) subscriptions to broadband
    Internet access service designed for full Internet browsing; (2)
    report the number of month-to-month (or longer term) subscriptions
    for broadband-speed browsing of customized-for-mobile web sites;
    and (3) report the number of unique mobile voice service subscribers
    who are not month-to-month subscribers to an Internet access
    service, but who nevertheless made any news, video, or other
    entertainment downloads to the subscriber's handset at broadband
    speed during the month preceding the Form 477 reporting date.[^256]
    The Notice also seeks comment on how to improve the reporting
    estimate of the percentage of mobile wireless broadband subscribers
    who are residential end users.[^257] In doing so, the Notice
    specifically suggests and seeks comment on alternative methods for
    arriving at the best estimates of residential end users. Finally,
    the Notice specifically invites comment on how to collect useful
    information about the number of interconnected VoIP subscribers in
    the least burdensome manner.[^258] This information will assist the
    Commission in determining whether these various proposals would
    impose a significant economic impact on small entities. Commenters
    are invited to comment on whether there are alternative methods that
    would obtain the same information while lessening the economic
    impact on small entities.

61. Based on these questions, and the alternatives we have discussed, we
    anticipate that the record will be developed concerning alternative
    ways in which the Commission could lessen the burden on small
    entities of obtaining improved data about broadband availability
    throughout the nation.

**F. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the
Proposed Rules**

62. None.

**STATEMENT OF**

**CHAIRMAN KEVIN J. MARTIN**

*Re: In the Matter of Development of Nationwide Broadband Data to
Evaluate Reasonable and Timely Deployment of Advanced Services to All
Americans, Improvement of Wireless Broadband*

> *Subscribership Data, and Development of Data on Interconnected Voice
> over Internet Protocol (VoIP) Subscribership (WC Docket No. 07-38)*

*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:*       *Development of Nationwide Broadband Data to Evaluate
Reasonable and Timely Deployment of Advanced Services to All Americans,
Improvement of Wireless Broadband Subscribership Data, and Development
of Data on Interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP)
Subscribership*

 

For several years now, I have been greatly disappointed by the
Commission's broadband data-gathering and presentation. As scholars,
industry and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) have documented,
our semi-annual statistical reports currently fail to measure even basic
concepts such as the extent of broadband deployment across the country
(including in rural and tribal areas) and the degree of competition
among broadband providers and modalities. Our statistical methodology
seems almost calculated to obscure just how far our country is falling
behind many other industrialized nations in broadband availability,
adoption, speed and price. Indeed, the lack of reliable government data
on the present state of our broadband market is a fundamental obstacle
to developing a national strategy to reverse our inexcusable broadband
performance. Until we know where we stand today, how can we possibly
build the broadband future that our nation deserves? And if the FCC
doesn't gather this data, who will?

Today's NPRM asks a number of important questions that will allow the
FCC to begin reforming its broadband data-gathering. An item like this
should have been voted ten years ago. But we take what we can get, and I
appreciate Chairman Martin's willingness to work with us to develop a
series of questions that will allow the Commission to develop a far more
nuanced and reliable picture of our nation's broadband market. I look
forward to working with him and my fellow Commissioners to synthesize
the comments we receive over the coming months so we can develop rules
that will improve our semi-annual broadband statistical reports as well
as our section 706 broadband analysis.

Though today's item asks a multitude of important questions---too many
to mention here---I would like to focus on certain issues that I believe
are of particular importance. First, today's item seeks comment on how
the agency should measure broadband speed. For too long, we have defined
broadband as 200 kbps in one direction---a measure that was outdated
even when it was introduced years ago and that has become increasingly
untenable today, especially when one considers what consumers in other
countries routinely expect and receive. I look forward to receiving
comments on how we can develop more useful measures of speed and also
how we can ensure that broadband providers are using comparable
methodologies for calculating speed.

Second, today's item states that competitive choice should, ideally, be
calculated on a house-by-house and business-by-business basis. It also
forthrightly acknowledges the limitations of the Commission's existing
methodology, which assumes if one home or business in a ZIP code has
broadband, then every home or business in that ZIP code has broadband.
No business in its right mind would base decisions on such misleading
data---surely the American government should not do so either. I am
especially pleased that we seek comment on the feasibility of developing
a sampling methodology to develop estimates of competition and broadband
deployment in representative urban, suburban, rural, and tribal areas
and on using statistical extrapolation to develop a national picture.
The groundbreaking mapping and analysis conducted by private-public
partnerships like ConnectKentucky---not to mention the example of
countries like Japan, which gathers detailed data at the prefecture
level---certainly demonstrate that it is possible, with a little elbow
grease, to gather far more granular broadband data than we presently do
at the FCC. A pretty good idea of what's going on in representative
parts of the country strikes me as a far better basis for policy than a
largely misleading idea of what's happening everywhere.

Third, today's item seeks information on broadband price---a crucially
important piece of information in understanding broadband deployment and
in assessing whether consumers are being well served by our current
broadband market. After all, it is surely ***value***---meaning the
relationship between price and measures of quality such as speed and
ease of use---that matters most to consumers and ought to matter most to
the Commission. I am especially interested in learning how price and
value are affected by the degree of competition in an area. We should be
able to report the price per bit in representative parts of the country,
and to compare these statistics to what consumers receive in other
nations. The Commission has for many years considered such factors in
its annual analyses of, for instance, video and wireless services---it
is well past time that we do so for broadband as well.

Fourth, building upon the point just made, today's item distinguishes
between two distinct concepts---whether broadband is ***available*** and
whether consumers have chosen to ***adopt*** broadband---that the
Commission has conflated for far too long.[^259] Gathering statistics on
both concepts---as well as how the two are correlated with price, speed,
value and demographic factors such as age, gender, education, race,
income, rural and tribal residence, disability status, and so
forth---will allow the Commission, other policymakers, academics, and
industry to understand why certain populations have benefited far less
than others from the digital revolution. Only when we understand the
many factors driving broadband adoption can we ensure that the benefits
of this exciting technology become a part of ***every*** American's
life---as they surely should be.

Finally, today's item seeks comment on how we can use international
statistics on broadband deployment to better understand and assess our
own country's broadband marketplace. Even though our country is
undeniably unique in many ways, lessons from abroad may well be relevant
to our own situation and we should always have the humility to learn
from others.

Despite our late start, today's item nevertheless represents an
important step in the right direction. I hope that it represents an
ongoing commitment on the part of this agency to improve our
data-gathering and presentation. I also hope it isn't too late.

**STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN**

*Re: Development of Nationwide Broadband Data to Evaluate Reasonable and
Timely Deployment of Advanced Services to All Americans, Improvement of
Wireless Broadband Subscribership Data, and Development of Data on
Interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) Subscribership,
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (2007)*

The Commission must collect accurate and reliable data concerning the
status of broadband deployment, availability, affordability, and
competition, if we are to adopt effective policies that promote access
to broadband services, our charge under the Telecommunications Act of
1996. Too often, I hear complaints about the lack of accurate,
comprehensive, and granular broadband data and the quality of the FCC's
data gathering efforts. It is the FCC's job to fill in the many blanks.
With this *Notice*, the Commission has the opportunity to correct well
documented short-comings in our data gathering program that have
hamstrung our ability to collect the data necessary for sound
policymaking. While it has been a long time coming, we will now have the
opportunity to make some welcome improvements after years of
foot-dragging.

