Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-17
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
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
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.
I. INTRODUCTION 
1. The Commission has consistently recognized the critical importance of broadband 
services to the nations 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 
  
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).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-17
2
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.  
  
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.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-17
3
II. 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;
  
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.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-17
4
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 Commissions 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 
  
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 
(continued.)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-17
5
deployment statistics, the Commissions 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
  
(Continued from previous page)
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.  GAOs 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. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-17
6
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  
 
III. DISCUSSION
A. 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.  
1. 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 
  
27 Telecommunications Industry Association, TIAs 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).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-17
7
located in a small town or at some other location convenient to telephone or cable facilities.  Broadband 
availability could be non-existent for that carriers 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
2. 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 
  
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.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-17
8
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 subscribers 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 
  
37 Eleventh CMRS Competition Report, at para. 96.         
38 See, e.g., Eleventh CMRS Competition Report, at para. 100 (noting Verizon Wirelesss EV-DO-based 
Broadband Access service, Sprints EV-DO service, and Cingulars 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).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-17
9
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 subscribers 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 
  
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).   
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-17
10
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.
3. 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 Commissions 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 
  
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.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-17
11
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?  
4. 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 filers 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  
  
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 users 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 Commissions jurisdiction over interconnected VoIP providers is well established regardless of the 
Commissions 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 wholesalers service to the end user of that service.  Some entities may operate as a retailer and wholesaler.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-17
12
B. 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.  
1. 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 
  
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.          
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-17
13
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 
  
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 
governors office, the key element cited as crucial to ConnectKentuckys 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.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-17
14
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 filers 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  
  
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 carriers 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).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-17
15
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 Commissions 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.  
2. 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.                     
3. 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 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-17
16
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.  
4. 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.  
5. 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 
  
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
(defining geocode). With geographic coordinates, the features can then be mapped and entered into a 
Geographic Information System (GIS).   
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-17
17
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.   
6. 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 
  
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. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-17
18
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 carriers 
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 Commissions 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.  
  
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 
Bureaus 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). 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-17
19
7. 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.
8. 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 
  
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)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-17
20
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.
 
9. 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?  
  
73  See paras. 26, 36, supra.
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 DAlene Tribe of the Coeur DAlene 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.) 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-17
21
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. 
 
IV. PROCEDURAL MATTERS
A. 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).
B. 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.  
C. 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 Governments eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies.  
See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).  
 Electronic Filers:  Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the 
ECFS:  http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal eRulemaking Portal:  
http://www.regulations.gov.  Filers should follow the instructions provided on the website for 
submitting comments.  
 For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this 
proceeding, filers must transmit one electronic copy of the comments for each docket or 
rulemaking number referenced in the caption.  In completing the transmittal screen, filers 
should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable 
docket or rulemaking number.  Parties may also submit an electronic comment by 
  
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).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-17
22
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.
 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 Commissions 
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
 The Commissions contractor will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper 
filings for the Commissions Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, 
Washington, DC  20002.  The filing hours at this location are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.  All 
hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners.  Any envelopes 
must be disposed of before entering the building.
 Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority 
Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD  20743.
 U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th
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).  
V. 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.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-17
23
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
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-17
24
APPENDIX
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),1 the 
Commission has prepared the present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible 
significant economic impact on small entities that might result from todays 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.2 In addition, the Notice and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the 
Federal Register.3
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
2. In 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.4  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.5 Recognizing the critical importance of broadband services to the 
nations 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.6 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.7 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.
  
