Connecting 

America:

The National 

Broadband Plan

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN i i i

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n TABLE O F CONTENTS

Table of Contents

List of Exhibits........................................................................................................................................................................................................ vii

Preface....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ix

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................................................................ xi

Chapter 1: Introduction............................................................................................................................................................................................1

Chapter 2: Goals for a High Performance America ............................................................................................................................................ 7

Chapter 3: Current State of the Ecosystem ........................................................................................................................................................13

3.1 Applications............................................................................................................................................................................................ 16

3.2 Devices .....................................................................................................................................................................................................18

3.3 Networks..................................................................................................................................................................................................18

3.4 Adoption and Utilization.....................................................................................................................................................................23

Part I—Innovation and Investment................................................................................................................................................................. 27

Chapter 4: Broadband Competition and Innovation Policy ...........................................................................................................................33

4.1 Networks .................................................................................................................................................................................................36

4.2 Devices....................................................................................................................................................................................................49

4.3 Applications...........................................................................................................................................................................................52

4.4 Competition for Value Across the Ecosystem ................................................................................................................................. 58

4.5 Transition From A Circuit-Switched Network ...............................................................................................................................59

4.6 Leveraging the Benefits of Innovation and Investment Internationally....................................................................................59

Chapter 5: Spectrum.............................................................................................................................................................................................. 73

5.1 The Growth of Wireless Broadband................................................................................................................................................... 76

5.2 Ensuring Greater Transparency Concerning Spectrum Allocation and Utilization................................................................ 79

5.3 Expanding Incentives and Mechanisms to Reallocate or Repurpose Spectrum........................................................................81

5.4 Making More Spectrum Available within the Next 10 Years .......................................................................................................84

5.5 Increasing the Flexibility, Capacity and Cost-Effectiveness of Spectrum for 

Point-to-Point Wireless Backhaul Services ....................................................................................................................................93

5.6 Expanding Opportunities for Innovative Spectrum Access Models ...........................................................................................94

5.7 Taking Additional Steps to Make U.S. Spectrum Policy More Comprehensive ........................................................................96
i v F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n TABLE O F CONTENTS

Chapter 6: Infrastructure.................................................................................................................................................................................... 107

6.1 Improving Utilization of Infrastructure.......................................................................................................................................... 109

6.2 Maximizing Impact of Federal Resources.......................................................................................................................................114

Chapter 7: Research and Development .............................................................................................................................................................119

Part II—Inclusion............................................................................................................................................................................................... 127

Chapter 8: Availability......................................................................................................................................................................................... 133

8.1 The Broadband Availability Gap....................................................................................................................................................... 136

8.2 Closing the Broadband Availability Gap......................................................................................................................................... 138

8.3 Universal Service ................................................................................................................................................................................ 140

8.4 Other Government Actions to Promote Availability ................................................................................................................... 152

Chapter 9: Adoption and Utilization................................................................................................................................................................. 165

9.1 Understanding Broadband Adoption............................................................................................................................................... 168

9.2 Addressing Cost Barriers to Broadband Adoption and Utilization ............................................................................................171

9.3 Addressing Digital Literacy Barriers to Broadband Adoption and Utilization ........................................................................174

9.4 Addressing Relevance Barriers to Broadband Adoption and Utilization................................................................................. 178

9.5 Addressing Issues of Accessibility for Broadband Adoption and Utilization ..........................................................................181

9.6 Expanding Federal Support for Regional Broadband Capacity-Building, Program Evaluation and Sharing of Best 

Practices ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 182

9.7 Coordinating with Tribes On Broadband Issues .......................................................................................................................... 184

Part III—National Purposes.............................................................................................................................................................................191

Chapter 10: Health Care...................................................................................................................................................................................... 197

10.1 The Promise of Health IT and the Role of Broadband .............................................................................................................. 200

10.2 The Need for Action: Maximizing Health IT Utilization ......................................................................................................... 202

10.3 Closing the Broadband-Enabled Health IT Adoption Gap ...................................................................................................... 204

10.4 Unlocking the Value of Data ...........................................................................................................................................................207

10.5 Closing the Health IT Broadband Connectivity Gap ................................................................................................................ 209

Chapter 11: Education..........................................................................................................................................................................................223

11.1 Supporting and Promoting Online Learning.................................................................................................................................227

11.2 Unlocking the Power of Data and Improving Transparency......................................................................................................233

11.3 Modernizing Educational Broadband Infrastructure.................................................................................................................235

Chapter 12: Energy and the Environment .......................................................................................................................................................245

12.1 Broadband and the Smart Grid........................................................................................................................................................249

12.2 Unleashing Innovation in Smart Homes and Buildings.............................................................................................................253

12.3 Sustainable Information and Communications Technology ....................................................................................................257

12.4 Smart Transportation ......................................................................................................................................................................258
F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n T a b l e o f c o n t e n t s

Chapter 13: Economic Opportunity ..................................................................................................................................................................263

13.1 Supporting Entrepreneurship and America’s Small Businesses ..............................................................................................266

13.2 Job Training and Workforce Development..................................................................................................................................270

13.3 Promoting Telework ........................................................................................................................................................................272

13.4 Local and Regional Economic Development...............................................................................................................................273

Chapter 14: Government Performance............................................................................................................................................................. 281

14.1 Improving Connectivity Through Government Action..............................................................................................................284

14.2 Improving Government Performance...........................................................................................................................................285

Chapter 15: Civic Engagement...........................................................................................................................................................................297

15.1 Creating An Open and Transparent Government....................................................................................................................... 300

15.2 Building A Robust Digital Media Ecosystem .............................................................................................................................. 302

15.3 Expanding Civic Engagement Through Social Media................................................................................................................305

15.4 Increasing Innovation in Government......................................................................................................................................... 306

15.5 Modernizing the Democratic Process ......................................................................................................................................... 306

Chapter 16: Public Safety .....................................................................................................................................................................................311

16.1 Promoting Public Safety Wireless Broadband Communications ............................................................................................. 314

16.2 Promoting Cybersecurity and Protecting Critical Infrastructure .......................................................................................... 320

16.3 Leveraging Broadband Technologies to Enhance Emergency Communications with the Public .....................................323

Chapter 17: Implementation and Benchmarks ............................................................................................................................................... 331

17.1 Implementation .................................................................................................................................................................................333

17.2 Benchmarking ....................................................................................................................................................................................335

17.3 The Legal Framework for the FCC’s Implementation of the Plan ...........................................................................................337

17.4 Conclusion..........................................................................................................................................................................................338

Appendices ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 341

Appendix A: Btop Progress Assessment ........................................................................................................................................................363

Appendix B: Common Abbreviations ...............................................................................................................................................................367

Appendix C: Glossary........................................................................................................................................................................................... 371

Appendix D: List of Workshops and Field Hearings ......................................................................................................................................375

Appendix E: List of National Broadband Plan Contributors........................................................................................................................377

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN v i i

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n LIST O F E X H IBITS

Exhibit 3-A: Forces Shaping the Broadband Ecosystem in the United States..................................................................................... 15

Exhibit 3-B: Percentage of Home Broadband Users Who Have Ever Engaged in Selected Online Activities ..............................16

Exhibit 3-C: Actual Download Speeds Necessary to Run Concurrent Applications (Mbps) ........................................................... 17

Exhibit 3-D: Availability of 4 Mbps-Capable Broadband Networks in the United States by County .............................................19

Exhibit 3-E: Announced Upgrades to the U.S. Fixed Broadband Network (Millions of households covered)............................. 20

Exhibit 3-F: Timeline of Fixed Broadband Industry Network Upgrades.............................................................................................21

Exhibit 3-G: Advertised Versus Actual U.S. Fixed Broadband Residential Download Speeds (Mbps)...........................................21

Exhibit 3-H: Announced Upgrades to the U.S. Mobile Broadband Network (Persons covered)..................................................... 22

Exhibit 3-I: Broadband Adoption by American Adults by Socio-Economic and Demographic Factors ...................................... 23

Exhibit 4-A: Share of Housing Units in Census Tracts with 0, 1, 2, and 3 Wireline Providers .........................................................37

Exhibit 4-B: Average Top Advertised Speed in Areas with 1, 2 and 3 Wireline Competitors .......................................................... 38

Exhibit 4-C: Select Fixed Broadband Infrastructure Upgrades ........................................................................................................... 39

Exhibit 4-D: Price Indices for Broadband Advertised as a Standalone Service and as Part of a Bundle (2006 = 1)................... 40

Exhibit 4-E: Share of Population Living in Census Tracts with 0, 1, 2, 3 or More 3G Mobile Providers ....................................... 40

Exhibit 4-F: Evolution of Spectral Efficiency ...........................................................................................................................................41

Exhibit 4-G: Projected Share of Households with Access to Various Wireline Broadband Technologies in 2012...................... 42

Exhibit 4-H: Broadband Speeds Advertised by Cable and Telco 2004–2009..................................................................................... 43

Exhibit 4-I: Simplified View of Internet Network and Connections .................................................................................................. 45

Exhibit 4-J: Illustrative Broadband Speed and Performance Digital Labels ..................................................................................... 46

Exhibit 5-A: Forecasted Mobile Data Traffic in North America ............................................................................................................76

Exhibit 5-B: Selected Announced Upgrades to the U.S. Mobile Broadband Network (Persons covered) .....................................77

Exhibit 5-C: Time Required Historically to Reallocate Spectrum ....................................................................................................... 79

Exhibit 5-D: The Spectrum Dashboard: An Interactive Tool for Browsing Spectrum Bands.......................................................... 80

Exhibit 5-E: Actions and Timeline to Fulfill 300 Megahertz Goal by 2015........................................................................................ 84

Exhibit 5-F: Spectrum Baseline .................................................................................................................................................................. 85

Exhibit 5-G: Broadband-Capable MSS Bands ...........................................................................................................................................87

Exhibit 6-A: Annual Pole Rates Vary Considerably by Provider Type................................................................................................ 110

Exhibit 6-B: Joint Deployment Can Materially Reduce the Cost of Fiber Deployment ................................................................. 114

List of Exhibits
v i i i F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n LIST O F E X H IBITS

Exhibit 8-A: Universalization Goals in Selected Countries ..................................................................................................................135

Exhibit 8-B: The Present Value (in 2010 Dollars) of the Broadband Availability Gap is $24 Billion ...........................................137

Exhibit 8-C: The Most Expensive Unserved Housing Units Represent a Disproportionate Share of the Total Gap.................138

Exhibit 8-D: Existing Sources of Federal Support for Communications Connectivity ...................................................................139

Exhibit 8-E: The Federal Universal Service Fund ................................................................................................................................. 140

Exhibit 8-F: Roadmap for USF/ICC Reform...........................................................................................................................................144

Exhibit 9-A: Broadband Adoption Among Certain Demographic Groups .........................................................................................167

Exhibit 10-A: International Comparison of Electronic Health Adoption...........................................................................................203

Exhibit 10-B: Health Data File Sizes.......................................................................................................................................................... 210

Exhibit 10-C: Required Broadband Connectivity and Quality Metrics (Actual) .............................................................................. 210

Exhibit 10-D: Estimate of Small Physician Locations Without Mass-Market Broadband Availability ......................................... 211

Exhibit 10-E: Wide Fluctuations in Dedicated Internet Access Prices (Monthly Service Cost in .................................................212

Exhibit 10-F: Estimated Health Care Locations Without Mass-Market Broadband Availability 

(Percent of locations for each delivery setting)................................................................................................................213

Exhibit 10-G: 2009 Rural Health Care Program Spending ....................................................................................................................214

Exhibit 11-A: Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) Rankings Show the United States Trailing Other 

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Countries.................................................... 225

Exhibit 11-B: Carnegie Mellon Online Learning Initiative ................................................................................................................... 228

Exhibit 11-C: Florida Virtual Schools Students Taking Distance-Learning Courses Get Higher AP Scores ...............................229

Exhibit 11-D: Proposed Copyright Notice Permitting Free Educational Use ....................................................................................230

Exhibit 12-A : California Independent System Operator (ISO) System Load Profiles in 

Various Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV) Deployment Scenarios.................................................................250

Exhibit 14-A: The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Dashboard..........................................................................................291

Exhibit 16-A : Public Safety Broadband Network Architecture..............................................................................................................314

Exhibit 16-B : Public Safety Network and Solutions.................................................................................................................................318

Exhibit 16-C: Selection of Proposed Broadband Applications and Services for the Public Safety Broadband Network ............319

Exhibit 16-D : The Cyber World....................................................................................................................................................................321

Exhibit 16-E : Call Flow in NG911 ............................................................................................................................................................... 323

Exhibit 16-F : NG911 Will Enable the Public to Access 911 Through Text Messaging (SMS) and Other Formats ...................... 324

Exhibit 16-G : Physical Architectures of Current and Next-Generation 911....................................................................................... 324

Exhibit 17-A: Broadband Goals and Performance Dashboard Sample................................................................................................ 336
F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN i x

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n P r e f a c e

PREFACE

The staff of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) created the National Broadband Plan. To an extraordinary extent, however, the author of this plan is America itself. 

The FCC started the process of creating this plan with a Notice of Inquiry in April 2009. Thirty-six public workshops held at the FCC and streamed online, which drew more than 10,000 in-person or online attendees, provided 

the framework for the ideas contained within the plan. These ideas were then refined based on replies to 31 public 

notices, which generated some 23,000 comments totaling about 74,000 pages from more than 700 parties. The FCC 

also received about 1,100 ex parte filings totaling some 13,000 pages and nine public hearings were held throughout 

the country to further clarify the issues addressed in the plan.

The FCC also engaged in significant collaboration and conversations with other government agencies and Congress, 

since the scope of the plan included many issues outside of the FCC’s traditional expertise. Many people from across 

government contributed expertise and advice along the way, for which the FCC staff is eternally grateful.

The Internet also provided new ways to involve the public. Through an innovative Web presence at www.broadband.gov, 

the FCC posted more than 130 blog entries and received nearly 1,500 comments in return. The FCC’s Twitter feed now 

has more than 330,000 followers, making it the third most popular government Twitter feed after the White House and 

the Centers for Disease Control.

The FCC staff digested this extensive record and worked long hours analyzing and debating the record. Every 

comment cannot be referenced in the plan, but they were all read, considered and valued.

Public comment on the plan does not end here. The record will guide the path forward through the rulemaking 

process at the FCC, in Congress and across the Executive Branch, as all consider how best to implement the plan’s 

recommendations. The public will continue to have opportunities to provide further input all along this path. 

This is America’s plan, written by and for Americans. It’s now time to act and invest in our nation’s future by bringing 

the power and promise of broadband to us all.

THE OMNIBUS BROADBAND INITIATIVE (OBI)

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN x i

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n Ex e c u t i v e s u m m a r y

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Broadband is the great infrastructure challenge of the early 

21st century. 

Like electricity a century ago, broadband is a foundation 

for economic growth, job creation, global competitiveness and 

a better way of life. It is enabling entire new industries and 

unlocking vast new possibilities for existing ones. It is changing 

how we educate children, deliver health care, manage energy, 

ensure public safety, engage government, and access, organize 

and disseminate knowledge. 

Fueled primarily by private sector investment and innovation, the American broadband ecosystem has evolved rapidly. 

The number of Americans who have broadband at home has 

grown from eight million in 2000 to nearly 200 million last 

year. Increasingly capable fixed and mobile networks allow 

Americans to access a growing number of valuable applications 

through innovative devices.

But broadband in America is not all it needs to be. 

Approximately 100 million Americans do not have broadband 

at home. Broadband-enabled health information technology 

(IT) can improve care and lower costs by hundreds of billions 

of dollars in the coming decades, yet the United States is behind 

many advanced countries in the adoption of such technology. 

Broadband can provide teachers with tools that allow students 

to learn the same course material in half the time, but there is a 

dearth of easily accessible digital educational content required 

for such opportunities. A broadband-enabled Smart Grid could 

increase energy independence and efficiency, but much of the data 

required to capture these benefits are inaccessible to consumers, 

businesses and entrepreneurs. And nearly a decade after 9/11, our 

first responders still lack a nationwide public safety mobile broadband communications network, even though such a network could 

improve emergency response and homeland security.

Fulfilling the Congressional Mandate

In early 2009, Congress directed the Federal Communications 

Commission (FCC) to develop a National Broadband Plan to 

ensure every American has “access to broadband capability.” 

Congress also required that this plan include a detailed strategy 

for achieving affordability and maximizing use of broadband to 

advance “consumer welfare, civic participation, public safety and 

homeland security, community development, health care delivery, energy independence and efficiency, education, employee 

training, private sector investment, entrepreneurial activity, job 

creation and economic growth, and other national purposes.”

Broadband networks only create value to consumers and 

businesses when they are used in conjunction with broadbandcapable devices to deliver useful applications and content. To 

fulfill Congress’s mandate, the plan seeks to ensure that the entire 

broadband ecosystem—networks, devices, content and applications—is healthy. It makes recommendations to the FCC, the 

Executive Branch, Congress and state and local governments.

The Plan

Government can influence the broadband ecosystem in four ways: 

1. Design policies to ensure robust competition and, as a 

result maximize consumer welfare, innovation and 

investment.

2. Ensure efficient allocation and management of assets 

government controls or influences, such as spectrum, poles, 

and rights-of-way, to encourage network upgrades and competitive entry.

3. Reform current universal service mechanisms to support 

deployment of broadband and voice in high-cost areas; and 

ensure that low-income Americans can afford broadband; 

and in addition, support efforts to boost adoption and 

utilization.

4. Reform laws, policies, standards and incentives to maximize the benefits of broadband in sectors government influences significantly, such as public education, health care 

and government operations.

1. Establishing competition policies. Policymakers, including 

the FCC, have a broad set of tools to protect and encourage competition in the markets that make up the broadband 

ecosystem: network services, devices, applications and content. 

The plan contains multiple recommendations that will foster 

competition across the ecosystem. They include the following:

➤ Collect, analyze, benchmark and publish detailed, 

market-by-market information on broadband pricing and competition, which will likely have direct impact 

on competitive behavior (e.g., through benchmarking of 

pricing across geographic markets). This will also enable 

the FCC and other agencies to apply appropriate remedies 

when competition is lacking in specific geographies or 

market segments. 

➤ Develop disclosure requirements for broadband service 

providers to ensure consumers have the pricing and performance information they need to choose the best broadband 
x i i F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n Ex e c u t i v e s u m m a r y

offers in the market. Increased transparency will incent 

service providers to compete for customers on the basis of 

actual performance.

➤ Undertake a comprehensive review of wholesale competition rules to help ensure competition in fixed and mobile 

broadband services.

➤ Free up and allocate additional spectrum for unlicensed 

use, fostering ongoing innovation and competitive entry. 

➤ Update rules for wireless backhaul spectrum to increase 

capacity in urban areas and range in rural areas.

➤ Expedite action on data roaming to determine how best 

to achieve wide, seamless and competitive coverage, encourage mobile broadband providers to construct and build 

networks, and promote entry and competition. 

➤ Change rules to ensure a competitive and innovative 

video set-top box market, to be consistent with Section 

629 of the Telecommunications Act. The Act says that the 

FCC should ensure that its rules achieve a competitive 

market in video “navigation devices,” or set-top boxes—the 

devices consumers use to access much of the video they 

watch today.

➤ Clarify the Congressional mandate allowing state and 

local entities to provide broadband in their communities and do so in ways that use public resources more 

effectively.

➤ Clarify the relationship between users and their online 

profiles to enable continued innovation and competition in applications and ensure consumer privacy, 

including the obligations of firms collecting personal 

information to allow consumers to know what information 

is being collected, consent to such collection, correct it if 

necessary, and control disclosure of such personal information to third parties.

2. Ensuring efficient allocation and use of governmentowned and government-influenced assets. Government 

establishes policies for the use of spectrum and oversees access 

to poles, conduits, rooftops and rights-of-way, which are used 

in the deployment of broadband networks. Government also 

finances a large number of infrastructure projects. Ensuring 

these assets and resources are allocated and managed efficiently can encourage deployment of broadband infrastructure 

and lower barriers to competitive entry. The plan contains a 

number of recommendations to accomplish these goals. They 

include the following:

➤ Spectrum is a major input for providers of broadband 

service. Currently, the FCC has only 50 megahertz in inventory, just a fraction of the amount that will be necessary 

to match growing demand. More efficient allocation and 

assignment of spectrum will reduce deployment costs, drive 

investment and benefit consumers through better performance and lower prices. The recommendations on spectrum policy include the following:

➤ Make 500 megahertz of spectrum newly available

for broadband within 10 years, of which 300 megahertz 

should be made available for mobile use within five 

years. 

➤ Enable incentives and mechanisms to repurpose 

spectrum to more flexible uses. Mechanisms include 

incentive auctions, which allow auction proceeds to be 

shared in an equitable manner with current licensees 

as market demands change. These would benefit both 

spectrum holders and the American public. The public 

could benefit from additional spectrum for high-demand uses and from new auction revenues. Incumbents, 

meanwhile, could recognize a portion of the value of enabling new uses of spectrum. For example, this would allow the FCC to share auction proceeds with broadcasters who voluntarily agree to use technology to continue 

traditional broadcast services with less spectrum.

➤ Ensure greater transparency of spectrum allocation, 

assignment and use through an FCC-created spectrum 

dashboard to foster an efficient secondary market. 

➤ Expand opportunities for innovative spectrum access models by creating new avenues for opportunistic 

and unlicensed use of spectrum and increasing research 

into new spectrum technologies.

➤ Infrastructure such as poles, conduits, rooftops and rightsof-way play an important role in the economics of broadband networks. Ensuring service providers can access these 

resources efficiently and at fair prices can drive upgrades 

and facilitate competitive entry. In addition, testbeds can 

drive innovation of next-generation applications and, ultimately, may promote infrastructure deployment. Recommendations to optimize infrastructure use include: 

➤ Establish low and more uniform rental rates for access to poles, and simplify and expedite the process for 

service providers to attach facilities to poles. 

➤ Improve rights-of-way management for cost and 

time savings, promote use of federal facilities for 

broadband, expedite resolution of disputes and identify 

and establish “best practices” guidelines for rights-ofway policies and fee practices that are consistent with 

broadband deployment. 

➤ Facilitate efficient new infrastructure construction, 

including through “dig-once” policies that would make 

federal financing of highway, road and bridge projects 

contingent on states and localities allowing joint deployment of broadband infrastructure. 
F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN x i i i

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n Ex e c u t i v e s u m m a r y

➤ Provide ultra-high-speed broadband connectivity to 

select U.S. Department of Defense installations to 

enable the development of next-generation broadband 

applications for military personnel and their families 

living on base.

3. Creating incentives for universal availability and adoption of broadband. Three elements must be in place to 

ensure all Americans have the opportunity to reap the benefits 

of broadband. All Americans should have access to broadband service with sufficient capabilities, all should be able 

to afford broadband and all should have the opportunity to 

develop digital literacy skills to take advantage of broadband. 

Recommendations to promote universal broadband deployment and adoption include the following:

➤ Ensure universal access to broadband network services.

➤ Create the Connect America Fund (CAF) to support 

the provision of affordable broadband and voice with 

at least 4 Mbps actual download speeds and shift up to 

$15.5 billion over the next decade from the existing Universal Service Fund (USF) program to support broadband. If Congress wishes to accelerate the deployment 

of broadband to unserved areas and otherwise smooth 

the transition of the Fund, it could make available 

public funds of a few billion dollars per year over two to 

three years.

➤ Create a Mobility Fund to provide targeted funding to ensure no states are lagging significantly behind 

the national average for 3G wireless coverage. Such 3G 

coverage is widely expected to be the basis for the future 

footprint of 4G mobile broadband networks.

➤ Transition the “legacy” High-Cost component of the 

USF over the next 10 years and shift all resources to the 

new funds. The $4.6 billion per year High Cost component of the USF was designed to support primarily voice 

services. It will be replaced over time by the CAF.

➤ Reform intercarrier compensation, which provides 

implicit subsidies to telephone companies by eliminating per-minute charges over the next 10 years and 

enabling adequate cost recovery through the CAF.

➤ Design the new Connect America Fund and Mobility 

Fund in a tax-efficient manner to minimize the size 

of the broadband availability gap and thereby reduce 

contributions borne by consumers.

➤ Broaden the USF contribution base to ensure USF 

remains sustainable over time. 

➤ Create mechanisms to ensure affordability to low-income Americans.

➤ Expand the Lifeline and Link-Up programs by allowing 

subsidies provided to low-income Americans to be used 

for broadband. 

➤ Consider licensing a block of spectrum with a condition to offer free or low-cost service that would create 

affordable alternatives for consumers, reducing the 

burden on USF.

➤ Ensure every American has the opportunity to become 

digitally literate.

➤ Launch a National Digital Literacy Corps to organize 

and train youth and adults to teach digital literacy skills 

and enable private sector programs addressed at breaking adoption barriers.

4. Updating policies, setting standards and aligning incentives to maximize use for national priorities. Federal, 

Tribal, state and local governments play an important role 

in many sectors of our economy. Government is the largest 

health care payor in the country, operates the public education 

system, regulates many aspects of the energy industry, provides 

multiple services to its citizens and has primary responsibility 

for homeland security. The plan includes recommendations 

designed to unleash increased use, private sector investment 

and innovation in these areas. They include the following:

➤ Health care. Broadband can help improve the quality and 

lower the cost of health care through health IT and improved 

data capture and use, which will enable clearer understanding of the most effective treatments and processes. To 

achieve these objectives, the plan has recommendations that 

will:

➤ Help ensure health care providers have access to affordable broadband by transforming the FCC’s Rural Health 

Care Program.

➤ Create incentives for adoption by expanding reimbursement for e-care.

➤ Remove barriers to e-care by modernizing regulations 

like device approval, credentialing, privileging and 

licensing.

➤ Drive innovative applications and advanced analytics 

by ensuring patients have control over their health data 

and ensuring interoperability of data.

➤ Education. Broadband can enable improvements in public 

education through e-learning and online content, which can 

provide more personalized learning opportunities for students. Broadband can also facilitate the flow of information, 

helping teachers, parents, schools and other organizations to 

make better decisions tied to each student’s needs and abilities. To those ends, the plan includes recommendations to:
x i v F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

➤ Improve the connectivity to schools and libraries by upgrading the FCC’s E-Rate program to increase flexibility, 

improve program efficiency and foster innovation by promoting the most promising solutions and funding wireless 

connectivity to learning devices that go home with students.

➤ Accelerate online learning by enabling the creation of 

digital content and learning systems, removing regulatory barriers and promoting digital literacy.

➤ Personalize learning and improve decision–making by 

fostering adoption of electronic educational records and 

improving financial data transparency in education.

➤ Energy and the environment. Broadband can play a major 

role in the transition to a clean energy economy. America can use these innovations to reduce carbon pollution, 

improve our energy efficiency and lessen our dependence 

on foreign oil. To achieve these objectives, the plan has 

recommendations that will:

➤ Modernize the electric grid with broadband, making it 

more reliable and efficient.

➤ Unleash energy innovation in homes and buildings by 

making energy data readily accessible to consumers.

➤ Improve the energy efficiency and environmental impact of the ICT sector.

➤ Economic opportunity. Broadband can expand access 

to jobs and training, support entrepreneurship and small 

business growth and strengthen community development 

efforts. The plan includes recommendations to:

➤ Support broadband choice and small businesses’ use of 

broadband services and applications to drive job creation, growth and productivity gains.

➤ Expand opportunities for job training and placement 

through an online platform.

➤ Integrate broadband assessment and planning into economic development efforts.

➤ Government performance and civic engagement. Within 

government, broadband can drive greater efficiency and 

effectiveness in service delivery and internal operations. It 

can also improve the quantity and quality of civic engagement by providing a platform for meaningful engagement 

with representatives and agencies. Through its own use of 

broadband, government can support local efforts to deploy 

broadband, particularly in unserved communities. To 

achieve these goals, the plan includes recommendations to:

➤ Allow state and local governments to purchase broadband from federal contracts such as Networx.

➤ Improve government performance and operations 

through cloud computing, cybersecurity, secure authentication and online service delivery.

➤ Increase civic engagement by making government more 

open and transparent, creating a robust public media 

ecosystem and modernizing the democratic process.

➤ Public safety and homeland security. Broadband can bolster efforts to improve public safety and homeland security 

by allowing first responders to send and receive video and 

data, by ensuring all Americans can access emergency services and improving the way Americans are notified about 

emergencies. To achieve these objectives, the plan makes 

recommendations to: 

➤ Support deployment of a nationwide, interoperable 

public safety mobile broadband network, with funding of up to $6.5 billion in capital expenditures over 10 

years, which could be reduced through cost efficiency 

measures and other programs. Additional funding will 

be required for operating expenses.

➤ Promote innovation in the development and deployment of next-generation 911 and emergency alert 

systems.

➤ Promote cybersecurity and critical infrastructure survivability to increase user confidence, trust and adoption of broadband communications.

Long-Term Goals 

In addition to the recommendations above, the plan recommends that the country adopt and track the following six goals 

to serve as a compass over the next decade.

Goal No. 1: At least 100 million U.S. homes should have 

affordable access to actual download speeds of at least 100 

megabits per second and actual upload speeds of at least 50 

megabits per second. 

Goal No. 2: The United States should lead the world in 

mobile innovation, with the fastest and most extensive 

wireless networks of any nation.

Goal No. 3: Every American should have affordable access to robust broadband service, and the means and skills 

to subscribe if they so choose.

Goal No. 4: Every American community should have 

affordable access to at least 1 gigabit per second broadband 

service to anchor institutions such as schools, hospitals 

and government buildings.

Goal No. 5: To ensure the safety of the American people, 

every first responder should have access to a nationwide, 

wireless, interoperable broadband public safety network.

Goal No. 6: To ensure that America leads in the clean 

energy economy, every American should be able to use 

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n Ex e c u t i v e s u m m a r y
F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN x v

broadband to track and manage their real-time energy 

consumption.

Meeting these six goals will help achieve the Congressional 

mandate of using broadband to achieve national purposes, 

while improving the economics of deployment and adoption. 

In particular, the first two goals will create the world’s most 

attractive market for broadband applications, devices and 

infrastructure and ensure America has the infrastructure to attract the leading communications and IT applications, devices 

and technologies. The third goal, meanwhile, will ensure every 

American has the opportunity to take advantage of the benefits 

broadband offers, including improved health care, better education, access to a greater number of economic opportunities 

and greater civic participation.

Budget Impact of Plan

Given the plan’s goal of freeing 500 megahertz of spectrum, 

future wireless auctions mean the overall plan will be revenue 

neutral, if not revenue positive. The vast majority of recommendations do not require new government funding; rather, 

they seek to drive improvements in government efficiency, 

streamline processes and encourage private activity to promote 

consumer welfare and national priorities. The funding requests 

relate to public safety, deployment to unserved areas and 

adoption efforts. If the spectrum auction recommendations are 

implemented, the plan is likely to offset the potential costs.

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n Ex e c u t i v e s u m m a r y

Implementation

The plan is in beta, and always will be. Like the Internet itself, the 

plan will always be changing—adjusting to new developments in 

technologies and markets, reflecting new realities, and evolving to 

realize the unforeseen opportunities of a particular time.

As such, implementation requires a long-term commitment 

to measuring progress and adjusting programs and policies to 

improve performance. 

Half of the recommendations in this plan are offered to the 

FCC. To begin implementation, the FCC will:

➤ Quickly publish a timetable of proceedings to implement 

plan recommendations within its authority.

➤ Publish an evaluation of plan progress and effectiveness as 

part of its annual 706 Advanced Services Inquiry.

➤ Create a Broadband Data Depository as a public resource 

for broadband information.

The remaining half of the recommendations are offered to 

the Executive Branch, Congress and state and local governments. Policymakers alone, though, cannot ensure success. 

Industry, non-profits, and government together with the 

American people, must now act and rise to our era’s infrastructure challenge.

A m e r i c a ’ s P l a n c h a p t e r 1

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 1

INTRODUCTION

c h a p t e r 1

A m e r i c a ’ s P l a n c h a p t e r 1

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 3

In every era, America must confront the challenge of connecting our nation anew.

In the 1860s, we connected Americans to a transcontinental 

railroad that brought cattle from Cheyenne to the stockyards of 

Chicago. In the 1930s, we connected Americans to an electric grid that improved agriculture and brought industry to 

the Smoky Mountains of Tennessee and the Great Plains of 

Nebraska. In the 1950s, we connected Americans to an interstate highway system that fueled jobs on the line in Detroit and 

in the warehouse in L.A. 

Infrastructure networks unite us as a country, bringing 

together parents and children, buyers and sellers, and citizens 

and government in ways once unimaginable. Ubiquitous access 

to infrastructure networks has continually driven American innovation, progress, prosperity and global leadership.

Communications infrastructure plays an integral role in 

this American story. In the 1920s, ’30s, ’40s and ’50s, telephony, radio and television transformed America, unleashing 

new opportunities for American innovators to create products 

and industries, new ways for citizens to engage their elected 

officials and a new foundation for job growth and international 

competitiveness. 

Private investment was pivotal in building most of these 

networks, but government actions also played an important 

role. Treasury bonds and land grants underwrote the railroad,1

the Rural Electrification Act brought electricity to farms and 

the federal government funded 90% of the cost of the interstate 

highways.2

In communications, the government stimulated the construction of radio and television facilities across the country 

by offering huge tracts of the public’s airwaves free of charge. 

It did the same with telephony through a Universal Service 

Fund, fulfilling the vision of the Communications Act of 1934 

“to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the 

United States, a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide 

wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities 

at reasonable charges.”3

Today, high-speed Internet is transforming the landscape 

of America more rapidly and more pervasively than earlier 

infrastructure networks. Like railroads and highways, broadband accelerates the velocity of commerce, reducing the costs 

of distance. Like electricity, it creates a platform for America’s 

creativity to lead in developing better ways to solve old problems. Like telephony and broadcasting, it expands our ability to 

communicate, inform and entertain.

Broadband is the great infrastructure challenge of the early 

21st century. 

But as with electricity and telephony, ubiquitous connections are means, not ends. It is what those connections 

enable that matters. Broadband is a platform to create today’s 

high-performance America—an America of universal opportunity and unceasing innovation, an America that can continue 

to lead the global economy, an America with world-leading, 

broadband-enabled health care, education, energy, job training, 

civic engagement, government performance and public safety. 

Due in large part to private investment and market-driven 

innovation, broadband in America has improved considerably in 

the last decade. More Americans are online at faster speeds than 

ever before. Yet there are still critical problems that slow the 

progress of availability, adoption and utilization of broadband. 

Recognizing this, one year ago Congress echoed the 

Communications Act of 1934 and directed the FCC to develop a 

National Broadband Plan ensuring that every American has “access to broadband capability.” Specifically, the statute dictates: 

“The national broadband plan required by this section shall 

seek to ensure that all people of the United States have access to 

broadband capability and shall establish benchmarks for meeting that goal. The plan shall also include: 

➤ an analysis of the most effective and efficient mechanisms for 

ensuring broadband access by all people of the United States, 

➤ a detailed strategy for achieving affordability of such service 

and maximum utilization of broadband infrastructure and 

service by the public, 

➤ an evaluation of the status of deployment of broadband service, including progress of projects supported by the grants 

made pursuant to this section, and 

➤ a plan for use of broadband infrastructure and services in advancing consumer welfare, civic participation, public safety 

and homeland security, community development, health care 

delivery, energy independence and efficiency, education, 

worker training, private sector investment, entrepreneurial 

activity, job creation and economic growth, and other national purposes.”4

This is a broad mandate. It calls for broadband networks 

that reach higher and farther, filling the troubling gaps we face 

in the deployment of broadband networks, in the adoption of 

broadband by people and businesses and in the use of broadband to further our national priorities. 

Nearly 100 million Americans do not have broadband today.5

Fourteen million Americans do not have access to broadband 

infrastructure that can support today’s and tomorrow’s applications.6 More than 10 million school-age children7

 do not have 

home access to this primary research tool used by most students for homework.8

 Jobs increasingly require Internet skills; 

the share of Americans using high-speed Internet at work grew 

by 50% between 2003 and 2007,9 and the number of jobs in 

information and communications technology is growing 50% 
4 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

A m e r i c a ’ s P l a n c h a p t e r 1

faster than in other sectors.10 Yet millions of Americans lack the 

skills necessary to use the Internet.11

What’s more, there are significant gaps in the utilization of 

broadband for other national priorities. In nearly every metric 

used to measure the adoption of health information technology 

(IT), the United States ranks in the bottom half among comparable countries,12 yet electronic health records could alone save 

more than $500 billion over 15 years.13 Much of the electric 

grid is not connected to broadband, even though a Smart Grid 

could prevent 360 million metric tons of carbon emissions per 

year by 2030, equivalent to taking 65 million of today’s cars 

off the road.14 Online courses can dramatically reduce the time 

required to learn a subject while greatly increasing course 

completion rates,15 yet only 16% of public community colleges—which have seen a surge in enrollment16—have high-speed 

connections comparable to our research universities.17 Nearly 

a decade after 9/11, our first responders still require access to 

better communications. 

Unless we reform our approach to these gaps, we will fail to 

seize the opportunity to improve our nation, and we will fall 

behind those countries that do. In fact, other countries already 

have adopted plans to address these gaps. 

The ways that other countries have confronted this challenge help inform how we might approach the problem. But 

each country’s experiences and challenges have critical differences. Our solutions must reflect the unique economic, 

institutional and demographic conditions of our country. 

The United States is distinct in many ways. For example, 

many countries have a single, dominant nationwide fixed 

telecommunications provider; the United States has numerous providers. Cable companies play a more prominent role 

in our broadband system than in other countries. The U.S. is 

less densely populated than other countries. Unlike most other 

countries, we regulate at both the state and federal levels. Our 

plan should learn from international experiences, but must also 

take into account the distinguishing realities of broadband in 

the United States. 

Our plan must be candid about where current government policies 

hinder innovation and investment in broadband. Government or 

influences critical inputs needed to build broadband networks—

such as spectrum, universal service funds and rights-of-way—yet all 

are structured to serve the priorities of the past, not the opportunities of the future. In addition, current government policies maintain 

incentives for our schools, hospitals and other public interest institutions to use outdated technologies and practices, disadvantaging our 

people and hindering our economy. Just as this plan should build on 

the distinctive attributes of the American market, it should also correct the problematic policies found here. 

Above all, an American plan should build on American strengths. 

The first of these strengths is innovation. The United States 

maintains the greatest tradition of innovation and entrepreneurship in the world—one that combines creativity with 

engineering to produce world-leading applications, devices and 

content, as well as the businesses that bring them to market. 

Our national plan must build on this strength to ensure that 

the next great companies, technologies and applications are 

developed in the United States. U.S. leadership in these spheres 

will advance our most important public purposes. A healthy 

environment for innovation will enable advances in health 

care, energy, education, job training, public safety and all of 

our national priorities. Creativity is a national virtue that has 

catalyzed American leadership in many sectors. America’s plan 

should unlock that creativity to transform the public sector, too. 

We have just begun to benefit from the ways broadband 

unleashes innovations to improve American lives: a job seeker 

in South Bend telecommuting for a company in the Deep South; 

a medical specialist in Chapel Hill providing medical consultations to a patient in the Hill Country; grandparents in Cleveland 

video-chatting with their grandchildren in Colorado Springs; 

firefighters downloading blueprints of a burning building. The 

applications that broadband enables provide innovative, efficient solutions to challenges Americans confront every day. 

Many international broadband plans emphasize speeds and 

networks, focusing only on technical capacity as a measure of 

a successful broadband system. Our plan must go beyond that. 

While striving for ubiquitous and fast networks, we must also 

strive to use those networks more efficiently and effectively 

than any other country. We should lead the world where it 

counts—in the use of the Internet and in the development of 

new applications that provide the tools that each person needs 

to make the most of his or her own life. 

The United States is well positioned to lead in creating 

those applications. We have leading health research centers; we 

should also lead the world in effective health care applications. 

We have leading educational institutions; we should also lead 

the world in effective educational applications. We should seize 

this opportunity to lead the world in applications that serve 

public purposes. 

The second great American strength is inclusion. As a 

country, we believe that to march ahead we don’t need to leave 

anyone behind. We believe that all deserve the opportunity to 

improve their lives. We believe that where you start shouldn’t 

dictate where you finish, that demography isn’t destiny, that 

privilege isn’t a necessary prologue to success. 

This ideal doesn’t just compel us to rebuke discrimination; 

it compels us to be proactive. It inspires us to live up to an 
A m e r i c a ’ s P l a n c h a p t e r 1

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 5

obligation we have to each other—to ensure that everyone has 

an opportunity to succeed. 

This desire for equal opportunity has long guided our efforts to make access to technologies universal, from electricity 

to telephony, from television to radio. Today, as technology 

continues to change the way the world interacts, to be on the 

outside is to live in a separate, analog world, disconnected from 

the vast opportunities broadband enables. 

While broadband adoption has grown steadily, it is still 

far from universal. It lags considerably among certain demographic groups, including the poor, the elderly, some racial and 

ethnic minorities, those who live in rural areas and those with 

disabilities. Many of these Americans already struggle to succeed. Unemployment rates are high, services like job training 

are difficult to obtain and schools are substandard. 

Broadband can help bridge these gaps. Today, millions of students are unprepared for college because they lack access to the 

best books, the best teachers and the best courses. Broadbandenabled online learning has the power to provide high-quality 

educational opportunities to these students—opportunities to 

which their peers at the best public and private schools have 

long had access. Similarly, with broadband, people with disabilities can live more independently, wherever they choose.18

They can telecommute and run businesses from their homes or 

receive rehabilitation therapy in remote and rural areas. 

Of course, access to broadband is not enough. People still 

need to work hard to benefit from these opportunities. But 

universal broadband, and the skills to use it, can lower barriers 

of means and distance to help achieve more equal opportunity. 

Absent action, the individual and societal costs of digital 

exclusion will grow. With so many Americans lacking broadband access or the skills to make it matter, the Internet has the 

potential to exacerbate inequality. If learning online accelerates your education, if working online earns you extra money, if 

searching for jobs online connects you to more opportunities, 

then for those offline, the gap only widens. If political dialogue 

moves to online forums, if the Internet becomes the comprehensive source of real-time news and information, if the easiest way 

to contact your political representatives is through e-mail or a 

website, then those offline become increasingly disenfranchised. 

Until recently, not having broadband was an inconvenience. 

Now, broadband is essential to opportunity and citizenship. 

While we must build on our strengths in innovation and 

inclusion, we need to recognize that government cannot predict the future. Many uncertainties will shape the evolution of 

broadband, including the behavior of private companies and consumers, the economic environment and technological advances. 

As a result, the role of government is and should remain 

limited. We must strike the right balance between the public 

and private sectors. Done right, government policy can drive, 

and has driven, progress. In the 1960s and ‘70s, government 

research funding supported the development of the technology on which the Internet is based.19 In the 1990s, the Federal 

Communications Commission acted to ensure that telephone 

providers would not stall use of the Internet.20 An act of 

Congress stimulated competition that caused cable companies to upgrade their networks and, for the first time, offer 

broadband to many Americans.21 Auctions for public spectrum 

promoted competitive wireless markets, prompting continual 

upgrades that first delivered mobile phones and, now, mobile 

broadband.22

Instead of choosing a specific path for broadband in 

America, this plan describes actions government should take 

to encourage more private innovation and investment. The 

policies and actions recommended in this plan fall into three 

categories: fostering innovation and competition in networks, 

devices and applications; redirecting assets that government 

controls or influences in order to spur investment and inclusion; and optimizing the use of broadband to help achieve 

national priorities. 

A thoughtful approach to the development of electricity, 

telephony, radio and television transformed the United States 

and, in turn, helped us transform the world. Broadband will be 

just as transformative. 

The consequences of our digital transformation may not be 

uniformly positive. But the choice is not whether the transformation will continue. It will. The choice is whether we, as a 

nation, will understand this transformation in a way that allows 

us to make wise decisions about how broadband can serve the 

public interest, just as certain decisions decades ago helped 

communications and media platforms serve public interest 

goals. This plan is the first attempt to provide that understanding—to clarify the choices and to point to paths by which all 

Americans can benefit.
6 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

A m e r i c a ’ s P l a n c h a p t e r 1

c h a p t e r 1 E n d n o t e s 

1 See The Pacific Railroad Act of July 1, 1862 § 5, 12 

Stat. 489, 492–93, available at http://memory.loc.gov/

cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=012/llsl012.

db&recNum=524.

2 See Federal Highway Administration, Eisenhower 

Interstate Highway System—Frequently Asked 

Questions, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/interstate/faq.

htm#question7 (last visited Feb. 12, 2010).

3 Communications Act of 1934, Pub. L. No. 73-416, 48 

Stat. 1064 (codified, as amended, at 47 U.S.C. § 151 et 

seq.).

4 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Pub. 

L. No. 111-5, § 6001(k)(2)(D), 123 Stat. 115, 516 (2009) 

(Recovery Act).

5 See John Horrigan, Broadband Adoption and Use in 

America 13 (OBI Working Paper No. 1, 2010) (Horrigan, 

Broadband Adoption and Use in America) (finding that 

only 67% of households have broadband).

6 See Omnibus Broadband Initiative (OBI), The Broadband

Availability Gap (forthcoming); In general, availability 

of access infrastructure capable of supporting a given 

download speed does not guarantee that service providers 

will offer service at those speeds. Note that these numbers 

do not take into account quality of service.