Given the increasing importance of broadband to our economy and quality
of life, we must engage in a concerted and coordinated effort to restore
our place as the world leader in telecommunications by making affordable
broadband available to all our citizens. To accomplish this task, we
must be willing to take a hard look at our successes and failures, and
improve our data collection. Having a comprehensive, reliable, and
accurate understanding about the state of broadband deployment is the
critical first step in a comprehensive effort to promote the
availability of broadband services to all Americans.

Yet, the Commission's current efforts to gauge broadband deployment,
access, and affordability fall far short. In its May 2006 report, the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) took the FCC to task for the
quality of its broadband data. GAO criticized the Commission's ability
to analyze who is getting broadband and where it is deployed, observing
that the FCC's data "may not provide a highly accurate depiction of
deployment of broadband infrastructures for residential service,
especially in rural areas." GAO's report makes clear that the FCC has
much work to do to improve the quality and scope of its broadband data,
as well as its analysis of the availability of affordable broadband
services, if it is to satisfy the Congressional mandate in Section 706.

Through this *Notice*, the Commission takes a first step toward a better
data gathering and analytical process. The *Notice* seeks comment on
whether to alter the Commission's existing definition of broadband, how
to collect additional demographic information about broadband
subscribers, and how to collect and analyze data on the cost of
residential broadband services. To maintain our productivity edge, we
must give our citizens communications tools that are equal or greater
than those available to our global competitors. We should start by
updating our current definition of high-speed of just 200 kbps in one
direction to something more akin to what consumers receive in countries
with which we compete, speeds that are magnitudes higher than our
current definitions. We need to set ambitious goals, shooting for real
high-bandwidth broadband deployment, rather than being content to hit
targets set almost eight years ago. Particularly given the growing
evidence that citizens of other countries are getting a much greater
broadband value, in terms of cost per megabit, the Commission must also
explore ways to monitor the actual speeds and prices available to
American consumers who are capable of obtaining broadband services.
Similarly, the *Notice* seeks comment on how to collect data on
broadband availability and affordability in other nations.

Particularly important, the *Notice* also seeks comment on how to better
assess broadband availability. As GAO has made clear, the Commission's
current practice of basing conclusions about availability on providers'
lists of Zip Codes in which they serve at least one customer does not
provide sufficient information about the actual deployment of broadband
networks, its practical availability for consumers, or the state of
competition in given areas. In this regard, I am pleased that the
*Notice* seeks comment on how to gather data about broadband deployment,
availability, and adoption among Native Americans living on tribal
lands. The Commission must explore ways to develop greater granularity
in its assessment and analysis of broadband availability, whether
through statistical sampling, Census Bureau surveys, or other means. If
we are to make sure that all Americans benefit from broadband services,
the Commission must do more to assess broadband availability and
affordability across our many diverse populations. So, I appreciate my
colleagues' willingness to expand the scope of questions raised in this
*Notice* and am hopeful that it will provide a record that will allow us
to significantly enhance the Commission's data gathering efforts into
the status of broadband deployment, availability, and affordability.

Given that the most glaring weaknesses in our data gathering efforts
have been well-known for some time, it is disappointing that the
Commission only seeks comment on these changes, even as we
simultaneously launch an inquiry which will form the basis of our next
Section 706 Report to Congress. Our timing suggests that the Commission
may not have a revised data gathering program in place in time to better
inform our next report. I hope that prediction is wrong because these
efforts would enhance the ability of the Commission and Congress to
understand the availability of affordable broadband and to target policy
efforts accordingly. We should do whatever we can to make sure that we
have all the facts before we are required to make the next round of
conclusions.

**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*

*Re: Development of Nationwide Broadband Data to Evaluate Reasonable and
Timely Deployment of Advanced Services to All Americans, Improvement of
Wireless Broadband Subscribership Data, and Development of Data on
Interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) Subscribership*

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 OF**

**COMMISSIONER ROBERT M. McDOWELL**

*Re: Development of Nationwide Broadband Data to Evaluate Reasonable and
Timely Deployment of Advanced Services to All Americans, Improvement of
Wireless Broadband Subscribership Data, and Development of Data on
Interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) Subscribership, WC
Docket No. 07-38*

*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*

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 e.g*., *Appropriate Framework for Broadband, Access to the
    Internet over Wireline Facilities,*

    *Review of Regulatory Requirements for Incumbent LEC Broadband
    Telecommunications Services, Computer III Further Remand
    Proceedings: Bell Operating Company Provision of Enhanced Services;
    1998 Biennial Regulatory Review -- Review of Computer III and ONA
    Safeguards and Requirements, Inquiry Concerning High-Speed Access to
    the Internet Over Cable and Other Facilities, Internet Over Cable
    Declaratory Ruling, Appropriate Regulatory Treatment for Broadband
    Access to the Internet Over Cable Facilities*, Policy Statement, 20
    FCC Rcd 14986 (2005) (setting forth four principles intended to
    "encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open
    and interconnected nature of the public Internet").

[^2]: 47 U.S.C. § 157 nt. We use the term "broadband services" to refer
    to those services that deliver an information carrying capacity in
    excess of 200 kbps in at least one direction. These services are
    also described as "high-speed services" in Commission reports issued
    pursuant to section 706. *Id*. We have used the term "advanced
    services" to refer to the subset of broadband or high-speed services
    that deliver an information carrying capacity in excess of 200 kbps
    in *both* *directions*.

[^3]: 47 U.S.C. § 151 (A primary purpose of Congress in establishing the
    Federal Communications Commission was "to make available . . . to
    all the people of the United States . . . a rapid, efficient,
    Nation-wide . . . communication service with adequate facilities at
    reasonable charges. . .")

[^4]: Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. Law No. 104-104, 110 Stat.
    56, codified 47 U.S.C. § 151 *et seq.*

[^5]: *See Local Telephone Competition and Broadband Reporting*, Report
    and Order, WC Docket No. 04-141, 19 FCC Rcd 22340 (2004) (*2004 Data
    Gathering Order*). The Form 477 program collects information about
    two critical areas of the communications industry: the deployment of
    broadband services and the development of local telephone service
    competition.

[^6]: Not all of the proposals discussed here require additional data
    collection.

[^7]: Pursuant to section 706(b), the Commission must "regularly" notice
    inquiries concerning whether advanced services are being deployed on
    a "reasonable and timely" basis. *See* 47 U.S.C. § 157(b) nt.