1 See 5 U.S.C.  603.  The RFA, see 5 U.S.C.  601-12, has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).
2 See 5 U.S.C.  603(a).
3 See 5 U.S.C.  603(a).
4 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 users 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.    
5 See Notice at para. 9.
6 See Notice at para. 1.
7 See Notice at para. 24.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-17
25
B. Legal Basis
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.8 The RFA generally 
defines the term small entity as having the same meaning as the terms small business, small 
organization, and small governmental jurisdiction.9 In addition, the term small business has the 
same meaning as the term small business concern under the Small Business Act.10  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).11 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.12 Nationwide, as of 2002, there 
were approximately 1.6 million small organizations.13 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.14 Census Bureau data for 2002 indicate that 
  
8 5 U.S.C.  603(b)(3), 604(a)(3).
9 5 U.S.C.  601(6).
10 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).  
11 15 U.S.C.  632.
12 5 U.S.C.  601(4).
13 Independent Sector, The New Nonprofit Almanac & Desk Reference (2002). 
14 5 U.S.C.  601(5). 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-17
26
there were 87,525 local governmental jurisdictions in the United States.15 We estimate that, of this 
total, 84,377 entities were small governmental jurisdictions.16 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.17 The SBA has 
developed small business size standards for wireline and wireless small businesses within the three 
commercial census categories of Wired Telecommunications Carriers,18 Paging,19 and Cellular and 
Other Wireless Telecommunications.20 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.21 The SBAs 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.22 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.
1. 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 
  
15 U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2006, Section 8, page 272, Table 415. 
16 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.
17 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.
18 13 C.F.R.  121.201, North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 517110.
19 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.).
20 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.). 
21 5 U.S.C.  601(3).
22 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).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-17
27
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.23 The SBAs 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.24 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.25  
According to Commission data,26 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.27 According to 
Commission data,28 859 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.29 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 
  
23 15 U.S.C.  632. 
24 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).  
25 13 C.F.R.  121.201, NAICS code 517110.
26 Trends in Telephone Service at Table 5.3.
27 13 C.F.R.  121.201, NAICS code 517110.
28 Trends in Telephone Service at Table 5.3.
29 Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-17
28
1,500 or fewer employees.30 According to Commission data,31 184 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.32 According to Commission data,33 881 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.34 According to Commission data,35
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.36 According to Commission 
data,37 330 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.38 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 
  
30 13 C.F.R.  121.201, NAICS code 517310 (This category will be changed for purposes of the 2007 Census to 
NAICS code 517911.).
31 Trends in Telephone Service at Table 5.3.  
32 13 C.F.R.  121.201, NAICS code 517310 (This category will be changed for purposes of the 2007 Census to 
NAICS code 517911.).
33 Trends in Telephone Service at Table 5.3.
34 13 C.F.R.  121.201, NAICS code 517110.
35 Trends in Telephone Service at Table 5.3.
36 13 C.F.R.  121.201, NAICS code 517110.
37 Trends in Telephone Service at Table 5.3.
38 Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-17
29
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.39 According to Commission 
data,40 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.41 According to Commission data,42 104
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.43 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.44 The 
most reliable source of information regarding the number of these service subscribers appears to be data 
the Commission collects on the 800, 888, 877, and 866 numbers in use.45 According to our data, at 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.
2. 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 
  
39 13 C.F.R.  121.201, NAICS code 517110.
40 Trends in Telephone Service at Table 5.3.
41 13 C.F.R.  121.201, NAICS code 517310 (This category will be changed for purposes of the 2007 Census to 
NAICS code 517911.).
42 Trends in Telephone Service at Table 5.3.
43 We include all toll-free number subscribers in this category, including those for 888 numbers.
44 13 C.F.R.  121.201, NAICS code 517310 (This category will be changed for purposes of the 2007 Census to 
NAICS code 517911.).
45 Trends in Telephone Service at Tables 18.4, 18.5, 18.6, 18.7.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-17
30
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 Paging46 Cellular and Other 
Wireless Telecommunications.47 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.48 Of this total, 804 firms 
had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and three firms had employment of 1,000 employees or 
more.49 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.50 Of this total, 1,378 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and 19 firms had 
employment of 1,000 employees or more.51 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.52  
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.53 We have estimated that 221 of these are small, under the SBA 
small business size standard.54 Thus, under this category and size standard, about half of firms can be 
considered small.  This information is also included in paragraph 23.
  