7 Horrigan, Broadband Adoption and Use in America 

at 33. Since 75% of families have broadband at home, 

25% of families do not. According to the U.S. Bureau 

of the Census, 17.4% of the U.S. population is between 

the ages of 5 and 17. 17.4% of 305 million (total U.S. 

population estimate) is 53 million people. 25% of 

53 million is approximately 13 million. Population 

estimates come from U.S. Census Bureau, 2006–2008 

American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates—Data 

Profile Highlights, http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/

ACSSAFFFacts.

8 Natalie Carlson, National Survey Finds Kids Give 

High Marks to High Speed, Hispanic PRWire (Apr. 

2007), available at http://www.hispanicprwire.com/

generarnews.php?1=in&id=2774&cha=0.

9 See Pew Research Center, Pew Internet & American Life 

Project, Data Sets, June 2003 and March 2007, http://

pewInternet.org/Data-Tools/Download-Data/

Data-Sets.aspx. (see variable BBW, which is the 

percentage of people saying they use broadband at work. 

The calculation compared the number of Americans 

saying they used broadband at work in 2003 to the 

number saying they used broadband at work in 2007.).

10 See Bureau of Labor Stat., Occupational Projections

and Training Data, 2008–2009 Edition (2008), 

available at http://www.bls.gov/emp/optd/optd_archive.

htm (download from link). 

11 Horrigan, Broadband Adoption and Use in America at 5.

12 Cathy Schoen et al., Survey of Primary Care Physicians 

in Eleven Countries, 28 Health Aff. w1171 (2009),

available at http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/

reprint/28/6/w1171?ijkey=46Z9Be2ia7vm6&keytyp

e=ref&siteid=healthaff (requires purchase). Count of 

14 functions includes: (1) electronic medical record; (2, 

3) electronic prescribing and ordering of tests; (4–6) 

electronic access to test results, Rx alerts, and clinical 

notes; (7–10) computerized system for tracking lab 

tests, guidelines, alerts to provide patients with test 

results, and preventive/follow-up care reminders; and 

(11–14) computerized list of patients by diagnosis, by 

medications, and due for tests or preventive care.

13 Richard Hillestad et all., Can Electronic Medical Record 

Systems Transform Healthcare? Potential Health 

Benefits, Savings, and Costs, 24 Health Aff. 1103, 

1103 (Sept./Oct. 2005), available at http://content.

healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/24/5/1103.

14 Pacific Northwest Nat’l Lab. (PNNL), DOE, Smart

Grid: An Estimation of the Energy and CO2 Benefits

(2009), available at http://www.pnl.gov/main/

publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-19112; 

pdf. Emission Facts: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a

Typical Passenger Vehicle (2005) (providing EPA auto 

emission facts), available at http://www.epa.gov/OMS/

climate/420f05004.pdf.

15 Marsha Lovett et al., The Open Learning Initiative: 

Measuring the Effectiveness of the OLI Statistics Course 

in Accelerating Student Learning, J. Interact. Media

in Educ., May 2008, available at http://jime.open.

ac.uk/2008/14/jime-2008-14.pdf; Joel Smith, Vice 

Provost and CIO, Carnegie Mellon Univ., Remarks at 

FCC Education Workshop (Aug. 20, 2009), available 

at http://www.broadband.gov/docs/ws_education/

ws_education_smith.pdf.

16 Richard Fry, Pew Research Center., College

Enrollment Hits All-Time High, Fueled by

Community College Surge (2009), available at http://

pewsocialtrends.org/assets/pdf/college-enrollment.pdf.

17 Brian L. Hawkins & Julia A. Rudy, EDUCAUSE, Fiscal

Year 2007 Summary Report 35/29, available at http://

net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/PUB8005.pdf.

18 Letter from Kathy Martinez, Exec. Director, World 

Inst. on Disability, to Michael J. Copps, FCC Acting 

Chairman, and Commission Members, GN Docket No. 

09-51 (June 1, 2009) at 1–2. 

19 See, e.g., Mitch Waldrop, DARPA and the Internet 

Revolution, in DARPA: 50 Years of Bridging The Gap

83 (2008), available at http://www.darpa.mil/Docs/

Internet_Development_200807180909255.pdf.

20 See, e.g., Amendment of Section 64.702 of the 

Commission’s Rules and Regulations (Second Computer 

Inquiry), Final Decision, 77 F.C.C.2d 384 (1980) 

(regulatorily separating “basic” from “enhanced” 

services to prevent owners of telecommunications 

infrastructure from impeding upon enhanced 

service growth); MTS and WATS Market Structure, 

Memorandum Opinion and Order, 97 F.C.C.2d 682, 

paras. 76–83 (1983) (allowing an exemption for 

access charges for enhanced service providers (ESP)); 

Amendments of Part 69 of the Commission’s Rules 

Relating to Enhanced Service Providers, CC Docket No. 

87-215, Order, 3 FCC Rcd 2631 (1988) (making the ESP 

access charge exemption permanent).

21 Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition 

Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-385, 106 Stat. 1460 (1992) 

(codified at 47 U.S.C. § 533).

22 See Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Pub. 

L. No. 103-66, Title VI, § 6002(b), 107 Stat. 312 (1993) 

(amending the Communications Act of 1934 and 

codified at 47 U.S.C. §§ 153(n), 332(c)(1)).
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 2

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 7

Goals for 

a HighPerformance 

America

c h a p t e r 2

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 2

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 9

The mission of this plan is to create a high-performance America—a more productive, creative, efficient America in which affordable broadband is available everywhere and everyone has 

the means and skills to use valuable broadband applications.

The importance of broadband continues to grow around the 

world. High-performing companies, countries and citizens are 

using broadband in new, more effective ways. Some countries have 

recognized this already and are trying to get ahead of the curve. 

South Korea, Japan, Australia, Sweden, Finland and Germany, 

among others, have already developed broadband plans. 

A high-performance America cannot stand by as other countries charge into the digital era. In the country where the Internet 

was born, we cannot watch passively while other nations lead 

the world in its utilization. We should be the leading exporter of 

broadband technology—high-value goods and services that drive 

enduring economic growth and job creation. And we should be the 

leading user of broadband-enabled technologies that help businesses increase their productivity, help government improve its 

openness and efficiency, and give consumers new ways to communicate, work and entertain themselves.

To ensure we lead the world, this plan addresses the troubling gaps and unrealized opportunities in broadband in 

America by recommending ways federal, state and local governments can unleash private investment, innovation, lower prices 

and better options for consumers. Its recommendations fall 

into four general categories: 

➤ Design policies to ensure robust competition and, as 

a result, maximize consumer welfare, innovation and 

investment. 

➤ Ensure efficient allocation and management of assets 

government controls or influences, such as spectrum, poles, 

and rights-of-way, to encourage network upgrades and 

competitive entry.

➤ Reform current universal service mechanisms to support 

deployment of broadband and voice in high-cost areas; and 

ensure that low-income Americans can afford broadband; and 

in addition, support efforts to boost adoption and utilization. 

➤ Reform laws, policies, standards and incentives to maximize the benefits of broadband in sectors government influences significantly, such as public education, health care 

and government operations. 

Across these categories, this plan offers recommendations 

for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the 

Executive Branch, Congress, states and other parties. But to 

ensure we are on the right path, the country should set longterm goals and benchmarks to chart our progress. The plan 

recommends that the country set the following six goals for 

2020 to serve as a compass over the next decade.

Goal No. 1: At least 100 million U.S. homes should have 

affordable access to actual download speeds of at least 100 

megabits per second and actual upload speeds of at least 50 

megabits per second. 

The United States must lead the world in the number of 

homes and people with access to affordable, world-class broadband connections. As such, 100 million U.S. homes should have 

affordable access to actual download speeds of at least 100 

Mbps and actual upload speeds of at least 50 Mbps by 2020. 

This will create the world’s most attractive market for broadband applications, devices and infrastructure. 

The plan has recommendations to foster competition, drive 

demand for increased network performance and lower the cost 

of deploying infrastructure. These recommendations include 

providing consumers with information about the actual performance of broadband services, reviewing wholesale access 

policies and conducting more thorough data collection to monitor and benchmark competitive behavior. Reforming access to 

rights-of-way can lower the cost of upgrades and entry for all 

firms. Increased spectrum availability and use for backhaul can 

enable more capable wireless networks that will drive wired 

providers to improve network performance and ensure service 

is affordable. 

Government can also help create demand for more broadband by enabling new applications across our most important 

national priorities, including health care, education and 

energy, and by ensuring consumers have full control of their 

personal data. 

As a milestone, by 2015, 100 million U.S. homes should have 

affordable access to actual download speeds of 50 Mbps and 

actual upload speeds of 20 Mbps.

Goal No. 2: The United States should lead the world in 

mobile innovation, with the fastest and most extensive 

wireless networks of any nation.

Mobile broadband is growing at unprecedented rates. From 

smartphones to app stores to e-book readers to remote patient monitoring to tracking goods in transit and more, mobile 

services and technologies are driving innovation and playing 

an increasingly important role in our lives and our economy. 

Mobile broadband is the next great challenge and opportunity 

for the United States. It is a nascent market in which the United 

States should lead.

Spectrum policy is the most important lever government has 

to help ensure wireless and mobile broadband thrive. Efficient 
1 0 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 2

allocation of spectrum consistent with the public interest will 

maximize its value to society. It will lower network deployment 

costs, making it easier for new companies to compete and enabling lower prices, more investment and better performance. 

Today, the FCC has only 50 megahertz of spectrum in the 

pipeline that it can assign for broadband use, just a fraction of 

the amount that will be necessary to match growing demand. As 

a result, companies representing 5% of the U.S. economy asked 

the FCC to make more spectrum available for mobile broadband, saying that “without more spectrum, America’s global 

leadership in innovation and technology is threatened.”1

To achieve this goal of leading the world in mobile broadband, the plan recommends making 500 megahertz of 

spectrum newly available for broadband by 2020, with a benchmark of making 300 megahertz available by 2015. In addition, 

we should ensure greater transparency in spectrum allocation 

and utilization, reserve spectrum for unlicensed use and make 

more spectrum available for opportunistic and secondary uses.

Goal No. 3: Every American should have affordable access 

to robust broadband service, and the means and skills to 

subscribe if they so choose.

Not having access to broadband applications limits an 

individual’s ability to participate in 21st century American 

life. Health care, education and other important aspects of 

American life are moving online. What’s more, government 

services and democratic participation are shifting to digital 

platforms. This plan recommends government use the Internet 

to increase its own transparency and make more of its data 

available online. Getting everyone online will improve civic 

engagement—a topic this plan also addresses by recommending 

a more robust digital public ecosystem.

Three requirements must be satisfied to ensure every 

American can take advantage of broadband. First, every American 

home must have access to network services. Second, every household should be able to afford that service. Third, every American 

should have the opportunity to develop digital skills.

The plan recommends reforming existing support mechanisms to foster deployment of broadband in high-cost areas: 

specifically, the Universal Service Fund and intercarrier 

compensation. The plan outlines a 10-year, three-stage course 

of action to transform these programs to connect those who do 

not have access to adequate broadband infrastructure.2

 Rather 

than add new burdens to the already strained contribution 

base, we must make the tough choice to shift existing support 

that is not advancing public policy goals in order to directly 

focus those resources on communities unserved by broadband.

To promote affordability, this plan also proposes extending 

the Lifeline and Link-Up programs to support broadband. To 

promote digital skills, we need to ensure every American has 

access to relevant, age-appropriate digital literacy education, 

for free, in whatever language they speak, and we neeed to create a Digital Literacy Corps.

Achieving this goal will likely lead to an adoption rate higher 

than 90% by 2020 and reduced differences in broadband adoption among demographic groups.

To the end, government can make broadband more accessible to people with disabilities. It can also work with Tribal 

governments to finally improve broadband deployment and 

adoption on Tribal lands.3

 And it can ensure small businesses—

many of which are owned by women and minorities—have the 

opportunity to purchase broadband service at reasonable rates.

Goal No. 4: Every American community should have affordable access to at least 1 gigabit per second broadband 

service to anchor institutions such as schools, hospitals and 

government buildings.

Schools, libraries and health care facilities must all have the 

connectivity they need to achieve their purposes. This connectivity can unleash innovation that improves the way we learn, 

stay healthy and interact with government. 

If this plan succeeds, every American community will have 

affordable access to far better broadband performance than 

they enjoy today. To do so, the plan makes recommendations 

about reforming the E-rate and the Rural Health Care support 

programs. Second, non-profit and public institutions should 

be able to find efficient alternatives for greater connectivity 

through aggregated efforts.

What’s more, unleashing the power of new broadband applications to solve previously intractable problems will drive new 

connectivity demands. The plan makes numerous recommendations, including reforming incentive structures, licensing and 

data interoperability, to ensure public priorities take advantage 

of the benefits broadband networks, applications and devices 

offer. If they are implemented, demand for connectivity in hospitals, schools, libraries and government buildings will soar.

In some communities, gigabit connectivity may not be 

limited to anchor institutions. Certain applications could 

also require ultra-high-speed connectivity at home. And once 

community anchors are connected to gigabit speeds, it would 

presumably become less expensive and more practical to get 

the same speeds to homes. 

Goal No. 5: To ensure the safety of the American people, 

every first responder should have access to a nationwide, 

wireless, interoperable broadband public safety network.

In June 2004, the 9/11 Commission released its final report 

about events of September 11, 2001. The report found that “the 

inability to communicate was a critical element” at each of the 
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 2

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 1 1

“crash sites, where multiple agencies and multiple jurisdictions 

responded.” They concluded: “Compatible and adequate communications among public safety organizations at the local, 

state, and federal levels remains an important problem.”4

It remains a problem more than five years later. Often, first 

responders from different jurisdictions cannot communicate at 

the scene of an emergency. Federal officials can rarely communicate with state and local officials. Officials from different 

towns and cities have difficulties communicating with each 

other. What’s more, with few exceptions, current networks 

do not take advantage of broadband capability, limiting their 

capacity to transmit data and hindering potential innovations 

in public safety that could save lives.

The country should create a nationwide, wireless, interoperable broadband public safety network by 2020. The network 

should be robust enough to maintain performance in the 

aftermath of a disaster, and should allow every first responder, 

regardless of jurisdiction or agency, to communicate with each 

other and share real-time data over high-speed connections. 

Chapter 16 outlines recommendations to make this goal a reality.

Goal No. 6: To ensure that America leads in the clean 

energy economy, every American should be able to use 

broadband to track and manage their real-time energy 

consumption.

America can no longer rely on fossil fuels and imported oil. 

To improve national security, reduce pollution and increase 

national competitiveness, the United States must lead, not 

follow, in the clean energy economy. Encouraging renewable 

power, grid storage and vehicle electrification are important 

steps to improve American energy independence and energy 

efficiency; to enable these technologies at scale, the country 

will need to modernize the electric grid with broadband and 

advanced communications.

Studies have repeatedly demonstrated that when people get 

feedback on their electricity usage, they make simple behavioral changes that save energy.5

 Real-time data can also inform 

automated thermostats and appliances, allowing consumers to 

save energy and money while helping the country reduce the 

need for expensive new power plants.

Chapter 12 outlines specific recommendations to ensure 

that consumers can use broadband to gain access to and improve their control of their real-time energy information. With 

strong cybersecurity and privacy protections, consumers and 

their authorized third parties should be able to get access to 

real-time usage information from smart meters and historical 

billing information over the Internet. 

Conclusion

To achieve these goals, it is not enough to simply state where 

we wish to be.*

 America needs a plan that creates a process to 

meet these targets and look beyond them. The chapters that 

follow offer specific recommendations to launch that process.

Part I of this plan makes recommendations to ensure 

that America has a world-leading broadband ecosystem for 

both fixed and mobile service. It discusses recommendations to maximize innovation, investment and consumer 

welfare, primarily through competition. It then recommends 

more efficient allocation and management of assets government controls or influences, such as spectrum, poles and 

rights-of-way, to maximize private sector investment and 

facilitate competition. 

Part II makes recommendations to promote inclusion—to 

ensure that all Americans have access to the opportunities 

broadband can provide. These include reforming the Universal 

Service Fund and intercarrier compensation. It also makes recommendations to promote broadband affordability, adoption 

and digital literacy.

Part III makes recommendations to maximize the use of 

broadband to address national priorities. This includes reforming laws, policies and incentives to maximize the benefits 

of broadband in areas where government plays a significant 

role. This part makes recommendations to unleash innovation 

in health care, energy, education, government performance, 

civic engagement, job training, economic development and 

public safety.

Finally, the plan outlines an implementation strategy to 

ensure the country executes these recommendations, creates a 

dynamic process and meets each of the goals outlined here.

Before exploring any of these recommendations further, though, it is important to understand the current state 

of broadband in the United States, which is described in 

Chapter 3.

*

 In Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Welsh rebel Glendower tells his co-conspirator Hotspur: “I can 

call spirits from the vasty deep.” Hotspur responds, “Why, so can I, or so can any man; But 

will they come when you do call for them?” William Shakespeare, Henry IV, pt. I, act 3, sc. 1, 

52–58.
1 2 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 2

c h a p t e r 2 E n d n o t e s 

1 Letter from 21st Century Telecommunications et al., 

Members of the Consumer Electronic Association et al., 

to Chairman Julius Genachowski and Commissioners, 

FCC, GN Docket No. 09-51 (Dec. 2, 2009) at 1 (filed 

by Consumer Electronics Association on behalf of 

115 parties).

2 Omnibus Broadband Initiative, The Broadband

Availability Gap (forthcoming).

3 For the purposes of the plan, “Tribal lands” is defined 

as any federally recognized Tribe’s reservation, pueblo, 

and colony, including former reservations in Oklahoma, 

Alaska Native regions established pursuant to the Alaska 

Native Claims Settlement Act, Pub. L. No. 92-203, 

85 Stat. 688 (1971), and Indian allotments. The term 

“Tribe” means any American Indian or Alaska Native 

Tribe, Band, Nation, Pueblo, Village, or Community, 

which is acknowledged by the Federal government to 

have a government-to-government relationship with 

the United States and is eligible for the programs and 

services established by the United States. See Statement 

of Policy on Establishing a Government-to-Government 

Relationship with Indian Tribes, Policy Statement, 

16 FCC Rcd 4078, 4080 (2000). Thus, “Tribal lands” 

includes American Indian Reservations and Trust Lands, 

Tribal Jurisdiction Statistical Areas, Tribal Designated 

Statistical Areas, and Alaska Native Village Statistical 

Areas, as well as the communities situated on such lands. 

This would also include the lands of Native entities 

receiving Federal acknowledgement or recognition in 

the future.

4 9/11 Comm’n, The 9/11 Commission Report 39 (2004), 

available at http://www.9-11commission.gov/

report/911Report.pdf.

5 Google Comments in re NBP PN #2 (Comment Sought 

on the Implementation of Smart Grid Technology—NBP 

Public Notice #2, GN Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 09-137, 

Public Notice, 24 FCC Rcd 11747 (WCB 2009) (NBP PN 

#2)), filed Oct. 2, 2009, at 4.
A m e r i c a ’ s P l a n c h a p t e r 3

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 1 3

CURRENT STATE

OF THE Broadband 

ECOSYSTEM

c h a p t e r 3

A m e r i c a ’ s P l a n c h a p t e r 3

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 1 5

To see how broadband is transforming American life, walk down a busy street or pay 

a visit to any school, business or airport. Parents on business trips use their smartphones to 

check e-mail or watch short videos of their children playing soccer, hundreds, if not thousands, 

of miles away. Americans work together in real time on complex documents from different 

desks in the same office, and workers in different offices around the world collaborate via 

videoconferencing technology. Sales and field maintenance personnel use mobile devices to 

access inventory information in their businesses, place orders and update records, increasing 

efficiency and productivity. Students draw on the richness of the Internet to research historical events or watch simulations of challenging math problems. People are using broadband in 

ways they could not imagine even a few years ago.

To understand how this transformation will evolve, it is important to understand the forces shaping the broadband ecosystem 

in America today (see Exhibit 3-A).

The broadband ecosystem includes applications and 

content: e-mail, search, news, maps, sales and marketing applications used by businesses, user-generated video and hundreds 

of thousands of more specialized uses. Ultimately, the value of 

broadband is realized when it delivers useful applications and 

content to end-users.

Applications run on devices that attach to the network and allow 

users to communicate: computers, smartphones, set-top boxes, 

e-book readers, sensors, private branch exchanges (PBX), local area 

network routers, modems and an ever-growing list of other devices. 

New devices mean new opportunities for applications and content.

Finally, broadband networks can take multiple forms: wired 

or wireless, fixed or mobile, terrestrial or satellite. Different 

types of networks have different capabilities, benefits and costs. 

The value of being connected to the network increases as 

more people and businesses choose to adopt broadband and 

use applications and devices that the network supports. Several 

factors contribute to their decisions. These include whether 

they can afford a connection, whether they are comfortable 

with digital technology and whether they believe broadband is 

useful. 

Networks, devices and applications drive each other in a 

virtuous cycle. If networks are fast, reliable and widely available, companies produce more powerful, more capable devices 

to connect to those networks. These devices, in turn, encourage 

innovators and entrepreneurs to develop exciting applications 

and content. These new applications draw interest among endusers, bring new users online and increase use among those 

who already subscribe to broadband services. This growth in 

Exhibit 3-A:

Forces Shaping the 

Broadband Ecosystem 

in the United States

Adoption and

utilization

Fixed and mobile

Consumers, business,

government

Applications

Networks

Devices
1 6 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

A m e r i c a ’ s P l a n c h a p t e r 3

the broadband ecosystem reinforces the cycle, encouraging 

service providers to boost the speed, functionality and reach of 

their networks.

While the explosive growth in the use of broadband suggests 

that many aspects of the American broadband ecosystem are 

healthy, there are many ways America can do better.

3.1 APPLICATIONS

Users benefit directly from the applications and content they 

access through broadband networks. Applications help people 

purchase products, search for jobs, interact with government 

agencies and find information related to their health.1

 Users 

also spend considerable time using broadband for banking, 

shopping, entertainment, social networking and communication (see Exhibit 3-B).2

Home broadband use has increased from roughly 1 hour 

per month in 1995, to more than 15 hours per month in 2000, 

to almost 29 hours per month today, as consumers find more 

valuable applications and content online.4 Increased hours of 

use are correlated with increased actual speeds of broadband 

connections to the home.5

 As connection speeds have grown 

and more applications have been developed, the amount of 

data consumers download has increased. Today, the average 

Internet user with a fixed connection consumes 9 gigabytes of 

data per month over that connection. But that consumption 

varies significantly across user types, with some heavy users 

consuming upwards of 1,000 GB or more each month. Total 

data use per fixed residential connection is growing quickly, by 

roughly 30% annually.6

Almost two-thirds of the time users spend online is focused 

on communication, information searching, entertainment or 

social networking.7

 However, use patterns vary significantly. 

Except for high-definition video, most applications in use today 

can be supported by actual download speeds of about 1 Mbps 

(see Exhibit 3-C).

Broadband applications are helping businesses improve 

internal productivity and reach customers. Many businesses 

use at least basic applications: 97% of small businesses use 

e-mail; 74% have a company website.8

 There is evidence that 

broadband applications may improve individual companies’ 

productivity.9 Though gains vary drastically depending on the 

size and type of firm, as well as breadth of implementation, 

broadband-based applications may allow faster product development cycles, access to new geographic markets, and more 

efficient business processes and allocation of resources.

These productivity gains benefit the entire economy. 

Investment in information and communications technologies 

accounted for almost two-thirds of all economic growth attributed to capital investment in the United States between 1995 

and 2005.10

Businesses also find it valuable to collect and aggregate information derived from use of broadband applications. More sophisticated 

digital profiles of Internet users allow businesses to better understand user buying patterns. This information is also useful for 

advertising or other purposes. Businesses are creating services 

tailored to individual consumers that improve their health, help them 

reduce their carbon footprint, track students’ educational progress 

and target appeals for charitable, social and political causes.

Businesses often use broadband in ways that are fundamentally different from how consumers use it. For example, 

high-capacity broadband service is often used to connect PBX’s 

for business voice and local area networks. These mission 

critical uses require broadband service with business-grade 

performance and customer support levels.

Exhibit 3-B:

Percentage of Home 

Broadband Users Who 

Have Ever Engaged 

in Selected Online 

Activities3

% of home broadband users who have ever engaged in activity

Bought a product online

Submitted a review for a product or service

Used a social networking site

Got advice from gov’t about health/safety issue

Downloaded or streamed music

Uploaded or shared content

Played games online

Downloaded or streamed video

Posted to own blog or group blog

Took a class online

Played complicated role playing game online

Got information about or applied for a job

Did any banking online

Got international or national news

Visited a local, state or federal gov’t website

Got local or community news

83

80

79

77

69

60

55

55

54

52

48

48

42

26

24

14
A m e r i c a ’ s P l a n c h a p t e r 3

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 1 7

Both consumers and businesses are turning to applications and content that use video. Video is quickly becoming an 

important element of many applications, including desktop 

videoconference calls between family members and online 

training applications for businesses. Cisco forecasts that video 

consumption on fixed and mobile networks will grow at over 

40% and 120% per year, respectively, through 2013.11

User-generated video and entertainment—from sites such as 

YouTube and Hulu—are a large portion of the total video traffic 

over broadband connections. Increasingly, video is embedded 

in traditional websites, such as news sites, and in applications 

such as teleconferencing. Skype reports that video calls account for over one-third of its total calls, and that number is 

growing rapidly.12

Video, television (TV) and broadband are converging in the 

home and on mobile handsets. The presence of broadband connections and TVs in the home could facilitate the development 

of a new medium for accessing the Web and watching video content. Traditional, or “linear,” television still accounts for more 

than 90% of all time spent watching video.13 Video consumed 

over the Internet still represents a small portion of overall video 

consumption at less than 2% of all time spent viewing.

Broadband-enabled video could grow as more innovative 

and user-friendly devices reach the home, allowing access to 

both traditional linear and Internet content via the TV.

Cloud computing—accessing applications from the Internet 

instead of on one’s own computer—is also growing as more 

companies migrate to hosted solutions. Software based in 

the cloud may allow more small businesses and consumers 

to access applications that were once only available to large 

corporations with sophisticated information technology departments in the applications and content markets.

There are several issues that are important for the development of applications and content. 

Illegal distribution of copyright-protected content over the 

Internet continues to be an issue. Although there have been 

promising results from technologies such as content fingerprinting and from industry-led initiatives to develop guidelines 

for dealing with illegal content, piracy is still present in the 

broadband ecosystem.14

Increased use of personal data raises material privacy and 

security concerns. Almost half of all consumers have concerns 

about online privacy and security, which may limit their adoption or use of broadband.15 Better security and more control 

over private information may trigger a more robust applications market.

By making more of its information freely available, government can make it easier for companies to develop applications 

and content. The Global Positioning System (GPS) industry 

was born after the U.S. Department of Defense opened its fleet 

Exhibit 3-C:

Actual Download 

Speeds Necessary to Run 

Concurrent Applications 

(Mbps)

8

6

4

2

0

Utility Full media

+

Latency

 Multimedia

 Types of Users

1.0

0.5

4.0

7.0

Advanced

+

Upload, Latency, Jitter, etc.

= Non-real-time

= Near-real-time

= Real-time

Streamed SD

classroom

lecture

2-way

video

teleconference

Browsing

E-mail Browsing

E-mail

YouTube video

Browsing

E-mail

Browsing

E-mail
1 8 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

A m e r i c a ’ s P l a n c h a p t e r 3

of GPS navigational satellites to the public and the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration made public its satellite data.16 More recently, Sunlight Labs sponsored Apps for 

America, a competition to build useful applications with federal government data available on Data.gov. One application was 

FlyOnTime.us, which gives average flight delay information by 

airline and between U.S. cities.17 Moving forward, government 

information can unleash additional new applications that help 

drive the growth of the broadband ecosystem.

3.2 DEVICES

Devices continue to grow in number and variety as more computers, phones and other machines connect to the Internet. 

New devices have repeatedly revolutionized the personal 

computer (PC) market in the past three decades. Today, about 

80% of U.S. households have some sort of personal computer.18

Although desktops initially dominated the market, 74% of all 

new personal computers sold today are laptops.19 Many predict 

that, over the next 5 years, growth in the netbook and tablet 

markets will far outpace growth in the traditional PC market.20

The mobile phone market has also seen robust innovation. 

There were more than 850 different certified mobile products in 

the United States in 2009.21 In that same year, approximately 172 

million mobile phones were sold in the United States. Of these, 

27% were Internet-capable smartphones manufactured by a wide 

variety of firms, including Apple, HTC, LG, Motorola, Nokia, 

Palm, RIM, Samsung and Sony-Ericsson. Analysts expect smartphone sales to overtake standard mobile phone sales soon.22

Countless other Internet-capable devices come to the market each year. Companies are building smart appliances that 

notify owners of maintenance issues over broadband networks 

and communicate with the electric grid to run at off-peak hours 

when prices are lowest. E-book readers deliver books almost 

instantly to consumers anytime and anywhere, often at lower 

prices than traditional editions. Devices monitor patients at 

home and wirelessly transmit data to doctors’ offices, so problems can be identified before they become too serious.

Devices already are starting to communicate with each 

other, keeping humans out of the loop. Increasing machineto-machine (M2M) interaction will occur over the network, 

particularly for mobile broadband. A pioneering example of 

machine-to-machine communication for consumer use is 

General Motors’ OnStar, an M2M system for automobiles 

in which an onboard sensor automatically notifies OnStar’s 

network if there is an accident or system failure.23 M2M 

communications are used in many industries, often to collect 

information from sensors deployed remotely. For example, 

devices tracking the heart rate or blood-sugar level of patients 

with chronic conditions can transmit the information to a 

monitoring station that will trigger an alarm for a nurse or doctor where an abnormal pattern is detected. Networked sensors 

in a power plant can collect and transmit data on how generators are operating, to allow analysis by sophisticated predictive 

methods that will diagnose potential faults and schedule preventive maintenance automatically.

The emergence and adoption of new technologies such as 

radiofrequency identification and networked micro-electromechanical sensors, among others, will give rise to the “Internet of 

Things.” Billions of objects will be able to carry and exchange 

information with humans and with other objects, becoming more 

useful and versatile. For example, the Internet of Things will likely 

create whole new classes of devices that connect to broadband, 

and has the potential to generate fundamentally different requirements on the fixed and mobile networks: they will require more 

IP addresses, will create new traffic patterns possibly demanding changes in Internet routing algorithms, and potentially drive 

demand for more spectrum for wireless communications.

Significant competition and innovation exist for most classes of devices that interact with broadband networks. But one 

class of devices has not faced substantial competition in recent 

years: the television set-top box. The Telecommunications Act 

of 1996 contained provisions designed to stimulate competition 

and innovation in set-top boxes. Two years later, the FCC, in 

partnership with industry, developed the CableCARD standard 

to incent competition in the set-top box market.24 Yet by 2008, 

two manufacturers shared 92% of the market, up from 87% in 

2006.25 Only 11 set-top boxes have been certified for retail sale, 

in contrast to the more than 850 unique handsets that were 

certified to operate on mobile networks in 2009 alone.26 In 

addition, 97% of CableCARD-deployed set-top boxes installed 

between July 2007 and November 2009 were leased from operators rather than purchased at retail.27

Set-top boxes are an important part of the broadband ecosystem. An estimated 39 million set-top boxes were shipped in the 

United States in 2007 and 2008 combined.28 The lack of innovation 

in set-top boxes limits what consumers can do and their choices to 

consume video, and the emergence of new uses and applications. 

It may also be inhibiting business models that could serve as a 

powerful driver of adoption and utilization of broadband, such as, 

models that integrate traditional television and the Internet.

3.3 NETWORKS

Network service providers are an important part of the 

American economy. The 10 largest providers have combined 

annual revenue of more than $350 billion and annual capital 

investments in excess of $50 billion.29 These investments have 
A m e r i c a ’ s P l a n c h a p t e r 3

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 1 9

Exhibit 3-D:

Availability of 4 Mbps-Capable Broadband Networks in the United States by County36

-70∞

-80∞

-80∞

-90∞

-90∞

-100∞

-100∞

-110∞

-110∞

-120∞

-130∞ -120∞

40∞

40∞

30∞

30∞

-150∞

-150∞

-160∞

-180∞ -170∞ -160∞

-140∞ -130∞

70∞ 60∞

50∞

-160∞

20∞

Percent of homes with broadband available by county

0%-5%

6%-10%

11%-20%

21%-30%

31%-40%

41%-50%

51%-60%

61%-70%

71%-80%

81%-90%

91%-95%

96%-100%

Alaska Hawaii

Conterminous United States 

Legend

125

62 5 125

0 250

0 250

Miles

500 750 1000

250 500 1000
2 0 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

A m e r i c a ’ s P l a n c h a p t e r 3

led to the deployment of multiple networks that today bring 

fixed and mobile broadband to end-users via the telephone, 

cable television, satellite and third-generation (3G) and fourthgeneration (4G) mobile networks.

Terrestrial Fixed Broadband Availability

Today, 290 million Americans—95% of the U.S. population—

live in housing units30 with access to terrestrial, fixed broadband 

infrastructure capable of supporting actual download speeds of 

at least 4 Mbps.31 Of those, more than 80% live in markets with 

more than one provider capable of offering actual download 

speeds of at least 4 Mbps.32 Meanwhile, 14 million people in the 

United States living in 7 million housing units do not have access 

to terrestrial broadband infrastructure capable of this speed.33

Although housing units without access to terrestrial broadband 

capable of 4 Mbps download speeds exist throughout the country, they are more common in rural areas (see Exhibit 3-D).34

Businesses and community anchor institutions are often 

served by broadband. Ninety-six percent of all business locations have access to Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) service, and 

92% have access to cable broadband service.35 In addition, 99% 

of all health care locations with physicians have access to actual 

download speed of at least 4 Mbps (see Exhibit 3-D). Finally, 

97% of schools are connected to the Internet,37 many supported by the federal E-rate connectivity programs. But crucial 

gaps exist: More than 50% of teachers say slow or unreliable 

Internet access presents obstacles to their use of technology in 

classrooms,38 and only 71% of rural health clinics have access 

to mass-market broadband solutions.39 Further, many business locations, schools and hospitals often have connectivity 

requirements that cannot be met by mass-market DSL, cable 

modems, satellite or wireless offers, and must buy dedicated 

high-capacity circuits such as T-1 or Gigabit Ethernet service. 

The availability and price of such circuits vary greatly across 

different geographies, and many businesses and anchor institutions face challenges acquiring the connectivity to support 

their needs.

Typical advertised broadband speeds that consumers purchase have grown approximately 20% each year. This growth 

has been driven by a shift in consumer preferences to faster, 

more advanced technologies, improved performance of different technologies and large investments by service providers in 

network upgrades.40

Both telephone and cable companies continue to upgrade 

their networks to offer higher speeds and greater capacities. 

Many have announced specific upgrades. For example, Verizon 

plans to pass over 17 million homes by the end of 2010 with its 

FiOS fiber-to-the-premises (FTTP) service, three million more 

than today.41 AT&T has announced it will build fiber-to-thenode (FTTN) infrastructure to serve 30 million homes by 2011, 

11 million more than today. In addition, many smaller companies plan to aggressively build FTTP networks. If the targets in 

these public announcements are met, at least 50 million homes 

will be able to receive peak download speeds of 18 Mbps or 

more from their telephone company within the next 2 years.42

Cable companies have also announced that over the next 

2–3 years they will upgrade their networks to DOCSIS 3.0 

technology, which is capable of maximum download speeds of 

more than 50 Mbps. One analyst predicts that by 2013, leading 

cable companies will cover 100% of the homes they pass with 

DOCSIS 3.0. The top five cable companies currently pass 103 

million housing units, or about 80% of the country’s homes.43

As noted in a recent report from the Columbia Institute for 

Tele-Information (CITI), history suggests that service providers will meet these announced targets. So it is likely that 90% 

of the country will have access to advertised peak download 

Exhibit 3-E:

Announced Upgrades 

to the U.S. Fixed 

Broadband Network 

(Millions of households 

covered)51

Companies 2009 2010 2011

FTTP

• Verizon 

• Cincinnati Bell

• Tier 3 ILECs

• All providers 

(17.2 million–Sept)

• Verizon FiOS 

(14.5 million–June)

• Verizon FiOS 

(17 million)

FTTN

• AT&T

• Qwest

• Qwest (3 million) • Qwest (5 million) • AT&T U-verse 

(30 million)

DOCSIS 3.0

• Comcast

• Cablevision

• Cox

• Knology

• Time Warner

• Charter

• Mediacom

• RCN

• Comcast (40 million)

• Charter (St. Louis)

• Mediacom 

(50% of footprint)

• Knology (50% of footprint)

• RCN (begin deployment)

• Comcast (50 million)

• Cablevision 

(entire footprint)

• Cox (entire footprint)

• Time Warner 

(New York City) 

• Knology 

(entire footprint)
A m e r i c a ’ s P l a n c h a p t e r 3

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 2 1

speeds of more than 50 Mbps by 2013.44 The affordability and 

actual performance of these networks will depend on many factors such as usage patterns, investment in infrastructure, and 

service take-up rates.

However, these major announced buildouts target areas 

already served by broadband. It is unlikely there will be a significant change in the number of unserved Americans based on 

planned upgrades over the next few years, although some small 

companies may upgrade their networks to support broadband 

in currently unserved areas. 

The performance of fixed broadband connections is often 

advertised in terms of maximum “up to” download and upload 

speeds. For example, an end-user with a connection for which 

download speeds are “up to 8 Mbps” can expect to reach 8 Mbps 

download speeds, but not necessarily reach and sustain that speed 

all or even most of the time. Data show that actual speeds experienced by end-users differ considerably from the “up to” speeds 

advertised by service providers. This distinction is important 

because it is the actual experience of the consumer (not theoretical technical capabilities) that enables or limits the use of different 

applications by end-users.

Estimates of the average advertised “up to” download speed 

that Americans currently purchase range from 6.7 Mbps to 9.6 

Mbps,45 with the most detailed data showing an average of approximately 8 Mbps and a median of approximately 7 Mbps.46 As noted, 

the average advertised speed purchased by broadband users has 

grown approximately 20% each year for the last decade. Upload 

speeds are significantly lower, as the advertised “up to” upload 

speed typically is closer to 1.0 Mbps.47

However, the actual experienced speeds for both downloads 

and uploads are materially lower than the advertised speeds. 

Data indicates the average actual download speed in American 

households for broadband is 4 Mbps (median actual is 3.1 

Mbps) (see Exhibit 3-G).48 Therefore, the actual download 

speed experienced on broadband connections in American 

households is approximately 40–50% of the advertised “up to” 

speed to which they subscribe. The same data suggest that for 

upload speeds, actual performance is approximately 45% of the 

“up to” advertised speed (closer to 0.5 Mbps).

Actual download speeds vary by technology as well.50 While 

median actual download speeds for fiber and cable are 5–6 Mbps, 

median actual download speeds for DSL are 1.5–2 Mbps, and 

under 1 Mbps for satellite (see Exhibit 3-F). Despite this variation 

in performance across technologies, on a percentage basis, the 

gap between advertised and actual speeds experienced by consumers is consistent and prevalent across all types of connection 

technologies.52

This performance gap between advertised “up to” speeds 

and actual performance is consistent with reports published 

in a number of other countries. A study in the United Kingdom 

Exhibit 3-F:

Timeline of Fixed 

Broadband Industry 

Network Upgrades49

Comcast

Cablevision

Cox

Century Link

Clearwire

Knology

Qwest

AT&T

Verizon 

Hughes

WildBlue

FiOS Fiber FiOS Fiber

Fiber (FTTN)

U-Verse Fiber*

BB CapEx

4G*

Cable CapEx

DOCSIS 3.0 DOCSIS 3.0*

DOCSIS 3.0

DOCSIS 3.0

DOCSIS 3.0*

Satellite

Satellite

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Announced Timeline Late Early Project Goal * Project Ongoing

Exhibit 3-G:

Advertised Versus Actual U.S. Fixed Broadband Residential 

Download Speeds (Mbps)

8

6

4

2

0

8.0

Median Actual

Download Speed

Average:

Median Advertised

Download Speed

7.0

3.1

4.1
2 2 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

A m e r i c a ’ s P l a n c h a p t e r 3

Exhibit 3-H:

Announced Upgrades 

to the U.S. Mobile 

Broadband Network 

(Persons covered)68

Technology Companies 2009 2010 2011 By 2013

LTE • Verizon

• AT&T

• MetroPCS

• Cox

• Verizon 

(100 million)

• AT&T (trials)

• AT&T 

(start deployment)

• Cox 

(start deployment)

• MetroPCS 

(start deployment)

• Verizon 

(entire network)

WiMAX • Clearwire

• Open Range

• Small wireless 

Internet service 

providers (WISPs)

• Clearwire 

(30 million)

• WISPs (2 million)

• Clearwire 

(120 million)

• Open Range

(6 million)

found that average actual speeds were typically about 57% of 

average advertised speeds.53 Studies in New Zealand, Australia, 

Italy and Ireland have shown similar results.54

Mobile Broadband Availability

As of November 2009, according to data from American 

Roamer, 3G service covers roughly 60% of U.S. land mass.55 In 

addition, approximately 77% of the U.S. population lived in an 

area served by three or more 3G service providers, 12% lived 

in an area served by two, and 9% lived in an area served by one. 

About 2% lived in an area with no provider.56

These measures likely overstate the coverage actually 

experienced by consumers, since American Roamer reports 

advertised coverage as reported by many carriers who all use 

different definitions of coverage. In addition, these measures 

do not take into account other factors such as signal strength, 

bitrate or in-building coverage, and may convey a false sense of 

consistency across geographic areas and service providers.57 As 

with fixed broadband, most areas without mobile broadband 

coverage are in rural or remote areas. In fact, 3G build out is 

significantly lower in several states—in West Virginia, only 71% 

of the population has 3G coverage and in Alaska only 77% have 

coverage.58

Additionally, American Roamer also suggests that 98% of 

businesses have 3G coverage today, although the data have 

similar limitations regarding signal strength, bitrate and 

in-building coverage.59 While most businesses have wireless 

broadband coverage,60 nearly 9% of rural business sites still do 

not have access, compared to less than 1% of business sites in 

urban or suburban areas.61 Finally, while a business location 

may have coverage, the value in mobile broadband comes when 

employees can access applications everywhere, which limits 

the importance of this particular coverage metric.

Several operators have announced upgrades to 4G broadband networks. CITI notes that by 2013, Verizon Wireless 

plans to roll out Long Term Evolution (LTE)—a 4G mobile 

broadband technology—to its entire footprint, which currently 

covers more than 285 million people.62 AT&T has announced 

it will test LTE in 2010 and begin rollout in 2011. Through its 

partnership with Clearwire, Sprint plans to use WiMAX as its 

4G technology. WiMAX has been rolled out in a few markets 

already, and Clearwire plans to cover 120 million people with 

WiMAX by the end of 2010.63

Mobile broadband network availability will change rapidly 

because of these deployments. Improved spectral efficiencies and significantly lower network latencies are some of the 

features of 4G networks that could lead to a better mobile 

broadband experience. For example, the spectral efficiency of 

mobile broadband networks could improve by over 50% with 

a transition from early 3G networks to 4G, while improvements relative to state-of-the-art 3G networks are likely to be a 

more modest 10–30%.64 The extent to which the effect of these 

advances are reflected in users’ experiences will depend on a 

variety of factors, including the total amount of spectrum dedicated to mobile broadband and the availability of high-speed 

backhaul connections from cellular sites.65

Evaluating network availability and performance is much 

harder for mobile than for fixed broadband. For instance, the quality of the signal depends on how far the user is from the cell tower, 

and how many users are using the network at the same time. 

Therefore, the fact that users are in the coverage area of a 3G network does not mean they will get broadband-quality performance. 

Still, as with fixed broadband, it is clear that the speeds experienced on mobile broadband networks are generally less than 

advertised. Actual average download speeds have been reported 

to be as low as 245 kbps, while speeds in excess of 600 kbps are 

advertised. Actual average upload speeds as low as 106 kbps have 

been reported, versus advertised rates of 220 kbps or higher.66

Both mobile network performance and the availability of 

mobile broadband rely on the availability of spectrum. Carriers 

and other broadband-related companies agree that more 

spectrum will be needed to maintain robust, high-performing 

wireless broadband networks in the near future.67
A m e r i c a ’ s P l a n c h a p t e r 3

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 2 3

Exhibit 3-I: 

Broadband Adoption 

by American Adults by 

Socio-Economic and 

Demographic Factors

Hispanic*

49

Black

59

White

69

18–29

65+

35

50–64

64

30–49

75 74

$40–75K

84

$75K +

93

$20–40K

59

Less than $20K

40

College +

86

Some college

77

High school graduate

55

Less than high school

24

Rural

50

Non Rural

68

50

40

30

20

100

70

10

0

*Hispanics includes both English and Spanish-speaking Hispanics

American adults

60

80

90

3.4 ADOPTION AND

UTILIZATION

Nearly two-thirds of American adults have adopted broadband 

at home. While adoption likely will continue to increase, different demographic groups adopt at significantly different rates 

(see Exhibit 3-I). For example, only 40% of adults making less 

than $20,000 per year have adopted terrestrial broadband at 

home, while 93% of adults earning more than $75,000 per year 

have adopted broadband at home (see Exhibit 3-H). Only 24% 

of those with less than a high school degree, 35% of those older 

than 65, 59% of African Americans and 49% of Hispanics have 

adopted broadband at home.69 Among people with disabilities, 

who face distinctive barriers to using broadband, only 42% 

have adopted.70 Those living on Tribal lands have very low 

adoption rates, mainly due to a lack of available infrastructure. 