[^8]: *See* *Local Competition and Broadband Reporting*, Report and
    Order, CC Docket No. 99-301, 15 FCC Rcd 7717, 7724, paras. 11 *et
    seq.,* (2000) *(2000 Data Gathering Order).*

[^9]: Broadband and local telephone service providers filed Form 477
    data for the first time on May 15, 2000, reporting connections in
    service as of December 31, 1999; they filed the second set of data,
    reporting connections in service as of June 30, 2000, on September
    1, 2000. Thereafter, providers have filed year-end data each March 1
    and mid-year data each September 1.

[^10]: The Wireline Competition Bureau summarizes broadband information
    from the Form 477 program in its *High-Speed Services for Internet
    Access* reports, and it summarizes information on local telephone
    services in its *Local Telephone Competition* reports. The reports
    are available at http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/iatd/comp.html.

[^11]: Initially, broadband providers reported a single list of Zip
    Codes per state. The Commission modified this requirement in the
    *2004 Data Gathering Order*. For data as of June 30, 2005, and
    later, broadband providers report technology-specific lists of Zip
    Codes. The technology-specific lists enable the Commission to
    identify, for example, those Zip Codes that are listed *only* by
    satellite broadband providers.

[^12]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.7001(b), 43.11(a). On the Form 477, the
    facilities-based provider of the broadband line (or wireless
    channel) that connects to the end-user premises reports that
    connection regardless whether the end user of the retail services
    delivered over that connection is billed by the filer (including
    affiliates), by an agent of the filer, or by an unaffiliated entity.
    An entity is considered to be a facilities-based broadband provider
    if it provides broadband services over facilities that it owns or
    obtains from another entity and provisions/equips as broadband.

[^13]: *2004 Data Gathering Order*, *supra*. The first report to reflect
    these changes was released last April. *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.

[^14]: *2004 Data Gathering Order*, 19 FCC Rcd 22349-50, para. 18.

[^15]: *Id*., 19 FCC Rcd 22351-52, para. 23 n.54.

[^16]: In addition to each of the 50 states and the District of
    Columbia, broadband connections were reported for American Samoa,
    Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and Virgin Islands.
    *See*, generally, 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 High-Speed Services Report)*.
    Available at http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/iatd/comp.html.

[^17]: *Id.,* at Tbl. 15.

[^18]: *Id.,* at Tbls. 1, 3.

[^19]: *Id.,* at Tbl. 1.

[^20]: *Id.*, at Tbl. 14. Starting with the Form 477 filing due
    September 1, 2005 (reporting data as of June 30, 2005), incumbent
    LECs are required to report how extensively their DSL connections
    are *available* to the households to whom they can provide local
    telephone service, in a particular state, over distribution
    facilities that they own, and cable system operators are required to
    report how extensively their cable modem service is *available* to
    the households to whom they can provide cable TV service, in a
    particular state, over cable plant that they own. Our estimates are
    weighted averages of this reported information. We use incumbent LEC
    end-user switched access lines as the weights for our DSL
    availability estimate. We use cable TV subscribers as the weights
    for our cable modem availability estimate. The weighted averages
    that we develop include incumbent LECs and cable system operators
    that report no availability.

[^21]: *See Availability of Advanced Telecommunications Capability in
    the United States,* GN Docket No. 04-54, Fourth Report to Congress,
    FCC 04-208 (rel Sept. 9, 2004) (*Fourth 706 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 706 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 706 Report*).

[^22]: 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 Deployment Report*).

[^23]: *Id.*, at 38-39.

[^24]: *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 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.

[^25]: *See,* generally, *Implementation of Section 6002(b) of the
    Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Annual Report and
    Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions With Respect to Commercial
    Mobile Services,* WT Docket No. 06-17, Eleventh Report, 21 FCC Rcd
    10947 (2006) (*Eleventh CMRS Competition Report*).

[^26]: *June 2006 High-Speed Services Report,* at Tbl. 1.

[^27]: Telecommunications Industry Association, *TIA's
    Telecommunications Market Review and Forecast,* 71 (2006).

[^28]: U.S. cable operators had over 5.1 million VoIP subscribers at the
    end of the third quarter of 2006 according to Cable Digital News
    (<http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=112804&site=cdn>,
    at Tbl. 1, visited 2/12/07) while Telephia estimated 2.9 million
    households subscribed to "pure play" VoIP service providers (*e.g*.,
    Vonage, Verizon Voicewing, AT&T CallVantage, Sunrocket, etc.) at the
    end of the second quarter
    (<http://www.telephia.com/html/insights_072106.html>, visited
    2/12/07).

[^29]: *See,* generally, *Universal Service Contribution Methodology,
    Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, 1998 Biennial
    Regulatory Review -- Streamlined Contributor Reporting Requirements
    Associated with Administration of Telecommunications Relay Service,
    North American Numbering Plan, Local Number Portability, and
    Universal Service Support Mechanisms, Telecommunications Services
    for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, and the
    Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Administration of the North
    American Numbering Plan and North American Numbering Plan Cost
    Recovery Contribution Factor and Fund Size, Number Resource
    Optimization, Telephone Number Portability, Truth-in-Billing and
    Billing Format, IP-Enabled Services*, WC Docket No. 06-122, CC
    Docket Nos. 96-45, 98-171, 90-571, 92-237, 99-200, 95-116, 98-1790,
    WC Docket No. 04-36, Report and Order and Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking, 21 FCC Rcd 7518 (2006).

[^30]: We require terrestrial mobile wireless broadband service
    providers to list Zip Codes that "best represent" their broadband
    coverage areas. *See 2004 Data Gathering Order*, 19 FCC Rcd at
    22349-50, 22393, para. 18 & App. D (instructing such providers to
    report the Zip Codes in which the mobile wireless broadband service
    is "advertised and available to actual and potential subscribers").

[^31]: Section III.B., *infra*.

[^32]: *2004 Data Gathering Order*, 19 FCC Rcd at 22378.

[^33]: *2004 Data Gathering Order*, 19 FCC Rcd at 22387 (instructions
    for Line A.I-8).

[^34]: *Id.*

[^35]: *See, e.g., Eleventh CMRS Competition Report*, at para. 95.

[^36]: *Id*.

[^37]: *Eleventh CMRS Competition Report*, at para. 96.

[^38]: *See, e.g., Eleventh CMRS Competition Report*, at para. 100
    (noting Verizon Wireless's EV-DO-based Broadband Access service,
    Sprint's EV-DO service, and Cingular's WCDMA/HSDPA-based
    BroadbandConnect service). We observe that Verizon Wireless and
    Cingular appear to restrict the ability of data service subscribers
    to download audio, video, and games to their laptops or
    browser-equipped PDAs, which may suggest that the carriers perceive
    these customers to be a different group, with different needs, than
    their voice service subscribers who also subscribe to entertainment
    services for mobile handsets. *See* R. Pegoraro, "Fast Forward:
    Hookups That Let You Violate Service Terms Anywhere", The Washington
    Post, 12/17/06, F4. Also available at
    <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/16/AR2006121600034.html>
    (visited 12/19/06).

[^39]: *See* para. 12, *supra*.