46 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.).
47 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.).
48 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).
49 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.
50 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).
51  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.
52 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.).
53 Trends in Telephone Service at Table 5.3.
54 Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-17
31
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.55 According to Commission 
data,56 365 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.57 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.58 The SBA has approved these small business size standards.59 An auction 
of Metropolitan Economic Area licenses commenced on February 24, 2000, and closed on March 2, 
2000.60 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.61 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 
  
55 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.).
56 Trends in Telephone Service at Table 5.3.
57 Amendment of Part 90 of the Commissions 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).
58 See Letter to Amy Zoslov, Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications 
Bureau, FCC, from A. Alvarez, Administrator, SBA (Dec. 2, 1998).
59 Revision of Part 22 and Part 90 of the Commissions 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).  
60 Id. at 10085, para. 98.
61 See Letter to Amy Zoslov, Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications 
Bureau, FCC, from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, SBA (Dec. 2, 1998).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-17
32
services.62 Under that SBA small business size standard, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 
employees.63 According to Commission data, 432 carriers reported that they were engaged in the 
provision of wireless telephony.64 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.65 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.66 These standards defining small entity in the context 
of broadband PCS auctions have been approved by the SBA.67 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.68  
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 
  
62 13 C.F.R.  121.201, NAICS code 517212.
63 Id.
64 Trends in Telephone Service at Table 5.3.
65 See Amendment of Parts 20 and 24 of the Commissions 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).
66 Id.
67 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).
68 FCC News, Broadband PCS, D, E and F Block Auction Closes, No. 71744 (released January 14, 1997). See 
also Amendment of the Commissions 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).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-17
33
adopted a two-tiered small business size standard in the Narrowband PCS Second Report and Order.69  
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.70 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 Commissions 
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 Commissions 
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. 71 The 
Commission estimates that nearly all such licensees are small businesses under the SBAs 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.72 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.73 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 
  
69 Amendment of the Commissions 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).
70 See Letter to Amy Zoslov, Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications 
Bureau, FCC, from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, SBA (Dec. 2, 1998).
71 13 C.F.R.  121.201, NAICS code 517212.
72 220 MHz Third Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 11068-70, at paras. 291-95.
73 Id. at 11068-70, para. 291.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-17
34
standards.74 Auctions of Phase II licenses commenced on September 15, 1998, and closed on October 
22, 1998.75 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.76  
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.77 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.78 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, 2000.79 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, 
  
74 See letter to D. Phythyon, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC, from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, 
SBA (Jan. 6, 1998).
75 See generally 220 MHz Service Auction Closes, Public Notice, 14 FCC Rcd 605 (1998).
76 Phase II 220 MHz Service Spectrum Auction Closes, Public Notice, 14 FCC Rcd 11218 (1999).
77 47 C.F.R.  90.814(b)(1).
78 See Service Rules for the 746-764 and 776-794 MHz Bands, and Revisions to part 27 of the Commissions 
Rules, WT Docket No. 99-168, Second Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 5299 (2000).
79 See generally 220 MHz Service Auction Closes, Public Notice, 14 FCC Rcd 605 (1998).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-17
35
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.80
30. Rural Radiotelephone Service. The Commission has not adopted a size standard for 
small businesses specific to the Rural Radiotelephone Service.81 A significant subset of the Rural 
Radiotelephone Service is the Basic Exchange Telephone Radio System (BETRS).82 The Commission 
uses the SBAs small business size standard applicable to Cellular and Other Wireless
Telecommunications, i.e., an entity employing no more than 1,500 persons.83 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.84 We will use SBAs small business 
size standard applicable to Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications, i.e., an entity employing 
no more than 1,500 persons.85 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.86 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 
  
80 700 MHz Guard Band Auction Closes, Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 4590 (2001).
81 The service is defined in section 22.99 of the Commissions Rules, 47 C.F.R.  22.99.
82 BETRS is defined in sections 22.757 and 22.759 of the Commissions Rules, 47 C.F.R.  22.757 and 22.759.
83 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.).
84 The service is defined in section 22.99 of the Commissions Rules, 47 C.F.R.  22.99.
85 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.).
86 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.).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-17
36
controlling interests and affiliates, has average gross revenues for the preceding three years not to exceed 
$3 million dollars.87 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,88
private operational-fixed,89 and broadcast auxiliary radio services.90 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.91 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 SBAs 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.92 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 SBAs small 
  