What little data exist on broadband deployment in Tribal lands 

suggest that fewer than 10% of residents on Tribal lands have 

terrestrial broadband available.71

While it is important to respect the choices of those who 

prefer not to be connected, the different levels of adoption 

across demographic groups suggest that other factors influence 

the decision not to adopt. Hardware and service are too expensive for some. Others lack the skills to use broadband.

Broadband adoption among businesses, by contrast, is quite 

strong: Ninety-five percent of America’s small and mediumsized businesses have adopted broadband.72 Only 10% of small 

businesses are planning to upgrade to a faster Internet connection in the next 12 months.73

Subsequent chapters address adoption as well as the other 

elements of the broadband ecosystem that can help ensure 

America captures the full promise of broadband.
2 4 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

A m e r i c a ’ s P l a n c h a p t e r 3

c h a p t e r 3 E n d n o t e s 

1 John Horrigan, Broadband Adoption and Use in America

16 (OBI, Working Paper No. 1, 2010) (Horrigan, 

Broadband Adoption and Use in America).

2 comScore, Inc., Jan.–June 2009 Consumer Usage 

database (sampling 200,000 machines for user Web 

surfing habits) (on file with the Commission) 

(comScore database).

3 Horrigan, Broadband Adoption and Use in America at 16.

4 Nielsen Company, Viewership on the Rise as More

Video Content Spans All Three Screens, A2/M2 Three

Screen Report 2 (2Q 2009) (Nielsen, Viewership on the

Rise), available at http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/

wp-content/uploads/2009/09/3ScreenQ209_US_

rpt_090209.pdf; Lee Rainie & Dan Packel, Pew Internet

& Am. Life Project, More Online, Doing More 3 (2001), 

available at http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media/

Files/Reports/2001/PIP_Changing_Population.pdf.pdf

(last visited Feb. 19, 2009); see also Omnibus Broadband

Initiative, Broadband Performance, (forthcoming) 

(OBI, Broadband Performance).

5 comScore database.

6 comScore database; see alsoOBI, Broadband

Performance; Cisco Sys., Cisco VisualNetworking Index: 

Forecast andMethodology, 2008–2013, at 4 (2009) 

(Cisco, VisualNetworking Index), available at http://www.

cisco.com/en/US/solutions/collateral/ns341/ns525/

ns537/ns705/ns827/white_paper_c11-481360.pdf; Letter 

from Craig Mundie, Chief Research & Strategy Officer, et 

al., Microsoft Corp., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, 

GN Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 09-137 (Sept. 22, 2009) at 

3; University of Minnesota, Minnesota Internet Traffic 

Studies (MINTS), http://www.dtc.umn.edu/mints/home.

php (last visited Feb. 19, 2009).

7 comScore database.

8 FCC, National Broadband Plan Survey of Businesses, 

Dec. 9, 2009–Jan. 31, 2010 (FCC, NBP Survey of

Businesses), http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/

view?id=6015536973.

9 Cisco Sys., Cisco IT Executive Presentation: 

TelePresence 6 (3Q 2009), available at http://www.

cisco.com/web/about/ciscoitatwork/downloads/

ciscoitatwork/pdf/TelePresence_White.pdf.

10 Dale Jorgenson et al., Industry Origins of the American 

Productivity Resurgence, 19 Econ. Sys. Res. 229–52 

(2007).

11 See Cisco, Visual Networking Index 4; cisco Sys. Cisco

Visual Networking Index: Global Mobile Data Traffic

Forecast Update, 2009–2014, at 1 (2009), available at

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/solutions/collateral/

ns341/ns525/ns537/ns705/ns827/white_paper_cll520862.pdf.

12 Stevie Smith, Skype 4.0 Looks to Expand Video Calling, 

Tech Herald, June 18, 2008, http://www.thetechherald.

com/article.php/200825/1273/Skype-4-0-looksto-expand-video-calling; Shamila Janakiraman, 

Skype Supports Video Calls on PCs and Embeds Skype 

Software in HDTVs, TMCnet.com, Jan. 6, 2010, http://

voip-phone-systems.tmcnet.com/topics/voip-phonesystems/articles/72051-skype-supports-video-calls-pcsembeds-skype-software.htm.

13 Nielsen, Viewership on the Rise 2; Ctr. for Media

Design, Nielsen, Video Consumer Mapping Study (2009) 

(Nielsen, Video Consumer Mapping Study).

14 Letter from Susan L. Fox, Vice Pres. of Gov’t Relations, 

Disney, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN 

Docket No. 09-91, WC Docket No. 07-52 (Dec. 11, 2009) 

at 1.

15 Horrigan, Broadband Adoption and Use in America at 17.

16 RAND Corp., The Global Positioning System, App. B—

GPS History, Chronology, and Budgets 247–49 (1995), 

available at http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_

reports/MR614/MR614.appb.pdf.

17 Sunlight Labs, Apps for America 2: The Data.gov Challenge, 

http://sunlightlabs.com/contests/appsforamerica2/ (last 

visited Feb. 19, 2010); FlyOnTime.us, http://flyontime.us

(last visited Feb. 19, 2010).

18 See Consumer Elec. Ass’n, US Consumer Electronics

Sales & Forecasts 2005–2010, at 33 (2010) (CEA, 

Electronics Sales & Forecasts) (87 percent); Niki

Scevak, Forrester Research, Inc., Forrester Research

Online Population Access and Demographic Model

(2010) (81 percent); Horrigan, Broadband Adoption and 

Use in America at 13 (79 percent).

19 CEA, Electronics Sales & Forecasts 33.

20 CEA, Electronics Sales & Forecasts 33 (“Netbooks will 

overtake all other notebooks by 2011”); Goldman Sachs, 

Adobe Systems Inc. (ADBE) PCRefresh Beneficiary 15 

(2009) (citing forecast of about 50 million units by 2013).

21 Number calculated using Commission data. See Office 

of Engineering and Technology, FCC, Equipment 

Authorization Search, https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/oetcf/

eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm (last visited Feb. 22, 

2010). The data represents applications for grants 

issued for new FCC IDs for equipment class parameters 

“PCE-PCS Licensed Transmitter held to ear” and “TNELicensed Non-Broadcast Transmitter Held to Ear.” Data 

does not include applications for permissive changes and 

counts multiple entries for the same FCC ID only once.

22 CarolinaMilanesi et al., Gartner, Inc., Forecast: Mobile

Devices, Worldwide, 2003–2013, attab 2 (Devices) (2009). 

We took the information from column L (2012 year), 

added rows 40 (Basic Phones) and 41 (Enhanced Phones) 

together (95 million) and compared the number with the 

number received when rows 43 (Smart Phones—Entry 

Level) and 44 (Smart Phone—Feature) are added together 

(109 million). This plan contains several references to 

Gartner. The Gartner Report(s) described herein, (the 

“Gartner Report(s)”) represent(s) data, research opinion or 

viewpoints published, as part of a syndicated subscription 

service, by Gartner, Inc. (“Gartner”), and are not 

representations of fact. Each Gartner Report speaks as of 

its original publication date and the opinions expressed in 

the Gartner Report(s) are subject to change without notice.

23 See OnStar Explained, http://www.onstar.com/us_

english/jsp/explore/index.jsp (last visited Mar. 1, 2010) 

(discussing OnStar).

24 Section 629 covers equipment used to receive video 

programming—including cable set-top boxes, televisions, 

and DVRs—as well as equipment used to receive other 

services offered over MVPD systems, including cable 

modems. See 47 U.S.C. § 549 (codifying section 629 of 

the Telecommunications Act of 1996); Implementation 

of Section 304 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; 

Commercial Availability of Navigation Devices, CS Docket 

No. 97-80, Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 14775 (1998).

25 Dell’Oro Group Inc., Set-top Box Report 3Q09,

at 89 (2009). Combined market shares for the two 

manufacturers (Motorola and Cisco) were 87% (2006), 

86% (2007), and 92% (2008). See id.

26 Cf. CableLabs, Certified, Verified and Self-Verified Cable 

Products, http://www.cablelabs.com/opencable/udcp/

downloads/OC_PNP.pdf (Aug. 26, 2009) (reporting 11 

certified set-top boxes), with supra note 22 (calculating 

850 wireless devices).

27 Letter from Neal M. Goldberg, Vice Pres. and Gen. 

Counsel, National Cable & Telecommunications 

Association, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, CS 

Docket No. 97-80 (Dec. 22, 2009) at 1 (presenting report 

detailing CableCARD deployment and support).

28 Dell’Oro Group Inc., Set-top Box Report 2Q09 at 89

(2009).

29 These numbers include estimates for 4Q09. See

Goldman Sachs, Telecom/Pay TV Industry Model 23–25 

(2009).

30 Housing units are distinct from households. “A housing 

unit is a house, an apartment, a mobile home, a group of 

rooms, or a single room that is occupied (or if vacant, is 

intended for occupancy) as separate living quarters.” U.S. 

Census Bureau, Households, Persons Per Household, 

and Households with Individuals Under 18 Years, 2000 

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/meta/long_71061.htm 

(last visited Feb. 28, 2010). In contrast, “A household 

includes all the persons who occupy a housing unit. . . . 

The occupants may be a single family, one person living 

alone, two or more families living together, or any other 

group of related or unrelated persons who share living 

arrangements.” Id. There are 130.5 million housing units 

and 111.7 million households in the United States. U.S. 

Census Bureau, Census Bureau Reports on Residential 

Vacancies and Homeownership (press release), Feb. 2, 

2010, at 3 tbl. 3, http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/

housing/hvs/qtr409/files/q409press.pdf (Census 

Bureau, Residential Vacancies and Homeownership). 

Unoccupied housing units (the difference between 

the count of households and of housing units) include 

housing units vacant for sale or rent and those for 

occasional, temporary or seasonal use.

31 See OBI, Broadband Performance, The Broadband

Availability Gap (forthcoming) (OBI, The Broadband

Availability Gap).

32 See OBI, The Broadband Availability Gap. Note 

that this figure represents the capability of existing 

infrastructure, not current service offerings.

33 See OBI, The Broadband Availability Gap. Seven million 

housing units without access to 4 Mbps terrestrial 

service are outside the cable footprint and are more than 

approximately 11,000 feet from the nearest DSLAM 

location; 6 million housing units with 12 million people 

do not have access to any always-on service with actual 

download speeds of 768 Kbps or higher as they are 

more than approximately 16,000 feet from the nearest 

DSLAM. Note that the analysis excludes satellite 

broadband because satellite capacity is limited, as 
A m e r i c a ’ s P l a n c h a p t e r 3

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 2 5

c h a p t e r 3 E n d n o t e s 

discussed in the working paper.

34 See OBI, The Broadband Availability Gap. In general, 

availability of access infrastructure capable of 

supporting a given download speed does not guarantee 

that service providers will offer service at those speeds. 

Note that these numbers do not take into account quality 

of service.

35 See OBI, The Broadband Availability Gap. Coverage 

reflects access at download speeds consistent with 

residential discussion; it does not necessarily reflect 

access to business-class broadband services.

36 See OBI, The Broadband Availability Gap; National Atlas 

of the United States, 2005-06, County Boundaries of the 

United States, 2001: National Atlas of the United States, 

Reston, VA (presenting map boundaries).

37 National Center for Educational Statistics, Internet

Access in U.S. Public Schools and Classrooms: 

1994–2005, at 4 (2006), available at http://nces.ed.gov/

pubs2007/2007020.pdf.

38 Dep’t of Educ., Evaluation of the Enhancing Education

Through Technology Program: Final Report 12 (2009), 

available at www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/netts/

finalreport.pdf.

39 See infra Chapter 10; see also Letter from Theresa 

Cullen, Rear Admiral, U.S. Public Health Service, Chief 

Information Officer and Director, Indian Health Service, 

to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC (Feb. 23, 2010) 

Attach. In this instance, “mass market” refers to nondedicated line solutions for businesses, which are similar 

to residential broadband but called “small business” or 

“business packages” by carriers.

40 Along with aggregate growth in broadband speeds, each 

technology has shown speed increases. For instance, 

cable typical advertised speeds have migrated from 1 

Mbps in the late 1990s to roughly 10 Mbps today, a 20% 

annual growth rate. See OBI, Broadband Performance.

41 Robert C. Atkinson & Ivy E. Schultz, Columbia

Institute for Tele-Information, Broadband In America: 

Where It Is And Where It Is Going (According To

Broadband Service Providers) at 8 (2009) (Atkinson

& Schultz, Broadband Report), available at http://

www4.gsb.columbia.edu/citi/; see also Census Bureau, 

Residential Vacancies and Homeownership 3 tbl. 3.

42 Atkinson & Schultz, Broadband Report at 8.

43 Atkinson & Schultz, Broadband Report at 8 (top 5 cable 

company rankings based on subscribers).

44 Atkinson & Schultz, Broadband Report 8.

45 Atkinson & Schultz, Broadband Report 24.

46 Atkinson & Schultz, Broadband Report 8.

47 See Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and 

Development (OECD), Average advertised download 

speeds, by country (Sept. 2008) http://www.oecd.

org/dataoecd/10/53/39575086.xls (last visited Dec. 

22, 2009) (9.6 Mbps); FCC, 2008 Form 477 database 

(accessed Dec. 2009) (on file with the Commission) 

(6.7 Mbps). Note that 477 data is collected in speed 

“tiers” and reflects 2008 data. See OBI, The Broadband

Availability Gap.

48 comScore database. The median speed is more 

representative of the speeds seen by the typical 

American consumer because the average speed is skewed 

upwards by a limited number of high-speed connections 

(>15 Mbps advertised). comScore monitored 200,000 

computers for data usage and consumption, selected to 

represent American usage broadly (types of services, 

service providers, geographies, demographics, etc.). 

Speed testing was attempted every 36 hours at varying 

times of day and only done when a given computer was 

otherwise inactive. Speed tests were conducted using 

packets sent in ever-increasing size to measure average 

speeds experienced to end-users. Maximum speeds on 

each connection were determined based on maximum 

speeds achieved (+/- 10%) and with confirmation on a 

sample of bills in tandem with the FCC. Speed testing 

was conducted from the computer/device to the nearest 

Akamai server. This approach has been used for speed 

claims by 5 of the top 10 ISPs in America. See OBI, 

Broadband Performance (discussing the methodology 

and data further).

49 comScore database. See OBI, Broadband Performance.

50 Note that speeds experienced by the end-user can be 

impacted by many factors including the user’s own 

equipment, the service provider network and the 

applications and sites being accessed online. In the first 

half of 2009, the median actual speed for those that 

subscribe to broadband in the United States was 3 Mbps 

download speed. comScore database. Given past annual 

growth rates in subscribed speed of approximately 

20–25% per year, the median could exceed 4 Mbps by 

the end of 2010. Cf. Akamai, The State of the Internet, 

3rd Quarter, 2009, at 10 (Jan 2010) available at http://

www.akamai.com/dl/whitepapers/Akamai_State_

Internet_Q3_2009.pdf ?curl=/dl/whitepapers/Akamai_

State_Internet_Q3_2009.pdf&solcheck=1& (registration 

required) (finding average download speeds to be 

3.9 Mbps in the third quarter of 2009); see also OBI, 

Broadband Performance (discussing past growth rates).

51 comScore database. Note that fiber in the database 

refers to both fiber to the premises (FTTP) and shortloop fiber to the node (FTTN). According to the Form 

477 database, FTTP advertised download speeds 

were 3-4 Mbps faster than comScore fiber average. 

For more data and detail on methodologies see OBI, 

Broadband Performance.

52 comScore database. Commission Form 477 data 

mirrors comScore advertised speed ranges of different 

technologies and relative advertised speeds, with 

important methodology differences for fiber. See OBI, 

Broadband Performance.

53 SamKnows Limited Comments in re NBP PN #24 

(Comment Sought on Broadband Measurement and 

Consumer Transparency of Fixed Residential and Small 

Business Services in the United States—NBP Public 

Notice #24, GN Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 09-137, 

Public Notice, DA 24 FCC Rcd 14120 (WCB, rel. Nov. 

24, 2009) (NBP PN #24)), filed Dec. 16, 2009; Ofcom, 

UK Broadband Speeds 2009, at 8 (2009), available 

at http://www.ofcom.org.uk/research/telecoms/

reports/broadband_speeds/broadband_speeds/

broadbandspeeds.pdf.

54 Epitiro Comments in re NBP PN #24, filed Dec. 14, 

2009, Apps. 1–4 (multiple appendices attached to 

comments detailing country results).

55 See American Roamer Advanced Services database 

(accessed Aug. 2009) (aggregating service coverage 

boundaries provided by mobile network operators) (on 

file with the Commission) (American Roamer database); 

see also Geolytics Block Estimates and Block Estimates 

Professional databases (2009) (accessed Nov. 2009) 

(projecting census populations by year to 2014 by census 

block) (on file with the Commission) (Geolytics databases). 

The approximate of 60% is based on total landmass area. 

In 2008, this figure was 39.6%. Implementation of Section 

6002(b) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 

1993; Annual Report and Analysis of Competitive Market 

Conditions With Respect to Commercial Mobile Services, 

WT Docket No. 08-27, Thirteenth Report, 24 FCC Rcd 

6185, 6257, tbl. 9 (WTB 2009).

56 Data from American Roamer shows geographic 

coverage by technology. The actual service quality of 

data connections experienced by end-users will differ 

due to a large number of factors, such as location and 

mobility. Further, the underlying coverage maps do 

not include information on the level of service (i.e., 

signal quality and the speed of broadband service) 

provided; nor is coverage defined by providers in the 

same way. Thus, coverage as measured here does not 

correspond to a specific minimum signal quality or user 

experience. See American Roamer database; see also

infra Chapter 4, Section 4.1 (Competition in Residential 

Broadband Networks) (discussing the American Roamer 

methodology). Population is based on projected census 

block figures from Geolytics. See Geolytics databases.

57 See infra Chapter 4, Section 4.1 (Transparency in 

the retail broadband market) (discussing details on a 

possible new approach to measurement and disclosure 

of mobile services).

58 See American Roamer database; Geolytics databases.

59 Data from American Roamer applied to business 

locations will suffer from the same quality of service 

issues (in-building coverage, varying bit rates) as 

residential. See American Roamer database; see also

GeoResults National Business and Telecom database 

(accessed Nov. 2009) (projecting business locations) (on 

file with the Commission) (GeoResults database).

60 See American Roamer database; GeoResults database.

61 See American Roamer database; GeoResults database.

62 See Atkinson & Schultz, Broadband Report at 8; see 

also Verizon Wireless, Network Facts, http://aboutus.

vzw.com/bestnetwork/network_facts.html (last visited 

Feb. 28, 2010) (providing Verizon’s 4G roll-out plan, and 

coverage of 285 million people by its 3G network).

63 Atkinson & Schultz, Broadband Report at 27.

64 See Atkinson & Schultz, Broadband Report at 27. The 

figures are in millions of people covered.

65 See Letter from Dean R. Brenner, Vice Pres. Gov’t 

Affairs, Qualcomm Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary, FCC, GN Docket 09-51 (Dec. 9, 2009) Attach.

66 See comScore database (discussing data on upload and 

download speeds); Chetan Sharma & Sarla Sharma, State

of the (Mobile) BroadbandNation: ABenchmarking Study

(2009), available at http://www.chetansharma.com/

State%20of%20the%20Broadband%20Nation%20-%20
2 6 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

A m e r i c a ’ s P l a n c h a p t e r 3

Chetan%20Sharma%20Consulting.pdf (Reprinted with 

permission. Copyright © 2009 Chetan Sharma Consulting. 

All rights reserved. Based on data compiled by Root 

Wireless, Inc.).

67 Letter from Consumer Electronics Association et al., 

to Chairman Julius Genachowski and Commissioners, 

FCC, GN Docket No. 09-51 (Dec. 2, 2009) at 1.

68 Horrigan, Broadband Adoption and Use in America at 13.

69 Horrigan, Broadband Adoption and Use in America at 13.

70 Horrigan, Broadband Adoption and Use in America at 13.

71 For the purposes of the Plan, we define “Tribal lands” 

as any federally recognized Tribe’s reservation, pueblo 

and colony, including former reservations in Oklahoma, 

Alaska Native regions established pursuant to the 

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (85 Stat. 688), 

and Indian allotments. The term “Tribe” means any 

American Indian or Alaska Native Tribe, Band, Nation, 

Pueblo, Village or Community which is acknowledged 

by the Federal government to have a government-togovernment relationship with the United States and is 

eligible for the programs and services established by the 

United States. See Statement of Policy on Establishing a 

Government-to-Government Relationship with Indian 

Tribes, 16 FCC Rcd 4078, 4080 (2000). Thus, “Tribal 

lands” includes American Indian Reservations and 

Trust Lands, Tribal Jurisdiction Statistical Areas, Tribal 

Designated Statistical Areas, and Alaska Native Village 

Statistical Areas, as well as the communities situated 

on such lands. This would also include the lands of 

Native entities receiving Federal acknowledgement or 

recognition in the future. While Native Hawaiians are 

not currently members of federally-recognized Tribes, 

they are intended to be covered by the recommendations 

of this Plan, as appropriate.

72 Horrigan, Broadband Adoption and Use in America at 13. 

The survey offered a Spanish language option, so results 

for Hispanics include English- and Spanish-speaking 

Hispanics.

73 FCC, NBP Survey of Businesses.

c h a p t e r 3 E n d n o t e s 
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n P a r t I

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 2 7

PART I—

INNOVATION

AND INVESTMENT

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n P a r t I

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 2 9

Broadband as a Transformative General Purpose Technology

Technological progress drives long-term economic growth.1

 As 

economists Timothy Bresnahan and Manuel Trajtenberg explained 

in a 1995 paper, “Whole eras of technical progress and economic 

growth appear to be driven by a few key technologies, which we 

call General Purpose Technologies (GPTs). The steam engine and 

the electric motor may have played such a role in the past, whereas 

semiconductors and computers may be doing as much in our era. 

GPTs are characterized by pervasiveness (they are used as inputs 

by many downstream sectors), inherent potential for technical 

improvements, and innovational complementarities, meaning that 

the productivity of R&D in downstream sectors increases as a 

consequence of innovation in the GPT. Thus, as GPTs improve they 

spread throughout the economy, bringing about generalized productivity gains.”2

 The report continued, “As use of the GPT grows, 

its effects become significant at the aggregate level, thus affecting 

overall growth.”3

The Internet has the characteristics of a GPT.4

 Businesses of 

all kinds and sizes use it to improve their processes, from procurement to supply chain management, market research to sales and 

asset management to customer support. It has driven performance 

improvements; for example, the average U.S. broadband connection speed has grown more than 20% per year for the last several 

years. These improvements are driving technology and business innovation in several other sectors, including health care,5

 education,6

energy,7

 online commerce8 and the government.9

BOX I-1: 

The U.S. must lead the world in broadband innovation 

and investment and take all appropriate steps to ensure all 

Americans have access to modern, high-performance broadband and the benefits it enables. Broadband has been a main 

driver of growth and innovation in the ICT industry, generating 

demand for semiconductors, consumer and enterprise software, computers, devices, applications, networking equipment 

and many different types of services. A world-class broadband 

ecosystem will help ensure that America’s ICT sector continues 

to lead the world—creating jobs, tapping American ingenuity 

and allowing American consumers to receive the substantial 

benefits that flow from the evolution of ICT. 

Today’s broadband ecosystem is vibrant and healthy in many 

ways. In numerous communities, consumer demand is strong. 

Service providers are investing in upgrades of fixed and mobile 

networks. New devices, and even new device categories—such 

as e-book readers, tablets and netbooks—are being created. 

New applications keep emerging, and more and more content is 

available online. However, there are some areas where America 

can and should do better. Government policies and actions can 

foster innovation and investment across the ecosystem in four 

key areas:

➤ Enacting policies to foster competition. Competition is a major 

driver of innovation and investment, and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and other agencies have 

many tools to influence competition in different areas of 

the broadband ecosystem. These tools are best applied on 

a fact-driven, case-by-case basis. Therefore, continuous 

collection and analysis of detailed data on competitive behavior must be the linchpin of effective competition policy. 

This plan establishes a process for such collection and, in 

addition, proposes several specific actions that will foster 

competition. 

➤ Freeing up more spectrum. The federal government controls and influences the availability and cost of spectrum. 

Spectrum plays an important role in the economics of 

broadband networks. By ensuring spectrum is allocated and 

managed as efficiently as possible, the government can help 

reduce the costs borne by firms deploying network infrastructure, thus encouraging both competitive entry and increased investment by incumbent firms. The plan highlights 

actions that the FCC, the National Telecommunications 

and Information Administration and Congress can take to 

enable more productive uses of spectrum and make more 

spectrum available for broadband.

➤ Lowering infrastructure costs. Government also controls and 

influences the availability and cost of other resources, such 

as pole attachments and rights-of-way. As with spectrum, 

ensuring these assets are allocated and managed as efficiently as possible can reduce the costs borne by firms 

and foster competition and investment. The plan outlines 

infrastructure policies that lower the cost of network deployment.

➤ Investing directly through research and development. Government should invest directly in areas where the return on 

Broadband is changing many aspects of life—increasing business productivity, improving health care and education, enabling a smarter and more efficient power grid and creating 

more opportunities for citizens to participate in the democratic process. It is also fueling large 

global markets for high-value-added goods and services and creating high-paying jobs in important sectors such as information and communications technology (ICT). 
3 0 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n P a r t I

investment to society as a whole is greater than the return 

for individual firms. Research and development (R&D) 

is one of these areas, as the effects of R&D often extend 

beyond those anticipated by its funders in unanticipated 

ways.10 The plan contains specific recommendations for the 

creation of a broadband R&D agenda, including development of ultra-high-speed testbeds to drive new innovations 

in broadband and applications.

Since the Telecommunications Act of 1996, U.S. policy has 

embraced competition as the best means to bring the fruits 

of investment and innovation—including lower prices, new 

services and features, higher service quality and choice—to the 

American people. This plan follows in that tradition. The four 

chapters that comprise Part I of the National Broadband Plan 

contain more than 40 recommendations that directly spur 

competition. But the plan as a whole helps to promote competition in other areas. A small sampling of the pro-competition, 

pro-consumer initiatives outside of Part I include:

➤ Enable competition in digital educational content by setting standards for content created by the federal government and proposing sharing of procurement information 

among local education agencies (see Chapter 11).

➤ Ensure greater competition and innovation in broadbandenabled Smart Grid information services and related 

devices by providing secure access to digital electric information for consumers and authorized third parties (see 

Chapter 12). 

➤ Ensure first responders reap the benefits of competition 

in choosing handsets and wireless broadband technology, 

allowing them to take advantage of advances in the commercial wireless ecosystem (see Chapter 16).

Part I of the plan (Innovation and Investment) begins 

with Chapter 4, which contains recommendations to drive 

innovation through competition in networks, devices and applications. Chapters 5 and 6 contain recommendations to lower 

the cost of inputs such as spectrum and infrastructure and to 

maximize private sector investment and competitive entry. 

Chapter 7 proposes a process to create an agenda for government-sponsored R&D to support broadband.
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n P a r t I

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 3 1

P a r t I E n d n o t e s 

1 See, e.g., Paul Romer, Endogenous Technological Change, 

98 J. Pol. Econ. S71 (1990).

2 Timothy Bresnahan & Manuel Trajtenberg, General 

Purpose Technologies “Engines of Growth?” 1 (Nat’l Bureau 

of Econ. Research, Working Paper No. W4148, 1995), 

available at http://www.nber.org/papers/w4148.pdf.

3 Elhanan Helpman & Manuel Trajtenberg, A Time to Sow 

and a Time to Reap: Growth Based on General Purpose 

Technologies, in General Purpose Technologies and

Economic Growth 55–84 (1998).

4 See, e.g., Richard G. Harris, The Internet as GPT: Factor 

Market Implications, in General Purpose Technologies

and Economic Growth 145–66 (1998); Richard G. Lipsey

et al., Economic Transformations: General Purpose

Technologies and Long Term Economic Growth 133 

(2005). 

5 See, e.g., infra Chapter 10. 

6 See, e.g., infra Chapter 11.

7 See, e.g., infra Chapter 12.

8 See, e.g., infra Chapter 13.

9 See, e.g., infra Chapters 14–16.

10 David B. Audretsch & Maryann Feldman, R&D 

Spillovers and the Geography of Innovation and 

Production, 86 Amer. Econ. Rev. 630, 630 (1996). 

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 4

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 3 3

Broadband 

COMPETITION AND

INNOVATION POLICY

c h a p t e r 4

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 4

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 3 5

Twenty-five years ago, the World Wide Web did not exist. Very few Americans had even 

seen a mobile phone, and broadband networks were available only to a few businesses and 

research institutions. 

Today, innovations such as broadband and others like it drive 

the creation of a wide variety of products and services. The 

competitive forces that sparked these breakthroughs need to 

be nurtured, so that the United States can continue to reap the 

benefits of its unrivaled culture of innovation. 

This chapter examines innovation and competition in the 

broadband ecosystem. First, it discusses each of the three 

elements of the broadband ecosystem—networks, devices and 

applications. Then it addresses competition for value across 

the ecosystem, the transition from a circuit-switched network 

to an all-Internet Protocol (IP) network and the leveraging of 

the benefits of innovation and investment internationally. 

Section 4.1 approaches network competition in three ways. 

First, it addresses the state of competition in residential 

broadband and makes recommendations to bolster consumer 

benefits by developing data-driven competition policies for 

broadband services. Second, it makes recommendations 

intended to ensure that consumers have the information they 

need to make decisions that maximize benefits from these services. Increased transparency will likely drive service providers 

to deliver better value to consumers through better services. 

Third, it focuses on competition in the wholesale broadband 

market—including issues associated with high-capacity circuits, copper retirement, interconnection and data roaming. 

All are crucial for enabling competition in the small business 

and enterprise customer segments, in mobile services and in 

deployment of services in high-cost areas.

Section 4.2 addresses devices, with a particular focus on 

set-top boxes. Of the three main categories of broadband 

devices—mobile devices, personal computing devices and 

set-top boxes—set-top boxes is the category with the least 

competition: two manufacturers control more than 90% 

of the U.S. market and have controlled comparable market 

shares for many years. Congress recognized the need for 

change in the set-top box market when it enacted Section 629 

of the Telecommunications Act, but the FCC’s attempts to 

meet Congress’s objectives have been unsuccessful. As video 

becomes an increasingly important element of broadband 

applications, driving usage and adoption, it is crucial that the 

FCC takes steps that will foster increased innovation in set-top 

boxes and video navigation devices to bring more competition 

and choice for consumers.

Section 4.3 addresses applications, focusing on the management of personal data and privacy. The number and variety of 

applications and content available over broadband connections 

has exploded over the last few years. Competition within different types of applications and content services must be looked 

at on a case-by-case basis. However, the importance of digital 

personal data is a common thread among current and emerging 

content and application services. Personal data, often aggregated into “digital profiles,” are often used to provide consumers 

with personalized services and to target them with more relevant advertising. These increasingly detailed digital profiles 

offer both an opportunity and a challenge. The opportunity is 

to increase the innovations and convenience provided to endusers, who may enjoy better targeted, more customized services 

and applications, many of them free of charge. The challenge 

is to enable consumers to take advantage of such innovations 

while ensuring that they can retain control of their personal 

data, protect their privacy and manage how the information 

collected on them is used. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

Networks

➤ The federal government, including the FCC, the National 

Telecommunications and Information Administration 

(NTIA) and Congress, should make more spectrum available for existing and new wireless broadband providers in 

order to foster additional wireless-wireline competition at 

higher speed tiers.

➤ The FCC and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) 

should collect more detailed and accurate data on actual 

availability, penetration, prices, churn and bundles offered 

by broadband service providers to consumers and businesses, and should publish analyses of these data.

➤ The FCC, in coordination with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), should establish technical 

broadband performance measurement standards and methodology and a process for updating them. The FCC should 

also encourage the formation of a partnership of industry 

and consumer groups to provide input on these standards 

and this methodology.

➤ The FCC should continue its efforts to measure and publish 

data on actual performance of fixed broadband services. 

The FCC should publish a formal report and make the data 

available online. 

➤ The FCC should initiate a rulemaking proceeding by issuing 

a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to determine 
3 6 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 4

performance disclosure requirements for broadband.

➤ The FCC should develop broadband performance standards 

for mobile services, multi-unit buildings and small business 

users.

➤ The FCC should comprehensively review its wholesale 

competition regulations to develop a coherent and effective framework and take expedited action based on that 

framework to ensure widespread availability of inputs for 

broadband services provided to small businesses, mobile 

providers and enterprise customers.

➤ The FCC should ensure that special access rates, terms and 

conditions are just and reasonable.

➤ The FCC should ensure appropriate balance in its copper 

retirement policies.

➤ The FCC should clarify interconnection rights and obligations and encourage the shift to IP-to-IP interconnection 

where efficient.

➤ The FCC should move forward promptly in the open proceeding on data roaming.

Devices

➤ The FCC should initiate a proceeding to ensure that all multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs) install 

a gateway device or equivalent functionality in all new 

subscriber homes and in all homes requiring replacement 

set-top boxes, starting on or before Dec. 31, 2012.

➤ On an expedited basis, the FCC should adopt rules for cable 

operators to fix certain CableCARD issues while development of the gateway device functionality progresses. Adoption of these rules should be completed in the fall of 2010.

Applications

➤ Congress, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the 

FCC should consider clarifying the relationship between 

users and their online profiles. 

➤ Congress should consider helping spur development of 

trusted “identity providers” to assist consumers in managing their data in a manner that maximizes the privacy and 

security of the information. 

➤ The FCC and FTC should jointly develop principles to 

require that customers provide informed consent before 

broadband service providers share certain types of information with third parties.

➤ The federal government, led by the FTC, should put additional resources into combating identity theft and fraud and 

help consumers access and utilize those resources, including bolstering existing solutions such as OnGuard Online.

➤ FCC consumer online security efforts should support 

broader national online security policy, and should be coordinated with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), 

the FTC, the White House Cyber Office and other agencies. 

Federal agencies should connect their existing websites to 

OnGuard Online to provide clear consumer online security 

information and direction.

➤ The federal government should create an interagency 

working group to coordinate child online safety and literacy 

work, facilitate information sharing, ensure consistent 

messaging and outreach and evaluate the effectiveness of 

governmental efforts. The working group should consider 

launching a national education and outreach campaign 

involving governments, schools and caregivers.

➤ The federal government should investigate establishing a 

national framework for digital goods and services taxation.

4.1 NETWORKS

Competition in Residential Broadband Markets

Competition is crucial for promoting consumer welfare and 

spurring innovation and investment in broadband access networks. Competition provides consumers the benefits of choice, 

better service and lower prices. This section begins by analyzing the available data to assess the current state of competition 

among wireline broadband services and mobile wireless broadband services, and the competitive dynamics across different 

broadband technologies. It does not analyze the market power 

of specific companies or reach definitive conclusions about 

the current state of competition for residential broadband 

services. The section then discusses how new technologies and 

network upgrades present both opportunities and challenges 

to competition in the near future. It concludes with several 

recommendations to promote competition and to improve the 

data the government collects to assess the state of competition 

in broadband markets in the future.

Competition in industries with high fixed costs 

Building broadband networks—especially wireline—requires 

large fixed and sunk investments. Consequently, the industry 

will probably always have a relatively small number of facilities-based competitors, at least for wireline service. Bringing 

down the cost of entry for facilities-based wireline services 

may encourage new competitors to enter in a few areas, but it is 

unlikely to create several new facilities-based entrants competing across broad geographic areas.1

 Bringing down the costs 

of entry and expansion in wireless broadband by facilitating 

access to spectrum, sites and high-capacity backhaul may spur 

additional facilities-based competition. Whether wireless competition is sustainable in driving innovation, investment and 

consumer welfare will depend on the evolution of technology 
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 4

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 3 7

and consumer behavior among many other factors.

The lack of a large number of wireline, facilities-based 

providers does not necessarily mean competition among broadband providers is inadequate. While older economic models 

of competition emphasized the danger of tacit collusion with a 

small number of rivals, economists today recognize that coordination is possible but not inevitable under such circumstances. 

Moreover, modern analyses find that markets with a small 

number of participants can perform competitively;2

 however, 

those analyses do not tell us what degree of competition to 

expect in a market with a small number of wireline broadband 

providers combined with imperfect competition from wireless 

providers.3

 In addition, as the Department of Justice (DOJ) 

describes the issue, the critical question is not “some abstract 

notion of whether or not broadband markets are ‘competitive’” 

but rather “whether there are policy levers [around competition policy] that can be used to produce superior outcomes.”4

Given that approximately 96% of the population has at most 

two wireline providers, there are reasons to be concerned about 

wireline broadband competition in the United States. Whether 

sufficient competition exists is unclear and, even if such competition presently exists, it is surely fragile. To ensure that the 

right policies are put in place so that the broadband ecosystem 

benefits from meaningful competition as it evolves, it is important to have an ongoing, data-driven evaluation of the state 

of competition.

New data from the FCC’s Form 477 combined with several 

other sources make possible certain general observations about 

the state of competition in broadband services today, though 

additional data are needed to more rigorously evaluate broadband competition.5, 6

In general, broadband subscribers appear to have benefited 

from the presence of multiple providers. Broadband providers 

have invested in network upgrades to deliver faster broadband 

speeds and enter new product markets—cable companies 

providing telephony and telephone companies offering 

multichannel video—but the data available only provide 

limited evidence of price competition among providers.

Fixed broadband service

Unlike many countries, the majority of U.S. broadband 

subscribers do not connect to the Internet via local-access 

infrastructure owned by an incumbent telephone company. 

The U.S. cable infrastructure was advanced and ubiquitous 

enough to allow cable companies to offer broadband access 

services to large portions of the country, in many cases before 

the telephone companies. As a result, the U.S. market structure 

is relatively unique in that people in most parts of the country 

have been able to choose from two wireline, facilities-based 

broadband platforms for many years. Approximately 4% of 

housing units are in areas with three wireline providers (either 

DSL or fiber, the cable incumbent and a cable over-builder), 

78% are in areas with two wireline providers, about 13% are in 

areas with a single wireline provider and 5% have no wireline 

provider (see Exhibit 4-A).

These data do not necessarily mean that 82% (78% + 4%) 

of housing units have two or three competitive options for 

wireline broadband service—the data used here do not provide 

adequate information on price and performance to determine if multiple providers present in a given area compete 

head-to-head. 

Additionally, the data show that rural areas are less likely to 

have access to more than one wireline broadband provider than 

other areas. The data also show that low-income areas are on 

average somewhat less likely to have more than one provider 

than higher-income areas.

There are other types of fixed broadband providers. For 

instance, satellite-based broadband service is available in most 

areas of the country from two providers, while hundreds of 

small fixed wireless Internet service providers (WISPs) offer 

service to more than 2 million people8

 and Clearwire offers 

WiMAX service in a number of cities.9 These providers compete for customers as well, although their services tend to be 

either more expensive or offer a lower range of speeds than 

today’s wireline offerings.10

Exhibit 4-A: 

Share of Housing Units in Census Tracts with 0, 1, 2, and 

3 Wireline Providers7

3 providers 4%

Zero providers 5%

1 provider 13%

2 providers 78%
3 8 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 4

The presence of a facilities-based competitor impacts investment. Indeed, broadband providers appear to invest more heavily 

in network upgrades in areas where they face competition. Exhibit 

4-B shows that controlling for housing density, household income 

and state-specific factors that affect supply and demand, providers of broadband over any given wireline technology—Digital 

Subscriber Line (DSL), cable or fiber—generally offer faster 

speeds when competing with other wireline platforms. So, for 

example, available cable speeds are higher in areas in which cable 

competes with DSL or fiber than in areas where cable is the only 

option. DSL and fiber show similar results. Available speeds are 

even higher where three wireline providers compete (e.g., where a 

cable over-builder is also present).11

Indeed, competition appears to have induced broadband 

providers to invest in network upgrades.13 Cable and telephone 

companies invested about $48 billion in capital expenditures 

(capex) in 2008 and about $40 billion in 2009. While it is very 

difficult to accurately disaggregate service provider capital expenditures into broadband and other areas, a review of analyst 

reports at Columbia Institute for Tele-Information (CITI) suggests that of this total, wireline broadband capital expenditures 

were about $20 billion in 2008 and expected to be about $18 

billion in 2009.14 Companies channeled these investments into 

network upgrades in recent years, as detailed in Exhibit 4-C.15

Consumers are benefiting from these investments. Top 

advertised speeds available from broadband providers have 

increased in the past few years. Additionally, typical advertised 

download speeds to which consumers subscribe have grown at 

approximately 20% annually for the last 10 years.17

New choices—at new, higher speeds—are becoming available, as well. Clearwire offers download speeds of up to 2 Mbps 

service in several cities and plans to have its WiMAX service 

available to about 120 million people by 2011.18 Two satellite 

providers plan to launch new satellites in 2011 and 2012, with 

ViaSat (WildBlue) expecting to advertise download speeds of 

up to 2–10 Mbps and Hughes Communications planning to 

advertise download speeds of up to 5–25 Mbps.19

In principle, providers can compete on price as well as on 

service. Unfortunately, the dearth of consistent, comprehensive 

and detailed price data makes it difficult to evaluate price competition. The data that do exist are imperfect. First, some focus 

on the price of broadband when not bundled with any other 

services even though the vast majority of consumers purchase 

broadband bundled with voice, video or both.20 Second, sources 

that have data on bundles do not provide sufficient information 

to determine the incremental price of the broadband component. Third, broadband providers frequently offer promotions 

to attract new customers. No data source consistently captures 

the relevant details of those promotions, including details such 

as how long the promotional price lasts, the length of the contract the consumer signs to get the promotional price, the price 

once the promotion expires and any early termination fee. 

Some international comparisons suggest the number of retail 

broadband providers may be positively correlated with advertised download speeds, at least at the high end of the market, 

and with affordability.21 Others rank the United States high in 

affordability of broadband, despite the fact that 96% of consumers have two or fewer choices, and suggest that consumers 

Exhibit 4-B: 

Average Top 

Advertised Speed 

in Areas with 1, 

2 and 3 Wireline 

Competitors12

3

0

6

9

12

15

18

One wireline competitor Two wireline competitors Three wireline competitors

Advertises download speed (Mbps)

DSL Cable internet Fiber
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 4

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 3 9

Exhibit 4-C: 

Select Fixed 

Broadband 

Infrastructure 

Upgrades16

Comcast

Cox

Cablevision

Knology

Qwest

AT&T

Verizon

CenturyLink

Clearwire

Hughes

WildBlue

DOCSIS 3.0 DOCSIS 3.0*

DOCSIS 3.0

DOCSIS 3.0

DOCSIS 3.0*

Fiber (FTTN) 

U-Verse Fiber*

FiOSFiber

4G*

Satellite

FiOSFiber

BB CapEx

Satellite

Cable CapEx

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Announced Timeline Late Early Project Goal * Project Ongoing

may not be willing to pay as much for high speeds as they are 

for other functionality.22

Nevertheless, the available data can be analyzed to see if 

they yield consistent results. Merging comprehensive crosssectional data on prices23 with Form 477 data makes possible 

econometric analyses of the effects of competition on prices, 

controlling for income, density and region-specific factors. 

These analyses yield some weak evidence that monthly prices 

are lower when more wireline providers are in a census tract, 

but the data limitations discussed above make it difficult to 

draw robust conclusions.

A fundamental question related to competition is how prices 

paid by consumers evolve as underlying costs change. While 

the data do not allow us to examine competition in detail, it is 

possible to examine certain aspects of prices over time. In particular, Greenstein and McDevitt (2010) analyzed about 1,500 

broadband contracts24 to construct price indices (see Exhibit 

4-D).25 The exhibit shows that the price index for standalone 

nominal prices, adjusted for upload and download speeds, 

changed modestly between 2006 and 2009 while the index for 

bundled prices remained relatively constant.26

Other data reach similar conclusions. The Internet service 

provider (ISP) price index compiled by BLS shows a slight 

increase in Internet service prices between 2007 and 2009.28

The available time-series data, therefore, show, at best, a small 

decline in quality-adjusted nominal broadband prices while the 

econometrics reveal weak evidence that providers compete on 

prices. One clear conclusion from the analysis, however, is that 

better data for analyzing price competition would be helpful. 

Mobile broadband competition29

As discussed in Chapter 3, as of November 2009, according to 

data from American Roamer, third-generation (3G) wireless 

service covers roughly 60% of U.S. landmass.30 In addition, approximately 77% of the U.S. population lived in an area served 

by three or more 3G service providers, 12% lived in an area 

served by two, and 9% lived in an area served by one. About 2% 

lived in an area with no provider (see Exhibit 4-E).31

These measures likely overstate the coverage actually 

experienced by consumers, since American Roamer reports 

advertised coverage as reported by many carriers who all use 

different definitions of coverage. In addition, these measures 

do not take into account other factors such as signal strength, 

bitrate or in-building coverage, and they may convey a false 

sense of consistency across geographic areas and service providers.32 As with fixed broadband, most areas without mobile 

broadband coverage are in rural or remote areas. Nonetheless, 

the data can help benchmark mobile broadband availability 

nationwide. In total, while United States service providers are 

building out mobile broadband coverage, the U.S. is far from 

having “complete” coverage.