[^40]: *2004 Data Gathering Order*, 19 FCC Rcd at 22387 (instructions
    for Line A.I-8).

[^41]: *2004 Data Gathering Order*, 19 FCC Rcd at 22388 (instructions
    for Part I.A, Column (b)). Instructions are the same for all
    broadband technologies, , *i.e.,* to report the percentage of
    connections that "are used to deliver Internet-access services that
    are *primarily* purchased for, designed for, and/or marketed to
    residential end users." Filers who do not routinely distinguish
    residential customers from other customers may use existing
    information, such as price, service speed, and other service
    features to make a good faith estimate of the residential
    percentage. In the absence of any of this information, a filer
    "should rely on studies done for other purposes such as marketing
    and business plan information, demographic data, etc. \[and\] should
    conduct limited special studies only in the event that it cannot
    provide estimates of percentage breakouts that it reasonably expects
    to be accurate within plus or minus five percentage points." *Id.*
    (general note about reporting percentage breakouts).

[^42]: Form 477 excludes from the broadband data collection those Wi-Fi
    and other wireless ethernet, or wireless local area network,
    applications that only enable the shared use of a broadband
    connection to a single premises, such as a restaurant, airport, or
    government building. Such "nomadic" users of broadband services
    typically would have a broadband Internet-access connection at their
    home or principal business location. (Wi-Fi generally refers to
    equipment that conforms to the Institute for Electrical and
    Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.11 standard; *see, e.g.,
    http://www.ieee.org/portal/pages/about/802std*.)

[^43]: With this addition, Form 477 would collect information about four
    types of wireless broadband connections: satellite; terrestrial
    fixed wireless (licensed or unlicensed); terrestrial portable
    wireless (licensed or unlicensed); and terrestrial mobile wireless
    (licensed or unlicensed).

[^44]: WiMAX is an industry term for equipment that conforms to the IEEE
    802.16 WirelessMAN® Standard for Wireless Metropolitan Area
    Networks; *see, e.g.,* *http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/16/;
    http://www.wimaxforum.org/technology/faq/*.

[^45]: At present, a Form 477 filer might report a nomadic wireless
    broadband connection (such as to a broadband-equipped police patrol
    vehicle) as a terrestrial fixed wireless connection or as a
    terrestrial mobile wireless connection.

[^46]: In all five current Form 477 speed tiers, all connections are
    faster than 200 kbps in both directions. The speed tiers are
    distinguished by the information transfer rate in the 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. Within any speed tier, reported connections may
    be asymmetric or symmetric.

[^47]: The upper of the resulting two tiers would be defined by
    information transfer rates greater than or equal to 1.0 mbps and
    less than 2.5 mbps, and filers would report information for a total
    of six speed tiers compared to the current five.

[^48]: "Interconnected VoIP service" means an interconnected voice over
    Internet Protocol service that: (1) enables real-time, two-way voice
    communications; (2) requires a broadband connection from the user's
    location; (3) requires Internet protocol-compatible customer
    premises equipment (CPE); and (4) permits users generally to receive
    calls that originate on the public switched telephone network and to
    terminate calls to the public switched telephone network. *See* 47
    C.F.R. § 0.3.

[^49]: The Commission's jurisdiction over interconnected VoIP providers
    is well established regardless of the Commission's ultimate
    classification of that service. *E911 Requirements for IP-Enabled
    Service Providers*, First Report and Order and Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking, WC Docket No. 05-196, 20 FCC Rcd 10245, 10246, para. 1
    (2005) (*VoIP 911 Order*).

[^50]: When a provider of interconnected VoIP service operates as a
    wholesaler, an unaffiliated party resells ("retails") the
    wholesaler's service to the end user of that service. Some entities
    may operate as a retailer and wholesaler.

[^51]: *2004 Data Gathering Order*, 19 FCC Rcd at 22346-47, para. 12.

[^52]: The GAO report finds that the Form 477 Zip Code information "may
    not provide a highly accurate depiction of local deployment of
    broadband infrastructures for *residential* service, especially in
    rural areas" and concludes that the data "are not structured in a
    way that accurately illustrates the extent of deployment to
    *residential* users" (*GAO Broadband Deployment Report*, at 1, 38
    (emphasis supplied)). Form 477 requires facilities-based broadband
    providers to report state-level information about the percentage of
    their broadband connections that are residential in the sense that
    the connection is of a type (as indicated by, *e.g.,* price,
    "speed," or other features) that is primarily purchased by, designed
    for, and/or marketed to residential end users. Starting with the
    September 1, 2005 filing, Form 477 filers are required to report
    technology-specific Zip Codes lists. Some of these technologies --
    including, in particular, asymmetric DSL and cable modem -- are
    primarily used for residential connections at this time. Within any
    technology-specific list of Zip Codes, filers do not identify those
    Zip Codes with residential broadband connections, as opposed to
    those Zip Codes with any broadband connections.

[^53]: Starting with the Form 477 filing due September 1, 2005
    (reporting data as of June 30, 2005), entities that report broadband
    connections must provide technology-specific lists of the Zip Codes
    in which the filer has at least one broadband connection *in
    service* to an end user. Our 12% estimate is derived as 100% minus
    88%, where 88% is our estimate of the percentage of 5-digit
    geographical Zip Codes that are reported on Form 477 by *at least
    one* broadband provider whose reported broadband connections are
    primarily residential, and are primarily deployed over wired "last
    mile" facilities owned by the provider. To develop the 88% estimate,
    we first determine which Zip Codes are reported in the lists for
    asymmetric DSL, symmetric DSL, cable modem, optical carrier (fiber
    to the end user), or electric power line technologies. Then we
    exclude any Zip Codes that were listed by a Form 477 filer who
    reported that 50% or fewer of its high-speed lines -- for that
    specific technology, in that particular state -- were residential
    *or* who reported that fewer than 50% of its high-speed lines -- for
    that specific technology, in that particular state -- were deployed
    over "last mile" facilities that the filer owns.

[^54]: *GAO Broadband Deployment Report*, at 15 n. 14.

[^55]: ConnectKentucky is a public-private alliance whose mission is to
    support technology-based economic development. Kentucky has
    undertaken a broadband deployment and adoption plan, which has
    produced detailed broadband inventory maps using Geographic
    Information System (GIS) mapping technology and grassroots data
    collection via community technology leadership teams and cooperating
    broadband providers. The community teams also work to develop
    community-specific plans to increase demand for broadband
    technology, and thereby make the community more attractive to
    potential broadband providers. *See*, generally,
    www.connectkentucky.org. *See also GAO Broadband Deployment Report*,
    at 25, 28 (leadership from state government, in particular from the
    governor's office, the key element cited as crucial to
    ConnectKentucky's success). (According to the U.S. Geological
    Survey, a GIS is a computer system capable of capturing, storing,
    analyzing, and displaying geographically referenced information;
    that is, data identified according to location. Practitioners also
    define a GIS as including the procedures, operating personnel, and
    spatial data that go into the system. *See*
    <http://erg.usgs.gov/isb/pubs/gis_poster/#what>.)