87 Amendment of the Commissions Rules Concerning Maritime Communications, PR Docket No. 92-257, Third 
Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 19853 (1998).
88 See 47 C.F.R.  101 et seq. (formerly, Part 21 of the Commissions Rules) for common carrier fixed microwave 
services (except Multipoint Distribution Service).
89 Persons eligible under parts 80 and 90 of the Commissions 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 licensees commercial, industrial, or safety operations.
90 Auxiliary Microwave Service is governed by Part 74 of Title 47 of the Commissions 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.
91 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.).
92 This service is governed by Subpart I of Part 22 of the Commissions Rules.  See 47 C.F.R.  22.1001-22.1037.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-17
37
business size standard for Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications services.93 Under that 
SBA small business size standard, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.94  
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.95 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.96 The SBA has approved these small business size standards.97 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).98 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.99 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.100 According to Census Bureau data for 
2002, there were a total of 1,191 firms in this category that operated for the entire year.101 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.102 Consequently, we estimate that the majority of providers in this service 
  
93 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.).
94 Id. 
95 See Amendment of the Commissions 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).
96 Id.
97 See Letter to Kathleen OBrien Ham, Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis Division, Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau, FCC, from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, SBA (Feb. 4, 1998).
98 Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 of the Commissions 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).
99 47 C.F.R.  21.961(b)(1).
100 13 C.F.R.  121.201, NAICS code 517510.
101 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).
102 Id.  An additional 61 firms had annual receipts of $25 million or more.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-17
38
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.103 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.104 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.105 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.106 The SBA has approved these 
small business size standards in the context of LMDS auctions.107 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.108 In the 218-219 MHz Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and 
  
103 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.
104 See Rulemaking to Amend Parts 1, 2, 21, and 25 of the Commissions 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).
105 Id.
106 Id.
107 See Letter to Dan Phythyon, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC, from Aida Alvarez, 
Administrator, SBA (Jan. 6, 1998).
108 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).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-17
39
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.109 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.110 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.111 We believe that there are only two licensees in the 24 GHz band that were 
relocated from the 18 GHz band, Teligent112 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.113
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.114 The SBA 
has approved these small business size standards.115 These size standards will apply to the future auction, 
if held. 
3. 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 
  
109 Amendment of Part 95 of the Commissions 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).
110 Id.
111 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.).
112 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.
113 Amendments to Parts 1, 2, 87 and 101 of the Commissions 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).
114 Amendments to Parts 1, 2, 87 and 101 of the Commissions 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).
115 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).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-17
40
Telecommunications and Other Telecommunications.  Under both categories, such a business is 
small if it has $13.5 million or less in average annual receipts.116
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.117 For this category, Census 
Bureau data for 2002 show that there were a total of 371 firms that operated for the entire year.118 Of 
this total, 307 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and 26 firms had receipts of $10 million 
to $24,999,999.119 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.120 For this category, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were a total of 
332 firms that operated for the entire year.121 Of this total, 259 firms had annual receipts of under $10 
million and 15 firms had annual receipts of $10 million to $24,999,999.122 Consequently, we estimate 
that the majority of Other Telecommunications firms are small entities that might be affected by our 
action.
4. 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.
  