Mobile data users typically receive download speeds ranging 

from hundreds of kilobits per second to about one megabit per 

second.34 Several competing firms offer mobile broadband. In 
4 0 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 4

Exhibit 4-E: 

Share of Population Living in Census Tracts with 0, 1, 2, 3 or More 

3G Mobile Providers33

Zero providers 2%

1 provider 9%

2 providers 12%

3 or more providers 77%

Exhibit 4-D: 

Price Indices 

for Broadband

Advertised as a 

Standalone Service 

and as Part of a 

Bundle (2006 = 1)27

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

Standalone

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Bundled

addition to the nationwide service providers AT&T, Verizon, 

Sprint and T-Mobile (two of which are also leading providers of 

wireline broadband), new competitors such as Leap Wireless 

and MetroPCS have emerged in metropolitan areas in recent 

years. Like wireline broadband providers, these firms may 

compete along many dimensions including coverage, device 

selection, roaming and services. Many service providers have 

focused on network upgrades to 3G services.35

As mentioned earlier, identifying broadband-specific capital 

expenditures is very difficult, but the CITI report indicates 

that total capital expenditures by major wireless firms were 

about $21 billion in 2008, of which about $10 billion was for 

broadband. In 2009 wireless companies were expected to 

have incurred about $20 billion in capital expenditures, $12 

billion of which was for broadband services.36 While projections should be viewed cautiously, wireless broadband capital 

expenditures are expected to be about $12 billion in 2010 and 

increase steadily to $15 billion in 2015 as service providers roll 

out their 4G services.37 Mobile broadband services are relatively new and their competitive dynamics are changing rapidly. As 

new technologies such as High Speed Packet Access (HSPA), 

WiMAX and Long Term Evolution (LTE) are introduced and 

rolled out by different carriers, new devices support different 

uses and consumers turn to different applications.

Wireline-wireless competition

Whether wireless broadband, either fixed or mobile, can 

compete with wireline broadband is an important question in 

evaluating the status of broadband services competition. The 

answer depends on how technology, costs and consumer preferences evolve, as well as on the strategic choices of firms that 

control wireline and wireless assets,38 including firms that offer 

both fixed and mobile broadband.

Consumers’ preferences differ depending on how they use their 

broadband connections and how much they are willing to pay for 
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 4

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 4 1

such use. Some value download speeds more than any other attribute, some value mobility and new converts from dial-up may still 

even value the simple “always on” connection. A user who values 

little more than e-mail and browsing news sites has, in principle, 

many choices—nearly any broadband access technology will do. 

But a user who streams high-definition video and enjoys gaming probably requires high download and upload speeds and low 

latency. That user will likely have few choices.

Most consumers’ preferences are not so extreme—they tend 

to value some factors more than others. If a sufficiently large segment of consumers are relatively indifferent about the attributes, 

performance and pricing of mobile and fixed platforms, then 

mobile and fixed providers are likely to compete for consumers. 

Today, however, most consumers who do not value mobility when 

purchasing broadband, or want high download or upload speeds, 

face only two choices for their fixed broadband service.39

It is not yet clear how that might change. The spectral efficiency of wireless technologies has increased by a factor of 

roughly 40 or more since the early days of second-generation (2G) 

wireless (see Exhibit 4-F).40 These technologies—often deployed 

for mobile services—can deliver even higher download speeds 

by replacing mobile devices with fixed terminals. Indeed, terrestrial, fixed wireless access solutions have already been deployed 

as a substitute for wired access technologies; for example, in the 

United States by Clearwire with WiMAX and Stelera with HSPA. 

Wireless broadband may not be an effective substitute 

in the foreseeable future for consumers seeking high-speed 

connections at prices competitive with wireline offers.42

Given enough spectrum, however, a variety of engineering 

techniques—including higher transmitter power, high-gain 

directional antennas and multiple externally mounted 

antennae—may make wireless a viable price/performance competitor to wired solutions at far higher speeds than are possible 

today, further increasing consumer choice. 

The ongoing upgrade of the wireless infrastructure is 

promising because of its potential to be a closer competitor to 

wireline broadband, especially at lower speeds. For example, 

if wireless providers begin to advertise, say, 4 Mbps home 

broadband service, wireline providers may be forced to respond 

by lowering prices of their broadband offerings. This could be 

true even if wireless services are more expensive, especially if 

the service is also mobile. Such an outcome is a possibility—for 

instance, according to CITI,LTE could offer speeds between 4 

and 12 Mbps, with sustained speeds of up to 5 Mbps. Further, 

as with most goods, consumers choose broadband by trading 

off price and features. Providers offering a product with fewer 

features may have to reduce prices in order to remain competitive, even if the superior product charges more. Consider, for 

example, computer monitors. LCD flat-screen monitors were 

introduced at prices many multiples higher than older and 

once-standard CRTs. Even though the typical LCD did not offer 

as clear a picture as the typical CRT, its advantages in terms of 

weight, the space it took up on a desk, and its rapid technological improvements were such that it quickly put downward price 

pressure on the already much cheaper CRT.43

Exhibit 4-F: 

Evolution of 

Spectral 

Efficiency41 1.4

1.2

1.6

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

GPRS EDGE WCDMA HSPDA,

Rel 5

HSPA, Rel 6 HSPA, Rel 7 LTE

Bps/Hz
4 2 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 4

There is no guarantee, however, that competition will 

necessarily evolve this way. Technologies, costs and consumer 

preferences are changing too quickly in this dynamic part of 

the economy to make accurate predictions. Regardless of how 

those develop, affordability will remain a principle policy concern. The FCC should therefore carefully monitor affordability 

of low-end offerings and, if affordability does not improve in 

light of ongoing wireless upgrades, take further steps beyond 

those already described in this plan to address the issue.

Potential future issues for fixed broadband competition

Analysts project that within a few years, approximately 90% of 

the population is likely to have access to broadband networks 

capable of peak download speeds in excess of 50 Mbps as cable 

systems upgrade to DOCSIS 3.0. About 15% of the population is 

likely to be able to choose between two robust high-speed service 

services—cable with DOCSIS 3.0 and upgraded services from 

telephone companies offering fiber-to-the-premises (FTTP).

These upgrades represent a significant improvement to the 

U.S. broadband infrastructure, and consumers who value high 

download and upload speeds will benefit by having a service 

choice they did not have before the upgrade. The upgrades 

may, however, change competitive dynamics. Prior to cable’s 

DOCSIS 3.0 upgrade, more than 80% of the population could 

choose from two reasonably similar products (DSL and cable). 

Once the current round of upgrades is complete, consumers 

interested in only today’s typical peak speeds can, in principle, 

have the same choices available as they do today. Around 15% 

of the population will be able to choose from two providers for 

very high peak speeds (providers with FTTP and DOCSIS 3.0 

infrastructure). However, providers offering fiber-to-the-node 

and then DSL from the node to the premises (FTTN), while 

potentially much faster than traditional DSL, may not be able 

to match the peak speeds offered by FTTP and DOCSIS 3.0.44

Thus, in areas that include 75% of the population, consumers 

will likely have only one service provider (cable companies 

with DOCSIS 3.0-enabled infrastructure) that can offer very 

high peak download speeds (see Exhibit 4-G).

Some evidence suggests that this market structure is beginning to emerge as cable’s offers migrate to higher peak speeds. 

Exhibit 4-H shows that in 2004 the mean advertised download 

peak speeds of cable and DSL were similar, and the maximum 

and minimum advertised peak speeds were identical. By 2009, 

the mean advertised cable speed was about 2.5 times higher 

than DSL, while the maximum peak advertised speed was three 

times higher than DSL.45 The minimum peak advertised speeds 

remained identical. While the exhibit does not contain information about demand or uptake of the higher-speed offers, or 

actual speeds delivered, it shows that the upgrade in network 

performance for cable companies from DOCSIS 3.0 is likely to 

continue or accelerate the trend where offers to end-users of 

traditional DSL cannot keep pace.

As with fixed-mobile substitution, how the evolution of network 

capabilities affects competition depends on how pricing, consumer 

demand, technology and costs evolve over time. For example, if users 

continue to value primarily applications that do not require very 

high speeds (e.g., speeds in excess of 20 Mbps), and are not willing to 

pay much for vastly increased speeds,47 then a provider may not gain 

much of an advantage by offering those higher speeds. In contrast, 

if typical users require high speeds and only one provider can offer 

those speeds, and expected returns to telephone companies do 

not justify fiber upgrades, then users may face higher prices, fewer 

choices and less innovation. Because of this risk, it is crucial that the 

FCC track and compare the evolution of pricing in areas where two 

service providers offer very high peak speeds with pricing in areas 

where only one provider can offer very high peak speeds. The FCC 

should benchmark prices and services and include these in future 

reports on the state of broadband deployment. 

Recommendations 

Two sets of recommendations address the current and expected 

nature of competition in broadband network services in the 

United States. First, the FCC should take specific steps to make 

more spectrum available to ease entry into broadband markets and reduce the costs for current wireless providers to offer 

higher-speed services that can compete with wireline offers for 

a larger segment of end-users. Second, the FCC and BLS should 

collect data that enable more detailed analyses of the market and 

Exhibit 4-G: 

Projected Share of Households with Access to Various Wireline 

Broadband Technologies in 2012

Telco DSL only (6%)

Cable only, not upgraded (5%)

Cable DOCSIS 3.0, 

Telco FTTP (15%)

Cable DOCSIS 3.0, 

Telco FTTN (30%)

Cable DOCSIS 3.0, 

Telco DSL (45%)
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 4

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 4 3

competition and make that data more publicly available to ensure 

visibility into competitive behavior of firms.48

Recommendation 4.1: The federal government, including 

the FCC, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and Congress, should make 

more spectrum available for existing and new wireless 

broadband providers in order to foster additional wirelesswireline competition at higher speed tiers.

Chapter 5 discusses why additional spectrum is crucial to 

accommodate growing wireless broadband use. Additional 

spectrum is also critical for increasing competition along two 

interrelated dimensions.

First, additional spectrum for mobile competitors is likely 

to enhance mobile competition. Second, more spectrum makes 

possible faster download speeds, which would allow new and 

existing companies to use wireless technologies to serve as 

closer substitutes to fixed broadband providers for consumers 

seeking more than just low-end plans.

Recommendation 4.2: The FCC and the U.S. Bureau of 

Labor Statistics (BLS) should collect more detailed and 

accurate data on actual availability, penetration, prices, 

churn and bundles offered by broadband service providers 

to consumers and businesses, and should publish analyses 

of these data.

➤ Improve current Form 477 data collection.

➤ Collect location-specific subscribership data.

➤ Collect price, switching costs, customer churn and market 

share information.

➤ Make more data and FCC analyses publicly available.

➤ BLS should fully resume its computer and Internet use supplement.

The FCC should revise Form 477 to collect data relevant to 

broadband availability, adoption and competition. Specifically, 

it should collect broadband availability data at the census block

level, by provider, technology and offered speed. Availability 

for mobile service should be defined in terms of coverage specifications to be determined by the FCC and include information 

on spectrum used by facilities-based providers. In addition, the 

FCC should collect broadband service provider ownership and 

affiliation data and clarify and refine all reporting standards to 

ensure data consistency and comparability. 

To improve its ability to make informed policy decisions 

and to track deployment, adoption and competition issues, 

the FCC should transition as quickly as practical to collecting 

location-specific subscribership data by provider, technology, actual speed and offered speed. Such data would make it 

possible for the FCC to aggregate the data to any geographic 

level rather than relying on providers to allocate subscribers by 

census tract or block. The FCC should also continue to utilize 

consumer-driven data collection methods, such as voluntary 

speed tests and broadband unavailability registries.

The FCC is fully cognizant of its obligations under the 

Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA). To comply 

with the Act and protect citizens’ privacy, the FCC should 

investigate using a third-party to collect location-specific 

subscribership data, and aggregate and anonymize it before 

submitting it to the FCC.

The FCC should collect data on advertised prices, prices 

actually paid by subscribers, plans, bundles and promotions of 

fixed and mobile broadband services that have material penetration among users, as well as their evolution over time, by 

provider and by geographic area. 

Collecting information on advertised and promotional 

prices, rather than only prices current subscribers pay, is very 

Exhibit 4-H: 

Broadband Speeds 

Advertised by Cable 

and Telco (5th 

percentile, mean 

and 95th 

percentile), 

2004–200946

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Cable 5th percentile 

DSL 5th percentile 

Cable mean 

DSL mean

Cable 95th percentile

DSL 95th percentile
4 4 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 4

helpful for analyzing competition because advertised prices 

focus on winning new customers or keeping customers considering switching providers and can offer important insights into 

how firms compete. In addition, it is important that the FCC 

collect information about the pricing plans to which customers are actually subscribing. Pricing plans that are available to 

customers but are not de facto marketed by service providers 

tend to have more limited competitive impact.

The FCC should also collect information related to switching barriers, such as early termination fees and contract length. 

To complement this information, the FCC should collect data 

on customer churn, as well as providers’ share of gross subscriber additions.

Finally, the FCC should collect data required to determine 

whether broadband service is being denied to potential residential customers based on the income of the residents in a 

particular geographic area.49

The data collection should be done in a way that makes 

possible statistically significant, detailed analyses of at least 

metropolitan service area (MSA) or rural service area (RSA) 

levels, thus allowing the FCC to understand the effect of 

bundles and isolate the evolution of effective pricing and terms 

for broadband services.

The FCC should have a general policy of making the data 

it collects available to the public, including via the Internet in 

a broadband data depository, except in certain circumstances 

such as when the data are competitively sensitive or protected by 

copyright. Further, the FCC should implement a process to make 

additional data that is not accessible by the public available to academic researchers and others, subject to appropriate restrictions 

to protect confidentiality of competitively sensitive materials.50

An analysis of this data should be published and made 

available through annual existing reports such as the wireless 

competition report and the 706 report, and through semiannual reports such as the Form 477 data collection. The FCC 

should investigate if additional methods of providing this data 

and analyses are necessary.

Finally, BLS should be encouraged to fully resume its computer and Internet use supplement to its current population 

survey. Better data on adoption and use will facilitate analyses 

of the effects of competition as well as make it possible to track 

the effectiveness of adoption programs. 

Transparency in the Retail Broadband Market

Collecting better data and allocating spectrum are only the 

first steps in driving competition. Putting more information 

in the hands of consumers is a proven method to promote 

meaningful competition and spur innovation, both of which 

will generate more and better consumer choices. If customers 

make well-informed choices, companies will likely invest in 

new products, services and business models to compete more 

aggressively and offer greater value. 

For example, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s 

miles-per-gallon (mpg) label for cars encouraged automakers to improve fuel economy and design. That in turn helped 

boost average auto mileage in the United States from less 

than 15 mpg in 1975 to more than 25 mpg in 1985.51 Or to take 

another example, the nutrition label by theU.S. Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA) has proven both useful and flexible. 

For example, when the negative health impact of trans fats 

surfaced, the FDA changed the nutrition label. It supplied the 

most current and important information to consumers and 

helped jumpstart the introduction of a wave of healthier food 

products.52 With more consumers obtaining information online, the concept of a label should evolve.

Fixed broadband consumers, however, have little information about the actual speed and performance of the service they 

purchase.53 Marketing materials typically feature “up to” peak 

download and upload speeds, although actual performance experienced by consumers is often much less than the advertised 

peak speed.54 This disparity confuses consumers and makes it 

more difficult for them to compare the true performance of different offers. That hinders consumer choice and competition. 

It also reduces incentives for service providers to invest in better performing networks. Consumers need more information 

about the speed and overall performance55 of the services they 

receive and of competitive offers in their area, and about the 

gap between actual and advertised speeds and the implications 

of that difference.

Some providers have added information in advertisements 

and other communications about what applications different 

broadband offers will support. But the lack of standards makes 

it nearly impossible for consumers to compare providers and 

their offers. For example, describing a specific broadband offer 

as capable of supporting an application such as video may not 

be enough to ensure that all consumers clearly understand the 

capabilities of the offer, as there are many different types of 

video (e.g., varying standard and high-definition formats and 

compression techniques).

Four steps must be taken to close this transparency gap.

Recommendation 4.3: The FCC, in coordination with the 

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), 

should establish technical broadband measurement standards and methodology and a process for updating them. 

The FCC should also encourage the formation of a partnership of industry and consumer groups to provide input on 

these standards and this methodology.
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 4

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 4 5

The FCC, in coordination with NIST, should determine the 

technical standards and methodology to measure performance 

of fixed broadband connections with the objective of giving 

consumers a more accurate view of the performance of their 

broadband service. This would include what speeds and quality-of-service metrics should be tracked and how they should 

evolve with new consumer applications and uses. 

The FCC should encourage industry and consumer interest 

representatives to create a Broadband Measurement Advisory 

Council (BMAC) to provide input for the measurement of 

broadband services.56 The BMAC would focus on the most 

difficult issues, including where exactly to measure service 

performance in a network, the timing and frequency of measurements and the standard set of protocols and applications 

that may be used to establish benchmarks. 

The key characteristics to be measured may include (see 

Exhibit 4-I):

➤ Actual speeds and performance over the broadband service 

provider’s network (from point 2 to point 5 in Exhibit 4-I) 

and the end-to-end performance of the service (from point 

1 to point 6 in the exhibit).57

➤ Actual speeds and performance at peak use hours.58

➤ Actual speeds and performance achieved with a given probability (e.g., 95%) over a set time period (e.g., one hour) that 

includes peak use times.59

➤ Actual speeds and performance tested against a given set of 

standard protocols and applications.60

Recommendation 4.4: The FCC should continue its efforts to measure and publish data on actual performance of 

fixed broadband services. The FCC should publish a formal 

report and make the data available online. 

The FCC should continue its efforts to measure and report on 

fixed broadband connections and, similar to the approach taken 

by the United Kingdom regulator (the Office of Communications, 

or Ofcom), the FCC should explore contracts with third parties 

as a means of doing so.61 These measurement efforts would make 

data on actual performance easily accessible to all interested parties, especially consumers, and create a mechanism for checking 

service provider broadband performance claims. The FCC should 

also use these efforts to conduct pilot projects on different measurement and reporting approaches.

Experience in the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Singapore 

and elsewhere shows it is possible to provide consumers with 

information that helps them compare service providers in 

meaningful ways.62

All data should be made available to consumers and 

interested parties on a public website offering a searchable database. But the process should ensure the privacy of 

households that voluntarily participate in the measurement 

study. In addition, the FCC should publish a formal “State 

of U.S. Broadband Performance” report. This report should 

include detailed information about the actual performance 

of the country’s top broadband service providers in different 

geographic markets (e.g., by county, city or MSA) and across all 

the metrics defined by the FCC.

Exhibit 4-I: 

Simplified View of 

Internet Network 

and Connections
4 6 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 4

Recommendation 4.5: The FCC should initiate a rulemaking proceeding by issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to determine performance disclosure 

requirements for broadband.

The FCC should issue an NPRM to determine appropriate 

disclosure obligations for broadband service providers, including disclosure obligations related to service performance. 

These obligations should include simple and clear data that 

a “reasonable consumer” can understand, while providing 

more detailed disclosure for more interested parties such as 

tech-savvy consumers, software developers and entrepreneurs 

designing products for the network.63

The purpose of disclosure for consumers is to help foster a 

competitive marketplace. Consumers need access to information at four different decision-making points in the process: 

when they are choosing a service provider, when they are 

choosing a plan, when they are evaluating their billed costs and 

if and when they decide to change providers.64

For broadband today, speed, price and overall performance are important factors in consumer decision-making. 

Consumers need to understand what broadband speed they 

actually need for the applications they want to use; how the 

speeds advertised by a broadband service provider compare to 

the actual speed a consumer will experience; and what broadband service provider and plan will give them the best value 

overall. The decision is especially complex because the actual 

performance of broadband service can vary significantly across 

geographic areas.

Given these factors, the FCC should look for better ways 

to improve information availability for consumer decisionmaking. One example would be to investigate developing 

or supporting the development by third parties of an online 

decision-making tool for choosing a broadband ISP, similar to 

those being developed for cell-phone services.

Some consumers will want a simpler way to gauge performance 

of different broadband service offers. For them, the FCC should 

develop a “broadband digital label” that will summarize broadband service performance concisely. Disclosure labels are among 

the most common tools used to ensure consumers have information about a product or service. They often come in two parts: a 

simple and clear standard “page 1” and a “page 2” listing more 

detail. The broadband digital label should take this concept and 

bring it to the online world. Illustrative examples of the front page 

of a possible broadband digital label can be found in Exhibit 4-J. 

In Example 1 in Exhibit 4-J, consumers would know maximum 

and average upload/download speeds, along with an aggregated 

quality of service rating incorporating uptime, delay and jitter, as 

well as a list of standard applications that can be used with that 

service. Example two includes only actual upload and download 

speeds and a quality of service rating. Example three, similar to 

what has been proposed by Cisco and Corning,65 would create a 

weighted average “Broadband Quality Index” rating for a service, 

from zero to five stars. This scoring system would evolve based on 

input from consumer and industry groups. 

The FCC should also consider a broadband service performance disclosure item with the required speeds for different 

applications. Broadband service providers now claim different 

required speeds for the same applications in their advertising. 

A standard and evolving list would help consumers know what 

they really need—the first step in making an informed decision.

Finally, as noted in the FCC’s August 2009 consumer 

disclosure NOI, consumers need full disclosure of the contractual commitments they are undertaking. These include clear, 

understandable, and reasonably precise estimates of the likely 

price of different broadband service offers and plans before 

they sign-up, as well as all fees and taxes.66 The FCC should 

establish appropriate disclosure standards for contractual 

commitments as part of a rulemaking.

Exhibit 4-J: 

Illustrative 

Broadband Speed 

and Performance 

Digital Labels

Detail that is still clear and focused; list of common

applications and what can be delivered with this service

Example 1 Example 2

Simplified, clear label with most

critical information

Example 3

“Star” or index of service as

ranked by third party
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 4

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 4 7

The FCC should conduct consumer research, potentially in 

collaboration with the FTC, to identify the disclosure obligations that would be most useful for consumers as critical input 

to a rulemaking proceeding.

Recommendation 4.6: The FCC should develop broadband performance standards for mobile services, multiunit buildings and small business users.

Mobile

For mobile broadband services, the FCC should create standards of measurement by location, carrier and spectrum band 

usage as input to a potential future rulemaking. The FCC 

should maintain and expand initiatives to capture user-generated data on coverage, speeds and performance. The FCC has 

launched a user-installed, self-testing application on mobile 

devices that can be used to both aggregate data about mobile 

broadband and publish the information on a public website. 

The FCC should continue to work with measurement companies, applications designers, device manufacturers and carriers 

to create an online database to help consumers make better 

choices for mobile broadband and spur competition, while 

ensuring privacy protections.67

The FCC should also encourage industry to create more 

transparent and standard disclosures of coverage, speeds and 

performance for mobile networks. The FCC should work with 

industry to identify the unique challenges of mobile disclosure—which requires reporting on speed and performance but 

also coverage and reliability—to decrease consumer confusion. 

Standards on disclosure would apply to data disclosed to regulators, to third party aggregators of coverage, and to consumers, 

with varying levels of detail for different audiences. The FCC 

should follow the same roadmap as created for fixed broadband 

disclosures, including the identification of consumer needs, the 

standardization of technical measurements and the creation of 

clear and simple consumer disclosure obligations.68

Buildings and small business

The FCC should also investigate better ways to improve 

transparency about the quality of broadband connectivity in residential multi-dwelling buildings and, potentially, 

in commercial and industrial buildings. The FCC should 

study the benefits of initiatives such as South Korea’s program to institute a voluntary system of building ratings for 

broadband connectivity.69 A program in the United States, if 

created, should carry incentives for developers to put more 

high-speed connections in new buildings, to upgrade existing structures and to encourage better internal wiring of all 

buildings, much in the same way that the Leadership in Energy 

and Environmental Design (LEED) certification program has 

encouraged developers to incorporate more environmental 

features into new buildings. 

As small and medium-sized businesses (SMBs) use more 

sophisticated broadband applications, it is important to ensure 

they have the right performance. Speed, security, reliability 

and availability requirements may differ greatly from one SMB 

to another and are often very different from those for consumers. The FCC should determine the appropriate metrics 

and standards for transparency in SMB broadband to help 

in purchasing decisions and to encourage innovation among 

broadband providers.

Competition in Wholesale Broadband Markets

Residential broadband competition—as important as it is—is 

not the only type of competition we must foster to lay the 

foundation for America’s broadband future. Ensuring robust 

competition not only for American households but also for 

American businesses requires particular attention to the role 

of wholesale markets, through which providers of broadband 

services secure critical inputs from one another. Because of 

the economies of scale, scope and density that characterize 

telecommunications networks, well functioning wholesale 

markets can help foster retail competition, as it is not economically or practically feasible for competitors to build facilities in 

all geographic areas. Therefore, the nation’s regulatory policies 

for wholesale access affect the competitiveness of markets for 

retail broadband services provided to small businesses, mobile 

customers and enterprise customers.70

Unfortunately, the FCC’s current regulatory approach is a 

hodgepodge of wholesale access rights and pricing mechanisms 

that were developed without the benefit of a consistent, rigorous analytic framework. Similar network functionalities are 

regulated differently, based on the technology used. Therefore, 

while networks generally have been converging to integrated, 

packet-mode, largely-IP networks, regulatory policy regarding 

wholesale access has followed the opposite trajectory. This situation undermines longstanding competition policy objectives. 

In some cases it limits the ability of smaller carriers—often 

those specializing in serving niche markets such as SMBs—to 

gain access to the necessary inputs to compete. 

While facilities such as end-user loops and other point-topoint data circuits often serve as critical inputs to retail broadband 

services for business, mobile and residential customers, competitors’ access to those inputs currently depends on factors that have 

little bearing on the economics of facilities-based competitive 

entry. For example, some wholesale access policies vary based on 

technology—including whether the facility or service operates using a circuit- or packet-based mode or is constructed from copper 

or fiber—regardless of the economic viability of replicating the 

physical facility.71 Similarly, the FCC’s wireless roaming policies 
4 8 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 4

vary based on the services offered; roaming is only required for 

voice telephone calls and not mobile data services.72 As a result, 

mobile customers may not be able to use all functions of their 

Smartphone devices when roaming, even in situations where it is 

technically feasible for all of those functions to work.

In other cases, FCC rules draw distinctions based on the 

capacity of the facility, or by using various proxies to measure 

existing or potential competitive entry.73 The FCC has also 

been criticized for not collecting better data or monitoring the 

impact of its current approach to competition.74 The lack of a 

consistent analytical framework hinders the FCC’s ability to 

promote competition. Accordingly, the FCC should comprehensively review its current policies and develop a cohesive 

and effective approach to advancing competition through its 

wholesale access policies. 

Recommendation 4.7: The FCC should comprehensively 

review its wholesale competition regulations to develop a 

coherent and effective framework and take expedited action based on that framework to ensure widespread availability of inputs for broadband services provided to small 

businesses, mobile providers and enterprise customers.

An effective analytical framework for the FCC’s wholesale 

access competition policies will enable efficient collection of 

any necessary data, evaluation of current rules and determination of what actions are necessary to achieve the FCC’s goals 

for robust competition in business and consumer markets. The 

FCC has already taken steps in this direction with regard to 

the regulation of “special access” services, which encompass a 

broad array of dedicated, high-capacity transmission services.75

Recent filings at the FCC highlight additional dimensions 

of the FCC’s wholesale regulatory framework that deserve attention, including competitive access to local fiber facilities,76

copper retirement rules and implementation of Section 271 

of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended.77 The FCC 

should act on these proceedings within the context of rigorous 

analytic frameworks that establish coherent sets of conditions 

under which such rules should be applied and appropriately 

balance the benefits of competitive entry with incentives for 

carriers to invest in their networks.78

Recommendation 4.8: The FCC should ensure that special access rates, terms and conditions are just and reasonable.

Special access circuits are usually sold by incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) and are used by businesses and 

competitive providers to connect customer locations and 

networks with dedicated, high-capacity links.79 Special access 

circuits play a significant role in the availability and pricing of 

broadband service. For example, a competitive provider with 

its own fiber optic network in a city will frequently purchase 

special access connections from the incumbent provider in 

order to serve customer locations that are “off net.”80 For 

many broadband providers, including small incumbent LECs, 

cable companies and wireless broadband providers, the cost of 

purchasing these high-capacity circuits is a significant expense 

of offering broadband service, particularly in small, rural 

communities.81

The FCC regulates the rates, terms and conditions of these 

services primarily through interstate tariffs filed by incumbent 

LECs. However, the adequacy of the existing regulatory regime 

in ensuring that rates, terms and conditions for these services 

be just and reasonable has been subject to much debate.82

Much of this criticism has centered on the FCC’s decisions 

to deregulate aspects of these services. In 1999, the FCC began 

to grant pricing flexibility for special access services in certain metropolitan areas. Since 2006, the FCC has deregulated 

many of the packet-switched, high-capacity Fast Ethernet and 

Gigabit Ethernet transport services offered by several incumbent LECs.83 Business customers, community institutions and 

network providers regard these technologies as the most efficient method for connecting end-user locations and broadband 

networks to the Internet.84

The FCC is currently considering the appropriate analytical 

framework for its review of these offerings.85 The FCC needs to 

establish an analytical approach that will resolve these debates 

comprehensively and ensure that rates, terms and conditions 

for these services are just and reasonable.

Recommendation 4.9: The FCC should ensure appropriate balance in its copper retirement policies.

Competitive carriers are currently using copper to provide 

SMBs with a competitive alternative for broadband services. 

Incumbent carriers are required to share (or “unbundle”) 

certain copper loop facilities, which connect a customer to 

the incumbent carrier’s central office. By leasing these copper 

loops and connecting them to their own DSL or Ethernet over 

copper equipment that is collocated in the central office, competitive carriers are able to provide their own set of integrated 

broadband, voice and even video services to consumers and 

small businesses.86

FCC rules permit incumbents that deploy fiber in their loops to 

“retire” or remove redundant outside-plant copper facilities after 

notifying competitive carriers that may be affected.87 Retirement 

of these copper facilities affects both existing broadband services 

and the ability of competitors to offer new services.88

There are countervailing concerns, however. Incumbent 

deployment of fiber offers consumers much greater potential 

speeds and service offerings that are not generally possible over 
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 4

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 4 9

copper loops. In addition, fiber is generally less expensive to 

maintain than copper. As a result, requiring an incumbent to 

maintain two networks—one copper and one fiber—would be 

costly, possibly inefficient and reduce the incentive for incumbents to deploy fiber facilities.

The FCC should ensure appropriate balance in copper retirement policies as part of developing a coherent 

and effective framework for evaluating its wholesale access 

policies generally.

Recommendation 4.10: The FCC should clarify interconnection rights and obligations and encourage the shift to 

IP-to-IP interconnection where efficient. 

For consumers to have a choice of service providers, competitive carriers need to be able to interconnect their networks 

with incumbent providers. Basic interconnection regulations, 

which ensure that a consumer is able to make and receive 

calls to virtually anyone else with a telephone, regardless 

of service provider, network configuration or location, have 

been a central tenet of telecommunications regulatory policy 

for over a century. For competition to thrive, the principle 

of interconnection—in which customers of one service provider can communicate with customers of another—needs to 

be maintained.89

There is evidence that some rural incumbent carriers are resisting interconnection with competitive telecommunications 

carriers, claiming that they have no basic obligation to negotiate interconnection agreements.90 One federal court agreed 

with the rural carriers’ arguments and concluded that the Act 

does not require certain rural carriers to negotiate interconnection agreements with other carriers.91 This decision, which 

is based on a misinterpretation of the Act’s rural exemption 

and interconnection requirements, has since been followed 

by several state commissions.92 Without interconnection for 

voice service, a broadband provider, which may partner with a 

competitive telecommunications carrier to offer a voice-videoInternet bundle, is unable to capture voice revenues that may 

be necessary to make broadband entry economically viable.

Accordingly, to prevent the spread of this anticompetitive 

interpretation of the Act and eliminate a barrier to broadband 

deployment, the FCC should clarify rights and obligations regarding interconnection to remove any regulatory uncertainty. 

In particular, the FCC should confirm that all telecommunications carriers, including rural carriers, have a duty to 

interconnect their networks.93 The FCC should also determine 

what actions it could take to encourage transitions to IP-to-IP 

interconnection where that is the most efficient approach.94

Recommendation 4.11: The FCC should move forward 

promptly in the open proceeding on data roaming.

To achieve wide, seamless and competitive coverage, the 

FCC should encourage mobile broadband providers to construct and build networks. Few, if any, of these networks will 

provide ubiquitous nationwide service entirely through their 

own facilities, particularly in the initial stages of construction 

and in rural areas. In order for consumers to be able to use 

mobile broadband services when traveling to areas outside 

their provider’s network, their provider likely will need to enter 

into roaming arrangements with other providers. Roaming 

arrangements enable a customer to stay connected when traveling beyond the reach of their provider’s network by using the 

network of another provider.

Data roaming is important to entry and competition for 

mobile broadband services and would enable customers to 

obtain access to e-mail, the Internet and other mobile broadband services outside the geographic regions served by their 

providers. For example, small rural providers serve customers 

that may be more likely to roam in areas outside their providers’ network footprints. The industry should adopt voluntary 

data-roaming arrangements. In addition, the FCC should move 

forward promptly in its open proceeding on roaming obligations for data services provided without interconnection with 

the public-switched network.95

4.2 DEVICES

Innovative devices fundamentally change how people use 

broadband. Smartphones have allowed millions of Americans 

to use mobile e-mail, browse the Internet on-the-go, and—more 

recently—to use hundreds of thousands of mobile applications 

that did not exist a few years ago. Before smartphones, personal 

computers with graphical user interfaces and growing processing power enabled the emergence of the Web browser, which 

led to the widespread adoption of the Internet.

Competition, often from companies that were not market 

leaders, has driven innovation and investment in devices in the 

past and must continue to do so in the future. When one examines the three main types of devices that connect to broadband 

service provider networks—mobile devices, computing devices 

and set-top boxes—one finds that there are many mobile and 

computing device manufacturers offering hundreds of devices 

with a dizzying assortment of brands, features and price levels. 

Whole new device classes, such as tablets, e-book readers and 

netbooks continue to emerge, shifting firms’ market positions and enabling entrants to capture market share. Mobile 

devices are rapidly incorporating technology such as Global 

Positioning System, accelerometers, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, enhanced graphics and multi-touch screens. By any measure, 

innovation is thriving in mobile and computing devices.
5 0 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 4

The same is not true for set-top boxes, which are becoming 

increasingly important for broadband as video drives more 

broadband usage (see Chapter 3).96 Further innovation in settop boxes could lead to:

➤ Greater choice, lower prices and more capability in the 

boxes, including applications.97

➤ More competition among companies offering video content 

(MVPDs).98

➤ Unlimited choice in the content available—whether from 

traditional television (TV) or the Internet—through an 

integrated user interface.99

➤ More video and broadband applications for the TV, possibly 

in conjunction with other devices, such as mobile phones 

and personal computers (PCs).100

➤ Higher broadband utilization.101

Congress wanted to stimulate competition and innovation 

in set-top boxes and other video navigation devices in 1996 

when it added Section 629 to the Communications Act. Section 

629 directed the FCC to ensure that consumers could use 

commercially available navigation devices to access services 

from MVPDs.102 Lawmakers pointed to innovative uses of the 

telephone network, related to new phones, faxes and other 

equipment, and said they wanted to create a similarly vigorous 

retail market for devices used with MVPD services.103

The FCC adopted its First Report and Order to implement 

the provisions of Section 629 in 1998.104 The order established 

rules requiring MVPDs to separate the system that customers 

use to gain access to video programming, called the conditional 

element, from the device customers use to navigate the programming. Section 629 nominally applies to all MVPDs. The 

FCC, however, has applied its rules only to cable operators. It 

either directly exempted other MVPDs, such as satellite TV 

operators, or implicitly excluded them by taking “no action” 

against an operator.105

Operators and other stakeholders agreed on a proposed 

solution for cable—called CableCARD—to separate the conditional access element. The CableCARD is about the size of 

a credit card and roughly similar in function to the Subscriber 

Identity Module (SIM) card used in mobile phones. Cable 

operators supply the CableCARD, which is inserted into a 

set-top box or television set that a consumer buys at a store 

to authenticate the subscriber. To ensure adequate support 

for CableCARDs, the FCC required cable operators to use 

CableCARDs for set-top boxes leased to consumers.

The first devices from third-party manufacturers using 

CableCARDs hit the retail market in August 2004, six years 

after the FCC’s First Report and Order. Three years later, in 

July 2007, cable operators began using CableCARDs in their 

leased set-top boxes.106Despite Congressional and FCC intentions, CableCARDs have failed to stimulate a competitive 

retail market for set-top boxes. The top two cable set-top box 

manufacturers in North America, Motorola and Cisco, together 

captured a 95% share of unit shipments over the first three 

quarters of 2009. That’s up from 87% in 2006.107 A national or 

global market with relatively low costs of entry, like that for 

many consumer electronics markets, should support more than 

two competitors over time.108The two companies continue to 

control both the hardware and the security on the cable settop box through their proprietary conditional access systems. 

By contrast, the top two cable set-top box manufacturers in 

Europe, the Middle East and Asia (EMEA) where open standards are used for conditional access accounted for a market 

share of approximately 39% between 2006 and the third 

BOX 4-1:

Broadband Modems as an 

Analog for Innovation in SetTop Boxes 

Broadband modems offer 

an example of how to unleash 

competition, investment and 

innovation in set-top boxes and 

other video navigation devices 

for consumer benefit. For standard residential broadband connections, even though there are 

numerous delivery technologies 

(including cable, fiber, DSL, satellite and fixed wireless broadband), a customer must use an 

interface device, such as a cable 

modem. That device performs 

all network-specific functions. 

It also connects via a standardized Ethernet port to numerous 

devices consumers can buy at 

the store—including PCs, game 

consoles, digital media devices 

and wireless routers. Innovation 

can happen on either “side” of 

that device without affecting the 

other side. Service providers are 

free to invest and innovate in 

their networks and the services they deliver. Because the 

interface device communicates 

with consumer devices through 

truly open, widely used and 

standard protocols, manufacturers can create devices independently from service providers or 

any related third parties (e.g., 

CableLabs). For example, PC 

manufacturers do not need to 

sign non-disclosure agreements 

with broadband service providers, license any intellectual 

property selected or favored 

by broadband service providers or get approval from any 

broadband service providers or 

any non-regulatory certification 

bodies to develop or sell their 

PCs at retail or enable consumers to attach them to service 

provider networks through the 

interface device.

Establishing an interface 

device for video networks that 

serves a similar purpose to 

modems for broadband networks could spark similar levels 

of competition, investment and 

innovation. 
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 4

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 5 1

quarter of 2009.109 There are 0.5 million CableCARDs deployed 

in retail devices today,110 which represents roughly 1% of all settop boxes deployed in cable homes.111 Only two manufacturers, 

TiVo and Moxi, continue to sell CableCARD-enabled set-top 

boxes through retail outlets.

Other alternatives are starting to emerge. For example, 

several innovators are attempting to bring Internet video to the 

TV.112 Their devices often cannot access traditional TV content 

that consumers value—content that is not available or difficult 

to access online. Without the ability to seamlessly integrate 

Internet video with traditional TV viewing, Internet video devices like Apple TV and Roku have struggled to gain a foothold 

in U.S. homes.113

Retail set-top boxes have been competing on an uneven 

playing field. The barriers have been well-documented in multiple proceedings114 and have prompted some companies not 

to enter the market at all.115 To level the field, the FCC should 

adopt the recommendation that follows. To maximize the 

likelihood that the recommendation will succeed, it should apply to all MVPDs. Extending the rule to all MVPDs will enable 

consumer electronics manufacturers to develop products for 

a larger customer base and allow consumers to purchase retail 

devices that will continue to function even if the consumer 

changes providers. Today, four out of the top 10 MVPDs are not 

cable companies and represent 41% of MVPD subscribers.116

Recommendation 4.12: The FCC should initiate a proceeding to ensure that all multichannel video programming 

distributors (MVPDs) install a gateway device or equivalent functionality in all new subscriber homes and in all 

homes requiring replacement set-top boxes, starting on or 

before Dec. 31, 2012.

To facilitate innovation and limits costs to consumers, the 

gateway device must be simple. Its sole function should be to 

bridge the proprietary or unique elements of the MVPD network 

(e.g., conditional access, tuning and reception functions) to widely 

used and accessible, open networking and communications standards. That would give a gateway device a standard interface with 

televisions, set-top boxes and other in-home devices and allow 

consumer electronics manufacturers to develop, market and support their products independently of MVPDs.

The following key principles apply:

➤ A gateway device should be simple and inexpensive, both 

for MVPDs and consumers. It should be equipped with only 

those components and functionality required to perform 

network-specific functions and translate them into open, 

standard protocols. The device should not support any 

other functionality or components.117

➤ A gateway device should allow consumer electronics 

manufacturers to develop, sell and support network-neutral 

devices that access content from the network independently

from MVPDs or any third parties.118 Specifically, third-party 

manufacturers should not be limited in their ability to innovate in the user interface of their devices by MVPD requirements. User-interface innovation is an important element 

for differentiating products in the consumer electronics 

market and for achieving the objectives of Section 629.

Similar to broadband modems (see Box 4-1), the proposed 

gateway device would accommodate each MVPD’s use of different delivery technologies and enable them to continue unfettered 

investment and innovation in video delivery. At the same time, it 

would allow consumer electronics manufacturers to design to a 

stable, common open interface and to integrate multiple functions 

within a retail device. Those functions might include combining 

MVPD and Internet content and services, providing new user 

interfaces and integrating with mobile and portable devices such 

as media players and computers. It could enable the emergence 

of completely new classes of devices, services and applications 

involving video and broadband.

To ensure a competitive market for set-top boxes, the open 

gateway device:

➤ Should use open, published standards for discovering, signaling, authenticating and communicating with retail devices.119

➤ Should allow retail devices to access all MVPD content and 

services to which a customer has subscribed and to display 

the content and services without restrictions or requirments on the device’s user interface or functions and without degradation in quality (e.g., due to transcoding).120

➤ Should not require restrictive licensing, disclosure or certification. Any criterion should apply equally to retail and 

operator-supplied devices. Any intellectual property should 

be available to all parties at a low cost and on reasonable 

and non-discriminatory terms.121

➤ Should pass video content through to retail devices with 

existing copy protection flags from the MVPD.122

Requiring that the gateway device or equivalent functionality be developed and deployed by the end of 2012 is reasonable 

given the importance of stimulating competition and innovation in set-top boxes, the extensive public record established 

in this subject area123 and the relatively simple architectures 

proposed to date.124

The FCC should establish interim milestones to ensure 

that the development and deployment of a gateway device or 

equivalent functionality remains on track. In addition, the 

FCC should determine appropriate enforcement mechanisms 

for MVPDs that, as of Dec. 31, 2012, have not begun deploying 

gateway device functionality in all new subscriber homes and in 

all homes requiring replacement set-top boxes.
5 2 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 4

Enforcement mechanisms would be determined with public 

input as part of the rulemaking proceeding. They could include, 

for example, issuing fines against non-compliant operators or 

denying extensions of certain CableCARD waivers like those 

granted for Digital Transport Adapters (DTAs). The FCC could 

also reach agreements with operators to provide set-top boxes 

for free to new customers until a gateway device is deployed.

The FCC should establish up front the criteria for the 

enforcement mechanisms. The FCC may want, for instance, to 

grant small operators more time to deploy the gateway device 

to take account of unique operational or financial circumstances. Transparency in the criteria for the enforcement 

mechanisms will establish more regulatory certainty in the 

market and help limit the number of waiver requests.

Recommendation 4.13: On an expedited basis, the FCC

should adopt rules for cable operators to fix certain CableCARD issues while development of the gateway device 

functionality progresses. Adoption of these rules should be 

completed in the fall of 2010.

Four factors hinder consumer demand to purchase 

CableCARD devices and manufacturers’ willingness to produce 

those devices. First, retail CableCARD devices cannot access all 

linear channels in cable systems with Switched Digital Video 

(SDV) unless cable operators voluntarily give customers a 

separate set-top box as an SDV tuning adapter.125 Second, consumers perceive retail set-top boxes to be more expensive than 

set-top boxes leased at regulated rates from the cable operator. 

This perception is partially driven by a lack of transparency in 

CableCARD pricing for operator-leased boxes and by the bundling of leased boxes into package prices by operators.126 Third, 

consumers who buy retail set-top boxes can encounter more 

installation and support costs and hassles than those who lease 

set-top boxes from their cable operators.127 Fourth, the current 

retail CableCARD device certification process, run through 

CableLabs, incurs incremental costs of at least $100,000 to 

$200,000 during product development. The process also 

currently introduces other negative elements, including complexity, uncertainty and delays.128

Specifically, the proposed rules should address the four 

CableCARD issues. They should:

➤ Ensure equal access to linear channels for retail and 

operator-leased CableCARD devices in cable systems with 

SDV by allowing retail devices to receive and transmit outof-band communications with the cable headend over IP.129

➤ Establish transparent pricing for CableCARDs and operator-leased set-top boxes. Consumers should see the 

appropriate CableCARD charge, whether they purchase a 

retail device or lease one from the operator, and they should 

receive a comparable discount off packages that include 

the operator-leased set-top box if they choose to purchase 

one instead.130

➤ Standardize installation policies for retail and operatorleased CableCARD devices to ensure consumers buying 

CableCARD-enabled devices at retail do not face materially 

different provisioning hurdles than those using operatorleased set-top boxes.131

➤ Streamline and accelerate the certification process for retail 

CableCARD devices.132 For example, the rules could restrict 

the certification process to cover hardware only, similar to 

the certification required for cable-ready TVs, to ensure retail 

CableCARD devices do not harm a cable operator’s network.