[^56]: *GAO Broadband Deployment Report*, at 17.

[^57]: See, *e.g.,* Iowa Utilities Board, *Assessing High-Speed Internet
    Access in the State of Iowa: Fifth Assessment* (May 2006). Available
    at
    <http://www.state.ia.us/government/com/util/Misc/Reports/InternetAccess_2006Revised.pdf>.

[^58]: For example, while wireline broadband service providers currently
    are required to report the Zip Codes where they have at least one
    broadband subscriber, providers of terrestrial mobile wireless
    broadband services are required to report the Zip Codes that best
    represent the carrier's mobile wireless broadband coverage areas.
    *See 2004 Data Gathering Order*, 19 FCC Rcd at 22349-50, para. 18.

[^59]: *See also* para. 47, *infra.*

[^60]: *See 2004 Data Gathering Order*, 19 FCC Rcd at 22387
    (instructions for Lines A.I-1 through A.I-9).

[^61]: Geocoding is the process of assigning geographic identifiers,
    such as latitude-longitude coordinates, to data records, such as
    street addresses. *See, e.g.*,
    [[http://fgdc.er.usgs.gov/framework/frameworkintroguide/append_a.html]{.underline}](http://fgdc.er.usgs.gov/framework/frameworkintroguide/append_a.html)
    (defining "geocode"). With geographic coordinates, the features can
    then be mapped and entered into a Geographic Information System
    (GIS).

[^62]: *GAO Broadband Deployment Report*, at GAO Highlights (unnumbered
    page following report cover).

[^63]: *See* paras. 27, 31, *supra*.

[^64]: *See* para. 26, *supra*. *See also* CostQuest Associates, Inc.
    and the State of Wyoming, *Wyoming Broadband Gap Analysis* (Revised
    Apr. 23, 2006), at 6-10 (outlining how geospatial information
    provided by carriers, and other information, was used to approximate
    the areas where DSL, cable modem, and/or terrestrial fixed wireless
    broadband is available to households in Wyoming; noting that such
    approximations may include areas of non-coverage due to plant
    deficiencies or local topography within urban areas, or lightly
    populated land areas not served by any broadband provider).
    Available at
    [http://www.costquest.com/costquest/docs/Wyoming%20Broadband%20Gap%20Whitepaper-4_23_06.pdf](http://www.costquest.com/costquest/docs/Wyoming Broadband Gap Whitepaper-4_23_06.pdf).

[^65]: *See* information in the Cable Broadband Service and the
    Municipal Cable Broadband Service layers of the Kentucky
    Infrastructure Authority broadband deployment map at
    <http://kygeonet.ky.gov/kybroadband/viewer.htm>.

[^66]: *Id.* *See also* information in the LEC Broadband Service layer
    of the Kentucky Infrastructure Authority broadband deployment map at
    <http://kygeonet.ky.gov/kybroadband/viewer.htm>, which appears to
    incorporate information for Alltel, Cincinnati Bell, and the
    BellSouth operations now owned by AT&T. Regarding the service
    territories of smaller incumbent LECs, see information in the ILEC
    Broadband Service layer of the Kentucky map.

[^67]: *See* information in the WISP Broadband Service and the Municipal
    Wireless Broadband Service layers of the Kentucky Infrastructure
    Authority broadband deployment map at
    <http://kygeonet.ky.gov/kybroadband/viewer.htm>.

[^68]: For example, the presence of load coils and/or bridge taps on
    some copper wire may require carriers to make case-by-case tests for
    DSL requests. Similar constraints affect cable operators.
    Site-specific topology, landscaping, and climate conditions can
    determine whether a wireless broadband service is available at a
    particular location.

[^69]: United States Government Accountability Office, *Challenges to
    Assessing and Improving Telecommunications for Native Americans on
    Tribal Lands*, GAO-06-189 (Jan. 2006) (*GAO Tribal Lands Report)*,
    at 16 (the Census Bureau's new American Community Survey will
    provide data on tribal lands but does not include a question on
    Internet access; the monthly survey of households conducted by the
    Census Bureau for the Bureau of Labor Statistics contains too few
    tribal lands households to provide reliable estimates).

[^70]: *Id.*, at 17 (providers are not required to report the number of
    residential broadband Internet-access subscribers in each Zip Code;
    tribal lands so not necessarily correspond to Zip Codes).

[^71]: *See, e.g., GAO Broadband Deployment Report,* at 55-58
    (estimation results from broadband adoption model).

[^72]: *See, e.g., GAO Broadband Deployment Report,* at 46-47
    (estimation results from broadband deployment model)

[^73]: *See* paras. 26, 36, s*upra.*

[^74]: *GAO Tribal Lands Report*, at 3 (ranging in size from 24,000
    square miles with over 176,000 Native American residents to less
    than 1 square mile with fewer than 50 Native American residents;
    while mostly located in rural or remote locations, some are near
    metropolitan areas).

[^75]: *Id.*, at 60-61 (GAO visited the Coeur D'Alene Tribe of the Coeur
    D'Alene Reservation, Idaho; Confederated Tribes and Bands of the
    Yakama Nation, Washington; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians of North
    Carolina; Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservation, South
    Dakota; Mescalero Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation, New
    Mexico; and Navajo Nation in Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah.)

[^76]: *See* para. 28, *supra.*

[^77]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. §§ 601-612 , has
    been amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996,
    Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of the
    CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
    1996 (SBREFA).

[^78]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. §§ 601-12, has been
    amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
    1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).

[^79]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).

[^80]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).

[^81]: "Interconnected VoIP service" means an interconnected voice over
    Internet Protocol service that: (1) enables real-time, two-way voice
    communications; (2) requires a broadband connection from the user's
    location; (3) requires Internet protocol-compatible customer
    premises equipment (CPE); and (4) permits users generally to receive
    calls that originate on the public switched telephone network and to
    terminate calls to the public switched telephone network. *See* 47
    C.F.R. § 9.3.

[^82]: *See* Notice at para. 9.

[^83]: *See* Notice at para. 1.

[^84]: *See* Notice at para. 24.

[^85]: 5 U.S.C. §§ 603(b)(3), 604(a)(3).

[^86]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

[^87]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of
    "small-business concern" in the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. §
    632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a
    small business applies "unless an agency, after consultation with
    the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and
    after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more
    definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of
    the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal
    Register." According to SBA data, there are approximately 22.4
    million small businesses nationwide. *See* SBA, Programs and
    Services, SBA Pamphlet No. CO-0028, at page 40 (July 2002).

[^88]: 15 U.S.C. § 632.

[^89]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(4).

[^90]: Independent Sector, The New Nonprofit Almanac & Desk Reference
    (2002).

[^91]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(5).

[^92]: U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States:
    2006, Section 8, page 272, Table 415.