116 13 C.F.R.  121.201, NAICS codes 517410 and 517910.  
117 U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, 517410 Satellite Telecommunications;  
http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF517.HTM. 
118 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).  
119 Id.  An additional 38 firms had annual receipts of $25 million or more.
120 U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, 517910 Other Telecommunications; 
http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF517.HTM.
121 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).
122 Id.  An additional 14 firms had annual receipts of $25 million or more.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-17
41
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.123 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.124 According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were a total of 1,191 firms in this 
category that operated for the entire year.125 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.126 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 Commissions rules, a 
small cable company is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers, nationwide.127 Industry data 
indicate that, of 1,076 cable operators nationwide, all but eleven are small under this size standard.128  
In addition, under the Commissions rules, a small system is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer 
subscribers.129 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.130 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 
$250,000,000.131 The Commission has determined that an operator serving fewer than 677,000 
  
123 U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, 517510 Cable and Other Program Distribution; 
http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF517.HTM.
124 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.).
125 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).
126 Id.  An additional 61 firms had annual receipts of $25 million or more.
127 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).
128 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.
129 47 C.F.R.  76.901(c).  
130 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.
131 47 U.S.C.  543(m)(2); see 47 C.F.R.  76.901(f) & nn. 1-3.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-17
42
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.132 Industry data 
indicate that, of 1,076 cable operators nationwide, all but ten are small under this size standard.133 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,134 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.135 As noted above, the SBA has created a small business size standard for Cable and Other 
Program Distribution.136 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.137 Affiliates of Residential Communications Network, Inc. 
(RCN) received approval to operate OVS systems in New York City, Boston, Washington, D.C., and 
other areas.  RCN has sufficient revenues to assure that they do not qualify as a small business entity.  
Little financial information is available for the other entities that are authorized to provide OVS and are 
not yet operational.  Given that some entities authorized to provide OVS service have not yet begun to 
generate revenues, the Commission concludes that up to 44 OVS operators (those remaining) might 
qualify as small businesses that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein.
5. Electric Power Generation, Transmission and Distribution
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.138 The SBA has developed a 
small business size standard for firms in this category:  A firm is small if, including its affiliates, it is 
  
132 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).
133 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.
134 The Commission does receive such information on a case-by-case basis if a cable operator appeals a local 
franchise authoritys finding that the operator does not qualify as a small cable operator pursuant to  76.901(f) of 
the Commissions rules.  See 47 C.F.R.  76.909(b).
135 See 47 U.S.C.  573.
136 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.).
137 See http://www.fcc.gov/mb/ovs/csovscer.html (current as of February 2007).
138 U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, 2211 Electric Power Generation, Transmission and 
Distribution; http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF221.HTM.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-17
43
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.139  
According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were 1,644 firms in this category that operated for the 
entire year.140 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.   
6. 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.141 Under the SBA size standard, such a business is small if it has average 
annual receipts of $23 million or less.142 According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were 2,529 
firms in this category that operated for the entire year. 143 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.  
7. 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.144 The SBA has 
developed a small business size standard for this category; that size standard is $6.5 million or less in 
  
139 13 C.F.R.  121.201, NAICS codes 221111, 221112, 221113, 221119, 221121, 221122, footnote 1.
140 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).
141 U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions: 518111 Internet Service Providers;  
http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF518.HTM. 
142 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.
143 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).
144 U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions:  518112 Web Search Portals; 
http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF518.HTM.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-17
44
average annual receipts.145 According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were 342 firms in this 
category that operated for the entire year.146 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.147 The SBA has developed a small 
business size standard for this category; that size standard is $23 million or less in average annual 
receipts.148 According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were 6,877 firms in this category that 
operated for the entire year.149 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).150
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.151 According to Census Bureau data for 
2002, there were 155 firms in this category that operated for the entire year.152 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.153 The 
  
145 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.).
146 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).
147 U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions:  518210 Data Processing, Hosting, and Related Services; 
http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF518.HTM. 
148 13 C.F.R.  121.201, NAICS code 518210.
149 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). 
150 U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions:  519190 All Other Information Services; 
http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF519.HTM.
151 13 C.F.R.  121.201, NAICS code 519190.
152 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).
153 U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions:  516110 Internet Publishing and Broadcasting; 
http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF516.HTM. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-17
45
SBA has developed a small business size standard for this census category; that size standard is 500 or 
fewer employees.154 According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were 1,362 firms in this category 
that operated for the entire year.155 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.156
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.157 For Software Publishers, Census Bureau data for 
2002 indicate that there were 6,155 firms in the category that operated for the entire year.158 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.159 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.160 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 
  