Addressing these issues will not require large investments in 

either headend or customer premise infrastructure.133

In fact, fixing these four CableCARD issues will sustain the 

current retail market for set-top boxes, enable companies that 

have invested in CableCARD-based products in accordance 

with current rules to compete effectively until the gateway 

device is deployed at scale, encourage more innovation until 

the gateway device is widely deployed and potentially allow for 

competition in the provision of the gateway device.

4.3 APPLICATIONS

Over the last 10 years, there has been phenomenal growth in the 

applications and content available over broadband networks. 

Whole new markets have emerged, while others have migrated—

partially or totally—online. Innovation in applications and content 

is transforming the way Americans communicate, shop, bank, 

study, read, work, use maps to find their way as they drive or walk, 

and are entertained. They have also changed the ways businesses interact with one another and market to their customers. 

Applications, content and the services they enable are bundled, 

sold, priced and monetized in many different ways. The nature 

and intensity of competition in applications and content varies 

tremendously and must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

The collection, aggregation and analysis of personal information are common threads among, and enablers of, many 

application-related innovations. The data that businesses 

collect have allowed them to provide increasingly valuable 

services to end-users, such as customized suggestions for movie 

rentals or books—often free of charge. These data have also 

become a source of value to businesses—e.g., as an enabler of 

more targeted and relevant advertising and increased user 

loyalty.134 These data collection and monetization activities are 

a major driver of innovation for the Internet today and have 

benefited consumers in many ways.

However, many users are increasingly concerned about their 
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 4

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 5 3

lack of control over sensitive personal data. As aspects of individuals’ lives become more “digitized” and accessible through 

or gleaned from broadband use, the disclosure of previously 

private, personal information has made many Americans wary 

of the medium. Innovation will suffer if a lack of trust exists 

between users and the entities with which they interact over 

the Internet. Policies therefore must reflect consumers’ desire 

to protect sensitive data and to control dissemination and use 

of what has become essentially their “digital identity.” Ensuring 

customer control of personal data and digital profiles can help 

address privacy concerns and foster innovation.

Personal Data, Innovation and Privacy

Historically, many firms have used personal data offline to 

create consumer profiles that have spawned multibillion dollar industries. The credit rating industry, for instance, tracks 

personal information including payment history, loan balances 

and income levels, which it sells to third parties to facilitate 

critical decisions such as approval of mortgages, loans and 

credit cards. The credit card industry, advertising industry and 

telemarketers have always relied on personal profiles of customers to better tailor their products and services. However, 

the impact has not always been positive for consumers. This 

fact has led to government actions like the creation of the “do 

not call” list for telemarketers and the FTC’s work on combating fraud and identity theft.

The emergence of broadband and the growing use of the 

Internet makes aggregation of detailed personal data much 

easier and more valuable (see Box 4-2). As a result, single firms 

may be able over time to collect a vast amount of detailed personal information about individuals, including web searches, 

sites visited, click-stream, e-mail contacts and content, map 

searches, geographic location and movements, calendar appointments, mobile phone book, health records, educational 

records, energy usage, pictures and videos, social networks, 

locations visited, eating, reading, entertainment preferences, 

and purchasing history.

These data are giving rise to something akin to a “digital 

identity,” which is a major source of potential innovation and 

opens up many possibilities for better customization of services 

and increased opportunities for monetization. The value of a 

targeted advertisement based on personal data can be several 

times higher than the value of an advertisement aimed at a 

broad audience. For example, the going rate for some targeted 

advertising products can be several times the rate for a generic 

one135 because consumers can be six times more likely to “click 

through” a targeted banner advertisement than a non-targeted one.136 This differential will likely increase as targeting 

becomes more refined and more capable of predicting preferences, intentions and behaviors.

Firms’ ability to collect, aggregate, analyze and monetize 

personal data has already spurred new business models, products and services, and many of these have benefited consumers. 

For example, many online content providers monetize their audience through targeted advertising. Whole new categories of 

Internet applications and services, including search, social networks, blogs and user-generated content sites, have emerged 

and continue to operate in part because of the potential value 

of targeted online advertising.137

The ability to collect and store increasing amounts of 

personal data to develop these “digital identities” is accentuated by potential network effects. Firms with more predictive 

profiles and larger audiences will be able to offer increasingly 

better-targeted products and services that generate more 

advertising and consumer usage. This, in turn, enables the 

firms to collect more and better consumer personal data and 

develop even more predictive profiles. Those data and profiles 

are often so valuable for firms that they increasingly offer their 

products and services free of any monetary charges. Consumers 

gain access to a valuable service, and businesses gain valuable 

information.

However, new firms without access to detailed profiles of 

individual consumers, large audiences or subscriber pools 

may face competitive challenges as they try to monetize their 

innovations. They may face competitors offering an inferior 

service free of charge, and they may not have sufficient information about enough consumers to monetize their “audience” 

through advertising.

One way to encourage innovation in applications is to give 

individuals control of their digital profiles.138 Giving consumers control of their digital profiles and personal data, including 

the ability to transfer some or all of it to a third party of their 

choice, may enable the development of new applications and 

services, and reduce barriers to entry for new firms. Giving 

customers increased control of their profiles would also help 

address growing concerns about privacy and anonymity.

Privacy and Anonymity

Today, consumers may have limited knowledge (if any) about 

how their personal data are collected and used. The fiduciary 

and legal responsibilities of those who collect and use that data 

are also unclear. Once consumers have shared their data, they 

often have limited ability to see and influence what data about 

them has been aggregated or is being used.142 Further, it is difficult for consumers to regain control over data once they have 

been released and shared. As a result, privacy concerns can 

serve as a barrier to the adoption and utilization of broadband. 

A recent FCC survey showed that almost half of all consumers 

are concerned about privacy and security online.143 Clear and 

strong privacy protections that disclose how and when users 
5 4 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 4

can delete or manage data shared with companies will help 

develop a market for innovative online applications. 

Anonymity also must be addressed—both because it can be 

a positive factor online and because it can be a negative one. 

Anonymity is critical for allowing Internet users to exercise 

fundamental rights such as whistleblowing and engaging in 

activism. However, anonymity could also have negative consequences, such as allowing cybercriminals to go undetected.

Framework for Federal Involvement

Several laws grant the FTC, FCC and other agencies regulatory 

authority over online privacy. The FTC has used its authority 

to prohibit unfair or deceptive practices and enforce promises 

made in corporate privacy statements on websites.144 The FCC, 

for its part, typically works with the providers of broadband 

access to the Internet—phone, cable and wireless network 

providers—and the Communications Act contains various 

provisions outlining consumer privacy protections.145 However, 

existing regulatory frameworks provide only a partial solution 

to consumer concerns and consist of a patchwork of potentially 

confusing regulations.146 For instance, online communications 

are subject to ECPA,147 but the privacy protections in ECPA 

may not apply to the information that websites collect from 

individual website visitors.148 The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act’s 

protections for personal financial data apply only to financial 

institutions (such as banks, credit institutions and non-bank 

lenders), even though non-financial institutions (such as data 

brokers) may possess comparable information not subject 

to protections.149 And while traditional telephone and cable 

TV networks are subject to privacy protections, ISPs operating in an unregulated environment can theoretically obtain 

and share consumer data through technologies such as deep 

packet inspection.150

In terms of anonymity, communications privacy laws,151

health privacy regulations152 and financial privacy laws153 all 

prohibit disclosure of some analog to “personally identifiable information.” However, defining “personally identifiable 

information” is not simple. In some cases, a single piece of 

information could be enough to identify an individual; in other 

cases, multiple facts might be required. For example, some 

claim that an aggregate of gender, ZIP code and birth date are 

unique for about 87% of the U.S. population.154

The right to speak anonymously without fear of government 

reprisal is protected by a number of laws, including federal 

whistleblower laws155 and the First Amendment.156 The protections for anonymous speech are broad. People who are actually 

engaging in expressive or political speech are afforded even 

fuller protections.157 As a result, anonymity is a complex issue.

As the FTC has stated, existing regulations are not enough 

in today’s rapidly evolving world.158 However, steps are being taken at the federal level to improve privacy protections, 

even in the absence of comprehensive privacy protections.159

In particular, the FTC has addressed a wide variety of privacy 

issues since the 1990s. It has brought enforcement actions 

BOX 4-2:

Online Personal Data Collection

Online data collection can be 

either passive or active. Passive 

data collection occurs without 

any overt consumer interaction 

and generally includes capturing user preferences and usage 

behavior, including location data 

from personal mobile devices. 

The best-known example is 

the use of “cookies” on a user’s 

computer to capture Internet 

browsing history.139 Passive data 

collection and the sharing of 

this data among third parties is 

poorly understood by consumers and often not communicated 

transparently by websites and 

applications. Consumers have 

some tools at their disposal, such 

as “private” browsing capabilities 

provided in the latest version of 

popular Web browsers or tools 

that allow them to see what passive activity is being captured, 

but the tools are limited.140

Active data collection 

requires a user to deliberately share personal data—for 

instance, when completing 

an online retail transaction or 

downloading an application on a 

mobile device. It often includes 

some disclosure of the use of the 

data being collected, although 

disclosures are frequently 

complex and written for lawyers, 

limiting how effective they are 

at conveying information to 

consumers.141 Additionally, active 

data collection disclosure forms 

can fail to divulge policies on 

data sharing with third parties; when a consumer enters 

personal information, it is not 

clear whether these data might 

become part of a “digital profile” 

on a third party site.

Once personal data are 

collected, either passively or 

actively, they can be aggregated 

through third parties. Large 

firms, with enough interactions 

with consumers and sufficient 

information about them, may 

aggregate the data on their 

own. Profiles may be simple 

“contextual” maps, drawing 

just on immediate actions that 

consumers take on a page; for 

instance, someone searching 

for a flight may see a travel ad 

generated. Profiles may also be 

based on complex “behavioral” 

relationships that are not apparent to consumers; for example, 

someone may see a more tailored travel offer on that same 

website based on purchases they 

made at a retail store a month 

earlier and on their subsequent 

spending. These more sophisticated profiles allow for targeting 

of products to individuals in a 

predictive fashion.
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 4

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 5 5

against spammers, makers of spyware and those who fail to 

protect sensitive consumer data. The FTC has also encouraged 

websites to post privacy policies that describe how personal 

information is collected, shared, used and secured. Today, 

nearly all of the top 100 commercial sites post such privacy 

policies.160 Several years ago, the FTC launched an initiative 

to encourage greater transparency and consumer control with 

respect to online behavioral advertising. As part of that initiative, FTC staff issued a set of “principles” to guide industry 

self-regulation, including: 

➤ Provide a clear, concise, consumer-friendly, prominent 

statement about behavioral advertising practices and a 

choice to consumers about whether to allow the practice.

➤ Provide reasonable security and have limited data retention.

➤ Obtain consent for material changes to existing 

privacy promises.

➤ Collect sensitive data for behavioral advertising only

 after obtaining consent from the consumer to receive 

such advertising.161

Following the issuance of these principles, individual companies, industry organizations and privacy groups have taken 

steps to address the privacy issues raised by behavioral advertising.162 At the time of this plan’s release, the FTC is hosting a 

series of public roundtables to examine existing privacy frameworks and whether they are adequate to address the vast array 

of technologies, business models and privacy challenges in 

today’s world.162 The goal of the roundtables is to explore how 

best to protect consumer privacy while supporting beneficial 

uses of information and technological innovation.

Finally, Congress and NTIA have taken an active interest 

in privacy and personal data protection. Several congressional 

committees have held hearings, and members have introduced 

bills that address various aspects of online privacy, from the brokerage of online information to deep packet inspection. NTIA, 

as part of its statutory obligation to advise the President, has 

worked closely with other parts of government on these issues.

Recommendation 4.14: Congress, the Federal Trade 

Commission (FTC) and the FCC should consider clarifying 

the relationship between users and their online profiles. 

In particular, several questions need to be addressed:

➤ What obligations do firms that collect, analyze or monetize 

personal data or create digital profiles of individuals have 

to consumers in terms of data sharing, collection, storage, 

safeguarding and accountability?

➤ What, if any, new obligations should firms have to transparently disclose their use of, access to and retention of 

personal data?

➤ How can informed consent principles be applied to personal data usage and disclosures?

Recommendation 4.15: Congress should consider helping 

spur development of trusted “identity providers” to assist 

consumers in managing their data in a manner that maximizes the privacy and security of the information.

Standard safe harbor provisions could allow companies 

to be acknowledged as trusted intermediaries that properly 

safeguard information, following appropriately strict guidelines and audits on data protection and privacy (see Box 4-4). 

Congress should also consider creating a regime that provides 

insurance to these trusted intermediaries.166

BOX 4-3:

Critical Legislation—

Reforming the Privacy Act

This plan contains many 

recommendations, including 

some directed to Congress, 

for how to achieve the Congressional goals of access, 

affordability, utilization and 

achieving national purposes. In 

analyzing barriers to achieving 

these goals, a recurring theme 

emerges around privacy and 

control of personal data. The 

current legal landscape for 

how consumers control their 

personal data, when applied to 

the online world, may hold back 

new innovation and investment 

in broadband applications and 

content. These applications 

and content, in turn, are likely 

the most effective means to 

advance many of Congress’s 

goals for broadband. New generations of applications and devices in sectors such as health 

care, energy and education will 

collect critical data that will 

help drive the next generation 

of American innovation, even 

as they raise important security 

and privacy considerations.164

While it is beyond the 

scope of this plan to address 

the details of how the legal 

landscape should be reformed, 

it is likely that revising the 

current Privacy Act to give 

consumers more control over 

their personal data and more 

confidence in the security of 

their personal data is a positive 

action Congress could take to 

improve the broadband ecosystem. Done correctly, this would 

increase innovation, rather than 

stifling it, by allowing consumers to transparently understand 

and choose how their government data are used. Updating 

the Act for the 21st century 

reality of digital interaction and 

seamless content sharing could 

drive more Americans online, 

increase their utilization of the 

Internet and help American 

businesses and organizations 

develop deeper and more 

trusted relationships with their 

customers and clients.
5 6 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 4

Recommendation 4.16: The FCC and FTC should jointly 

develop principles to require that customers provide informed consent before broadband service providers share 

certain types of information with third parties.167

This information should include customers’ account and 

usage information such as patterns of Internet access use and 

other personally identifiable information. This should not 

limit the ability of the provider to render reasonable service. 

Consent to allow sharing of personal information should not be 

a prerequisite to receiving service.

Identity Theft and Fraud

Identity theft is not a new risk—in fact, it is significantly more 

common offline than online.168 However, with increases in 

electronic communications and online commerce, and the aggregation of information in databases, identity theft has become 

a growing concern.169 In 2000, the FTC Consumer Sentinel 

Network received 31,000 identity theft complaints; by 2008, this 

number had risen to 314,000.170 According to the FTC:

“Credit card fraud (20%) was the most common form of reported 

identity theft followed by government documents/benefits fraud 

(15%), employment fraud (15%) and phone or utilities fraud 

(13%). Other significant categories of identity theft reported by 

victims were bank fraud (11%) and loan fraud (4%).”

In 2008, the FTC’s network collected 1.2 million consumer 

complaints (up from roughly 900,000 in 2006) involving both 

online and offline transactions. Fraud and identity theft accounted 

for nearly 80% of these complaints.171 Consumer risks like fraud 

and identity theft create a disincentive for individuals to engage 

in online transactions, increase the costs of doing business online 

and create law enforcement challenges.172Ensuring growing adoption and utilization of broadband requires that Internet users feel 

that they can connect and interact safely online. 

Recently, fraud has been growing. A separate report by 

the Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) showed a 33.1% 

increase in fraud from 2007 to 2008.173 The IC3 found that 

non-delivered merchandise or payment was, by far, the most 

reported offense (32.9%) while Internet auction fraud (25.5%) 

and credit/debit card fraud (9.0%) were also common offenses.

Several federal agencies have authority and responsibility 

for identity theft. In 1998, Congress passed the Identity Theft 

and Assumption Deterrence Act, making identity theft a federal 

crime. By 2002, most states had followed the federal example 

and enacted identity theft statutes.174

The Act called on the FTC to act as a clearinghouse for identity theft complaints and to provide consumer information to 

potential victims.175 The FTC has produced several guidebooks 

with step-by-step information on actions consumers can take 

if they believe they are victims of identity theft. Those materials are available through the FTC.gov/idtheft website and the 

OnGuardOnline.gov project.

Beyond existing regulations, the 111th Congress has multiple 

bills in development that specifically address identity theft and 

security breaches.176

Recommendation 4.17: The federal government, led by 

the FTC, should put additional resources into combating 

identity theft and fraud and help consumers access and utilize those resources, including bolstering existing solutions 

such as OnGuard Online.

➤ Put more resources into OnGuard Online. The federal government should put additional resources into 

OnGuard Online, ensuring that it is easily accessible 

to consumers and provides them with information on 

risks, solutions and who they can contact for further 

action. Federal agencies should connect their existing 

online websites to OnGuard Online and direct consumers to its resources.

BOX 4-4:

The FDIC as an Analog to 

Trusted “Identity Providers”

Many government-backed 

entities have been created to 

help protect the public interest. 

The Federal Deposit Insurance 

Corporation (FDIC) provides 

one example of how government assists private companies 

in protecting and better serving 

consumers. Founded in 1933, the 

FDIC is an independent agency 

created by Congress to guarantee the deposits of individuals up 

to certain levels, thereby increasing trust in the banking system. 

Since the launch of FDIC insurance on Jan. 1, 1934, no depositor 

has lost a single cent of insured 

funds as a result of a failure.165 

The FDIC fulfills its mission:

• By acting as a private 

entity with the implicit 

backing of the government 

but that is fully self-funded through bank insurance 

payments.

• By creating minimum 

levels of security for 

depositors, giving Americans incentives to invest 

their personal funds in 

the banking system while 

limiting risk.

• By providing oversight of 

banks, assuring depositors 

that standards for good 

business and thoughtful 

risk taking are created 

and enforced. 

Congress could explore the 

creation of mechanisms similar 

to those used by the FDIC to 

foster the emergence of trusted 

“identity providers” to secure 

and protect consumer data.
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 4

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 5 7

➤ Maintain and publicize a database of agencies with 

responsibility. The FTC should maintain and publicize 

a database of agencies responsible for identity theft and 

fraud information, with clear information and directions available to consumers.

➤ Continue education efforts around identity theft and 

fraud. The federal government should continue educational efforts that clarify for consumers and businesses 

that personal information should only be collected 

when necessary and that entities should take reasonable measures to protect information from unauthorized access.

➤ Encourage broadband service providers to link to 

OnGuard Online. All agencies should encourage broadband service providers to link to OnGuard Online to 

direct potential victims of identity theft or fraud to 

necessary resources.

Consumer Online Security

In 1988, Robert Morris unleashed the Morris Worm on the 

Internet, bringing approximately 10% of the network to a 

halt.177 In response, the Defense Advanced Research Projects 

Agency set up the first national cybersecurity effort—the CERT 

Coordination Center at Carnegie Mellon University.178 Today, 

the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) leads federal 

cybersecurity activities supported by numerous efforts such 

as the FTC’s OnGuard Online program and DOJ legal actions. 

Consumer online security issues such as viruses, spam and malware are closely related to cybersecurity activities.

In October 2009, spam accounted for 87% of all e-mail 

messages, and 1.9% of these spam messages contained malware.179 According to the Anti-Phishing Working Group, the 

number of computers infected with malware viruses rose more 

than 66% between the fourth quarter of 2008 and the second 

quarter of 2009, representing more than half of their total 

sample of scanned computers. The incidence of malware such 

as password-stealing software directed at banking and financial 

accounts increased more than 186% in the same period.180

DHS is the government agency with primary responsibility for 

cybersecurity, although the FTC often handles “consumer online 

security” complaints. DHS, DOJ and the Executive Branch have 

taken the lead in promoting cybersecurity. Other agencies such 

as the National Security Agency, the U.S. Department of Defense 

(DoD), NIST, the National Science Foundation and the FCC have 

all had active roles. Recently, these agencies have tried to enable 

simpler communication to the public about where to go in the case 

of online security issues, while also detailing strategies for protecting the online environment.181

Broadband service providers have an incentive to offer security to customers to protect the network. Some offer antivirus 

software for free, although installation and control still primarily reside with the consumer. Application providers like Google 

also help consumers by providing information on vulnerabilities, such as by flagging sites that are security risks. This is a 

start, but there is a critical need for more consumer education 

on what threats they face, how to protect their connections and 

where to turn in case of emergency.

Recommendation 4.18: FCC consumer online security 

efforts should support broader national online security 

policy, and should be coordinated with the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS), the FTC, the White House Cyber 

Office and other agencies. Federal agencies should connect 

their existing websites to OnGuard Online to provide clear 

consumer online security information and direction.

Child Protection

In the FCC’s recent study of broadband adopters and nonadopters, 74% of broadband users strongly agreed that it is 

important for children to learn how to use the Internet. In fact, 

technology has already become integral to children’s lives.182

While children can benefit from being online (e.g., through 

access to novel educational opportunities), they can also be 

exposed to risks.183

Last year’s Internet Safety Technical Task Force Report 

concluded that simply being online does not automatically put 

youth at risk for online predation.184 Research also found that 

“there was no evidence that online predators were stalking or 

abducting unsuspecting victims based on information they 

posted at social networking sites.”185

Still, there is a growing consensus that children need to 

be taught the critical skills necessary to succeed in an online 

environment. As stated by the National Academies of Sciences: 

“Swimming pools can be dangerous for children. To protect 

them, one can install locks, put up fences and deploy pool 

alarms. All of these measures are helpful, but by far the most 

important thing that one can do for one’s children is to teach 

them to swim.”186

Recommendation 4.19: The federal government should 

create an interagency working group to coordinate child 

online safety and literacy work, facilitate information sharing, ensure consistent messaging and outreach and evaluate 

the effectiveness of governmental efforts. The working group 

should consider launching a national education and outreach 

campaign involving governments, schools and caregivers.

Content and Online Copyright Protection

The Internet is revolutionizing the production and distribution 

of creative works, lowering barriers to entry and enabling far 
5 8 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 4

broader and faster access to culture and ideas than previously 

possible.187 But the Internet’s value as a platform for content—

and the ability of online content to drive increased adoption 

and use of broadband188—depends on creators’ incentives to 

create and disseminate their works online, which are in turn at 

least partly dependent on copyright protection. The Internet 

must be a safe, trusted platform for the lawful distribution of 

content. At the same time, copyright protection efforts must 

not stifle innovation; overburden lawful uses of copyrighted 

works; or compromise consumers’ privacy rights. 

The Plan’s recommendations regarding content and online 

copyright protection are limited to a few discrete suggestions 

regarding educational uses and public media (see Chapters 11 

and 15).

Digital Goods and Services Taxation

Recommendation 4.20: The federal government should 

investigate establishing a national framework for digital 

goods and services taxation.

The National Broadband Plan is focused on increasing 

beneficial use of the Internet, including e-commerce and new 

innovative business models. The current patchwork of state 

and local laws and regulations relating to taxation of digital 

goods and services (such as ringtones, digital music, etc.) may 

hinder new investment and business models.189 Entrepreneurs 

and small businesses in particular may lack the resources to 

understand and comply with the various tax regimes.

Recognizing that state and local governments pursue varying approaches to raising tax revenues, a national framework 

for digital goods and services taxation would reduce uncertainty and remove one barrier to online entrepreneurship 

and investment.

4.4 COMPETITION FOR

VALUE ACROSS THE

ECOSYSTEM

“The Internet’s openness, and the transparency of its protocols, 

[has] been critical to its success.”190 As the FCC’s NPRM on 

Preserving the Open Internet explains, broadband is a powerful 

engine for innovation and investment in America in part because 

the Internet is an open platform, where anyone can communicate 

and do business with anyone else on a level playing field.191 The 

open Internet “ensures that users are in control of the content that 

they send and receive,”192 and that inventors and entrepreneurs 

“do not require the securing of permission” to innovate.193

The NPRM notes that these characteristics have made the 

Internet vibrant, and its continued health and growth—as well as 

broadband’s ability to drive the many benefits discussed in this 

plan—depend on its continued openness “[B]roadband providers’ ability to innovate and develop valuable new services must 

co-exist with the preservation of the free and open Internet that 

consumers and businesses of all sizes have come to depend on.”194

In the latest step in a longstanding effort to ensure these 

interests remain balanced, the FCC adopted the NPRM on 

Preserving the Open Internet in October 2009, which launched 

a rulemaking process that is currently underway.195 The NPRM 

asked for public comment on six proposed principles:

1. Content. Subject to reasonable network management, a 

provider of broadband Internet access service may not 

prevent any of its users from sending or receiving the lawful content of the user’s choice over the Internet.

2. Applications and services. Subject to reasonable network 

management, a provider of broadband Internet access 

service may not prevent any of its users from running 

the lawful applications or using the lawful services of the 

user’s choice.

3. Devices. Subject to reasonable network management, a 

provider of broadband Internet access service may not 

prevent any of its users from connecting to and using on 

its network the user’s choice of lawful devices that do not 

harm the network.

4. Competitive Options. Subject to reasonable network management, a provider of broadband Internet access service 

may not deprive any of its users of the user’s entitlement 

to competition among network providers, application 

providers, service providers and content providers.

5. Nondiscrimination. Subject to reasonable network management, a provider of broadband Internet access service 

must treat lawful content, applications and services in a 

nondiscriminatory manner.

6. Transparency. Subject to reasonable network management, a provider of broadband Internet access service 

must disclose such information concerning network 

management and other practices as is reasonably required 

for users and content, application and service providers to 

enjoy the protections specified in this part.

The proposed rules also make clear that the principles 

would not supersede any obligation or limit the ability of 

broadband providers to deliver emergency communications or 

address the needs of law enforcement, public safety or homeland security authorities, consistent with applicable law.
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 4

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 5 9

4.5 TRANSITION FROM 

A CIRCUIT-SWITCHED

NETWORK

Increasingly, broadband is not a discrete, complementary communications service. Instead, it is a platform over 

which multiple IP-based services—including voice, data and 

video—converge. As this plan outlines, convergence in communications services and technologies creates extraordinary 

opportunities to improve American life and benefit consumers. 

At the same time, convergence has a significant impact on the 

legacy Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN), a system 

that has provided, and continues to provide, essential services 

to the American people.196

Convergence raises a number of critical issues. Consumers 

benefit from the options that broadband provides, such as Voice 

over Internet Protocol. But as customers leave the PSTN, the 

typical cost per line for Plain Old Telephone Service (POTS) 

increases, given the high fixed costs of providing such service.197

Between 2003 and 2009, the average cost per line increased 

almost 20 percent.198

Regulations require certain carriers to maintain POTS—a 

requirement that is not sustainable—and lead to investments 

in assets that could be stranded.199 These regulations can have 

a number of unintended consequences, including siphoning 

investments away from new networks and services. The challenge for the country is to ensure that as IP-based services 

replace circuit-switched services, there is a smooth transition 

for Americans who use traditional phone service and for the 

businesses that provide it.

This is not the first time the United States has overseen a 

transition in communications. In the past, the country transitioned mobile service from analog to digital and, more recently, 

transitioned broadcast television from analog to digital. In each 

case, government policies helped ensure that legacy regulations 

and services did not become a drag on the transition to a more 

modern and efficient use of resources, that consumers did not 

lose services they needed and that businesses could plan for 

and adjust to the new standards.

As with earlier transitions, the transition from a circuitswitched network will take a number of years. But to ensure 

that the transition does not dramatically disrupt communications or make it difficult to achieve certain public policy goals, 

the country should start considering the necessary elements 

of this transition in parallel with efforts to accelerate broadband deployment and adoption. As such, the FCC should start 

a proceeding on the transition that asks for comment on a 

number of questions, including whether the FCC should set 

a timeline for a transition and, if so, what the timeline should 

be,200 quality of service requirements201 and safeguarding emergency communications.202 This proceeding should consider 

questions of jurisdiction,203 regulatory structure204 and legacy 

voice-specific regulations, including interconnection, numbering and carrier of last resort obligations.205 It should consider 

the impact of the transition on employment in the communications industry, particularly given the historic role of the sector 

in providing high-skill, high-wage jobs.206 In the proceeding, the 

FCC should also look at whether there are requirements from 

other federal entities, such as tax requirements, that would affect the path of the transition. 

Finally, a number of recommendations in this plan will 

affect the path of the transition, including recommendations about universal service and intercarrier compensation 

(Chapter 8) and recommendations related to access for people 

with disabilities (Chapter 9). The proceeding should examine how best to proceed with a transition in light of these 

other recommendations. 

4.6 LEVERAGING 

THE BENEFITS

OF INNOVATION

AND INVESTMENT

INTERNATIONALLY

While the National Broadband Plan focuses on developing the 

domestic broadband ecosystem, broadband policy also unfolds 

in an interdependent international market full of opportunities 

and challenges. Global trade in information and communications technology (ICT) is almost $4 trillion and growing.207 U.S. 

companies have played a leading role in bringing technologies 

to market that support a worldwide ICT ecosystem through 

the development of software, devices, applications, semiconductors and network equipment. This trade and investment is 

supporting tremendous growth in international Internet traffic, which increased at a compound annual growth rate of 66% 

over the past five years, supported by a 22% compound annual 

reduction in international transit port prices over that same 

period.208 Further investment and innovation in U.S. broadband 

networks will provide U.S. businesses and consumers with the 

infrastructure they need to continue to compete in the rapidly 

changing ICT market. However, to realize the tremendous 
6 0 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 4

promise of a networked world, U.S. leadership and international cooperation are needed to encourage Internet freedom and 

strengthen cybersecurity.

The United States took a leading role in the global Internet 

revolution of the 1990s by contributing to the technological and policy developments that enabled the Internet. The 

breakup of AT&T in the 1980s and the Telecommunications Act 

of 1996 served as catalysts for the spread of pro-competition 

policies around the world.209 In addition, with the adoption of 

the World Trade Organization’s Basic Telecommunications 

Agreement and Reference Paper in 1996, the world community 

took steps to adopt important liberalization principles that 

remain relevant and influential today.210

The National Broadband Plan recognizes that making the 

right policy choices at home that result in domestic market 

success is essential for the United States to advocate effectively in the debate on policies and practices for the global 

communications network. The policies contained in the plan 

form the basic foundations of the U.S. international telecommunications agenda. These principles include support for 

regulatory frameworks that are pro-competitive, transparent 

and technology-neutral.

Ubiquitous availability of broadband and universal connectivity enable people and entities in the United States to communicate 

worldwide, which increases productivity and enables innovation. 

The National Broadband Plan’s emphasis on the promotion of 

the use of broadband for national priorities, such as education, 

energy, health care, economic development, e-government, civic 

engagement and public safety, demonstrates the possibilities for 

progress that can result from access to broadband. Even for the 

many people whose access to the global network is limited to 

mobile phones, there are still innovative examples of how mobile 

broadband can serve national priorities, such as providing access 

to health care information through mobile handsets.211

Competitive communication policies have facilitated 

network development around the world. The trends are encouraging, with 1.7 billion Internet users and 4.6 billion mobile 

phone subscribers in the world today.212 Mobile networks now 

constitute the world’s largest distribution platform. And today’s 

mobile users will be the next generation of Internet users, as 

Smartphones enable those with mobile access to experience 

the benefits of connectivity. But more needs to be done to 

encourage mobile broadband access. About 40% of the world’s 

population still does not have mobile phones and about threequarters are not using the Internet.213

The United States should continue to support policies that 

hasten the rollout and uptake of telecommunications technology that bridges the international digital divide. Integrating ICT 

deployment and utilization into broader regional economic development strategies is as important abroad as it is at home.214

Policies that support the uptake of telecommunications technologies not only provide incentives for needed connectivity 

but also allow U.S. innovations to flourish in a rapidly developing world market. In turn, Americans benefit from a parallel 

stream of innovations coming from abroad.

As more people gets access to mobile communications 

services, innovative uses of mobile technology are increasing. 

But proliferation of mobile phones not only allows people to 

share more information, it has also spurred innovation and 

investment in other sectors that would be impossible without global access to broadband. From health care to banking, 

entrepreneurs have recognized that the commonality and wide 

distribution of mobile communications devices make them 

ideal tools for launching a variety of services and applications.

For example, in many developing countries, an entire segment of the population that previously had no access to banks 

is taking advantage of the convenience and availability of 

mobile banking. Mobile banking includes a variety of technology and business strategies to leverage mobile communications 

networks for the provision of transactional and informational 

financial services. Emerging markets are embracing mobile 

banking as a more effective means of reaching more people 

than traditional bricks-and-mortar banks. Access to banking 

for the previously “unbanked” can have a dramatic impact on 

individuals, families and small businesses as it increases safety, 

prevents monetary loss, enables savings and makes business 

more efficient and successful.215

The United States also needs to provide continued leadership to ensure that the Internet will continue to evolve in ways 

that are cooperative, collaborative and maximally beneficial 

for the collective community of users, managers and investors. 

The three primary streams of cooperation—intergovernmental 

cooperation, cooperation through non-governmental organizations and cooperation through technical bodies—have served 

the world and the Internet well. The United States needs to 

provide continued leadership in all of these fora—particularly 

by working (as recommended in Chapter 5) with the international community, including the ITU, to develop innovative and 

flexible global spectrum allocation.216 Global harmonization 

across spectrum usage, along with international standards-setting, can reduce per-unit costs and lead to increased adoption 

and usage of the Internet around the world.

Today, as in the 1990s, the changing capabilities of ICT are 

forcing the world to make critical policy choices. The great 

achievement of a near-ubiquitous global network is being 

threatened by curtailed Internet freedom and decreased network security.

The global communications network has created an era 

in which information is perhaps freer than ever before. 

Maximizing the benefits of broadband worldwide will require 
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 4

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 6 1

increased attention to policies that promote universal and 

unrestricted access to the Internet. The United States should 

lead in efforts to create a global consensus on how to define and 

guarantee basic rights of openness, access to and creation of 

information and connection to the global Internet community.

Cybersecurity, as discussed in Chapters 14 and 16,217

is an important element of the National Broadband Plan. 

Cybersecurity attacks can be generated from anywhere in the 

world. The importance of cybersecurity as a policy objective 

cannot be underestimated. Engaging counterparts in international fora, as appropriate, will be crucial to successfully 

implementing cybersecurity policies. 
6 2 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 4

c h a p t e r 4 E n d n o t e s 

1 See, for example, Howard Shelanski, Adjusting 

Regulation to Competition: Toward a New Model for U.S. 

Telecommunications Policy, 24 Yale J. on Reg. 56 (2007), 

for a discussion. Even in the early days of high-speed 

access some recognized that the high-speed retail ISP 

market structure would differ from that of dialup ISP. 

Faulhaber and Hogendorn, for example, estimated that 

demand would support two or three wireline providers. 

See Gerald R. Faulhaber & Christiaan Hogendorn, The 

Market Structure of Broadband Telecommunications, 

48 J. Indust. Econ. 305, 321 (2000). Atkinson argues 

that the economics of “ultrabroadband” points to more 

concentration. Robert Atkinson, Market Structure for 

Ultrabroadband, Commcn’s & Strategies, Special Issue 

2008, at 35, 49 (2008).

2 Bresnahan and Reiss’s seminal article developed 

the model and tested its implications in a number of 

industries. See Timothy F. Bresnahan & Peter C. Reiss, 

Entry and Competition in Concentrated Markets, 99 J. 

Pol. Econ. 977 (1991). Similarly, Sutton introduced the 

concept of “endogenous sunk costs” (ESC) in which 

firms can choose how much to invest in sunk costs. 

See John Sutton, Sunk Costs and Market Structure: 

Price Competition, Advertising, and the Evolution of

Concentration (1991). The key insight is that in such 

industries the total number of firms is likely to be limited 

and may even shrink as the market grows. As Bresnahan 

and Greenstein state, “when ESC are important, demand 

growth does not lead to fragmentation; a larger market 

will have higher ESC, not more firms, in equilibrium.” 

Timothy Bresnahan & Shane Greenstein, Technological 

Competition and the Structure of the Computer Industry, 

47 J. Indust. Econ. 1, 6 (1999). Xiao and Orazem extend 

the Bresnahan-Reiss analysis to the broadband access 

market and find no additional competitive effects 

beyond a third competitor. See Mo Xiao & Peter F. 

Orazem, Do Entry Conditions Vary over Time? Entry and 

Competition in the Broadband Market: 1999–2003 (Iowa 

State Univ., Working Paper No. 06004, 2006), available 

at http://www.econ.iastate.edu/research/webpapers/

paper_12500_06004.pdf. While suggestive, the research 

relies on the FCC’s ZIP code counts from the old Form 

477 data. Those data, discussed elsewhere, show that 

most ZIP codes have multiple high-speed providers, but 

those providers do not always serve the same area within 

the ZIP code. 

3 Imperfect competition occurs when goods or services 

are not perfect substitutes yet can impose some 

competitive discipline on each other due to the 

multidimensional nature of consumer preferences. For 

example, in this case, mobile broadband could provide 

some competitive pressure if enough people are willing 

to trade off speed for mobility. 

4 Department of Justice Ex Parte in re National 

Broadband Plan NOI, filed Jan. 4, 2010, at 11 (“We do not 

find it especially helpful to define some abstract notion 

of whether or not broadband markets are ‘competitive.’ 

Such a dichotomy makes little sense in the presence of 

large economies of scale, which preclude having many 

small suppliers and thus often lead to oligopolistic 

market structures. The operative question in 

competition policy is whether there are policy levers that 

can be used to produce superior outcomes, not whether 

the market resembles the textbook model of perfect 

competition. In highly concentrated markets, the policy 

levers often include: (a) merger control policies; (b) 

limits on business practices that thwart innovation (e.g., 

by blocking interconnection); and (c) public policies that 

affirmatively lower entry barriers facing new entrants 

and new technologies.”).

5 Department of Justice Ex Parte in re National 

Broadband Plan NOI, filed Jan. 4, 2010, at 7; Gregory 

L. Rosston, Deputy Director, Stanford Institute 

for Economic Policy Research, Remarks at FCC 

Benchmarks Workshop 5–17 (Sept. 2, 2009), available at

http://www.broadband.gov/docs/ws_20_benchmarks.

pdf; James Prieger, Professor of Pub. Policy, Pepperdine 

Univ., Remarks at FCC Economic Growth, Job 

Creation and Private Investment Workshop 4–15 (Aug. 

26, 2009), available at http://broadband.gov/docs/

ws_16_economy.pdf; Ryan McDevitt, Lecturer, Dep’t of 

Manag. & Strat., Northwestern Univ., Remarks at FCC 

Economic Growth, Job Creation and Private Investment 

Workshop 23–34 (Aug. 26, 2009), available at http://

broadband.gov/docs/ws_16_economy.pdf; Joseph 

Farrell, Director, Bureau of Econ., FTC, Remarks at FCC 

Economic Issues in Broadband Competition Workshop 

55–66 (Oct. 9, 2009), available at http://broadband.

gov/docs/ws_28_economic.pdf; Carl Shapiro, Deputy 

Ass’t Attorney General for Economics, Antitrust Div., 

DOJ, Remarks at FCC Economic Issues in Broadband 

Competition Workshop 66–83 (Oct. 9, 2009), available 

at http://broadband.gov/docs/ws_28_economic.pdf.

6 See FCC, 2008 Form 477 database (accessed Dec. 2009) 

(on file with the FCC) (Form 477 database). While much 

improved from past years, the new 477 data are not ideal 

for analyzing competition because the data identify 

providers that operate anywhere in a Census tract and 

not whether their service areas overlap geographically. 

We improve the 477 provider counts in two ways. First, 

we do not count providers with less than one percent of 

broadband subscriptions in a given Census tract under 

the assumption that a provider with such a small number 

of subscribers is probably not available to a large part 

of the tract. Second, we identify cable overbuilders 

(such as RCN) in the data, which allows us to make 

reasonable assumptions about where cable companies 

actually provide service to the same geographic areas. 

Specifically, we assume that any given area is served by a 

maximum of one facilities-based DSL provider and one 

cable provider unless a cable overbuilder is present, in 

which case we count both cable providers. We also count 

fiber-specific competitors, but do not double-count telco 

providers that offer both DSL and fiber in the same tract 

(i.e., Verizon DSL and FiOs). Finally, we do not count 

CLECs providing service over another company’s lines 

because we focus on facilities-based providers, and their 

inclusion would overstate the extent of competition.

7 The limited useful data on availability make it difficult 

to estimate these figures with precision. The OBI team 

has used multiple inputs and analyses to better estimate 

the availability figures, as discussed infra Chapter 8. See

Omnibus Braodband Initiative, OBI, The Broadband

Availability Gap (forthcoming) (OBI, The Broadband

Availability Gap).

8 Robert C. Atkinson & Ivy E. Schultz, Columbia Inst. 

for Tele-Information, Broadband In America: Where

It Is And Where It Is Going (According To Broadband

Service Providers) 24 (2009) (Atkinson & Schultz, 

Broadband in America).

9 According to Clearwire’s November 10, 2009 earnings 

report, it expected to provide service in the following 

cities by the end of 2009: Atlanta, GA; Baltimore, MD; 

Boise, ID; Chicago, IL; Las Vegas, NV; Philadelphia, PA; 

Charlotte, Raleigh, and Greensboro, NC; Honolulu and 

Maui, HI; Seattle and Bellingham, WA; Portland and 

Salem, OR; and Dallas/Ft. Worth, San Antonio, Austin, 

Abilene, Amarillo, Corpus Christi, Killeen/Temple, 

Lubbock, Midland/Odessa, Waco and Wichita Falls, 

TX. Clearwire, Clearwire Reports Third Quarter 2009 

Results (press release), Nov. 10, 2009, http://investors.

clearwire.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=198722&p=irolnewsArticle&ID=1353840.

10 Satellite-based broadband providers, because of 

limited satellite capacity, have Fair Access Policies 

(often termed usage caps) for their customers: the 

Hughes current limit is as low as 200 MB per day, while 

WildBlue’s cap is as low as 7,500 MB per month. Nextgeneration satellites will have much higher capacities, in 

excess of 100 Gbps each, with download speeds per user 

of up to 25 Mbps. Larger capacities could allow for usage 

patterns that more-closely mirror terrestrial usage. 

However, the high fixed costs of designing, building 

and launching a satellite mean that satellite-based 

broadband is likely to be cheaper than terrestrial service 

only for the most expensive-to-serve areas. Atkinson & 

Schultz, Broadband in America at 57. As the report notes, 

however, actual speeds will depend on several factors, 

including intensity of use in any given area. For examples 

of commercial services with usage caps today, see 

HughesNet, Fair Access Policy, http://web.hughesnet.

com/sites/legal/Pages/FairAccessPolicy.aspx (last 

visited Mar. 4, 2009) and WildBlue Communications, 

WildBlue Fair Access Policy, http://wildblue.com/legal/

fair.jsp (last visited Mar. 4, 2009).

11 See Form 477 database. The figure is derived from 

econometric analysis of the FCC’s December 2008 Form 

477 data and controls for housing density, household 

income, and state fixed effects. Simple correlations 

between the number of providers and any particular 

outcome are not necessarily meaningful because some 

factors that affect the number of providers in an area 

may also affect outcomes. For example, providers may 

offer faster speeds in wealthier areas, and wealthier areas 

may tend to have more providers. A positive correlation 

between the two might therefore be an income, not 

a competition, effect. We handle this issue through 

econometric analyses, including modeling the number 

of firms in a market before estimating the effects of the 

number of firms on outcomes.

12 See Form 477 database. This table is derived from 

FCC analysis of Form 477 data dated December 2008. 
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 4

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 6 3

c h a p t e r 4 E n d n o t e s 

Analysis controls for household income, housing 

density, and state-specific effects. The figure may 

understate the competitive effects due to the way Form 

477 categorizes connection speeds our method of 

estimating speeds from those categories. In particular, 

rather than reporting actual advertised speeds, Form 477 

identifies each connection as being in one of 8 groupings 

(200–768 Kbps, 768 Kbps–1.5 Mbps, 1.6–3 Mbps, 3.1–6 

Mbps, 6.1–10 Mbps, 10.1–25 Mbps, 25–100 Mbps, and 

greater than 100 Mbps). We estimate speeds from these 

groupings by using the midpoint of each category as the 

advertised speed in our analyses. Therefore, increases 

in the figure may not appear to be especially large unless 

a large number of connections move from one category 

to another. For example, a connection that increases 

from 3.5 Mbps to 5.5 Mbps would not appear as an 

increase in our analysis. “Fiber” includes fiber-to-thehome connections (such as Verizon FiOS), but excludes 

fiber-to-the-node connections (such as AT&T U-verse). 

Furthermore, the analysis is based on advertised speeds, 

not actual delivered speeds. The highest available fiber 

speed in areas with three wireline providers is not 

statistically different from the speed in areas with two 

providers. This result is an artifact of the way Form 477 

aggregates speed data. In particular, about two-thirds of 

all fiber connections in areas with two or three wireline 

competitors are grouped into the 10–25 Mbps tier. A 

10 Mbps connection, therefore, would appear in the 

data identical to a 20 Mbps connection. As a result, we 

observe too little variation in the fiber speed data to 

identify differences in speeds between areas with two 

and three wireline providers

13 Broadband providers can compete for customers in a 

number of ways. They can offer similar products and 

compete on price, they can improve their product so that 

people are willing to pay more for it, and they can offer 

products targeted to different groups. Chen and Savage 

find evidence that cable and DSL providers may compete 

by targeting different types of consumers rather than by 

lowering prices if preferences in the target population 

are sufficiently diverse. Yongmin Chen & Scott J. 