[^93]: We assume that the villages, school districts, and special
    districts are small, and total 48,558. *See* U.S. Census Bureau,
    Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2006, section 8, page
    273, Table 417. For 2002, Census Bureau data indicate that the total
    number of county, municipal, and township governments nationwide was
    38,967, of which 35,819 were small. *Id.*

[^94]: FCC, Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry Analysis and
    Technology Division, Trends in Telephone Service, Table 5.3, page
    5-5 (February 2007) (*Trends in Telephone Service*). This source
    uses data collected as of October 20, 2005.

[^95]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, North American Industry Classification
    System (NAICS) code 517110.

[^96]: *Id.* § 121.201, NAICS code 517211 (This category will be changed
    for purposes of the 2007 Census to "Wireless Telecommunications
    Carriers (except Satellite)," NAICS code 517210.).

[^97]: *Id*. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212 (This category will be changed
    for purposes of the 2007 Census to "Wireless Telecommunications
    Carriers (except Satellite)," NAICS code 517210.).

[^98]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3).

[^99]: Letter from Jere W. Glover, Chief Counsel for Advocacy, SBA, to
    William E. Kennard, Chairman, FCC (May 27, 1999). The Small Business
    Act contains a definition of "small business concern," which the RFA
    incorporates into its own definition of "small business." See 15
    U.S.C. § 632(a); 5 U.S.C. § 601(3). SBA regulations interpret "small
    business concern" to include the concept of dominance on a national
    basis. 13 C.F.R. § 121.102(b).

[^100]: 15 U.S.C. § 632.

[^101]: *See* Letter from Jere W. Glover, Chief Counsel for Advocacy,
    SBA, to Chairman William E. Kennard, Federal Communications
    Commission (May 27, 1999). The Small Business Act contains a
    definition of "small business concern," which the RFA incorporates
    into its own definition of "small business." *See* 15 U.S.C. §
    632(a) (Small Business Act); 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (RFA). SBA
    regulations interpret "small business concern" to include the
    concept of dominance on a national basis. 13 C.F.R. § 121.102(b).

[^102]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.

[^103]: *Trends in Telephone Service* at Table 5.3.

[^104]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.

[^105]: *Trends in Telephone Service* at Table 5.3.

[^106]: *Id.*

[^107]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517310 (This category will be
    changed for purposes of the 2007 Census to NAICS code 517911.).

[^108]: *Trends in Telephone Service* at Table 5.3.

[^109]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517310 (This category will be
    changed for purposes of the 2007 Census to NAICS code 517911.).

[^110]: *Trends in Telephone Service* at Table 5.3.

[^111]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.

[^112]: *Trends in Telephone Service* at Table 5.3.

[^113]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.

[^114]: *Trends in Telephone Service* at Table 5.3.

[^115]: *Id.*

[^116]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.

[^117]: *Trends in Telephone Service* at Table 5.3.

[^118]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517310 (This category will be
    changed for purposes of the 2007 Census to NAICS code 517911.).

[^119]: *Trends in Telephone Service* at Table 5.3.

[^120]: We include all toll-free number subscribers in this category,
    including those for 888 numbers.

[^121]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517310 (This category will be
    changed for purposes of the 2007 Census to NAICS code 517911.).

[^122]: *Trends in Telephone Service* at Tables 18.4, 18.5, 18.6, 18.7.

[^123]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517211 (This category will be
    changed for purposes of the 2007 Census to "Wireless
    Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite)," NAICS code
    517210.).

[^124]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212 (This category will be
    changed for purposes of the 2007 Census to "Wireless
    Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite)," NAICS code
    517210.).

[^125]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    "Information," Table 5, Employment Size of Firms for the United
    States: 2002, NAICS code 517211 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^126]: *Id.* The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of
    the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer
    employees; the largest category provided is for firms with "1000
    employees or more."

[^127]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    "Information," Table 5, Employment Size of Firms for the United
    States: 2002, NAICS code 517212 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^128]: *Id.* The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of
    the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer
    employees; the largest category provided is for firms with "1000
    employees or more."

[^129]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212 (This category will be
    changed for purposes of the 2007 Census to "Wireless
    Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite)," NAICS code
    517210.).

[^130]: *Trends in Telephone Service* at Table 5.3.

[^131]: *Id*.

[^132]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517211 (This category will be
    changed for purposes of the 2007 Census to "Wireless
    Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite)," NAICS code
    517210.).

[^133]: *Trends in Telephone Service* at Table 5.3.

[^134]: *Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Provide for
    the Use of the 220-222 MHz Band by the Private Land Mobile Radio
    Service*, PR Docket No. 89-552, GN Docket No. 93-252, PP Docket No.
    93-253, Third Report and Order and Fifth Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking, 12 FCC Rcd 10943, 11068-70, paras. 291-295 (1997) (*220
    MHz Third Report and Order*).

[^135]: *See* Letter to Amy Zoslov, Chief, Auctions and Industry
    Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC, from A.
    Alvarez, Administrator, SBA (Dec. 2, 1998).

[^136]: *Revision of Part 22 and Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to
    Facilitate Future Development of Paging Systems*, WT Docket No.
    96-18, PR Docket No. 93-253, Memorandum Opinion and Order on
    Reconsideration and Third Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 10030, paras.
    98-107 (1999).

[^137]: *Id.* at 10085, para. 98.

[^138]: *See* Letter to Amy Zoslov, Chief, Auctions and Industry
    Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC, from
    Aida Alvarez, Administrator, SBA (Dec. 2, 1998).

[^139]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212.

[^140]: *Id*.

[^141]: *Trends in Telephone Service* at Table 5.3.

[^142]: *See Amendment of Parts 20 and 24 of the Commission's Rules --
    Broadband PCS Competitive Bidding and the Commercial Mobile Radio
    Service Spectrum Cap*, WT Docket No. 96-59, GN Docket No. 90-314,
    Report and Order, 61 FR 33859 (July 1, 1996); *see also* 47 C.F.R. §
    24.720(b).

[^143]: *Id*.

[^144]: *See, e.g.*, *Implementation of Section 309(j) of the
    Communications Act -- Competitive Bidding*, PP Docket No. 93-253,
    Fifth Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 5532 (1994).

[^145]: FCC News, Broadband PCS, D, E and F Block Auction Closes, No.
    71744 (released January 14, 1997). *See also* *Amendment of the
    Commission's Rules Regarding Installment Payment Financing for
    Personal Communications Services (PCS) Licenses*, WT Docket No.
    97-82, Second Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 16436 (1997).

[^146]: *Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Establish New Personal
    Communications Services, Narrowband PCS*, GEN Docket No. 90-314, ET
    Docket No. 92-100, PP Docket No. 93-253, Second Report and Order and
    Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 15 FCC Rcd 10456
    (2000).

[^147]: *See* Letter to Amy Zoslov, Chief, Auctions and Industry
    Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC, from
    Aida Alvarez, Administrator, SBA (Dec. 2, 1998).

[^148]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212.

[^149]: *220 MHz Third Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 11068-70, at
    paras. 291-95.

[^150]: *Id*. at 11068-70, para. 291.