154 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.).
155 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).
156  See U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions:  511210 Software Publishers; 
http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF511.HTM.
157 13 C.F.R.  121.201, NAICS codes 511210, 541511, and 541519.
158 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).
159 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).
160 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).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-17
46
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.161  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;162 (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;163 (3) collect demographic information about households from 
filers located in representative areas;164 and (4) collect price information from filers in representative 
areas or from filers more generally.165  In addition, we invite comment whether there are any 
alternatives not discussed in the Notice that would also serve the objectives of the Notice.166  We invite 
comment on ways to mitigate the burden that might be imposed on small entities by proposals discussed 
in the Notice.167 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.168
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, 
  
161 See Notice at section III.B.
162 See Notice at para. 18.
163 See Notice at para. 28.
164 See Notice at para. 40-41.
165 See Notice at para. 45-46.
166 See Notice at para. 38.
167 See Notice at para. 24; see id. at section III.
168 5 U.S.C.  603(c).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-17
47
individual study those Zip Code areas where deployment appears to be particularly limited.169 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.170 Furthermore, 
the Notice invites comment whether it might purchase commercial databases or services that would 
provide data without imposing additional burdens on filers.171 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.172 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.173 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.174  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;175 (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;176 (3) collect demographic information 
about households from filers located in representative areas;177 and (4) collect price information from 
filers in representative areas or from filers more generally.178  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 
  
169 See Notice at para. 25.
170 See Notice at para. 26.
171 See Notice at para. 32.  
172 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.
173 See Notice at para. 24.
174 See Notice at section III.B.
175 See Notice at para. 18.
176 See Notice at para. 28.
177 See Notice at para. 40-41.
178 See Notice at para. 45-46.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-17
48
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 subscribers handset at broadband speed during 
the month preceding the Form 477 reporting date.179 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.180 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.181 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.  
  
179 See Notice at para. 22.
180 See Notice at section III.A.2.
181 See Notice at para. 22.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-17
49
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 Commissions 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. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-17
50
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.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-17
51
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 Commissions 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 doesnt gather this data, 
who will?     
Todays 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 Martins 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 
nations 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 todays item asks a multitude of important questionstoo many to mention hereI 
would like to focus on certain issues that I believe are of particular importance.  First, todays item seeks 
comment on how the agency should measure broadband speed.  For too long, we have defined broadband 
as 200 kbps in one directiona 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, todays 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 
Commissions 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 datasurely 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 ConnectKentuckynot to mention 
the example of countries like Japan, which gathers detailed data at the prefecture levelcertainly 
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 whats going on in representative parts of the country 
strikes me as a far better basis for policy than a largely misleading idea of whats happening everywhere. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-17
52
Third, todays item seeks information on broadband pricea 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 valuemeaning the relationship between 
price and measures of quality such as speed and ease of usethat 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 servicesit is well past time that we do so for broadband as well.  
Fourth, building upon the point just made, todays item distinguishes between two distinct 
conceptswhether broadband is available and whether consumers have chosen to adopt broadband
that the Commission has conflated for far too long.1 Gathering statistics on both conceptsas 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 forthwill 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 Americans lifeas they surely should be.
Finally, todays item seeks comment on how we can use international statistics on broadband 
deployment to better understand and assess our own countrys 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, todays 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 isnt too late.
  
1 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).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-17
53
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 
FCCs data gathering efforts.  It is the FCCs 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 Commissions 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 Commissions ability to analyze who is getting 
broadband and where it is deployed, observing that the FCCs data may not provide a highly accurate 
depiction of deployment of broadband infrastructures for residential service, especially in rural areas.  
GAOs 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 Commissions 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 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-17
54
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 Commissions 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 Commissions 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.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-17
55
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 10th anniversary of the E-rate program, Ive 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 tomorrows innovators.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-17
56
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 
Commissions 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 Commissions 
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.