Savage, The Effects of Competition on the Price for Cable 

Modem Internet Access (NET Institute, Working Paper 

No. 07-13, 2007). Research on CLECs has found that 

they tend to target different types of consumers rather 

than lower prices. See generally Shane M. Greenstein & 

Michael J. Mazzeo, The Role of Differentiation Strategy 

in Local Telecommunication Entry and Market Evolution: 

1999–2002, 54 J. Indust. Econ. 323 (2006); Nicholas 

Economides et al., Quantifying the Benefits of Entry into 

Local Telephone Service, 39 RAND J. Econ. 699 (2008).

14 2009 figures are estimates. See Atkinson & Schultz, 

Broadband in America at 66, tbl. 15.

15 Atkinson & Schultz, Broadband in America at 4; see also

supra Chapter 3.

16 Atkinson & Schultz, Broadband in America at 24.

17 Omnibus Braodband Initiative, Broadband Performance

(forthcoming).

18 Atkinson & Schultz, Broadband in America at 24.

19 As noted, satellite-based broadband providers, because 

of limited satellite capacity, have Fair Access Policies 

(often termed usage caps) for their customers: the 

Hughes current limit is as low as 200 MB per day, while 

WildBlue’s cap is as low as 7,500 MB per month. Nextgeneration satellites will have much higher capacities, in 

excess of 100 Gbps each, with download speeds per user 

of up to 25 Mbps. Larger capacities could allow for usage 

patterns that more-closely mirror terrestrial usage. 

However, the high fixed costs of designing, building 

and launching a satellite mean that satellite-based 

broadband is likely to be cheaper than terrestrial service 

only for the most expensive-to-serve areas. Atkinson & 

Schultz, Broadband in America at 57. As the report notes, 

however, actual speeds will depend on several factors, 

including intensity of use in any given area. For examples 

of commercial services with usage caps today, see 

HughesNet, Fair Access Policy, http://web.hughesnet.

com/sites/legal/Pages/FairAccessPolicy.aspx (last 

visited Mar. 4, 2009) and WildBlue Communications, 

WildBlue Fair Access Policy, http://wildblue.com/legal/

fair.jsp (last visited Mar. 4, 2009).

20 No definitive data source tracks whether consumers 

purchase broadband as a standalone product or as a 

bundle, but estimates of the share of subscribers with 

some type of bundle range from 65% (Yankee Group) 

to 90% (TNS). See TNS Bill Harvesting and other 

specific database (accessed Oct 2009) (on file with the 

FCC) (representing a custom, proprietary database of 

survey answers and corresponding household bills for 

a variety of products including voice, data and video 

services, including data from Q1 2002 to Q2 2009). See, 

Yankee Group, 2009 Consumer Survey Suite database 

(on file with the FCC). Both the Yankee Group and UBS 

estimate that about 21% of subscribers have a triple-play 

bundle. John Hodulik et al., UBS Securities, Q4 2009 

Triple Play Consumer Model database (on file with the 

FCC).

21 Berkman Center for Internet and Society, Harvard

University, Next Generation Connectivity: A Review

of Broadband Internet Transitions and Policy From

Around the World (2010) (Berkman Broadband Report), 

available at http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.

law.harvard.edu/files/Berkman_Center_Broadband_

Final_Report_15Feb2010.pdf. 

22 Gregory Rosston et al., Household Demand for

Broadband Internet Service (2010), available at http://

siepr.stanford.edu/system/files/shared/Household_

demand_for_broadband.pdf; Int’l Telecomms. 

Union, Measuring the Information Society: The ICT

Development Index 66 (2009), available at http://www.

itu.int/ITU-D/ict/publications/idi/2009/material/

IDI2009_w5.pdf.

23 Telogical High-Speed Internet Service Plans Offered 

database (Nov. 2009) (accessed Dec. 2009) (on file with 

the FCC) (representing data on high-speed Internet 

service plans offered in all select geographies covered by 

telogical clients).

24 See Shane Greenstein & Ryan McDevitt, Evidence of a 

Modest Price Decline in US Broadband Services 1 (CSIO, 

Working Paper No. 0102, 2010) (Greenstein & McDevitt, 

Evidence of a Modest Price Decline), available at http://

www.wcas.northwestern.edu/csio/Papers/2010/CSIOWP-0102.pdf. 

25 See Greenstein & McDevitt, Evidence of a Modest Price 

Decline.

26 Specifically, Greenstein and McDevitt estimated a 

regression in which the dependent variable was the 

monthly price of the plan, and independent variables 

included upload speed, download speed, region dummy 

variables, and time dummy variables. Greenstein & 

McDevitt, Evidence of a Modest Price Decline, passim.

The coefficients on the time dummies indicate the 

quality-adjusted change in price. The bundled price 

index cannot be calculated prior to 2006 due to the lack 

of available data on bundled plans. It is likely that some 

DSL plans that Point Topic did not identify as bundled 

prior to 2006 were, in fact, bundled with telephone 

service when the provider did not offer naked DSL 

service.

27 Fisher price indices as calculated by Greenstein & 

McDevitt, Evidence of a Modest Price Decline tbls. 5a–b. 

The indices are based on all advertised plans recorded 

by Point Topic from 2004 through 2009 and calculated 

by regressing the advertised price on upload speed, 

download speed, and year dummy variables separately 

for DSL and cable plans and then using the number of 

subscriptions to each type of service as the weight for 

creating a single broadband index. The indices were set 

to 1 in 2006 to facilitate comparison.

28 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index: 

Internet Services and Electronic Information Providers 

(Series CUUR0000SEEE03), http://www.bls.gov/cpi/

(last visited Mar. 6, 2009). It is difficult to compare BLS 

Internet price indices before and after 2007 for at least 

two reasons. First, BLS’s sampling method means that 

once included in the index a provider retains its weight 

for four years. Thus, AOL’s decision to stop charging 

for its dialup service in 2006 caused the index to show 

a nearly 25% price decrease. Shane M. Greenstein & 

Ryan McDevitt, The Broadband Bonus: Accounting for 

Broadband Internet’s Impact on U.S. GDP (Nat’l Bureau 

of Econ. Research, Working Paper No. 14758, 2009), 

available at http://www.nber.org/papers/w14758.pdf. 

Second, as the previous point hints, the index includes 

dialup Internet service providers. The share of dialup 

ISPs presumably decreases steadily, but the further back 

in time one follows the index the more dialup ISPs were 

likely to be included.

29 The forthcoming FCC Mobile Wireless Competition 

Report will provide a longer treatment of mobile 

broadband competition.

30 See American Roamer Advanced Services database 

(accessed Aug. 2009) (aggregating service coverage 

boundaries provided by mobile network operators) (on 

file with the FCC) (American Roamer database); see 

also Geolytics Block Estimates and Block Estimates 

Professional databases (2009) (accessed Nov. 2009) 

(projecting Census populations by year to 2014 by 

Census block) (on file with the FCC) (Geolytics 

databases). The approximate of 60% is based on 

total landmass area. In 2008, this figure was 39.6%. 

Implementation of Section 6002( b) of the Omnibus 

Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993; Annual Report and 
6 4 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 4

c h a p t e r 4 E n d n o t e s 

Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions With Respect 

to Commercial Mobile Services, WT Docket No. 08-27, 

Thirteenth Report, 24 FCC Rcd 6185, 6257, tbl. 9 (WTB 

2009).

31 Data from American Roamer show geographic 

coverage by technology. The actual service quality of 

data connections experienced by end-users will differ 

due to a large number of factors, such as location and 

mobility. Further, the underlying coverage maps do 

not include information on the level of service (i.e., 

signal quality and the speed of broadband service) 

provided; nor is coverage defined by providers in the 

same way. Thus, coverage as measured here does not 

correspond to a specific minimum signal quality or user 

experience. See American Roamer database; see also

infra Chapter 4, Section 4.1 (Competition in Residential 

Broadband Networks) (discussing the American Roamer 

methodology). Population is based on projected Census 

block figures from Geolytics. See Geolytics databases.

32 See infra Chapter 4, Section 4.1 (Transparency in 

the retail broadband market) (discussing details on a 

possible new approach to measurement and disclosure 

of mobile services).

33 See American Roamer database.

34 comScore, Inc., Jan.–June 2009 Consumer Usage 

database (sampling 200,000 machines for user Web 

surfing habits) (on file with the FCC) (comScore 

database), see also Chetan Sharma & Sarla Sharma, 

State of the (Mobile) Broadband Nation: A

Benchmarking Study (2009), available at http://

www.chetansharma.com/State%20of%20the%20

Broadband%20Nation%20-%20Chetan%20

Sharma%20Consulting.pdf (Reprinted with permission. 

Copyright © 2009 Chetan Sharma Consulting. All rights 

reserved. Based on data compiled by Root Wireless, 

Inc.).

35 Atkinson & Schultz, Broadband in America at 24. Note 

that some providers (such as AT&T) were not included in 

the report, although their networks have been upgraded. 

See also supra Chapter 3, Exhibit 3-H.

36 Atkinson & Schultz, Broadband in America at 66.

37 Atkinson & Schultz, Broadband in America at 66.

38 Some of the largest providers of wireline broadband 

services have ownership stakes or commercial, go-tomarket relationships with wireless broadband service 

providers. For example, Verizon is the controlling 

shareholder of Verizon Wireless; AT&T owns AT&T 

Wireless; and several cable companies have ownership 

stakes or commercial relationships with Clearwire.

39 As noted elsewhere in the plan, satellite coverage is 

available from two providers nearly everywhere. With 

prices exceeding $50 per month for 1 Mbps advertised 

download speeds usage caps as low as 200 MB per day, 

however, the current generation of satellite broadband 

is not ideal for consumers who live in areas with wireline 

access; for examples of usage caps see HughesNet, Fair 

Access Policy, http://web.hughesnet.com/sites/legal/

Pages/FairAccessPolicy.aspx (last visited Mar. 4, 2009) 

and WildBlue Communications, WildBlue Fair Access 

Policy, http://wildblue.com/legal/fair.jsp (last visited 

Mar. 4, 2009).

40 While technology will continue to improve, spectral 

efficiency of current OFDM-based 4G solutions is 

approaching the theoretical limit set by information 

theory.

41 The chart only displays the GSM/3GPP family of 

technologies. Performance of EV-DO standards is 

comparable with HSPA. See Letter from Dean R. 

Brenner, Vice Pres., Gov’t Aff., Qualcomm Inc., to 

Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 09-

51 (Dec. 9, 2009) Attach. A at 2. Figure shows downlink 

capacities calculated for 2x10MHz spectrum availability. 

Estimates of spectral efficiency calculated for each 

technology with the following antenna configuration: 

WCDMA, 1x1 and 1x2; HSPDA, Rel.5, 1x1; HSPA Rel. 6, 

1x2; HSPA, Rel. 7, 1x1 and 1x2; LTE, 1x1 and 1x2.

42 Atkinson & Schultz, Broadband in America at 7 

(“Wireless broadband service providers expect to offer 

wireless access at advertised speeds ranging up to 12 

mbps downstream (but more likely 5 mbps or less due 

to capacity sharing) to about 94% of the population by 

2013.”).

43 Atkinson & Schultz, Broadband in America at 7, 23–24.

44 See OBI, The Broadband Availability Gap. It is difficult 

to compare and categorize performance of different 

broadband access technologies. For example, in certain 

scenarios, some technologies may have better download 

performance than others but worse upload. In addition, 

the performance of different technologies will depend 

on different variables such as oversubscription levels 

at different aggregation points in the network such as 

number of users per node in the hybrid-fiber coax plant 

or oversubscription rates in the backhaul circuits of 

remote DSLAMs, loop lengths for FTTN, and specific 

technology choices. For example, there are material 

performance differences between G-PON, B-PON and 

other architectures, and FTTN networks performance 

will vary substantially depending on the specific type of 

DSL technology used, and whether or not copper pair 

bounding is used. For the purpose of these analyses, it 

is assumed that FTTP deployments such as Verizon 

FiOS provide a “robust” competitor to DOCSIS 3.0, even 

though the performance of different technologies may 

not be the same.

45 The disparity would likely appear even larger if the data 

did not exclude plans above the 95th percentile, which 

would show 50 Mbps and 100 Mbps plans offered by 

some cable providers.

46 The figure is derived from data provided in Greenstein 

& McDevitt, Evidence of a Modest Price Decline, tbls. 

3a–b, and shows the 5th percentile, mean, and 95th 

percentile of all prices advertised by cable and DSL 

providers and collected by the consultancy Point Topic 

from 2004–2009. The 95th percentile filter means that 

the figure does not show 50 Mbps and 100 Mbps plans 

offered by some cable providers.

47 Gregory Rosston et al., Household Demand for

Broadband Internet Service (2010), available at http://

siepr.stanford.edu/system/files/shared/Household_

demand_for_broadband.pdf.

48 The U.S. Department of Justice, in its filing to the FCC 

on the national broadband plan also recommends 

additional spectrum, better data collection, and more 

transparency of that data to help promote competition. 

Department of Justice Ex Parte in re National 

Broadband Plan NOI, filed Jan. 4, 2010, at 21–27.

49 See 47 U.S.C. § 541 (a)(3).

50 For example, certain U.S. Census data are made available 

to researchers in a controlled fashion at the U.S. Census 

Bureau’s Center for Economic Studies and Research 

data center. See U.S. Census Bureau Ctr. for Econ. 

Studies, Research Program Overview, http://www.ces.

census.gov/index.php/ces/researchprogram (last visited 

Feb. 14, 2010).

51 Pew Campaign for Fuel Efficiency, History of Fuel

Economy: One Decade of Innovation, Two Decades

of Inaction 1 (2006), http://www.pewfuelefficiency.

org/docs/cafe_history.pdf. For more detail on EPA’s 

MPG disclosure actions, see Fueleconomy.gov, http://

www.fueleconomy.gov/ (last visited Feb. 12, 2010). See 

also U.S. Dep’t of Energy & U.S. Env’tal Protection

agency, 2010 MPG Fuel Economy Guide, http://www.

fueleconomy.gov/feg/FEG2010.pdf. 

52 American Heart Ass’n, A History of Trans Fat, 

http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.

jhtml?identifier=3048193 (last visited Feb. 11, 2010); 

N.Y.C. Dep’t of Health & Mental Hygiene, The

Regulation to Phase Out Artificial Trans Fat (2007), 

http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/cardio/

cardio-transfat-bro.pdf

53 New America Foundation Comments in re NBP PN 

#24 (Comment Sought on Broadband Measurement and 

Consumer Transparency of Fixed Residential and Small 

Business Services in the United States—NBP Public 

Notice #24, GN Docket Nos. 09-51, 09-47, 09-137, 24 

FCC Rcd 14120 (2009) (NBP PN #24)), filed Dec. 14, 

2009, at 2; Dharma Dailey et al., Soc. Sci. Research

Council (SSRC), Broadband Adoption in Low-Income

Communities at 25 (2010),(“No one seemed sure that 

they were getting what they are paying for (for example, 

if they were getting the speed that they should) or that 

charges were accurate.”). The FCC has conducted some 

initial research regarding the information provided to 

consumers regarding—and consumers’ understanding 

of—broadband speed, performance, pricing, and service 

terms and conditions. This research has implications 

for transparency issues as well as for the barriers 

consumers face to switching providers. To address gaps 

in the FCC’s understanding of these issues, the FCC 

has prepared a consumer survey that will be launched 

later this spring (for a number of reasons, it was not 

possible to conduct the survey earlier). The results of 

this survey would ideally have been used as part of the 

formal report to Congress, as they are critical points 

in recommendations, but will now be concluded after 

the formal report is delivered. The FCC will obtain and 

analyze survey results and will present its analysis to 

Congress and the public during Fiscal Year 2010 as a 

supplement to the Plan.

54 comScore database. The FCC, as part of the National 

Broadband Plan, will issue an RFP to potentially 

contract with a third party and conduct a six-month 

consumer panel to gather more detail on actual 
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 4

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 6 5

c h a p t e r 4 E n d n o t e s 

connection speeds and performance of U.S. broadband 

services. The results of this panel would ideally have 

been used as part of the formal report to Congress, 

as they are critical data points in recommendations, 

but will now be concluded after the formal report is 

delivered (for a number of reasons, it was not possible to 

conduct this panel earlier). Panel results will therefore 

be finalized after the formal report is delivered, and 

the FCC will submit results of this panel publicly and 

to Congress during Fiscal Year 2010 as a supplement 

to the Plan. Public comments on the record and data 

filed with the FCC, as noted, are sufficient for creating 

recommendations, but this panel will bolster and 

provide more detail necessary to complete the Plan’s 

congressional charter.

55 Speed (download and upload) is only one measure of 

performance—others include, but are not limited to, 

latency, jitter, availability, packet loss, etc.

56 Verizon Comments in re NBP PN #24, filed Dec. 14, 

2009, at 14–18; US Telecom Ass’n Comments in re NBP 

PN #24, filed Dec. 14, 2009, at 1–3; Intel Comments in 

re NBP PN #24, filed Dec. 14, 2009, at 2; New America 

Foundation Comments in re NBP PN #24, filed Dec. 14, 

2009; Epitiro Comments in re NBP PN #24, GN Docket 

No. 09-137, filed Dec. 14, 2009; SamKnows Comments 

in re NBP PN #24, GN Docket No. 09-47, filed Dec. 16, 

2009.

57 Verizon Comments in re NBP PN #24, filed Dec. 14, 

2009, at 14; SamKnows Comments in re NBP PN #24, 

GN Docket No. 09-47, filed Dec. 16, 2009, at 5; Epitiro 

Comments in re NBP PN #24, GN Docket No. 09-137, 

filed Dec. 14, 2009, at 7–14; NCTA Comments in re NBP 

PN #24, filed Dec. 14, 2009, at 9; Time Warner Cable 

Comments in re NBP PN #24, filed Dec. 14, 2009, at 5–6.

58 Sandvine Comments in re NBP PN #24, filed Dec. 14, 

2009, at 5–6.

59 Epitiro Comments in re NBP PN #24, GN Docket No. 

09-137, filed Dec. 14, 2009; SamKnows Comments in re 

NBP PN #24, GN Docket No. 09-47, filed Dec. 16, 2009; 

New America Foundation Comments in re NBP PN #24, 

filed Dec. 14, 2009.

60 Verizon Comments in re NBP PN #24, filed Dec. 14, 

2009, at 15 (“tests conducted using representative 

Internet file sizes”).

61 SamKnows Comments in re NBP PN #24, GN Docket 

No. 09-47, filed Dec. 16, 2009, at 4. As noted in many 

public notice comments, this measurement and 

reporting would focus on consumer fixed broadband 

connections by technology and provider, with 

geographic data provided at an aggregated level. As 

noted, this panel recruitment and measurement will be 

finalized during Fiscal Year 2010 but are critical to the 

recommendations of the plan and the completion of the 

plan’s congressional charter.

62 See, e.g., Epitiro Comments in re NBP PN #24, GN 

Docket No. 09-137, filed Dec. 14, 2009, Attachs.

63 Gerald Faulhaber, Professor, Univ. of Penn. Wharton 

School, Presentation at the Open Internet Transparency 

Workshop (Jan. 19, 2010).

64 In August 2009, the FCC issued a Notice of Inquiry 

on Consumer Information and Disclosure, which 

began a wide-ranging review of transparency in all 

communications services including broadband. See 

Consumer Information and Disclosure, CG Docket No. 

09158, CC Docket No. 98-170, WC Docket No. 04-36, 

Notice of Inquiry, 24 FCC Rcd 11380 (2009).

65 Letter from Thomas Cohen, Counsel, Fiber-to-theHome Council, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, 

GN Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 09-137 (Dec. 14, 2009) 

(FTTH Council GN Docket No. 09–137, filed Dec. 14, 

2009 Ex Parte), Attach. at 24–25; Dr. Robert Pepper, 

Vice Pres. of Global Tech. Policy at Cisco, Presentation 

at FCC International Workshop (Aug. 18, 2009), 

available at http://www.broadband.gov/docs/ws_int_

lessons/ws_int_lessons_pepper.pdf.

66 Ron Dicklin, Root Wireless, Presentation at the Open 

Internet Transparency Workshop (Jan. 19, 2010), 

available at http://openinternet.gov/workshops/docs/

ws-consumers-transparency-and-the-open-internet/

FCC%20Round%20Table%20Root%20Wireless.pdf.

67 Many respondents to Public Notice #24 on 

measurement of fixed broadband commented on the 

potential for measurement of wireless mobile broadband 

as well. See, for example, Epitiro Comments in re 

NBP PN #24, GN Docket No. 09–137, filed Dec. 14, 

2009, Attachs., for examples of UK mobile broadband 

measurement.

68 FTTH Council Dec. 14, 2009 Ex Parte at 55.

69 The FCC continues to take action on retail entry and 

on competition. As a recent example of the FCC’s 

actions to support competition, when Comcast 

proposed to acquire Cimco, a midwestern CLEC, for 

the purpose of entering SMB broadband markets, the 

FCC put forth an expedited process, consistent with the 

underlying provision of the Communications Act, for 

Comcast to obtain the required approvals from Local 

Franchising Authorities. See 47 U.S.C. § 572(d)(6)(B); 

Application Filed for the Acquisition of Certain Assets 

and Authorizations of CIMCO Communications, Inc. 

by Comcast Phone LLC, Comcast Phone of Michigan, 

LLC and Comcast Business Communications, LLC, WC 

Docket No. 09-183, Public Notice, 24 FCC Rcd 14815 

(Dec. 1, 2009), clarified by Public Notice, DA 10-211 

(WCB rel. Jan. 29, 2010).

70 See, e.g., Review of the Section 251 Unbundling 

Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers; 

Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; 

Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced 

Telecommunications Capability, CC Docket Nos. 01-338, 

96-98, 98-147, Report and Order and Order on Remand 

and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 18 FCC 

Rcd 16978, 17141–54, paras. 272–97 (2003) (subsequent 

history omitted); Petition of AT&T Inc. for Forbearance 

Under 47 U.S.C. § 160(c) from Title II and Computer 

Inquiry Rules with Respect to Its Broadband Services; 

Petition of AT&T Inc. for Forbearance Under 47 U.S.C. 

§ 160(c) from Title II and Computer Inquiry Rules 

with Respect to Its Broadband Services, WC Docket No. 

06-125, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 22 FCC 

Rcd 18705 (2007)(AT&T Fiber and Packet Services 

Forbearance Order). Lack of appropriate wholesale 

access to packet-based facilities in particular serves as a 

constraint on competition in broadband services, which 

can typically be provided more efficiently using packetbased inputs. 

71 See Reexamination of Roaming Obligations of 

Commercial Mobile Radio Service Providers, WT Docket 

No. 05-265, Report and Order and Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, 22 FCC Rcd 15817, 15836–39, 

paras. 52–60 (2007). Roaming is not available to mobile 

providers in markets in which they hold a spectrum 

license. Id. at 15835–36, paras. 48–51.

72 See, e.g., Unbundled Access to Network Elements; Review 

of the Section 251 Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent 

Local Exchange Carriers, WC Docket No. 04-313, CC 

Docket No. 01-338, Order on Remand, 20 FCC Rcd 2533 

(2005); Access Charge Reform; Price Cap Performance 

Review for Local Exchange Carriers; Interexchange 

Carrier Purchases of Switched Access Services Offered 

by Competitive Local Exchange Carriers; Petition of 

U.S. West Communications, Inc. for Forbearance from 

Regulation as a Dominant Carrier in the Phoenix, 

Arizona MSA, CC Docket Nos. 98-157, 96-262, 94-1, 

CCB/CPD File No. 98-63, Fifth Report and Order and 

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 

14221 (1999).

73 See, e.g., GAO, FCC Needs to Improve its Ability to

Monitor and Determine the Extent of Competition in

Dedicated Access Services, GAO 07-80 (2006), available 

at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0780.pdf.

74 See Parties Asked to Comment on Analytical Framework 

Necessary to Resolve Issues in the Special Access NPRM, 

WC Docket No. 05-25, Public Notice, 24 FCC Rcd 13638 

(WCB 2009).

75 See Pleading Cycle Established for Comments on 

Petition for Expedited Rulemaking Filed by Cbeyond, 

Inc., WC Docket No. 09-223, Public Notice, 24 FCC 

Rcd 14517 (WCB 2009) (requesting a rulemaking to 

provide competitive carriers with access to packetized 

bandwidth of incumbent LEC hybrid fiber-copper loops, 

fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) loops and fiber-to-the-curb 

(FTTC) loops at the same rates that incumbent LECs 

charge their own retail customers).

76 Pleading Cycle Established For Comments On Petition 

For Expedited Rulemaking Regarding Section 271 

Unbundling Obligations, WC Docket No. 09-222, Public 

Notice, 24 FCC Rcd 14514 (WCB 2009); Comment 

Sought On Maine Public Utilities Commission Petition 

For Declaratory Ruling Regarding Section 271 Access To 

Dark Fiber Facilities And Line Sharing, WC Docket No. 

10-14, Public Notice, 25 FCC Rcd 372 (WCB 2010).

77 See 47 U.S.C. § 271

78 A critical issue in establishing wholesale obligations is 

determining the appropriate price for wholesale access 

rights. Wholesale prices that are too high may deter 

efficient competitive entry, while prices that are too low 

may deter efficient investment by both incumbents and 

new entrants. 

79 A recent study by the National Regulatory Research 

Institute commissioned by NARUC provides a general 

discussion of special access services and a history of the 

FCC and state regulatory approach to these services. 
6 6 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 4

c h a p t e r 4 E n d n o t e s 

Peter Bluhm & Dr. Robert Loube, Competitive Issues in 

Special Access Markets, Rev. Ed. (Nat’l Reg. Research 

Institute, Working Paper No. 09-02, 2009). For a 

discussion of potential, non-incumbent alternatives, see 

generally Patrick Brogan & Evan Leo, High-Capacity 

Services: Abundant, Affordable and Evolving (2009), 

attached to Letter from Glenn T. Reynolds, Vice 

President, Policy, USTelecom, to Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 05-25, GN Docket 09-51 

(Jul. 16, 2009) at 8–41.

80 For example, XO, a fiber-based competitive provider, 

reports that special access costs represent a “substantial 

portion” of their costs for serving customer that are not 

on their fiber network. XO Comments in re NBP PN #11 

(Comment Sought on Impact of Middle and Second Mile 

Access on Broadband Availability and Deployment—NBP 

Public Notice # 11, GN Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 09-137, 

Public Notice, 24 FCC Rcd 12470 (WCB 2009) (NBP 

PN #11)), filed Nov. 4, 2009, at 24; see also Letter from 

Thomas Jones, Counsel, tw telecom inc., to Marlene H. 

Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 

09-137 (Dec. 22, 2009) (tw telecom Dec. 22, 2009 Ex 

Parte).

81 The Western Telecommunications Alliance estimates 

that these connections typically constitute 20–40% of 

the cost of providing broadband service for its small, 

incumbent LEC members in the Western United States. 

Western Telecommunications Alliance Comments in 

re NBP PN #11, filed Nov. 4, 2009, at 6; see also Verizon 

Comments in re NBP PN #11, filed Nov. 4, 2009, at 4–5 

(noting that “the cost and availability of middle- and 

second-mile facilities—generally together with other 

factors—have hindered the deployment of broadband in 

some instances” and that “high per-unit costs” for these 

connections “if passed on to consumers, would make 

broadband too expensive for most” consumers in lowdensity areas). 

82 See, e.g., XO Comments in re NBP PN #11, filed Nov. 

4, 2009, at 15–21 (arguing that restrictive terms and 

conditions on availability of certain pricing plans can 

effectively lock out customers from seeking competitive 

alternatives) ; tw telecom Dec. 22, 2009 Ex Parte at 9–11; 

GAO, FCC Needs to Improve its Ability to Monitor and

Determine the Extent of Competition in Dedicated

Access Services, GAO 07-80 (2006), available at http://

www.gao.gov/new.items/d0780.pdf.

83 See, e.g., Qwest Petition for Forbearance Under 47 U.S.C. 

§ 160(c) from Title II and Computer Inquiry Rules 

with Respect to Broadband Services, WC Docket No. 

06-125, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 23 FCC 

Rcd 12260 (2008); Petition for of the Embarq Local 

Operating Companies for Forbearance Under 47 U.S.C. 

§ 160(c) from Title II and Computer Inquiry Rules with 

Respect to Broadband Services; Petition of the Frontier 

and Citizens ILECs for Forbearance Under 47 U.S.C. 

§ 160(c) from Title II and Computer Inquiry Rules 

with Respect to Broadband Services, WC Docket No. 

06-147, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 22 FCC 

Rcd 19478 (2007); AT&T Fiber and Packet Services 

Forbearance Order, 22 FCC Rcd 18705 (2007); Petition 

of ACS of Anchorage, Inc. Pursuant to Section 10 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as Amended (47 U.S.C. § 

160(c)), for Forbearance from Certain Dominant Carrier 

Regulation of Its Interstate Access Services, and for 

Forbearance from Title II Regulation of Its Broadband 

Services, in the Anchorage, Alaska, Incumbent Local 

Exchange Carrier Study Area, WC Docket No. 06-109, 

Memorandum Opinion and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 16304 

(2007); Verizon Telephone Companies’ Petition for 

Forbearance from Title II and Computer Inquiry Rules 

with Respect to their Broadband Services Is Granted by 

Operation of Law, WC Docket No 0440, News Release 

(rel. Mar. 20, 2006). Broadband providers have also 

asserted that as a result of these decisions, high-capacity 

Ethernet transport services have not been rolled out 

swiftly enough and at appropriate prices. See, e.g., tw 

telecom Dec. 22, 2009 Ex Parte at 10–11 (“In the absence 

of effective regulation of incumbent LEC wholesale 

Ethernet prices, the incumbent LECs charge prices that 

are so high that they effectively preclude TWTC and 

other competitors from relying on these facilities to 

serve off-net locations.”).

84 CenturyLink notes that “Ethernet is rapidly replacing 

special access circuits, offering more capacity for less.” 

Letter from Jeffrey S. Lanning, Director, Fed. Reg. Aff., 

CenturyLink, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, 

WC Docket No. 05-25 (Nov. 4, 2009) Attach.; see also 

Letter from Thomas Jones, Counsel, tw telecom inc., 

to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 

09-51 (Oct. 14, 2009) Attach.; tw telecom Dec. 22, 2009 

Ex Parte at 2 (“The remarkable efficiencies of Ethernet 

make high-bandwidth business applications as well 

as telemedicine and remote job training programs 

affordable”).

85 See Parties Asked to Comment on Analytical Framework 

Necessary to Resolve Issues in the Special Access NPRM, 

WC Docket No. 05-25, Public Notice, 24 FCC Rcd 13638 

(WCB 2009).

86 Estimates indicate that approximately 80% of business 

locations are served by copper because they are located 

in buildings that do not have fiber facilities. See Letter 

from Jerry Watts, Vice Pres., Gov’t and Indus. Aff., 

DeltaCom, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN 

Docket Nos. 09-29, 09-47, 09-51 (Oct. 20, 2009) Attach. 

2 at 4 (citing Vertical Systems Group); XO Comments in 

re NBP PN #11, filed Nov. 4, 2009, at 10.

87 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.325–51.335.

88 See, e.g., XO Comments in re NBP PN #11, filed Nov. 

4, 2009, at 9; Letter from Karen Reidy, COMPTEL, to 

Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket Nos. 

09-47, 09-51, 09-137, RM-11358 (Dec. 7, 2009). When a 

copper facility is retired, to continue providing service 

a competitor needs to redesign its network or purchase 

special access circuits from the incumbent LEC. These 

special access connections are typically more expensive, 

may have different service characteristics, and may limit 

the competitor’s ability to differentiate its service.

89 See, e.g., Gerald W. Brock, The Telecommunications

Industry, The Dynamics of Market Structure 148 

(1981); 47 U.S.C. § 251(a), (c)(2). 

90 Letter from Matthew A. Brill, Counsel for Time Warner 

Cable, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket 

No. 09-51 (Nov. 12, 2009) (TWC Nov. 12, 2009 Ex Parte) 

(outlining examples where Time Warner Cable has 

had difficulty obtaining basic interconnection rights in 

rural areas); Letter from Jeremy M. Kissel, MetroCast 

Cablevision of New Hampshire, LLC, to Marlene H. 

Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket Nos. 09-51, 09-137 

(Dec. 18, 2009); Time Warner Cable Comments in re 

NBP PN #256 (Comment Sought on Transition from 

Circuit-Switched Network to All IP-Network—NBP 

Public Notice #5, GN Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 09-137, 

Public Notice, 24 FCC Rcd 14272 (WCB 2009) (NBP 

PN #25), filed Dec. 22, 2009, at 5–8; National Cable & 

Telecommunications Association Comments in re NBP 

PN #25, filed Dec. 22, 2009, at 5 n.12. 

91 TWC Nov. 12, 2009 Ex Parte at 2–3 (Nov. 12, 2009) 

(citing Sprint Commc’ns Co. L.P. v. Pub. Util. Comm’n 

of Tex., No. A-06-CA-065-SS, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

96569 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 14, 2006)).

92 See, e.g., TWC Nov. 12, 2009 Ex Parte at 3 (citing a 

decision by the Maine Public Utilities Commission); 

Letter from Jeremy M. Kissel, MetroCast Cablevision of 

New Hampshire, LLC, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, 

FCC, GN Docket Nos. 09-51, 09-137 (Dec. 18, 2009) 

Attach. 2 at 15 (citing decisions in Texas, Maine, and 

North Dakota); Time Warner Cable Comments in re 

NBP PN #25, filed Dec. 22, 2009, at 5–8 (describing 

difficulties Time Warner Cable has had obtaining basic 

interconnection rights in rural areas).

93 See Time Warner Cable Request for Declaratory Ruling 

that Competitive Local Exchange Carriers May Obtain 

Interconnection Under Section 251 of the Communications 

Act of 1934, As Amended, to Provide Wholesale 

Telecommunications Services to VoIP Providers, WC 

Docket No. 06-55, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 22 

FCC Rcd 3513 (2007). All telecommunications carriers 

have a basic duty to interconnect under Section 251(a). 

See 47 U.S.C. § 251(a). A rural carrier’s rural exemption 

under Section 251(f ) does not impact this obligation. See 

47 U.S.C. § 251(f )(1).

94 IP-to-IP interconnection is addressed in the intercarrier compensation discussion in Chapter 8 infra.

95 See Reexamination of Roaming Obligations of 

Commercial Mobile Radio Service Providers, WT Docket 

No. 05-265, Report and Order and Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, 22 FCC Rcd 15817 (2007).

96 “Set-top box” is one example of video navigation devices, 

which are defined in 47 C.F.R. § 76.1200 as interactive 

communications equipment used by consumers to 

access multichannel video programming and other 

services offered over multichannel video programming 

systems. We use “set-top box” to broadly include set-top 

boxes, digital video recorders (DVRs), and home theater 

PCs (HTPCs).

97 TiVo Comments in re NBP PN #27 (Comment Sought 

on Video Device Innovation—NBP Public Notice #27, 

GN Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 09-137, Public Notice, 

24 FCC Rcd 14280 (MB 2009) (NBP PN #27)), filed 

Dec. 22, 2009, at 12; Consumer Electronics Association 

Comments in re NBP PN #27, filed Dec. 21, 2009, at 

15; Public Knowledge et al., Petition for Rulemaking, 

CS Docket No. 97-80, GN Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 4

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 6 7

c h a p t e r 4 E n d n o t e s 

09-137, at 12–14 (Dec. 18, 2009) (Public Knowledge et 

al. Video Device Competition Petition) (asking “that the 

Commission initiate a rulemaking to address the lack 

of competition in the video device market”); Verizon 

Comments in re NBP PN #27, filed Dec. 22, 2009, at 6.

98 Public Knowledge et al. Video Device Competition 

Petition at 11–12; Consumer Electronics Association 

Comments in re NBP PN #27, filed Dec. 21, 2009, at 15; 

Sony Electronics Inc. (Sony) Comments in re NBP PN 

#27, filed Dec. 21, 2009, at 3.

99 TiVo Comments in re NBP PN #27, filed Dec. 22, 

2009, at 4, 9; Public Knowledge et al. Video Device 

Competition Petition, filed Dec. 18, 2009, at 20–21; 

Consumer Electronics Association Comments in re NBP 

PN #27, filed Dec. 21, 2009, at 15.

100 For example, innovation in computing devices, such as 

the creation of graphical user interfaces, contributed to 

the proliferation of software applications developed for 

the PC. Furthermore, innovation in mobile devices, such 

as the introduction of the iPhone and Android, has led to 

the development and launch of hundreds of thousands of 

new mobile applications.

101 Consumer Electronic Retailers Coalition Comments 

in re NBP PN #27, filed Dec. 21, 2009, at 11–12; Sony 

Comments in re NBP PN #27, filed Dec. 21, 2009, at 3.

102 Section 629 covers equipment used to receive video 

programming—including cable set-top boxes, televisions, 

and DVRs—as well as equipment used to receive other 

services offered over MVPD systems, including cable 

modems. See 47 U.S.C. § 549 (codifying section 629 of 

the Telecommunications Act of 1996).

103 See 142 Cong. Rec. H1170 (daily ed. Feb. 1, 1996) 

(statement of Rep. Markey: “[The provision would] 

help to replicate for the interactive communications 

equipment market the success that manufacturers 

of customer premises equipment (CPE) have had in 

creating and selling all sorts of new phones, faxes, and 

other equipment subsequent to the implementation 

of rules unbundling CPE from common carrier 

networks.”).

104 Implementation of Section 304 of the Telecommunications 

Act of 1996; Commercial Availability of Navigation 

Devices, CS Docket No. 97-80, Report and Order, 13 FCC 

Rcd 14775 (1998).

105 The FCC directly exempted satellite operators (e.g., 

DirecTV and DISH Network), since they operate 

throughout the United States and offer devices for 

retail sale through unaffiliated vendors, and certain 

Internet Protocol TV (IPTV) providers, primarily small 

telephone cooperatives. AT&T (an IPTV provider) has 

neither requested nor received a waiver for its U-Verse 

service. Verizon FiOS is considered a cable service for 

regulatory purposes and is not exempted from Section 

629.

106 Implementation of Section 304 of the Telecommunications 

Act of 1996; Commercial Availability of Navigation 

Devices, CS Docket No. 97-80, Second Report and Order, 

20 FCC Rcd 6794, 6802–03, 6814, paras. 13, 31 (2005).

107 Dell’Oro Group, Set-Top Box Report 89 (3Q 2009).

108 The Hirfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) for cable 

set-top boxes in North America exceeds 5100, well 

above the threshold of 1800 for “concentrated” markets. 

See Dell’Oro Group, Set-Top Box Report 89 (3Q 

2009). This is not typical for consumer electronics 

markets, which have relatively lower fixed costs 

when compared, for example, with network services 

markets. For example, the 2002 U.S. Census Economic 

Survey estimated that the four largest audio and video 

equipment manufacturers (NAICS 3343) held about 

46% of the market and the HHI to be about 894, well 

below the DOJ’s threshold of 1000 for “unconcentrated” 

markets. U.S. Census Bureau, Concentration Ratios

2002, 2002 Economic Census: Manufacturing 51–52 

(2006), available at http://www.census.gov/prod/ec02/

ec0231sr1.pdf. 

109 Dell’Oro Group, Set-Top Box Report 89 (3Q 2009). 

Annual figures from 2006 to 2009 (through Q3). The top 

two manufacturers in the European cable set-top box 

market during that time period were Thomson and Pace; 

three other manufacturers—Motorola, Cisco, and ADB 

Group—also each captured more than a 10% share.

110 456,000 CableCARDs have been deployed by the top 10 

operators, who collectively have 90% share of overall 

cable customers. Nat’l Cable & Telecomm. Ass’n, FCC

CableCARD Quarterly Report, Sept.–Nov. 2009

(2009).

111 41.5 million digital cable subscribers, see SNL Kagan (a

division of SNL Financial LC), Cable MSO Industry

Benchmarks (June 2009), multiplied by a conservative 

range of 1.2–1.5 set-top boxes per household, totals 

49.8–62.3 million set-top boxes.

112 Examples include: gaming systems (e.g., Sony Playstation 

3, Xbox 360), blu-ray DVD players, Internet video devices 

(e.g., AppleTV, Roku), Internet sites/applications (e.g., 

Google, Amazon, Netflix, Hulu), hybrid broadcastbroadband content providers (e.g., Sezmi).

113 Estimated share of US households with Apple TV or 

Roku is 1%. Letter from Bruce Leichtman, President, 

Leichtman Research Group (LRG), to Marlene H. 

Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 

09-137 (Jan. 4, 2010) (LRG Jan. 4, 2010 Ex Parte).

114 TiVo Comments in re NBP PN #27, filed Dec. 22, 

2009, at 2–6; Public Knowledge et al. Video Device 

Competition Petition at 2–3, 6–10, 25–26; Consumer 

Electronics Association Comments in re NBP PN #27, 

filed Dec. 21, 2009, at 6–10, 13; Consumer Electronic 

Retailers Coalition Comments in re NBP PN #27, 

filed Dec. 21, 2009, at 4–9; Verizon Comments in re 

NBP PN #27, filed Dec. 22, 2009, at 10–11; Letter from 

Kyle McSlarrow, President and CEO, NCTA, to Carlos 

Kirjner, Senior Advisor to the Chairman on Broadband, 

and William Lake, Chief, Media Bureau, FCC, GN 

Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 09-137, CS Docket No. 97-80 

(Dec. 4, 2009) (NCTA Dec. 4, 2009 Ex Parte) at 3; 

Letter from Jeffrey Kardatzke, CTO & Founder, and 

Mike Machado, CEO, SageTV to Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary, FCC, GN Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 09-137 

(Jan. 29, 2010) (SageTV Jan. 29, 2010 Ex Parte).

115 For example, Steve Jobs explains Apple’s decision not 

to produce Apple TV as a set-top box with access to 

traditional TV content through MVPDs: “The minute 

you have an STB you have gnarly issues, CableCARD, 

OCAP . . . that just isn’t something we would choose to 

do ourselves. We couldn’t see a go-to-market strategy 

that makes sense.” Ryan Block, Steve Jobs Live from D 

2007, Engadget, May 30, 2007, http://www.engadget.

com/2007/05/30/steve-jobs-live-from-d-2007; see also

Auction Network Comments in re NBP PN #27, filed 

Dec. 18, 2009, at 1–3.

116 All totals as of Sept. 30, 2009. See SNL Kagan (a

division of SNL Financial LC), Top Cable MSOs (2009)

(providing cable company totals), available at http://

www.snl.com/InteractiveX/TopCableMSOs.aspx

(requires registration); DirecTV, The DirecTV Group 

Announces Third Quarter 2009 Results (press release), 

Nov. 5, 2009, http://investor.directv.com/releasedetail.

cfm?ReleaseID=422185 (providing DirecTV totals); 

DISH Network, DISH Network Corporation Reports 

Third Quarter 2009 Financial Results (press release), 

Nov. 9, 2009, http://dish.client.shareholder.com/

releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=422698 (providing DISH 

Network totals); Verizon, Verizon Communications

Investor Quarterly (3Q 2009) (providing Verizon 

FiOS totals), available at http://investor.verizon.com/

financial/quarterly/vz/3Q2009/3Q2009.pdf; AT&T, 

AT&T Financial and Operational Results 13 (4Q 2009) 

(providing AT&T U-Verse totals), available at http://

www.att.com/Investor/Growth_Profile/download/

master_Q4_09.pdf.

117 TiVo Comments in re NBP PN #27, filed Dec. 22, 

2009, at 9–10; Public Knowledge et al. Video Device 

Competition Petition at 36.

118 Verizon Comments in re NBP PN #27, filed Dec. 22, 

2009, at 10–12; Sony Comments in re NBP PN #27, filed 

Dec. 21, 2009, at 5; Netmagic Solutions Inc. (Netmagic) 

Comments in re NBP PN #27, filed Dec. 21, 2009, at 3; 

Nagravision Comments in re NBP PN #27, filed Dec. 21, 

2009, at 2–3.

119 The standards for the gateway device should be 

determined by industry standard-setting bodies, in 

consultation with the FCC. TiVo Comments in re 

NBP PN #27, filed Dec. 22, 2009, at 11, 13–15; Public 

Knowledge et al. Video Device Competition Petition at 

31–33, 35; Verizon Comments in re NBP PN #27, filed 

Dec. 22, 2009, at 3, 5; Sony Comments in re NBP PN 

#27, filed Dec. 21, 2009, at 3. 

120 TiVo Comments in re NBP PN #27, filed Dec. 22, 2009, 

at 2, 5, 17; Consumer Electronics Association Comments 

in re NBP PN #27, filed Dec. 21, 2009, at 18; Public 

Knowledge et al. Video Device Competition Petition at 

36. Retail devices may transcode or otherwise degrade 

the quality of the video signal as necessary to ensure 

compatibility with specific screen sizes, functionality, 

and form factors.

121 TiVo Comments in re NBP PN #27, filed Dec. 22, 

2009, at 2–3, 18–19; Public Knowledge et al. Video 

Device Competition Petition at 8–9, 34–35; Consumer 

Electronics Association Comments in re NBP PN #27, 

filed Dec. 21, 2009, at 16; SageTV Ex Parte in re NBP PN 

#27, filed Feb. 16, 2010, at 7, 12.

122 Sony Comments in re NBP PN #27, filed Dec. 21, 2009, 

at 3.

123 See Implementation of Section 304 of the 
6 8 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 4

c h a p t e r 4 E n d n o t e s 

Telecommunications Act of 1996; Commercial 

Availability of Navigational Devices, GN Docket No. 