[^151]: *See* letter to D. Phythyon, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications
    Bureau, FCC, from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, SBA (Jan. 6, 1998).

[^152]: *See generally* *220 MHz Service Auction Closes*, Public Notice,
    14 FCC Rcd 605 (1998).

[^153]: *Phase II 220 MHz Service Spectrum Auction Closes*, Public
    Notice, 14 FCC Rcd 11218 (1999).

[^154]: 47 C.F.R. § 90.814(b)(1).

[^155]: *See* *Service Rules for the 746-764 and 776-794 MHz Bands, and
    Revisions to part 27 of the Commission's Rules*, WT Docket No.
    99-168, Second Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 5299 (2000).

[^156]: *See generally* *220 MHz Service Auction Closes*, Public Notice,
    14 FCC Rcd 605 (1998).

[^157]: *700 MHz Guard Band Auction Closes*, Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd
    4590 (2001).

[^158]: The service is defined in section 22.99 of the Commission's
    Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 22.99.

[^159]: BETRS is defined in sections 22.757 and 22.759 of the
    Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 22.757 and 22.759.

[^160]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212 (This category will be
    changed for purposes of the 2007 Census to "Wireless
    Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite)," NAICS code
    517210.).

[^161]: The service is defined in section 22.99 of the Commission's
    Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 22.99.

[^162]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212 (This category will be
    changed for purposes of the 2007 Census to "Wireless
    Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite)," NAICS code
    517210.).

[^163]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212 (This category will be
    changed for purposes of the 2007 Census to "Wireless
    Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite)," NAICS code
    517210.).

[^164]: *Amendment of the Commission's Rules Concerning Maritime
    Communications*, PR Docket No. 92-257, Third Report and Order and
    Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 19853 (1998).

[^165]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 101 *et seq*. (formerly, Part 21 of the
    Commission's Rules) for common carrier fixed microwave services
    (except Multipoint Distribution Service).

[^166]: Persons eligible under parts 80 and 90 of the Commission's Rules
    can use Private Operational-Fixed Microwave services. *See* 47
    C.F.R. Parts 80 and 90. Stations in this service are called
    operational-fixed to distinguish them from common carrier and public
    fixed stations. Only the licensee may use the operational-fixed
    station, and only for communications related to the licensee's
    commercial, industrial, or safety operations.

[^167]: Auxiliary Microwave Service is governed by Part 74 of Title 47
    of the Commission's Rules. *See* 47 C.F.R. Part 74. This service is
    available to licensees of broadcast stations and to broadcast and
    cable network entities. Broadcast auxiliary microwave stations are
    used for relaying broadcast television signals from the studio to
    the transmitter, or between two points such as a main studio and an
    auxiliary studio. The service also includes mobile television
    pickups, which relay signals from a remote location back to the
    studio.

[^168]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212 (This category will be
    changed for purposes of the 2007 Census to "Wireless
    Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite)," NAICS code
    517210.).

[^169]: This service is governed by Subpart I of Part 22 of the
    Commission's Rules. *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 22.1001-22.1037.

[^170]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212 (This category will be
    changed for purposes of the 2007 Census to "Wireless
    Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite)," NAICS code
    517210.).

[^171]: *Id*.

[^172]: *See Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding the 37.0-38.6
    GHz and 38.6-40.0 GHz Bands*, ET Docket No. 95-183, PP Docket No.
    93-253, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 18600 (1998).

[^173]: *Id.*

[^174]: *See* Letter to Kathleen O'Brien Ham, Chief, Auctions and
    Industry Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC,
    from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, SBA (Feb. 4, 1998).

[^175]: *Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 of the Commission's Rules with
    Regard to Filing Procedures in the Multipoint Distribution Service
    and in the Instructional Television Fixed Service and Implementation
    of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act -- Competitive Bidding*,
    MM Docket No. 94-131 and PP Docket No. 93-253, Report and Order, 10
    FCC Rcd 9589, 9593 at para. 7 (1995).

[^176]: 47 C.F.R. § 21.961(b)(1).

[^177]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517510.

[^178]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, Table 4, Receipts Size of Firms for the United States:
    2002, NAICS code 517510 (issued November 2005).

[^179]: *Id*. An additional 61 firms had annual receipts of \$25 million
    or more.

[^180]: In addition, the term "small entity" within SBREFA applies to
    small organizations (nonprofits) and to small governmental
    jurisdictions (cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school
    districts, and special districts with populations of less than
    50,000). 5 U.S.C. §§ 601(4)-(6). We do not collect annual revenue
    data on ITFS licensees.

[^181]: *See* *Rulemaking to Amend Parts 1, 2, 21, and 25 of the
    Commission's Rules to Redesignate the 27.5-29.5 GHz Frequency Band,
    to Reallocate the 29.5-30.0 GHz Frequency Band, and to Establish
    Rules and Policies for Local Multipoint Distribution Service and for
    Fixed Satellite Services*, CC Docket No. 92-297, Second Report and
    Order, 12 FCC Rcd 12545 (1997).

[^182]: *Id.*

[^183]: *Id*.

[^184]: *See* Letter to Dan Phythyon, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications
    Bureau, FCC, from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, SBA (Jan. 6, 1998).

[^185]: *Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act --
    Competitive Bidding*, PP Docket No. 93-253, Fourth Report and Order,
    9 FCC Rcd 2330 (1994).

[^186]: *Amendment of Part 95 of the Commission's Rules to Provide
    Regulatory Flexibility in the 218-219 MHz Service*, WT Docket No.
    98-169, Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC
    Rcd 1497 (1999).

[^187]: *Id*.

[^188]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212 (This category will be
    changed for purposes of the 2007 Census to "Wireless
    Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite)," NAICS code
    517210.).

[^189]: Teligent acquired the DEMS licenses of FirstMark, the only
    licensee other than TRW in the 24 GHz band whose license has been
    modified to require relocation to the 24 GHz band.

[^190]: *Amendments to Parts 1, 2, 87 and 101 of the Commission's Rules
    to License Fixed Services at 24 GHz*, WT Docket No. 99-327, Report
    and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 16934, 16967 at para. 77 (2000); *see also* 47
    C.F.R. § 101.538(a)(2).

[^191]: *Amendments to Parts 1, 2, 87 and 101 of the Commission's Rules
    to License Fixed Services at 24 GHz*, WT Docket No. 99-327, Report
    and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 16934, 16967 at para. 77 (2000); *see also* 47
    C.F.R. § 101.538(a)(1).

[^192]: *See* Letter to Margaret W. Wiener, Deputy Chief, Auctions and
    Industry Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC,
    from Gary M. Jackson, Assistant Administrator, SBA (July 28, 2000).

[^193]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS codes 517410 and 517910.

[^194]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "517410 Satellite
    Telecommunications";
    http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF517.HTM.

[^195]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)," Table 4, NAICS code 517410 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^196]: *Id*. An additional 38 firms had annual receipts of \$25 million
    or more.

[^197]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "517910 Other
    Telecommunications";
    http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF517.HTM.