97-80, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 12 FCC Rcd 

5639 (1997); Implementation of Section 304 of the 

Telecommunications Act of 1996; Commercial Availability 

of Navigational Devices, GN Docket No. 97-80, Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Declaratory 

Ruling, 15 FCC Rcd 18199 (2000); Implementation of 

Section 304 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; 

Commercial Availability of Navigational Devices and 

Compatibility Between Cable Systems and Consumer 

Electronics Equipment, GN Docket Nos. 97-80, 00-67, 

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 18 FCC 

Rcd 518 (2003); Implementation of Section 304 of 

the Telecommunications Act of 1996; Commercial 

Availability of Navigational Devices and Compatibility 

Between Cable Systems and Consumer Electronics 

Equipment, GN Docket Nos. 97-80, 00-67, Third Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 22 FCC Rcd 12024 

(2007); A National Broadband Plan for Our Future, GN 

Docket No. 09-51, Notice of Inquiry, 24 FCC Rcd 4342 

(2009) (National Broadband Plan NOI).

124 Public Knowledge Comments in re NBP PN #30 (Reply 

Comments Sought in Support of National Broadband 

Plan—NBP Public Notice #30, GN Docket Nos. 09-47, 

09-51, 09-137, Public Notice, 25 FCC Rcd 241 (WCB 

2010) (NBP PN #30)), filed Jan. 27, 2010, at 11–13. 

We note that there are open questions to resolve 

as part of the rulemaking proceeding regarding the 

gateway architecture. See, e.g., National Cable & 

Telecommunications Association Comments in re NBP 

PN #30, filed Jan. 27, 2010, at 11–15; Sage TV Ex Parte in 

re NBP PN #27, filed Feb. 16, 2010, at 1–11; TiVo Reply in 

re NBP PN #27, filed Feb. 17, 2010, at 9–15.

125 TiVo Comments in re NBP PN #27, filed Dec. 22, 2009, 

at 4 (filed by Matthew Zinn); Public Knowledge et al. 

Video Device Competition Petition, filed Dec. 18, 2009, 

at 10.

126 Public Knowledge et al. Video Device Competition 

Petition, filed Dec. 18, 2009, at 14, 26–27; Consumer 

Electronics Association Comments in re NBP PN #27, 

filed Dec. 22, 2009, at 14–15; Consumer Electronics 

Retailers Coalition Comments in re NBP PN #27, filed 

Dec. 22, 2009, at 9.

127 Public Knowledge et al. Video Device Competition 

Petition, filed Dec. 18, 2009, at 6–7; Consumer 

Electronics Retailers Coalition Comments in re NBP PN 

#27, filed Dec. 22, 2009, at 7.

128 TiVo Comments in re NBP PN #27, filed Dec. 22, 

2009, at 3 (filed by Matthew Zinn); Public Knowledge 

et al. Video Device Competition Petition, filed Dec. 18, 

2009, at 3, 9, 26; SageTV Jan. 29, 2010 Ex Parte at 1–2.

129 TiVo Comments in re NBP PN #27, filed Dec. 22, 2009, 

at 4, 7 (filed by Matthew Zinn); Public Knowledge et 

al. Video Device Competition Petition, filed Dec. 18, 

2009, at 10, 25–26; Consumer Electronics Association 

Comments in re NBP PN #27, filed Dec. 22, 2009, at 

13; Letter from Matthew Zinn, Senior Vice President, 

General Counsel, Secretary & Chief Privacy Officer, 

TiVo, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket 

Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 09-137, CS Docket No. 97-80 (Feb. 

17, 2010) (TiVo Feb. 17, 2010 Ex Parte), at 2–4. Cable 

headends with SDV would need to install a server that 

translates between standard IP signals from the retail 

CableCARD device and the operator’s proprietary 

network. The FCC may consider a two-step process in 

its rules: first, cable systems with SDV would need to 

deploy SDV tuning adapters immediately to support all 

retail CableCARD devices; second, within three to six 

months, those cable systems would need to install the 

servers required to allow IP communication without 

SDV tuners. Cable operators could voluntarily skip the 

first step if they are prepared to deploy servers in their 

headends immediately.

130 Public Knowledge et al. Video Device Competition 

Petition, filed Dec. 18, 2009, at 14; Consumer Electronic 

Association Comments in re NBP PN #27, filed Dec. 

21, 2009, at 3; Consumer Electronic Retailers Coalition 

Comments in re NBP PN #27, filed Dec. 21, 2009, at 9.

131 Consumer Electronic Retailers Coalition Comments in 

re NBP PN #27, filed Dec. 21, 2009, at 12. For example, 

operators should make a self-install option available for 

retail CableCARD devices if such an option is available 

for leased set-top boxes.

132 Public Knowledge et al. Video Device Competition 

Petition at 8–9; SageTV Ex Parte in re NBP PN #27, filed 

Feb. 16, 2010, at 9.

133 TiVo Feb. 17, 2010 Ex Parte at 3.

134 Network Advertising Initiative Comments in re NBP 

PN #29 (Comments Sought on Privacy Issues Raised by 

the Center for Democracy and Technology—NBP Public 

Notice #29, GN Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 09-137, Public 

Notice, 25 FCC Rcd 244 (WCB 2010) (NBP PN #29)), 

filed Jan. 22, 2010, at 1–4. 

135 While online advertising rates are highly variable, this 

calculation is based on “generic” ad “cost per thousand 

impressions” (CPMs) being roughly $1–3, while 

targeted advertisements are estimated to command 

above $10 CPMs. Even more specialized types of 

advertising, such as targeted “cost-per-click” and 

search-based advertising, have been estimated at even 

higher rates. For example, according to eMarketer, 

Credit Suisse estimated average CPM at $2.39 in 2009 

and $2.46 in 2008. How Much Ads Cost, eMarketer.

com, April 23, 2009, http://www.emarketer.com/

Article.aspx?R=1007053. JP Morgan forecasted 

aggregate (generic and targeted) CPM of $3.05 in 2009, 

down from a high of $3.50 in 2006. Erick Schonfeld, 

JPMorgan Forecasts A 10.5 Percent Rebound In U.S. 

Display Advertising in 2010, TechCrunch, Jan. 4 

2010, http://techcrunch.com/2010/01/04/jpmorganadvertising-2010/. The ad tracking firm Adify estimates 

CPM rates across several verticals from $3–12 CPM, 

although this is not split between behavioral and generic 

advertising. The Average CPM Rates Across Different 

Verticals, DigitalInspiration, Nov. 25, 2009, http://

www.labnol.org/internet/average-cpm-rates/11315/. 

However, more targeted advertising, such as video 

or search results, commanded far higher overall “per 

thousand impression” rates of $20–70 or more. How 

Much Ads Cost, eMarketer.com, Apr. 23, 2009, http://

www.emarketer.com/Article.aspx?R=1007053. 

While dated, Advertising.com’s study of non-targeted 

impressions versus targeted impressions demonstrated 

similar results of 3–6x benefits from targeting. See

Robyn Greenspan, Behavioral Targeting Study Reveals 

CPM Lift, Clickz, Aug. 17, 2004, http://www.clickz.

com/3396431. For an easily readable overview of 

online advertising, see Online Advertising: The Ultimate 

Marketing Machine, Economist, July 6, 2006, available 

at http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/

displaystory.cfm?story_id=7138905.

136 Charter Communications Comments in re NBP PN #29, 

filed Jan. 22, 2010, at 3; National Advertising Initiative 

Comments in re NBP PN #29, filed Jan. 22, 2009, at 6.

137 Industry has realized the challenges of responsibly 

collecting this data and delivering targeted ads, and 

many groups have worked to create voluntary selfregulation standards, often alongside or spurred through 

FTC initiatives. See, e.g., Am. Ass’n of Advertising

Agencies et al., Self Regulatory Principles for Online

Behavioral Advertising (2009), available at http://www.

iab.net/media/file/ven-principles-07-01-09.pdf

138 See, e.g., Center for Democracy and Technology 

Comments in re NBP PN #29, filed Jan. 22, 2009, at 4, 

19–26 (discussing “Trusted Identity Providers”); AT&T 

Comments in re NBP PN #29, filed Jan. 22, 2009, at 6 

(discussing “OpenID” and Information Cards).

139 See Network Advertising Initiative Comments in re NBP 

PN #29, filed Jan. 22, 2010, at 6 (providing more detail 

on “cookies”); CDT Comments in re NBP PN #29, filed 

Jan. 22, 2010; Data Foundry Comments in re NBP PN 

#29, filed Jan. 22, 2010, at 2–3.

140 The latest version of the two most common browsers, 

Microsoft’s Internet Explorer and Mozilla’s Firefox, 

offer “secure” or “private” browsing that limits cookie 

activity. See Microsoft, Stay Safer Online, http://www.

microsoft.com/windows/internet-explorer/features/

safer.aspx (last visited Mar. 6, 2010); Mozilla, Private 

Browsing, http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/

Private+browsing (last visited Mar. 6, 2010). Other 

companies also help consumers track and understand 

data collection. See Ghostery, http://www.ghostery.com/

(last visited Mar. 6, 2010). But this is limited today. See 

AT&T Comments in re NBP PN #29, filed Jan. 22, 2010, 

at 6 (citing PrivacyChoice.org Comments, Analysis of 

Ad-Targeting Privacy Policies and Practices, Federal 

Trade Commission Exploring Privacy Roundtable 

Series, Dec. 4, 2009).

141 David Vladeck, Director, Fed. Trade Comm’n Bureau 

of Consumer Protection, Privacy: Where Do We Go 

From Here?, Remarks at the International Conference 

of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners 4 

(Nov. 6, 2009) (Vladeck, Privacy: Where Do We 

Go From Here?) (“Disclosures are now as long as 

treatises, they are written by lawyers—trained in detail 

and precision, not clarity—so they even sound like 

treatises, and like some treatises, they are difficult to 

comprehend, if they are read at all. It is not clear that 

consent today actually reflects a conscious choice 

by consumers.”), available at http://www.ftc.gov/

speeches/vladeck/091106dataprotection.pdf; Center for 

Democracy and Technology Comments in re NBP PN 
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 4

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 6 9

c h a p t e r 4 E n d n o t e s 

#29, filed Jan. 22, 2010, at 9–10.

142 Center for Democracy and Technology Comments in re 

NBP PN #29, filed Jan. 22, 2010, at 8.

143 John B. Horrigan, Broadband Adoption and Use in 

America 17 (OBI Working Paper No. 1, 2010) (Horrigan, 

Broadband Adoption and Use in America).

144 See Fed. Trade Comm’n, Protecting Personal

Information: A Guide for Business, available at http://

www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/business/idtheft/bus69.pdf

(2008). For example, the FTC has found violations of 

Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 

§ 45, because a company’s privacy practices were false 

and misleading, see, e.g., In re Gateway Learning Corp, 

2004 WL 1632833 (FTC July 7, 2004); In re GeoCities, 

1998 WL 473217 (FTC Aug. 13, 1998), and for failure 

to implement reasonable and appropriate measures to 

protect personal information, see, e.g., In re Life Is Good, 

Inc., 2008 WL 258309 (FTC Jan. 17, 2008); In re Petco 

Animal Supplies, Inc., 2004 WL 2682593 (FTC Nov. 8, 

2004); In re MTS, Inc. d/b/a/ Tower Records/Books/

Video, 2004 WL 963226 (FTC Apr. 21, 2004); In re 

Guess?, Inc., 2003 WL 21406017 (FTC June 18, 2003); 

In re Eli Lilly, 133 F.T.C. 20 (2002). The FTC also has 

found violations of Section 5 and the Gramm-LeachBliley Act, 15 U.S.C §§ 6801–6809, for failure to provide 

reasonable and appropriate security for consumers’ 

sensitive personal information, see, e.g., In re Goal 

Financial, LLC, 2008 WL 625340 (FTC Mar. 4, 2008); 

In re Premier Capital Lending, Inc., 2008 WL 4892987 

(FTC Nov. 6, 2008).

145 47 U.S.C §§ 222, 551.

146 Center for Democracy and Technology Comments in re 

NBP PN #29, filed Jan. 22, 2010, at 4.

147 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510–2521 (protecting against acquisition 

of the content of communications without the consent of 

one of the parties to the communication).

148 See In re DoubleClick, Inc. Privacy Litigation, 154 F. 

Supp. 2d 497 (S.D.N.Y. 2001), available at http://www.

hbbllc.com/courses/infosec/ecpa/154_fsupp2d_497.

pdf; see also Cybertelecom, Electronic Communications 

Privacy Act (ECPA), http://www.cybertelecom.org/

security/ecpaexception.htm (last visited Feb. 17, 2010) 

(explaining the ECPA).

149 15 U.S.C. § 6801 et seq.

150 For example, a cable operator must inform its 

subscribers what personally identifiable information it 

collects, how it is used and for how long it is kept, and 

the cable operator may not disclose such information 

without the prior consent of the subscriber. See 47 U.S.C. 

§ 551. Similarly, customers of telecommunications 

carriers have statutory protections against the 

non-consensual disclosure of information about the 

telecommunications service or habits of the customer, 

such as to or from whom the customer makes or receives 

calls, call location (if mobile), and the times that calls are 

made. See 47 U.S.C. § 222. Although privacy protections 

exist for traditional services and have even been applied 

to newer services like interconnected VoIP, see 47 C.F.R. 

§ 64.2003(k), it is unclear whether, and to what extent, 

these protections apply to broadband ISPs. See, e.g.,

Klimas v. Comcast Cable, Inc., 465 F.3d 271, 276 (6th 

Cir. 2006) (finding that section 631 does not apply to the 

broadband ISP services offered by a cable operator).

151 See 47 U.S.C. §§ 222, 531.

152 See generally 45 C.F.R. Part 164, Subpart E (Privacy of 

Individually Identifiable Health Information).

153 See 15 U.S.C. § 6809 (defining “nonpublic personal 

information”).

154 Wendy Davis, Court: IP Addresses Are Not Personally 

Identifiable Information, MediaPost, July, 6, 2009, 

http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.

showArticle&art_aid=109242.

155 See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 1514A (protecting employees who 

blow the whistle on publicly traded companies); 42 

U.S.C. § 7622 (protecting employees who disclose 

possible violations of the Clean Air Act); 49 U.S.C. 

§ 31105 (protecting employees who disclose possible 

violations of safety regulations for commercial 

motor vehicles); see also WhistleBlowerLaws, http://

whistleblowerlaws.com/index.php?option=com_conte

nt&task=view&id=141&Itemid=54 (last visited Feb. 17, 

2010) (login is required).

156 See, e.g., McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 

334, 357 (1995) (“Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny 

of the majority.”).

157 Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 870 (1997).

158 Vladeck, Privacy: Where Do We Go From Here? at 4.

159 The FTC has begun a series of public roundtable 

discussions to explore the privacy challenges posed by 

the vast array of 21st century technology and business 

practices that collect and use consumer data. The 

first roundtable discussion took place on December 

7, 2009. The second took place on January 29, 2010. 

The third is scheduled to take place on March 17, 2010. 

See Federal Trade Commission Comments in re NBP 

PN #21 (Comment Sought on Data Portability and Its 

Relationship to Broadband—NBP Public Notice #21, GN 

Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 09-137, 24 FCC Rcd 13816 

(WCB 2009) (NBP PN #21)), filed Dec. 9, 2009, at 

2–3; FTC Comments in re NBP PN #29, filed Jan. 22, 

2010; see also Fed. Trade Comm’n, Exploring Privacy: A 

Roundtable Series, http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/

privacyroundtables/index.shtml (last visited Mar. 5, 

2010).

160 See Fed. Trade Comm’n, Enforcing Privacy Promises: 

Section 5 of the FTC Act, http://www.ftc.gov/privacy/

privacyinitiatives/promises.html (last visited Mar. 5, 

2010).

161 See Fed. Trade Comm’n, FTC Staff Report: SelfRegulatory Principles for Online Behavioral

Advertising 11–12, 46–47 (2009) (FTC Staff Report

2009), available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2009/02/

P085400behavadreport.pdf.

162 For example, a number of online search companies have 

developed policies and procedures to inform consumers 

about online tracking and provide additional protections 

and controls. See FTC Staff Report 2009 at 12 (noting 

that Yahoo! and Google allow consumers to opt out of 

targeted advertising). And industry coalitions and trade 

associations, including the largest online advertising 

networks, have developed self-regulating principles 

for online data management practices and begun 

cooperative efforts. See Network Advertising Initiative, 

2008 NAI Principles, The Network Advertising

Initiative’s Self-Regulatory Code of Conduct (2008), 

available at http://www.networkadvertising.org/

networks/2008%20NAI%20Principles_final%20

for%20website.pdf; see also CTIA, Best Practices

and Guidelines for Location Based Services (2008), 

available at http://files.ctia.org/pdf/CTIA_LBS_

BestPracticesandGuidelines_04_08.pdf; FTC Staff

Report 2009 at 14; K.C. Jones, Agencies to Self-Regulate 

Online Behavioral Ads, Info. Week, Jan. 13, 2009, 

http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle/

jhtml?articleID=212900156; Interactive Advertising 

Bureau, Privacy Principles, http://www.iab.net/iab_

products_and_industry_services/508676/508813/1464

(last visited Feb. 18, 2010).

163 See Federal Trade Commission Comments in re NBP 

PN #21, filed Dec. 9, 2009, at 2–3; Federal Trade 

Commission Comments in re NBP PN #29, filed Jan. 22, 

2010; see also Fed. Trade Comm’n, Exploring Privacy: A 

Roundtable Series, http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/

privacyroundtables/index.shtml (last visited Mar. 5, 

2010).

164 For details on how the Privacy Act and the collection 

of personal data impact other aspects of the broadband 

ecosystem, see infra Chapters 10 11, 12, and 14.

165 See, e.g., Center for Democracy and Technology 

Comments in re NBP PN #29, filed Jan. 22, 2010, at 4, 

19–26 (discussing “Trusted Identity Providers”); AT&T 

Inc. Comments in re NBP PN #29, filed Jan. 22, 2010, at 

6 (discussing “OpenID” and Information Cards).

166 See Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., Who is the FDIC?, http://

www.fdic.gov/about/learn/symbol/index.html (last 

visited Mar. 5, 2010) (providing the history of the FDIC).

167 As part of any rulemaking or processing, the FTC 

and FCC would also need to define “third parties” to 

account for the complex relationships of companies with 

affiliates, other subsidiaries and trusted intermediaries.

168 In fact, according to data from the Technology Policy 

Institute, only 11% of identity fraud cases involve the 

Internet. Thomas M. Lenard & Paul H. Rubin, Tech. 

Pol’y Inst., In Defense of Data: Information and the

Costs of Privacy 7 (2009), available at http://www.

techpolicyinstitute.org/files/in%20defense%20of%20

data.pdf.

169 Gartner, Gartner Says Number of Identity Theft Victims 

Has Increased More Than 50 Percent Since 2003 (press 

release), Mar. 6, 2007, http://www.gartner.com/it/

page.jsp?id=501912; ConnectSafely, Online Safety 3.0: 

Empowering and Protecting Youth, Connect Safely, 

http://www.connectsafely.org/Commentaries-Staff/

online-safety-30-empowering-and-protecting-youth.

html (last visited Feb. 18, 2010).

170 Fed. Trade Comm’n, Consumer Sentinel Network Data

Book for January–December 2008 5 (2009) (FTC, 

Consumer Sentinel Network Data Book 2008); see also

Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3), 2008 Internet

Crime Report 4 (2008) (IC3, 2008 Internet Crime

Report) (showing that identity theft represented 2.5% 

of the total complaints received in 2008 by the Internet 

Crime Complaint Center), available at http://www.ic3.
7 0 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 4

c h a p t e r 4 E n d n o t e s 

gov/media/annualreport/2008_ic3report.pdf.

171 FTC, Consumer Sentinel Network Data Book 2008 at 3.

172 A.F. Salam et al., Consumer-Perceived Risk in 

E-Commerce Transactions, 23 Commc’ns of the ACM

325 (2003), available at http://www.som.buffalo.edu/

isinterface/papers/Consumer-Perceived%20Risk%20

in%20E-Commerce.pdf.

173 IC3, 2008 Internet Crime Report at 1.

174 GAO, Identity Theft: Prevalence and Cost Appear to

Be Growing 11, GAO-02-363 (2002) (“Regarding state 

statutes, at the time of our 1998 report, very few states 

had specific laws to address identity theft. Now, less 

than 4 years later, a large majority of states have enacted 

identity theft statutes.”).

175 See Fed. Trade Comm’n, ID Theft, Privacy, & Security: 

Identity Theft, http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/menus/

consumer/data/idt.shtm (last visited Mar. 5, 2010).

176 The Data Accountability and Trust Act, H.R. 2221, 111th 

Cong. (2009), would require entities that store personal 

information to protect the data through security policies 

and procedures and to provide nationwide notice in 

the event of a security breach while the Personal Data 

Privacy and Security Act of 2009, S. 1490, 111th Cong. 

(2009), would increase criminal penalties for identity 

theft involving electronic personal data and make it a 

crime to intentionally or willfully conceal a security 

breach involving personal data.

177 U.S. v. Morris, 928 F.2d 504 (2d Cir. 1991).

178 CERT, Meet CERT, http://www.cert.org/meet_cert/

(last visited Mar. 5, 2010).

179 APWG, Phishing Activity Trends Report: 1st Half 2009

(2009) (APWG, Phishing Activity Trends Report), 

available at http://www.antiphishing.org/reports/

apwg_report_h1_2009.pdf.

180 APWG, Phishing Activity Trends Report.

181 White House, Cyberspace Policy Review: Assuring a

Trusted and Resilient Information and Communications

Infrastructure NSPD-54/HSPD23 (May 2009), 

available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/

documents/Cyberspace_Policy_Review_final.pdf.

182 Horrigan, Broadband Adoption and Use in America at 17.

183 Tanya Byron, Safer Children in a Digital World: The

Report of the Byron Review 2 (2008), available at

http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/byronreview/pdfs/Final%20

Report%20Bookmarked.pdf.

184 Berkman Ctr. for Internet & Soc’y, Enhancing Child

Safety & Online Technologies: Final Report of the

Internet Safety Technical Task Force 5 (2008), 

available at http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.

law.harvard.edu/files/ISTTF_Final_Report.pdf.

185 Anne Collier, It’s Time to Get Smart About Online Safety, 

Sch. Libr. J., Nov. 1, 2009, available at http://www.

schoollibraryjournal.com/article/CA6703696.html.

186 Computer Sci. & Telecomm. Bd., Youth, Pornography, 

and the Internet 9 (Dick Thornburgh & Herbert S. Lin, 

eds., 2002), available at http://www.nap.edu/openbook.

php?isbn=0309082749 (requires purchase).

187 Letter from Susan L. Fox, Vice Pres. of Gov’t Relations, 

Disney, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN 

Docket No. 09-191, WC Docket No. 07-52 (Dec. 11, 

2009) at 1; Letter from Harold Feld, Legal Dir., Public 

Knowledge, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, CB 

Docket No. 97-80, MB Docket No. 08-82, GN Docket No. 

09-51, MB Docket No. 09-168 (Oct. 28, 2009) at 1.

188 Verizon, Reforming Federal and State Tax Policies

Will Increase Investment in Broadband and Consumer

Adoption 1–4, attached to Letter from Ann D. Berkowitz, 

Dir., Fed. Reg. Aff., Verizon, to Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 09-51 (Feb. 12, 2010).

189 Preserving the Open Internet; Broadband Industry 

Practices, GN Docket No. 09-191, WC Docket No. 07-52, 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 24 FCC Rcd 13064, 

13065, para. 3 (2009) (Preserving the Open Internet

NPRM).

190 See Preserving the Open Internet NPRM, 24 FCC Rcd 

at 13067, para. 4 (“As a platform for commerce, [the 

Internet] does not distinguish between a budding 

entrepreneur in a dorm room and a Fortune 500 

company. As a platform for speech, it offers the same 

potential audience to a blogger on her couch and to a 

major newspaper columnist.”).

191 Preserving the Open Internet NPRM, 24 FCC Rcd at 

13067, para. 95 (“The first principle in the Internet 

Policy Statement, and the first rule we propose to codify 

here, ensures that users are in control of the content that 

they send and receive.”).

192 Preserving the Open Internet NPRM, 24 FCC Rcd at 

13067, para. 18.

193 See Preserving the Open Internet NPRM, 24 FCC 

Rcd at 13067, para. 4 (“Because of the historically 

open architecture of the Internet, it has been equally 

accessible to anyone with a basic knowledge of its 

protocols. The Internet’s accessibility has empowered 

individuals and companies at the edge of the network to 

develop and contribute an immense variety of content, 

applications, and services that have improved the 

lives of Americans. Such innovation has dramatically 

increased the value of the network, spurring—in a 

virtuous circle—investment by network operators, who 

have improved the Internet’s reach and its performance 

in many areas.”); cf. id. at 13067, para. 9 (“[B]roadband 

Internet access service providers may have both the 

incentive and the means to discriminate in favor of or 

against certain Internet traffic . . . in ways that negatively 

affect consumers, as well as innovators trying to develop 

Internet-based content, applications, and services. Such 

practices have the potential to change the Internet from 

an open platform that enables widespread innovation 

and entrepreneurship to an increasingly closed system 

with higher barriers to participation and reduced user 

choice and competition.”).

194 See Preserving the Open Internet NPRM, 24 FCC Rcd at 

13067, para. 9.

195 Chairman Genachowski and Commissioners Copps 

and Clyburn voted to adopt the NPRM. Commissioners 

McDowell and Baker concurred in part and dissented in 

part. See Preserving the Open Internet NPRM, 24 FCC 

Rcd at 13064.

196 See NBP PN #25.

197 AT&T Comments in re NBP PN #25, filed Dec. 22, 2009, 

at 11.

198 AT&T Comments in re NBP PN #25, filed Dec. 22, 2009, 

at 11.

199 AT&T Comments in re NBP PN #25, filed Dec. 22, 2009, 

at 12.

200AT&T Comments in re NBP PN #25, filed Dec. 22, 2009, 

at 14; OPASTCO Comments in re NBP PN #25, filed 

Dec. 17, 2009, at 3.

201 Skype Comments in re NBP PN #25, filed Dec. 22, 

2009, at 9; California Public Utilities Commission in 

re NBP PN #25, filed Dec. 18, 2009, at 10; OPASTCO 

Comments in re NBP PN #25, filed Dec. 17, 2009, at 3; 

Communications Workers of America Reply in re NBP 

PN #30, filed Jan. 27, 2010, at 3.

202Skype Comments in re NBP PN #25, filed Dec. 22, 

2009, at 6; California Public Utilities Commission in re 

NBP PN #25, filed Dec. 18, 2009, at 7; Communications 

Workers of America Reply in re NBP PN #30, filed Jan. 

27, 2010, at 3.

203Skype Comments in re NBP PN #25, filed Dec. 22, 2009, 

at 9, CTIA Comments in re NBP PN #25, Dec. 22, 2009, 

at 4; Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications 

and Cable Comments in re NBP PN #25, filed Dec. 22, 

2009, at 1–6.

204AT&T Comments in re NBP PN #25, filed Dec. 22, 

2009, at 17; California Public Utilities Commission in re 

NBP PN #25, filed Dec. 18, 2009, at 11; Massachusetts 

Department of Telecommunications and Cable 

Comments in re NBP PN #25, filed Dec. 22, 2009, at 1–6.

205AT&T Comments in re NBP PN #25, filed Dec. 22, 

2009, at 19; Communications Workers of America 

Reply in re NBP PN #30, filed Jan. 27, 2010, at 3; CTIA 

Comments in re NBP PN #25, Dec. 22, 2009, at 4; Level 

3 Comments in re NBP PN #25, filed Dec. 22, 2009, at 

6; National Cable & Telecommunications Association 

Comments in re NBP PN #25, filed Dec. 22, 2009, at 3; 

OPASTCO Comments in re NBP PN #25, filed Dec. 17, 

2009, at 3; Time Warner Cable Comments in re NBP PN 

# 25, filed Dec. 22, 2009, at 7.

206Communications Workers of America Reply in re NBP 

PN #30, filed Jan. 27, 2010, at 3.

207Org. for Econ. Co-operation & Dev., Information

Technology Outlook 2008, fig. 2.1 (2008) (World trade 

in ICT goods, 1996–2007), available at http://dx.doi.

org/10.1787/473254016535.

208Specifically, TeleGeography reports a 66% compound 

annual growth rate in average global traffic over 

Internet bandwidth connected across international 

borders over the past five years (2005–2009) and a 22% 

unweighted average compound annual price decrease 

for median IP transit prices per Mbps, Gigabit Ethernet, 

for select cities (Hong Kong, London, Los Angeles, 

New York, Sao Paulo, and Singapore) over the past five 

years (2005–2009). TeleGeography Research, Global

Internet Geography (2010).

209The United States broke up AT&T in the 1980s into 

seven Regional Bell Operating Companies and a long 

distance provider. This liberalization and the subsequent 

passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 

preceded similar reforms in other countries. CESifo

Group, History of Telecommunication Liberalization, 

available at http://www.cesifo-group.de/portal/
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 4

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 7 1

c h a p t e r 4 E n d n o t e s 

page/portal/DICE_Content/INFRASTRUCTURE/

COMMUNICATION_NETWORKS/Liberalisation%20

Process/history-telecom-liber.pdf (last visited Mar. 5, 

2010).

210 See generally WTO, Post-Uruguay Round Negotiations 

on Basic Telecommunications, http://www.wto.

org/english/tratop_e/serv_e/telecom_e/telecom_

posturuguay_neg_e.htm (last visited Feb. 26, 2010); 

WTO, Telecommunications Services: Reference Paper, 

Negotiating Group on Basic Telecommunications, Apr. 

24, 1996, http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/serv_e/

telecom_e/tel23_e.htm; WTO, Services: Agreement, 

Annex on Telecommunications, http://www.wto.org/

english/tratop_e/serv_e/12-tel_e.htm (last visited Mar. 

5, 2010).

211 DataDyne has had success leveraging the mobile 

penetration rate in Africa, which approaches 50%, to 

create applications that allow real time data collection 

by health care workers and more effective mobilization 

of public health responses. Specifically, DataDyne 

designed an application that allowed public health 

workers in the rural areas of Kenya to collect patient 

health information using a form on their basic mobile 

phones and then sending it back to the main office in 

Nairobi where there is dependable broadband access to 

be included in a comprehensive database. See generally 

DataDyne, http://www.datadyne.org/ (last visited Feb. 

26, 2010).

212 There are over 1.7 billion Internet users worldwide. 

Miniwatts, Internet World Stats, Internet World

Users by Language: Top Ten Languages (chart) (Sept. 

30, 2009), http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats7.

htm (Copyright © 2009, Miniwatts Marketing Group, 

all rights reserved worldwide). There are about 4.6 

billion mobile phone subscriptions in the world. Int’l

Telecomm. Union, The World in 2009: ICT Facts and

Figures 1 (2009) (Int’l Telecomm. Union, ICT Facts), 

available at http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/material/

Telecom09_flyer.pdf.

213 In 2009, more than a quarter of the world’s population 

is using the Internet. Int’l Telecomm. Union, ICT

Facts at 1. About 60% of the world’s population has 

a mobile phone. Int’l Telecomm. Union, The World

Telecommunication/ICT Indicators Database (13th 

ed. 2009), available at http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/

publications/world/world.html (requires purchase).

214 See infra Chapter 13, Section 13.4 (discussing broadband 

and local and regional economic development).

215 See Suzanne Choney, Mobile Banking On the Rise During 

Recession, MSNBC, Oct. 5, 2009, http://www.msnbc.

msn.com/id/33079970/ns/technology_and_sciencetech_and_gadgets//; Gautam Bandyopadhyay, Banking 

the Unbanked: Going Mobile in Africa, African Exec., 

Sept. 17, 2008, available at http://www.africanexecutive.

com/modules/magazine/articles.php?article=3541; 

Mobile money in the poor world, Economist, Sept. 

24, 2009, available at http://www.economist.com/

printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=14505519.

216 See infra Chapter 5.

217 See infra Chapters 14 and 16.

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 7 3

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 5

SPECTRUM

c h a p t e r 5

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 7 5

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 5

Historically, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)’s approach to allocating 

spectrum has been to formulate policy on a band-by-band, service-by-service basis, typically 

in response to specific requests for service allocations or station assignments. This approach 

has been criticized for being ad hoc, overly prescriptive and unresponsive to changing market 

needs.1 Wireless broadband is poised to become a key platform for innovation in the United 

States over the next decade. As a result, U.S. spectrum policy requires reform to accommodate the new ways that industry is delivering wireless services. These reforms include making 

more spectrum available on a flexible basis, including for unlicensed and opportunistic uses. 

Given the length of the spectrum reallocation process, these reforms should reflect expectations 

of how the wireless world will look 10 years from now. These reforms should ensure that there is 

sufficient, flexible spectrum that accommodates growing demand and evolving technologies.

Spectrum policy must be a key pillar of U.S. economic policy. The 

contribution of wireless services to overall gross domestic product 

grew over 16% annually from 1992–2007 compared with less than 

3% annual growth for the remainder of the economy.2

 Given these 

growth rates, wireless communications—and mobile broadband 

in particular—promises to continue to be a significant contributor 

to U.S. economic growth in the coming decade. Some analysts predict that within five years more users will connect to the Internet 

via mobile devices than desktop personal computers (PCs).3

Disruptive technology transformations happen once every 

10 to 15 years. Mobile broadband represents the convergence of 

the last two great disruptive technologies—Internet computing 

and mobile communications—and may be more transformative 

than either of these previous breakthroughs. Mobile broadband 

is scaling faster and presents a bigger opportunity. This revolution is being led not only by domestic wireless carriers, who are 

investing billions in network upgrades, but also by American 

companies such as Amazon, Apple, Intel, Google, Qualcomm 

and numerous entrepreneurial enterprises that export innovation globally.4

RECOMMENDATIONS

Ensure greater transparency concerning spectrum 

allocation and utilization 

➤ The FCC should launch and continue to improve a spectrum dashboard. 

➤ The FCC and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) should create methods for 

ongoing measurement of spectrum utilization.

➤ The FCC should maintain an ongoing strategic 

spectrum plan including a triennial assessment of 

spectrum allocations.

Expand incentives and mechanisms to reallocate or 

repurpose spectrum

➤ Congress should consider expressly expanding the FCC’s 

authority to enable it to conduct incentive auctions in 

which incumbent licensees may relinquish rights in spectrum assignments to other parties or to the FCC.

➤ Congress should consider building upon the success of the 

Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act (CSEA) to fund 

additional approaches to facilitate incumbent relocation. 

➤ Congress should consider granting authority to the FCC to 

impose spectrum fees on license holders and to NTIA to 

impose spectrum fees on users of government spectrum.

➤ The FCC should evaluate the effectiveness of its secondary 

markets policies and rules to promote access to unused and 

underutilized spectrum. 

Make more spectrum available for broadband within the 

next 10 years

➤ The FCC should make 500 megahertz newly available for 

broadband use within the next 10 years, of which 300 megahertz between 225 MHz and 3.7 GHz should be made newly 

available for mobile use within five years.

➤ The FCC should make 20 megahertz available for 

mobile broadband use in the 2.3 GHz Wireless Communications Service (WCS) band, while protecting 

neighboring federal, non-federal Aeronautical Mobile 

Telemetry (AMT) and satellite radio operations.
7 6 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 5

➤ The FCC should auction the 10 megahertz Upper 700 

MHz D Block for commercial use that is technically 

compatible with public safety broadband services.

➤ The FCC should make up to 60 megahertz available by 

auctioning Advanced Wireless Services (AWS) bands, including, if possible, 20 megahertz from federal allocations.

➤ The FCC should accelerate terrestrial deployment in 

90 megahertz of Mobile Satellite Spectrum (MSS).

➤ The FCC should initiate a rule making proceeding to reallocate 120 megahertz from the broadcast television (TV) bands.

Increase the flexibility, capacity and cost-effectiveness of 

spectrum for point-to-point wireless backhaul services 

➤ The FCC should revise Parts 74, 78 and 101 of its rules to 

allow for increased spectrum sharing among compatible 

point-to-point microwave services.

➤ The FCC should revise its rules to allow for greater flexibility and cost-effectiveness in deploying wireless backhaul.

Expand opportunities for innovative spectrum access models

➤ The FCC, within the next 10 years, should free up a new, 

contiguous nationwide band for unlicensed use.

➤ The FCC should move expeditiously to conclude the TV 

white spaces proceeding.

➤ The FCC should spur further development and deployment 

of opportunistic uses across more radio spectrum.

➤ The FCC should initiate proceedings to enhance 

research and development that will advance the science 

of spectrum access.

Take additional steps to make U.S. spectrum policy more 

comprehensive

➤ The FCC and NTIA should develop a joint roadmap to identify additional candidate federal and non-federal spectrum 

that can be made accessible for both mobile and fixed wireless broadband use, on an exclusive, shared, licensed and/or 

unlicensed basis. 

➤ The FCC should promote within the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) innovative and flexible 

approaches to global spectrum allocation that take into 

consideration convergence of various radio communication 

services and that enable global development of broadband 

services.

➤ The FCC should take into account the unique spectrum 

needs of U.S. Tribal communities when implementing the 

recommendations in this chapter.

5.1 THE GROWTH OF 

WIRELESS BROADBAND

The use of wireless broadband is growing rapidly, primarily in 

the area of mobile connectivity, but also in fixed broadband applications. Key drivers of this growth include the maturation of 

third-generation (3G) wireless network services, the development of smartphones and other mobile computing devices, the 

emergence of broad new classes of connected devices and the 

rollout of fourth-generation (4G) wireless technologies such as 

Long Term Evolution (LTE) and WiMAX. 

3G network services are in full bloom. Data traffic on 

AT&T’s mobile network, driven in part by iPhone usage, is 

up 5,000% over the past three years,5

 a compound annual 

growth rate of 268%. Verizon Wireless says it, too, has recently experienced substantial data growth in its network.6

According to Cisco, North American wireless networks carried 

approximately 17 petabytes per month in 2009,7

 an amount of 

data equivalent to 1,700 Libraries of Congress. By 2014, Cisco 

Exhibit 5-A: 

Forecasted Mobile 

Data Traffic in 

North America

Trac relative to 2009

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

0X

5X

10X

15X

20X

25X

30X

35X

40X

45X

50X

Cisco Systems Coda Research Yankee Group
F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 7 7

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 5

projects wireless networks in North America will carry some 

740 petabytes per month, a greater than 40-fold increase. 

Other industry analysts forecast large proportional increases 

(see Exhibit 5-A).8

This growth in aggregate traffic is due to increased adoption 

of Internet-connected mobile computing devices and increased 

data consumption per device. A recent survey of 7,000 U.S. adults 

found that smartphone penetration is now at 33% of mobile subscribers across the four largest wireless operators. Penetration 

rose steadily over the past several quarters.9

 These new devices 

drive higher data usage per subscriber, as users engage with dataintensive social networking applications and user-generated 

video content. Advanced smartphones, such as the iPhone, and 

devices using the Android operating system consume hundreds 

of megabytes of data per user per month.10 Laptops using aircards consume more than a gigabyte per user per month.11 To put 

these numbers in perspective, Cisco estimates that smartphones 

such as the iPhone can generate 30 times more data traffic than 

a basic feature phone, and that a laptop can generate many times 

the traffic of a smartphone.12

Additionally, experts expect a huge increase in machinebased wireless broadband communications over the next 

several years, as “smart” devices take advantage of the ubiquitous connectivity afforded by high-speed, low-latency, wireless 

packet data networks.13 While many of these devices, like smart 

meters, are expected to consume relatively small amounts of 

bandwidth, others, such as wireless-enabled cameras, may 

make use of embedded video and other media that could substantially increase demand for wireless bandwidth. Analysts 

predict a shift from one device per person to a world where 

“smart” connected devices greatly outnumber human beings.14

The aggregate impact of these devices on demand for wireless 

broadband networks could be enormous.

The rollout of advanced 4G networks using new versions of 

LTE and WiMAX technologies will also intensify the impact 

on mobile broadband networks. The next generation of mobile 

broadband networks will support higher data throughput rates, 

lower latencies and more consistent network performance 

throughout a cell site. This will increase the range of applications and devices that can benefit from mobile broadband 

connectivity, generating a corresponding increase in demand for 

mobile broadband service from consumers, businesses, public 

safety, health care, education, energy and other public sector users. Most of the major wireless carriers are building or planning 

upgrades to 4G technologies (see Exhibit 5-B).

An increase in mobile broadband use raises demand for 

other wireless services, such as point-to-point microwave backhaul and unlicensed networks, to enhance the overall delivery 

of broadband. Wireless backhaul transports large quantities of 

data to and from cell sites, especially in rural areas. Unlicensed 

services such as Wi-Fi and Bluetooth are important complements to licensed mobile networks and to fixed wireline 

networks. Most smartphones available today feature Wi-Fi, 

and users increasingly take advantage of this capability inside 

homes or businesses where high-speed broadband connectivity is available. According to a November 2008 report from 

AdMob, 42% of all iPhone traffic was transported over Wi-Fi 

networks rather than carriers’ own networks.16 Other carriers report similar trends in how their customers use Wi-Fi to 

complement cellular service. 

Growing Spectrum Needs

The growth of wireless broadband will be constrained if 

government does not make spectrum available to enable 

network expansion and technology upgrades. In the absence 

of sufficient spectrum, network providers must turn to costly 

alternatives, such as cell splitting, often with diminishing 

returns. If the U.S. does not address this situation promptly, 

scarcity of mobile broadband could mean higher prices, poor 

service quality, an inability for the U.S. to compete internationally, depressed demand and, ultimately, a drag on innovation. 

Exhibit 5-B: 

Selected Announced 

Upgrades to 

the U.S. Mobile 

Broadband 

Network (Persons 

covered)15

Technology Companies 2009 2010 2011 By 2013

LTE Verizon

AT&T

MetroPCS

Cox

Verizon (100 million)

AT&T (trials)

AT&T (start of 

deployment)

Cox (start of 

deployment)

MetroPCS (start of 

deployment)

Verizon 

(entire network)

WiMAX Clearwire/Sprint

OpenRange

Small wireless 

Internet service 

providers (WISPs)

Clearwire 

(30 million)

WISPs 

(2 million)

Clearwire 

(120 million)

OpenRange 

(6 million)
7 8 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 5

The progression to 4G technologies may require appropriately sized bands, including larger blocks to accommodate 

wider channel sizes. That said, innovative technologies are 

emerging that take advantage of narrower slices of spectrum, 

and such complementary approaches provide new opportunities for investment and further technological innovation.

Unlocking the full potential of 4G will require more than 

a “re-farming” of existing mobile spectrum and deployment 

using recently released spectrum in the 700 MHz, Advanced 

Wireless Services (AWS) and 2.5 GHz bands. It cannot focus 

solely on “last mile” mobile connectivity, but also needs to address other potential network bottlenecks that inhibit speed, 

including backhaul and other point-to-point applications.

Additional spectrum is also required to accommodate 

multiple providers in a competitive marketplace, including new 

entrants and small businesses, as well as to enable wireless services to compete with wireline services. The U.S. Department 

of Justice (DOJ) aptly summarized: “Given the potential of 

wireless services to reach underserved areas and to provide an 

alternative to wireline broadband providers in other areas, the 

Commission’s primary tool for promoting broadband competition should be freeing up spectrum.”17

Spectrum: The Great Enabler

Each of the past three decades has seen a new tranche of 

mobile spectrum create successive waves of innovation 

and investment. 

In 1983, the FCC allocated the spectrum used to build out 

the first cellular networks. This spectrum was originally allocated to television channels 70 to 83. Reallocation of the band 

effectively gave birth to the mobile industry. The spectrum was 

initially used for analog cellular telephone systems. It constituted the entire spectrum allocation for the cellular industry 

for a dozen years. 

From 1994 to 2000, the FCC auctioned the Personal 

Communications Service (PCS) spectrum, which made mobile 

voice communications a mass-market reality and unleashed a 

tidal wave of innovation and investment. These auctions more 

than tripled the stock of spectrum for commercial mobile radio 

services. With spectrum as the catalyst, the mobile industry 

profoundly changed during this period: 

➤ The number of wireless providers increased significantly in 

most markets.18

➤ The per-minute price of cell phone service dropped 

by 50%.19

➤ The number of mobile subscribers more than tripled.20

➤ Cumulative investment in the industry more than tripled 

from $19 billion to over $70 billion.21

➤ The number of cell sites more than quadrupled, from 

18,000 to over 80,00022

➤ Industry employment tripled from 54,000 to over 155,000.23

That same period saw a rapid uptick in the pace of industry 

innovation, from the deployment of new wireless technologies, to the introduction of new services such as Short Message 

Service, to the launch of the first nationwide service plans. As 

the DOJ explains, “mobile wireless users saw a substantial increase in the variety of pricing plans, lower per-minute prices, 

the introduction of newer generations of technology, and new 

features and functionality.”24

The past decade has seen new spectrum come online in the 

700 MHz, AWS and 2.5 GHz bands, providing a foundation 

for the nation’s 4G wireless networks. The history of the 700 

MHz band in particular demonstrates the importance of taking 

active steps to modernize spectrum policies in anticipation of 

future needs. In 2008, the FCC auctioned spectrum in the 700 

MHz band, which was reallocated from the ultra high frequency (UHF) television band as part of America’s transition 

to digital television (DTV). In 1997, the FCC established a ten 

year transition to digital broadcasting. Congress then modified 

that to mandate the transition would end when 85% of households owned digital receivers, a milestone that was difficult to 

measure and did not establish a specific deadline. At that time, 

this policy did not anticipate the explosion in mobile data that 

would begin a decade later; but in an effort to ensure a timely 

transition, Congress eventually accelerated the transition to 

2009. In hindsight, setting a definitive transition date unlocked 

tremendous value for consumers and service providers. The 

auction garnered over $19 billion, and the spectrum is likely to 

provide a launch pad for two of the largest 4G network deployments in the coming years.