[^198]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)," Table 4, NAICS code 517910 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^199]: *Id*. An additional 14 firms had annual receipts of \$25 million
    or more.

[^200]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "517510 Cable and
    Other Program Distribution";
    http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF517.HTM.

[^201]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517510 (This category will be
    changed for purposes of the 2007 Census to "Wired Telecommunications
    Carriers," NAICS code 517110.).

[^202]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, Table 4, Receipts Size of Firms for the United States:
    2002, NAICS code 517510 (issued November 2005).

[^203]: *Id*. An additional 61 firms had annual receipts of \$25 million
    or more.

[^204]: 47 C.F.R. § 76.901(e). The Commission determined that this size
    standard equates approximately to a size standard of \$100 million
    or less in annual revenues. *Implementation of Sections of the 1992
    Cable Act: Rate Regulation,* Sixth Report and Order and Eleventh
    Order on Reconsideration, 10 FCC Rcd 7393, 7408 (1995).

[^205]: These data are derived from R.R. Bowker, *Broadcasting & Cable
    Yearbook 2006*, "Top 25 Cable/Satellite Operators," pages A-8 & C-2
    (data current as of June 30, 2005); Warren Communications News,
    *Television & Cable Factbook 2006*, "Ownership of Cable Systems in
    the United States," pages D-1805 to D-1857.

[^206]: 47 C.F.R. § 76.901(c).

[^207]: Warren Communications News, *Television & Cable Factbook 2006*,
    "U.S. Cable Systems by Subscriber Size," page F-2 (data current as
    of Oct. 2005). The data do not include 718 systems for which
    classifying data were not available.

[^208]: 47 U.S.C. § 543(m)(2); *see* 47 C.F.R. § 76.901(f) & nn. 1-3.

[^209]: 47 C.F.R. § 76.901(f); *see FCC Announces New Subscriber Count
    for the Definition of Small Cable Operator*, Public Notice, 16 FCC
    Rcd 2225 (Cable Services Bureau 2001).

[^210]: These data are derived from: R.R. Bowker, *Broadcasting & Cable
    Yearbook 2006*, "Top 25 Cable/Satellite Operators," pages A-8 & C-2
    (data current as of June 30, 2005); Warren Communications News,
    *Television & Cable Factbook 2006*, "Ownership of Cable Systems in
    the United States," pages D-1805 to D-1857.

[^211]: The Commission does receive such information on a case-by-case
    basis if a cable operator appeals a local franchise authority's
    finding that the operator does not qualify as a small cable operator
    pursuant to § 76.901(f) of the Commission's rules. *See* 47 C.F.R. §
    76.909(b).

[^212]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 573.

[^213]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517510 (This category will be
    changed for purposes of the 2007 Census to "Wired Telecommunications
    Carriers," NAICS code 517110.).

[^214]: *See* http://www.fcc.gov/mb/ovs/csovscer.html (current as of
    February 2007).

[^215]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "2211 Electric Power
    Generation, Transmission and Distribution";
    http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF221.HTM.

[^216]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS codes 221111, 221112, 221113, 221119,
    221121, 221122, footnote 1.

[^217]: U S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Utilities, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)," Table 4, NAICS codes 221111, 221112, 221113, 221119,
    221121, 221122 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^218]: U.S. Census Bureau, "2002 NAICS Definitions: 518111 Internet
    Service Providers";
    <http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF518.HTM>.

[^219]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 518111. This category will be
    changed, for purposes of the 2007 Census, to "Wired
    Telecommunications Carriers," NAICS code 517110, for broadband
    Internet service providers (*e.g.*, cable, DSL), and to "All Other
    Telecommunications," NAICS code 517919, for Internet service
    providers providing services via client-supplied telecommunications
    connections.

[^220]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)," Table 4, NAICS code 518111 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^221]: U.S. Census Bureau, "2002 NAICS Definitions: 518112 Web Search
    Portals"; http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF518.HTM.

[^222]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 518112 (This category will be
    changed for purposes of the 2007 Census to "Internet Publishing and
    Broadcasting and Web Search Portals," NAICS code 519130.).

[^223]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)," Table 4, NAICS code 518112 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^224]: U.S. Census Bureau, "2002 NAICS Definitions: 518210 Data
    Processing, Hosting, and Related Services";
    <http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF518.HTM>.

[^225]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 518210.

[^226]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)," Table 4, NAICS code 518210 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^227]: U.S. Census Bureau, "2002 NAICS Definitions: 519190 All Other
    Information Services";
    <http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF519.HTM>.

[^228]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 519190.

[^229]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)," Table 4, NAICS code 519190 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^230]: U.S. Census Bureau, "2002 NAICS Definitions: 516110 Internet
    Publishing and Broadcasting";
    <http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF516.HTM>.

[^231]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 516110. (This category will be
    changed for purposes of the 2007 Census to "Internet Publishing and
    Broadcasting and Web Search Portals," NAICS code 519130.).

[^232]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)," Table 5, NAICS code 516110 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^233]: *See* U.S. Census Bureau, "2002 NAICS Definitions: 511210
    Software Publishers";
    <http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF511.HTM>.

[^234]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS codes 511210, 541511, and 541519.

[^235]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)," Table 4, NAICS code 511210 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^236]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services, "Establishment and
    Firm Size (Including Legal Form of Organization)," Table 4, NAICS
    code 541511 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^237]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services, "Establishment and
    Firm Size (Including Legal Form of Organization)," Table 4, NAICS
    code 541519 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^238]: *See* Notice at section III.B.

[^239]: *See* Notice at para. 18.

[^240]: *See* Notice at para. 28.

[^241]: *See* Notice at para. 40-41.

[^242]: *See* Notice at para. 45-46.

[^243]: *See* Notice at para. 38.

[^244]: *See* Notice at para. 24; *see id.* at section III.

[^245]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(c).

[^246]: *See* Notice at para. 25.

[^247]: *See* Notice at para. 26.

[^248]: *See* Notice at para. 32.

[^249]: *See* Notice at para. 34. We note that some of these subscribers
    might be small entities, and we also note that it would be
    impossible to define the universe of small entities that might use
    broadband services. However, because these subscribers would benefit
    from a self-reporting process and because such a process would be
    voluntary, we believe that any burden in reporting on an FCC website
    would be minimal at best.

[^250]: *See* Notice at para. 24.

[^251]: *See* Notice at section III.B.

[^252]: *See* Notice at para. 18.

[^253]: *See* Notice at para. 28.

[^254]: *See* Notice at para. 40-41.

[^255]: *See* Notice at para. 45-46.

[^256]: *See* Notice at para. 22.

[^257]: *See* Notice at section III.A.2.

[^258]: *See* Notice at para. 22.

[^259]: *See*, *e.g.*, United States GAO, *Broadband Deployment Is
    Extensive Thoughout the United States, but it Is Difficult to Assess
    the Extent of Deployment Gaps in Rural Areas*, GAO-06-426 (May
    2006).