The Importance of Spectrum Flexibility

The current spectrum policy framework sometimes impedes 

the free flow of spectrum to its most highly valued uses. The 

federal government, on behalf of the American people and 

under the auspices of the FCC and NTIA, retains all property 

rights to spectrum.25 In several instances, both agencies assign 

large quantities of spectrum to specific uses, sometimes tied to 

specific technologies. In some cases, this approach is appropriate to serve particular public interests that flexible use licenses 

and market-based allocations alone would not otherwise support. However, because mission needs and technologies evolve, 

there must be a public review process to ensure that decisions 

about federal and non-federal use that may have worked in the 

past can be revisited over time. In general, where there is no 

overriding public interest in maintaining a specific use, flexibility should be the norm.

In the case of commercial spectrum, the failure to revisit historical allocations can leave spectrum handcuffed to 
F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 7 9

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 5

particular use cases and outmoded services, and less valuable and less transferable to innovators who seek to use it for 

new services. The market for commercial, licensed spectrum 

does not always behave like a typical commodities market. 

Commercially licensed spectrum does not always move 

efficiently to the use valued most highly by markets and consumers. For example, a megahertz-pop may be worth a penny in 

one industry context and a dollar in another. Legacy “command 

and control” rules, high transaction costs and highly fragmented license regimes sometimes preserve outmoded band plans 

and prevent the aggregation (or disaggregation) of spectrum 

into more valuable license configurations. 

Flexibility of use enables markets in spectrum, allowing innovation and capital formation to occur with greater efficiency. 

More flexible spectrum rights will help ensure that spectrum 

moves to more productive uses, including mobile broadband, 

through voluntary market mechanisms. 

Spectrum flexibility, both for service rules and license transfers, has created enormous value. For example, the combined 

book value of flexible-use licenses held by the four national 

wireless providers, reflecting the prices paid at auction as well 

as in mergers and other corporate transactions, is over $150 

billion.26 Some economists estimate that the consumer welfare 

gains from spectrum may be 10 times the private value to the 

spectrum holder.27 If this rule of thumb is true, it suggests that 

the social value of licensed mobile radio spectrum alone in the 

United States is at least $1.5 trillion. 

The process of revisiting or revising spectrum allocations 

has historically taken 6-13 years, as described in Exhibit 5-C. 

Deploying networks adds still more time. Therefore, the FCC 

must maintain a forward-looking perspective as it evaluates 

reallocations or other rule changes that will make more spectrum available for broadband. In general, a voluntary approach 

that minimizes delays is preferable to an antagonistic process 

that stretches on for years. However, the government’s ability 

to reclaim, clear and re-auction spectrum (with flexible use 

rights) is the ultimate backstop against market failure and is an 

appropriate tool when a voluntary process stalls entirely.

While flexibility in spectrum use is valuable, flexibility in 

access to spectrum can be just as important. Creating ways 

to access spectrum under a variety of new models, including 

unlicensed uses, shared uses and opportunistic uses, increases 

opportunity for entrepreneurs and other new market entrants 

to develop wireless innovations that may not have otherwise 

been possible under licensed spectrum models. In particular, 

unlicensed uses—which are technically not allocations per se—

have enabled innovation in devices at the “edge” of the network. 

The spectrum novelties of today may become the predominant 

network technologies of tomorrow. Therefore, allowing technologically flexible access to spectrum is an essential innovation 

policy that the FCC should continue to develop. 

With all of these considerations in mind, the U.S. government should take several actions to address urgent broadband 

spectrum needs.

5.2 ENSURING GREATER

TRANSPARENCY 

CONCERNING 

SPECTRUM ALLOCATION

AND UTILIZATION

Spectrum policy starts with transparency—disclosure about 

spectrum allocations, licensing and utilization. Transparency 

further increases the quality of policymaking by allowing 

outside parties—including citizens, companies, other government agencies and investors—to engage in the allocation 

process on an ongoing basis. The FCC and NTIA should 

create a system for greater transparency on spectrum allocation and utilization. 

In the 1990s, the FCC began keeping electronic records of 

radio licenses and making this information available online. 

For example, the Universal Licensing System contains data 

on approximately two million licenses for over 30 different 

radio services. Nonetheless, it is difficult for stakeholders and 

the public to access and use these data. Much of the currently 

Exhibit 5-C: 

Time Required 

Historically to 

Reallocate 

Spectrum

Band First Step Available for Use Approximate Time Lag

Cellular (Advanced Mobile Phone System) 1970 1981 11 years

PCS 1989 1995 6 years

Educational Broadband Service 

(EBS)/Broadband Radio Service (BRS)

1996 2006 10 years

700 MHz 1996 2009 13 years

AWS-1 2000 2006 6 years
8 0 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 5

available information on spectrum resides in multiple “silos” 

requiring expert knowledge and interpretation. The complexity of the system and the resulting lack of transparency and 

usability create impediments to public policy and limit the 

emergence of new technologies that could employ such data to 

optimize use of the spectrum automatically. 

Recommendation 5.1: The FCC should launch and continue to improve a spectrum dashboard.

Concurrent with the National Broadband Plan, the FCC 

is launching a beta release of a spectrum dashboard.28 This 

Internet-based software enables user-friendly access to information regarding spectrum bands and licenses, including those 

that may be suitable for wireless broadband deployment. The 

initial version includes general information about non-federal 

use of spectrum bands in the range of 225 MHz to 3.7 GHz as 

well as more detailed information about bands of particular 

relevance to broadband.29

The spectrum dashboard will allow users to browse spectrum 

bands more easily, search for spectrum licenses, produce maps and 

download raw data for further analysis. For the first time, through 

a single FCC portal, users may access basic information on licenses 

(e.g., licensee name, contact information, frequency bands) as well as 

descriptions of allocations. Further, the dashboard includes information not previously available through the FCC website, such as the 

capability to search for licenses based on commonly recognizable 

names of companies (e.g., AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, etc.) and the 

amount of spectrum held by licensees on a county-by-county basis 

for many types of licenses. The screen shot below is illustrative of the 

spectrum dashboard user interface (see Exhibit 5-D).

The FCC should continue to improve and augment this 

spectrum dashboard over time, adding more comprehensive 

data on all bands, including commercial, state and local allocations within one year of the initial launch. 30 The FCC should 

also implement ongoing improvements to the database that 

will assist in spectrum policy planning and decision making, 

promote a robust secondary market in spectrum and improve 

communications services in all areas of the U.S., including 

rural, underserved and Tribal areas. Simultaneously, NTIA 

should develop similar information on federal spectrum operations.31 This information should be made accessible through 

common links, with the intent of providing users a comprehensive view of combined FCC and NTIA information.

Recommendation 5.2: The FCC and the National 

Telecommunications and Information Administration 

(NTIA) should create methods for ongoing measurement 

of spectrum utilization. 

To assist in understanding how, where and when spectrum 

resources are being used, the FCC and NTIA should develop 

scientific, statistically valid methods to measure and report the 

utilization of spectrum bands between 225 MHz and 3.7 GHz.32

Some studies of spectrum utilization suggest that spectrum 

goes unused in many places much of the time, although critics 

assert that larger-scale studies are needed to draw more definitive conclusions.33 More systematic measurement methods 

would help to provide a fact base that can inform policymaking, 

when combined with other forms of analysis.34

In the United Kingdom, the independent regulator Ofcom 

commissioned a study that provided a wealth of insights about 

spectrum utilization, and demonstrated the practicality of 

large-scale spectrum measurement.35 An equivalent study, 

Exhibit 5-D: 

The Spectrum 

Dashboard: An 

Interactive Tool 

for Browsing 

Spectrum Bands
F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 8 1

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 5

scaled to the larger scope of U.S. geography, would cost approximately $10–$15 million, and would provide insight into 

the utilization of spectrum resources with trillions of dollars of 

social value. Spectrum measurement for this study could use 

inexpensive frequency scanners installed on postal trucks or 

other fleet vehicles.

Information on spectrum utilization should be updated annually to provide an accurate snapshot of current use. Results 

should be made available to the public as an additional layer in 

the spectrum dashboard. 

Recommendation 5.3: The FCC should maintain an ongoing strategic spectrum plan including a triennial assessment of spectrum allocations.

The recommendations in this chapter form the nucleus of a 

plan to ensure that spectrum is allocated to support the growth 

of broadband services and to accommodate new technologies 

that deliver it. Of course, every plan must evolve to accommodate new circumstances. Therefore, the FCC should maintain 

and continually update a strategic spectrum plan. Furthermore, 

the FCC should regularly refresh its analysis of the spectrum 

market with an assessment of the supply, usage and demand 

for spectrum, including potential sources of new spectrum. 

This assessment will draw on data collected from the spectrum 

dashboard and from spectrum measurement and utilization 

efforts, as described above in Recommendations 5.1 and 5.2, 

respectively. The spectrum assessment should be published 

every three years and should include an assessment of available 

spectrum and metrics by which to measure potential reallocation to alternative uses. 

5.3 EXPANDing

INCENTIVES AND

MECHANISMS TO

REALLOCATE OR

REPURPOSE SPECTRUM

The FCC has a variety of methods to manage spectrum pursuant to its authority under the Communications Act. In recent 

years, Congress has enhanced the FCC’s spectrum management 

abilities by providing additional tools to promote more effective use of spectrum. 

For instance, Congress enabled the FCC to develop procedures for assigning hundreds of megahertz more quickly and 

efficiently by providing the Commission with auction authority 

in 1993.36 In 2004, with passage of the CSEA, Congress gave the 

FCC a powerful mechanism to encourage incumbent federal 

users to clear spectrum bands so that reallocated spectrum can 

be made available for commercial use.37

While these tools have served their purpose, they may 

prove insufficient for the spectrum policy challenges ahead. 

The broadband spectrum needs of the U.S. are growing as it 

is becoming more difficult to identify large swaths of spectrum—both federal and commercial—that can be reclaimed for 

auction. In many cases, the traditional auction model is likely 

to remain the preferred approach. Increasingly, however, the 

FCC will find itself looking for new ways to move spectrum to 

more productive uses. Given the practical challenges of reallocation, the FCC needs to create new incentives for incumbent 

licensees to yield to next-generation users. 

Recommendation 5.4: Congress should consider expressly 

expanding the FCC’s authority to enable it to conduct incentive auctions in which incumbent licensees may relinquish rights in spectrum assignments to other parties or to 

the FCC.

FCC spectrum licensees often possess certain rights and 

expectations that can make it difficult, in practice, for the FCC 

to reclaim and re-license that spectrum for another purpose. 

Contentious spectrum proceedings can be time-consuming, 

sometimes taking many years to resolve, and incurring significant opportunity costs. One way to address this challenge is 

by motivating existing licensees to voluntarily clear spectrum 

through incentive auctions. Congress should grant the FCC 

authority to conduct incentive auctions to accelerate productive use of encumbered spectrum. 

Incentive auctions can provide a practical, market-based 

way to reassign spectrum, shifting a contentious process to 

a cooperative one. In an incentive auction, incumbents receive a portion of the proceeds realized by the auction of their 

spectrum licenses. This sharing of proceeds creates appropriate incentives for incumbents to cooperate with the FCC 

in reallocating their licensed spectrum to services that the 

market values more highly. A market-based mechanism—an 

auction—determines the value of the spectrum; market-based 

incentives, such as a share of the revenue received, encourage 

existing licensees to participate, accelerating the repurposing 

of spectrum and reducing the cost. Incentive auctions can be 

especially useful where fragmentation of spectrum licenses 

makes it difficult for private parties to aggregate spectrum in 

marketable quantities.

Incentive auctions can come in different forms. For example, in a “two-sided” auction, the FCC could act as a 

third-party auctioneer for the private exchange of spectrum 

between willing sellers and buyers, similar to a fine art auction. 
8 2 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 5

Alternatively, the FCC could offer a revenue-sharing enhancement to the existing spectrum auction system, in which some 

portion of revenues generated by an auction are shared between the U.S. Treasury and incumbent licensees who agree to 

relinquish their licenses.38

Incentive auctions present a more efficient alternative to 

the FCC’s overlay auction authority, in which the FCC auctions encumbered overlay licenses and lets the new overlay 

licensees negotiate with incumbents to clear spectrum. These 

piecemeal voluntary negotiations between new licensees and 

incumbents introduce delays as well as high transaction costs 

as new licensees contend with holdouts and other bargaining 

problems. Anticipating these delays and negotiating costs, bidders typically pay significantly less for encumbered spectrum. 

The value of spectrum that must be cleared through such a 

voluntary process is reduced even more by uncertainty about 

the final cost of clearing.

Although sharing auction proceeds through incentive auctions means that some funds paid for spectrum will not go to 

the U.S. Treasury, incentive auctions should have a net-positive 

revenue impact for a variety of reasons: accelerated clearing, 

more certainty about costs, and the ability to auction adjacent 

spectrum that, due to technical rules, is not currently licensed.39

Recommendation 5.5: Congress should consider building 

upon the success of the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act (CSEA) to fund additional approaches to facilitate incumbent relocation. 

The CSEA encourages federal incumbents to clear spectrum 

not being put to its most productive use and facilitates the 

updating of agency networks for enhanced broadband capabilities.40 The CSEA establishes a Spectrum Relocation Fund to 

reimburse federal agencies operating on certain frequencies 

that have been reallocated to non-federal use.41 With certain 

revisions, CSEA could become an even more effective tool for 

relocating federal incumbents from reallocated spectrum and 

for developing technological advances that will enable future 

reallocations of federal spectrum for wireless broadband. 

The CSEA funding mechanism was first utilized in connection with the auction of former federal spectrum in the 

AWS-1 auction, which concluded in September 2006. The 

auction proceeds attributable to the former federal spectrum 

amounted to $6.85 billion, or half of the total net winning bids 

of $13.7 billion. The relocation costs totaled approximately 

$1 billion.42 The auction’s proceeds thus surpassed relocation 

costs by nearly $6 billion. At the same time, federal incumbents 

received modernized systems in other frequency bands. The 

experience of AWS-1 and CSEA proves that relocation can be a 

win-win-win: for incumbents, for the U.S. Treasury, and, most 

importantly, for the American public, which benefits from 

increased access to the airwaves.

Congress should consider improving the CSEA to ensure 

that a full range of costs are covered to provide federal agencies adequate incentives and assistance, including up-front 

planning, technology development and staffing to support 

the relocation effort. Further, agencies should be compensated for using commercial services and non-spectrum-based 

operations, in addition to dedicated spectrum-based system 

deployments. In particular, Congress should revise the CSEA to 

provide for payments of relocation funds to federal users that 

vacate spectrum and make use of commercial networks instead 

of alternative dedicated federal spectrum. Expanding the definition of reimbursable costs to include a federal incumbent’s 

costs incurred to obtain telecommunications services from 

another existing network will promote agency use of shared 

commercial infrastructure, thereby freeing federal spectrum to 

be licensed for broadband deployment.

Recommendation 5.6: Congress should consider granting 

authority to the FCC to impose spectrum fees on license 

holders and to NTIA to impose spectrum fees on users of 

government spectrum.

In many spectrum bands, the government issues exclusive 

flexible use licenses that allow licensees to choose what services to offer and to transfer, lease or subdivide their spectrum 

rights.43 Many spectrum licensees, however, have inflexible 

licenses that limit the spectrum to specific uses. These licensees do not incur opportunity costs for use of their spectrum; 

therefore, they are not apt to receive market signals about new 

uses with potentially higher value than current uses. The result 

can be inadequate consideration of alternative uses, artificial 

constraints on spectrum supply and a generally inefficient allocation of spectrum resources.

One way to address these inefficiencies is to impose a fee on 

spectrum, so that licensees take the value of spectrum into account.44 Congress should grant the FCC and NTIA authority to 

impose spectrum fees, but only on spectrum that is not licensed 

for exclusive flexible use.45

Fees may help to free spectrum for new uses such as broadband, since licensees who use spectrum inefficiently may 

reduce their holdings once they bear the opportunity cost of 

spectrum. As the Government Accountability Office noted in 

a 2006 report to Congress, administrative fees “promote the 

efficient use of spectrum by compelling spectrum users to 

recognize the value to society of the spectrum that they use. 

In other words, these fees mimic the functions of a market.”46

However, it is not clear that the FCC and NTIA at present have 

authority to impose such fees.47

How best to set spectrum fees is a complex question. To be 

fully effective, fees should reflect the value of the spectrum 
F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 8 3

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 5

in its best feasible alternative use, i.e., the opportunity cost. 

The prices observed from the auction of licenses for comparable spectrum are one indicator, but are imprecise due to 

differences in the technical characteristics, rules, interference environment and temporal variations in the supply and 

demand of the spectrum being compared. Recognizing these 

uncertainties, Ofcom has followed a practice of first setting 

low fees and then raising them gradually over time in response 

to observed changes in usage patterns (see Box 5-1). This is a 

prudent approach that gives users time to adjust to administrative pricing levels.

In addition, a different approach to setting fees may be appropriate for different spectrum users. A fee system must avoid 

disrupting public safety, national defense, and other essential 

government services that protect human life, safety, and property and must account for the need to adjust funding through 

what can be lengthy budgetary cycles. 

This year, the Obama Administration requested that 

Congress grant the FCC authority to impose spectrum fees. The 

Bush Administration made similar requests from 2001 to 2008.51

Congress should grant this authority to the FCC and to NTIA.

Recommendation 5.7: The FCC should evaluate the effectiveness of its secondary markets policies and rules to 

promote access to unused and underutilized spectrum.

Secondary markets provide a way for some network providers to obtain access to needed spectrum for broadband 

deployment. While the FCC currently has rules that enable 

secondary markets, the record is mixed. Some public comments 

maintain that market-based policies have enabled a wide variety of entities, including non-nationwide providers, to obtain 

access to spectrum.52 Others contend that unused or underutilized spectrum is not being made available to smaller providers, 

especially in rural areas where spectrum goes unused.53 To 

ensure that secondary markets are functioning effectively, the 

FCC should identify and address barriers to more productive 

allocation and use of spectrum through secondary markets. The 

FCC should complete its assessment of potential barriers by 

the end of 2010.

The goal of the FCC’s current secondary market policies is 

to eliminate regulatory barriers that might hinder access to, 

and permit more efficient use of, valuable spectrum resources.54 The FCC has expressed concern that existing licensees 

may not fully utilize or plan to utilize the entire spectrum 

assigned to them; as a result, a substantial amount of spectrum 

may be underused, especially in rural areas.55

The FCC’s policies and rules permit a variety of secondary 

market transactions: license transfers and assignments, partitioning and disaggregation of licenses, and spectrum leasing.56

The FCC significantly streamlined the processing of lease 

transactions in 2003 and 2004.57 The spectrum leasing policies 

also permit dynamic leasing arrangements that enable licensees and spectrum lessees to share use of the same spectrum. 

These arrangements take advantage of more sharing technologies that are possible as a result of innovations and advanced 

technologies such as cognitive radios.58

Preliminary analyses establish that there have been thousands of secondary-market transactions involving mobile 

broadband licenses over the last several years. These have 

included license transfers, including partitioning and disaggregation, and spectrum leases,59 thus providing some 

evidence that the FCC’s policies have enabled “spectrum to 

flow more freely among users and uses,” as envisioned in the 

Commission’s Secondary Markets Policy Statement.60

Despite this activity, the pressing spectrum requirements of 

broadband necessitate the need for a second look. In particular, 

the FCC should examine additional positive incentives that 

may assist in the development of secondary markets, such as 

reducing secondary market transaction costs like lease filing costs, and encouraging and facilitating the use of dynamic 

spectrum leasing arrangements that harness emerging technologies. The FCC should also consider a more systematic set of 

incentives, both positive and negative, to ensure productive use 

of spectrum to address broadband gaps in underserved areas.

Administrative Incentive 

Pricing (AIP) in the United 

Kingdom

The U.K. has adopted a 

user fee system called AIP for 

commercial and government 

spectrum, including some held 

by the U.K. Ministry of Defence.48 A recent Ofcom review 

of the AIP program concluded 

that AIP is meeting its objective of providing signals about 

market value to spectrum users 

so that they have an incentive 

to make optimal use of their 

spectrum.49 By making the 

value of spectrum more salient, 

this pricing system has had its 

intended impact on government spectrum holders—military holders in particular. For 

example, spectrum costs are 

now included in business cases 

for major programs, long-term 

spectrum need plans are 

developed, and some unneeded 

spectrum has been transferred 

to other uses.50

BOX 5-1:
8 4 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 5

5.4 MAKING MORE

SPECTRUM AVAILABLE

WITHIN THE NEXT

10 YEARS

Recommendation 5.8: The FCC should make 500 megahertz newly available for broadband use within the next 10 

years, of which 300 megahertz between 225 MHz and 3.7 

GHz should be made newly available for mobile use within 

five years.

In order to meet growing demand for wireless broadband services, 

and to ensure that America keeps pace with the global wireless revolution, 500 megahertz should be made newly available for mobile, 

fixed and unlicensed broadband use over the next 10 years. This spectrum would be made available for a variety of licensed and unlicensed 

flexible commercial uses, as well as to meet the broadband needs of 

specialized users such as public safety, energy, educational and other 

important users. Of this amount, 300 megahertz between 225 MHz 

and 3.7 GHz should be made available for mobile flexible use within 

five years. The timeline in Exhibit 5-E illustrates a schedule of actions 

that would fulfill this latter goal.

In the bands below 3.7 GHz, 547 megahertz is currently 

licensed as flexible use spectrum that can be used for mobile 

broadband.63 Of this amount, the Cellular and PCS bands compose 170 megahertz and represent the most intensively used 

spectrum today. The majority of the remaining 377 megahertz 

was auctioned or rebanded within the past six years and is just 

now coming online for mobile broadband deployment. This 

latter portion brought more than a three-fold increase in total 

spectrum for mobile services and provides a “runway” for the 

launch of next-generation mobile broadband services.

Looking ahead, operators, regulators and others have attempted to forecast the amount of spectrum that will be needed. 

Given current trends and future uncertainty, virtually all the 

major players in the wireless industry have stated on the record 

that more spectrum is needed.64 Estimates range from 40 to 150 

megahertz per operator.

65 In a recent public filing, CTIA summed 

up the industry-wide need to be approximately 800 megahertz.66

Several international organizations have also issued estimates, which vary widely. The ITU released an analysis in 2006 

predicting that the total amount of spectrum needed to support 

mobile broadband in developed countries like the U.S. would be 

1,300 megahertz by 2015 and up to 1,720 megahertz by 2020.67

In the U.K., Ofcom commissioned an analysis of potential 

spectrum shortages. In the longer term, Ofcom believes that 

“improvements in spectral efficiency and the move to higher 

density network architectures will provide sufficient capacity 

to handle most high-end predictions of future demand.” Still, 

Ofcom warns that “there could still be some limitations due to 

pressure on spectrum in the 2020 timeframe.”68

Spectrum forecasts all incorporate a range of assumptions 

about future network capacity. Demand is difficult to predict 

due to uncertainties about future devices and user behavior. 

Supply is also difficult to predict since new technologies can 

change underlying operating costs, and access to key inputs like 

backhaul and tower sites can be limited by regulatory and other 

barriers (see Chapter 6).

In addition, bandwidth supply and demand are co-dependent. More bandwidth begets more data-intensive applications 

which begets a need for more bandwidth. Indeed, it is this virtuous cycle that has made broadband an innovation growth engine 

over the past decade—but also makes forecasting difficult.

The forecast of a need to make 300 megahertz available by 

2015 reflects a set of reasonable assumptions about the evolution of supply and demand for mobile bandwidth and the 

resulting cost impact to service providers and their customers. 

Exhibit 5-E: 

Actions and 

Timeline to Fulfill 

300 Megahertz 

Goal by 2015

Band Key Actions and Timing Megahertz Made Available for Terrestrial 

Broadband

WCS 2010—Order 20

AWS 2/361 2010—Order

2011—Auction

60

D Block 2010—Order

2011—Auction

10

Mobile Satellite Services (MSS) 2010—L-Band and Big LEO Orders

2011—S-Band Order

90

Broadcast TV62 2011—Order

2012/13—Auction

2015—Band transition/clearing

120

Total 300
F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 8 5

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 5

On the demand side, the forecast considers the impact of smartphones, wireless substitution in broadband, and traffic forecasts 

by industry experts, all of which incorporate the impact of new 

applications such as streaming video and cloud computing. On 

the supply side, the forecast considers expected increases in 

spectral efficiency from new technologies and increased spatial 

reuse of spectrum. The forecast also considers the inherent 

fragmentation in usable channels that is a byproduct of prior 

spectrum allocations and assignments to competing providers. 

The forecast suggests that demand growth is likely to outpace 

advances in technology and network deployment.

Although increased spectrum demands are primarily an 

urban phenomenon, several factors point to the need to make 

spectrum available nationwide. A national footprint improves 

carriers’ cost structure, particularly in rural areas, by allowing 

the use of the same network equipment on a nationwide basis. 

Additionally, especially for highly propagating lower bands, 

increased availability of spectrum provides sufficient capacity 

to serve very large rural areas with a single cell, thereby further 

reducing the cost of rural deployments.

Three considerations further support the 300 megahertz 

goal. First, the accelerating nature of industry analyst demand 

forecasts makes clear that it is not a question of if the U.S. will 

require 300 megahertz of spectrum for mobile broadband, but 

when. Second, the use of flexible mechanisms such as incentive auctions to meet the need for more spectrum ensures 

that the market will self-correct if the forecast proves to be 

inaccurate. If the U.S. needs more than 300 additional megahertz for mobile broadband, prices for spectrum will go up 

and market mechanisms will help move spectrum to mobile 

broadband use. On the other hand, if the market demands less 

than that amount, prices may fall and less bandwidth will be 

made available for mobile broadband. Third, because there are 

ways to free up spectrum by delivering existing services more 

efficiently (rather than eliminating them altogether), the risk 

of overestimating spectrum needs is much lower than the risk 

of underestimating them. 

This discussion focuses on availability of spectrum for mobile broadband. The FCC has a number of tools at its disposal 

to make spectrum usable for broadband, including changing 

allocations and modifying service, technical and auction rules. 

For some bands, reallocation may be the appropriate action. 

However, for others, reallocation may not be practical given 

international agreements and other constraints. In these situations, making spectrum available for broadband means taking 

steps appropriate to the specific circumstances of individual 

bands. It means working within the authority of the FCC or 

NTIA to remove legacy constraints that limit the usefulness of 

a band for appropriate broadband services and applications. 

Increasing spectrum availability does not necessarily 

imply a traditional spectrum auction. In instances where the 

government is able to reclaim spectrum, a traditional auction 

will be the most appropriate and efficient method of reallocation. In other cases, the most expedient path to repurposing 

spectrum to broadband may be to use incentive auctions or 

to take other steps to energize the secondary markets for a 

particular band. 

Ultimately, the cost of not securing enough spectrum may be 

higher prices, poorer service, lost productivity, loss of competitive advantage and untapped innovation. It would not be wise 

for America to bet its mobile future on a strategy of “demand 

reduction.” As noted above, it can take many years to make 

spectrum available for new uses. With only 50 megahertz currently in the FCC pipeline, now is the time to act. Specifically, 

the following spectrum bands should be prioritized for reallocation or other rule changes in order to make progress toward 

the five-year, 300-megahertz goal.

Recommendation 5.8.1: The FCC should make 20 megahertz available for mobile broadband use in the 2.3 GHz 

Wireless Communications Service (WCS) band, while 

protecting neighboring federal, non-federal Aeronautical 

Mobile Telemetry (AMT) and satellite radio operations.

The Commission established the 2.3 GHz WCS band in 

1997.69 At that time, the FCC adopted strict operating parameters to protect operations in the adjacent Satellite Digital 

Audio Radio (SDARS) band. Certain WCS technical rules, 

particularly the out-of-band emission (OOBE) limits, largely 

preclude the provision of mobile broadband services in the 

spectrum. Based on an extensive record,70 the FCC should 

revise certain technical rules, including the WCS OOBE limits, 

to enable robust mobile broadband use of the 2.3 GHz WCS 

spectrum, while protecting federal, non-federal AMT and satellite radio operations in the neighboring SDARS band. 

Exhibit 5-F: 

Spectrum Baseline

377 MHz 547 MHz

Other

23 MHz

170 MHz

Cellular

50 MHz

Before 2006 Since 2006 Total

700 MHz

70 MHz

AWS1

90 MHz

EBS/BRS

194 MHz

PCS

120 MHz

3 X
8 6 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 5

Since the FCC first auctioned the WCS spectrum in 1997, 

a number of new and robust wireless telecommunications 

technologies have been successfully introduced, including 

Time Division Duplex and Orthogonal Frequency Division 

Multiplexing71 technologies. Such dynamic technologies, 

coupled with the exploding demand for broadband services, 

suggest that the WCS spectrum may provide fertile ground 

for the provision of high-value mobile broadband services to 

the public. The same frequency band is currently being used 

in South Korea and other countries to deploy mobile WiMAX 

service today. Accordingly, the FCC should accelerate efforts 

to ensure that the WCS spectrum is used productively for the 

benefit of all Americans. 

Recommendation 5.8.2: The FCC should auction the 

10 megahertz Upper 700 MHz D Block for commercial 

use that is technically compatible with public safety broadband services. 

The FCC should auction the Upper 700 MHz D Block for 

commercial use with limited technical requirements that 

would ensure technical compatibility between the D Block 

and the adjacent public safety broadband spectrum block and 

would enable, but not obligate, the licensee to enter into a 

spectrum-sharing partnership with the neighboring Public 

Safety Broadband Licensee (PSBL). Due to its favorable propagation characteristics and the emergence of a 4G technology 

ecosystem in the 700 MHz band, the D Block is likely to have 

high value for the delivery of commercial mobile broadband 

services. Our recommendation is intended to unlock this value 

while supporting the simultaneous development of public 

safety broadband capability through equipment development, 

roaming and priority access, pursuant to the recommendations 

described in Chapter 16. 

The D Block consists of 10 megahertz (2x5 megahertz) that 

did not receive a winning bid in the 700 MHz auction held in 

2008. The original rules required the D Block licensee to enter 

into a public-private partnership with the PSBL to build a 

public safety broadband network. The absence of meaningful 

bidding activity indicated that the public safety obligations as 

designed were not commercially viable. The approach recommended in Chapter 16 would allow for a voluntary partnership 

between public safety broadband spectrum holders and commercial partners, including the D Block licensee(s). Limited 

technical requirements on the D Block can help maximize the 

number of partners available to public safety, while also maximizing the commercial potential of the spectrum.

Specifically, the D Block should be auctioned with the following rules:

➤ The D Block licensee(s) must use a nationally standardized 

air interface. The emerging consensus in the public safety 

community is that the LTE family of standards is most appropriate.72 A standardized air interface will ensure that the 

D block will be technically capable of supporting roaming 

and priority access by public safety users of the neighboring 

public safety broadband block. 

➤ The FCC should initiate a proceeding to enable authorized 

state, local and federal public safety users to have rights to 

roaming and priority access for broadband service on commercial networks subject to compensation, as described in 

Chapter 16. Before the D Block is auctioned, it must be clear 

that D Block licensee(s) are required to provide such roaming and priority access to public safety users.

➤ D Block licensee(s) must develop and offer devices that operate 

both on the D Block and the neighboring public safety broadband 

block, with a path toward scale production of components and devices that can utilize both blocks, in order to stimulate the public 

safety broadband equipment “ecosystem.”73

➤ The D Block license should be subject to commercially 

reasonable buildout requirements. The Commission should 

also consider the use of incentives to promote additional 

deployment by the D Block licensee(s) for the benefit of 

rural citizens and for public safety agencies. 

The FCC should promptly take steps needed to implement 

these recommendations.

Recommendation 5.8.3: The FCC should make up to 

60 megahertz available by auctioning Advanced Wireless 

Services (AWS) bands, including, if possible, 20 megahertz 

from federal allocations.

The FCC should move expeditiously to resolve the future of 

the spectrum already allocated for AWS. The AWS-2 and AWS3 allocations consist of the following bands:

➤ AWS-2 “H” Block. Total of 10 megahertz at 1915–1920 MHz 

paired with 1995–2000 MHz.

➤ AWS-2 “J” Block. Total of 10 megahertz at 2020–2025 MHz 

paired with 2175–2180 MHz.

➤ AWS-3 Band. Twenty megahertz unpaired at 2155–

2175 MHz.

The FCC proposed rules for AWS-2 spectrum in 2004 and 

sought comment on AWS-3 spectrum in 2007. Potential synergies 

exist between the AWS-3 band and spectrum currently allocated 

to federal use at 1.7 GHz. There are a number of countries that 

have allocated spectrum in the 1710–1780 MHz band for commercial use74 and devices already exist in the international market for 

that spectrum. Consequently, pairing the AWS-3 band with spectrum from the 1755–1780 MHz band has the potential to bring 

benefits of a global equipment ecosystem to this band. 

NTIA, in consultation with the FCC, should conduct an 
F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 8 7

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 5

analysis, to be completed by October 1, 2010, of the possibility of reallocating a portion of the 1755–1850 MHz band to 

pair with the AWS-3 band. NTIA has commented that, “the 

Administration supports exploring both commercial and government spectrum available for reallocation.”75 If there is a strong 

possibility of reallocating federal spectrum to pair with the AWS3 band, the FCC, in consultation with NTIA, should immediately 

commence reallocation proceedings for the combined band. If, at 

the end of this inquiry, there is not a strong possibility of reallocation of federal spectrum, the FCC should proceed promptly 

to adopt final rules in 2010 and auction the AWS-3 spectrum on a 

stand-alone basis in 2011. 

The AWS-2 “J” block also has potential synergies with AWS3 and with the adjacent MSS S-Band. If developments in those 

other bands warrant, the FCC should integrate the J Block into 

one or the other of the band plans in order to maximize the 

broadband potential of the spectrum. For example, it may make 

sense to group the J Block with contiguous S-Band spectrum 

if the AWS-3 band is paired with federal spectrum, or to group 

the J Block with the AWS-3 band if there is no reallocation of 

federal spectrum. 

Recommendation 5.8.4: The FCC should accelerate 

terrestrial deployment in 90 megahertz of Mobile Satellite 

Spectrum (MSS).

The FCC should build on past efforts to enable terrestrial 

deployment in MSS bands. The MSS allocation consists of 

a significant amount of bandwidth with propagation characteristics suitable for mobile broadband. The FCC should 

take actions that will optimize license flexibility sufficient to 

increase terrestrial broadband use of MSS spectrum, while 

preserving market-wide capability to provide unique missioncritical MSS services. 

MSS is a radio communication service involving transmission 

between mobile earth stations and one or more space stations. 

MSS can provide mobile communications, from a handheld device 

such as a smartphone, in areas where it is difficult or impossible to 

provide coverage using terrestrial base stations, such as in remote 

or rural areas and non-coastal maritime regions, and at times when 

coverage may be unavailable from terrestrial-based networks, such 

as during hurricanes and other natural disasters. For this reason, 

MSS has a unique role in our communications infrastructure, and 

the preservation of sufficient spectrum for MSS incumbent users is 

important for ensuring continuity of mission-critical communications services.

The FCC first allocated spectrum for MSS in 1986. Since 

then, the Commission has allocated spectrum in four bands 

to MSS: the Little LEO Band, the L-Band, the S-Band, and the 

Big LEO band. The latter three MSS bands are capable of supporting broadband service, and several public comments have 

identified MSS as a potential focal point for a broadband spectrum strategy.76 Exhibit 5-G provides a snapshot of the current 

broadband-capable MSS bands. 

The FCC adopted rules in February 2003 that allow MSS 

operators to construct and operate Ancillary Terrestrial 

Components (ATCs) in their licensed spectrum. Although 

satellites permit nationwide coverage, satellite links are limited 

without line-of-sight transmission, particularly in urban areas 

and inside buildings. The ATC rules allow MSS providers to 

deploy terrestrial networks to enhance coverage in areas where 

the satellite signal is attenuated or unavailable.

When it enacted the ATC rules, the FCC stated that it would 

“authorize MSS ATC subject to conditions that ensure that the 

added terrestrial component remains ancillary to the principal 

MSS offering.”79 In this regard, the FCC adopted gating criteria 

that require MSS operators to satisfy certain requirements 

prior to using ATC. Specifically, the FCC requires MSS licensees to provide substantial satellite service, including satisfying 

geographic and temporal coverage requirements, maintaining 

spare satellites, and offering commercial service to the public 

for a fee. In addition, MSS licenses must integrate MSS and 

ATC services, including, notably, a requirement that all ATC 

handsets must have a satellite communications capability.

No licensee is operating a live commercial ATC network at 

Exhibit 5-G: 

BroadbandCapable MSS 

Bands

MSS Band Allocated Bandwidth

Bandwidth Usable for 

Terrestrial Broadband Licensees Subscribers77

L-band Two 34-megahertz 

blocks at 1525–1559 

MHz, 1626.5–1660.5 

MHz78

40 megahertz SkyTerra 18,235

Inmarsat 254,000

S-band Two 20-megahertz 

blocks at 2000–2020 

MHz, 2180–2200 MHz

40 megahertz DBSD (ICO) —

TerreStar —

Big LEO Two 16.5-megahertz 

block at 1610–1626.5 

MHz, 2483.5–2500 

MHz, 

10 megahertz Globalstar 382,313

Iridium 359,000
8 8 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 5

this time, although Globalstar, SkyTerra, DBSD, and recently 

Terrestar have been authorized to provide ATC services. So far, 

the ATC gating criteria have made it difficult for MSS providers 

to deploy ancillary terrestrial networks, as well as to establish 

partnerships with wireless providers or other well-capitalized 

potential entrants. Requiring full satellite coverage prior 

to initiation of ATC forces MSS licensees to incur substantial costs and obligations to provide satellite services before 

integrated ATC can be deployed. Several MSS licensees have 

sought waivers of the ATC requirements in an effort to create 

a more cost-effective framework for terrestrial deployment.80

Some critics of the ATC rules consider the added costs to be 

appropriate, given the fact that the terrestrial rights were never 

assigned through competitive bidding.

Looking forward, commercial and technological developments suggest that the potential exists for increased 

deployment of ATC networks and possible inclusion in consumer devices. In recent months, multiple providers have 

unveiled business partnerships with terrestrial-based providers and equipment manufacturers, indicating that the MSS 

industry might be ready to deploy ATC networks with updated 

business plans that appeal to mass-market consumers.81 In 

addition, satellite technology continues to advance, with the 

development of larger satellite antennas designed to work with 

smaller terrestrial mobile handsets that more closely resemble 

mass-market mobile devices. However, until these technical 

advances are market-tested, it is premature to conclude that 

the current ATC regime will succeed in deploying terrestrial 

broadband networks and attracting commercial interest.

From the standpoint of promoting broadband through 

increased use of the MSS spectrum, the FCC can take action 

to accelerate terrestrial deployments in the MSS bands. At the 

same time, the FCC must take care to ensure that the MSS market continues to provide public safety and government users 

with mission-critical satellite capabilities. To this end, the FCC 

should seek to ensure that these actions to introduce greater 

flexibility in the MSS spectrum do not interfere with non-ATC 

MSS operations, or with the ability of MSS providers to supply emergency “surge capacity” when authorized by the FCC, 

especially in light of the important role these licensees play in 

ensuring public safety.

Specifically, the FCC should take the following actions to 

promote more productive use of MSS spectrum:

➤ The FCC and other government agencies should work 

closely with L-Band licensees and foreign governments to 

accelerate efforts to rationalize ATC-authorized L-Band 

spectrum to make it usable for broadband ATC service. 

➤ The FCC should add a primary “mobile” (terrestrial) allocation to the S-Band, consistent with the international table 

of allocations, which will provide the option of flexibility to 

licensees to provide stand-alone terrestrial services using the 

spectrum. Exercise of this option should be conditioned on 

construction benchmarks, participation in an incentive auction, or other conditions designed to ensure timely utilization 

of the spectrum for broadband and appropriate consideration 

for the step-up in the value of the affected spectrum.

➤ The FCC should grant licensees flexibility under the ATC 

regime in the 2.4 GHz Big LEO band, already being used for 

terrestrial broadband deployments, to make this spectrum 

permanently suitable for terrestrial broadband service, subject 

to appropriate safeguards to promote the public interest.

The FCC should initiate proceedings on these recommendations immediately.

Recommendation 5.8.5: The FCC should initiate a rulemaking proceeding to reallocate 120 megahertz from the 

broadcast television (TV) bands, including:82

➤ Update rules on TV service areas and distance separations 

and revise the Table of Allotments to ensure the most 

efficient allotment of six-megahertz channel assignments as a starting point. 

➤ Establish a licensing framework to permit two or more 

stations to share a six-megahertz channel.

➤ Determine rules for auctions of broadcast spectrum reclaimed through repacking and voluntary channel sharing.

➤ Explore alternatives—including changes in broadcast technical architecture, an overlay license auction, or more 

extensive channel sharing—in the event the preceding 

recommendations do not yield a significant amount of 

spectrum.

➤ Take additional measures to increase efficiency of spectrum use in the broadcast TV bands.

The spectrum occupied by broadcast television stations has 

excellent propagation characteristics that make it well-suited to 

the provision of mobile broadband services, in both urban and 

rural areas. Enabling the reallocation of a portion of this spectrum 

to broadband use in a way that would not harm consumers overall 

has the potential to create new economic growth and investment 

opportunities with limited potential impact on broadcast business models. Consumers would retain access to free, over-the-air 

television. Reallocation would focus primarily on major markets 

where the broadcast TV bands are most congested and the need 

for additional spectrum for broadband use will be greatest.83

Moreover, the FCC should study and develop policies to ensure 

that its longstanding goals of competition, diversity, and localism are achieved. Changes to the TV broadcast spectrum need to 

be carefully considered to weigh the impact on consumers, the 

public interest, and the various services that share this spectrum, 
F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 8 9

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 5

including low-power TV, wireless microphones and prospective 

TV white space devices. While the FCC has performed initial analyses to consider the viability of various options, further work will 

be required and all options must be examined through rulemaking. 

Over-the-air television continues to serve important functions in our society. It delivers free access to news, entertainment 

and local programming, and provides consumers an alternative 

video service to cable or satellite television.84 It is the only such 

service to a segment of the population that either cannot afford 

paid television or broadband services or cannot receive those 

services at their homes currently. Over-the-air television also 

serves numerous public interests,including children’s educational 

programming, coverage of community news and events, reasonable access for federal political candidates, closed captioning and 

emergency broadcast information. Through broadcast television, 

the FCC has pursued longstanding policy goals in support of the 

Communications Act, such as localism and diversity of views. 

Finally, emerging broadcast applications, such as mobile DTV and 

data casting, may provide an opportunity to take advantage of the 

relative efficiencies of point-to-multipoint and point-to-point architectures in order to deliver various types of content in the most 

spectrum-efficient ways.

Because of the continued importance of over-the-air television, the recommendations in the plan seek to preserve it as a 

healthy, viable medium going forward, in a way that would not 

harm consumers overall, while establishing mechanisms to 

make available additional spectrum for flexible broadband uses.

 The need for such mechanisms is illustrated by the relative 

market values of spectrum for alternative uses. For example, 

the market value for spectrum used for over-the-air broadcast 

TV and the market value for spectrum used for mobile broadband currently reveal a substantial gap.85 In 2008, the FCC held 

an auction of broadcast TV spectrum in the 700 MHz band 

recovered as part of the DTV Transition. That auction resulted 

in an average spectrum valuation for mobile broadband use of 

$1.28 per megahertz-pop.86 The TV bands have propagation 

characteristics similar to those of the 700 MHz band. However, 

the market value of these bands in their current use ranges 

from $0.11 to $0.15 per megahertz-pop.87 Other attempts to size 

the current economic value of spectrum for over-the-air television using alternative methods have resulted in comparable 

megahertz-pop valuations.88 While there are other possible 

valuation methods that could result in further variations, this 

analysis illustrates the order of magnitude of the gap.

This gap in economic value between spectrum used for wireless broadband and spectrum used for over-the-air broadcast 

television reflects in part the long-term market trends in both 

industries. Demand for mobile broadband services is growing 

rapidly with the introduction of new devices (e.g., smartphones, 

netbooks) and with 3G and 4G upgrades of mobile networks. The 

mobile broadband industry is expected to continue to drive innovation, job growth and investment through the next decade. 

Over-the-air broadcast television, on the other hand, faces 

challenging long-term trends. The percentage of households 

viewing television solely through over-the-air broadcasts steadily 

declined over the last decade, from 24% in 1999 to 10% in 2010.89

Since 2005, broadcast TV station revenues have declined 26%,90

and overall industry employment has declined as well.91

The gap in economic value also reflects two characteristics 

of broadcast TV licensing constraints. First, since broadcast TV 

requires channel interference protections, only a fraction of 

the total spectrum allocated to broadcast TV is currently being 

used directly by stations.92 Second, as a universally available, 

free over-the-air medium, television broadcasting has long 

been required to fulfill certain public interest and technical 

requirements. It is important to allow television broadcasting 

to continue to fulfill these obligations to local communities, 

while at the same time utilizing less spectrum, thus freeing up 

additional airwaves for mobile broadband. This could yield 

more service to local communities overall—broadcast television that consumers have always received along with more and 

better mobile broadband connectivity.

The FCC should initiate a rulemaking proceeding to reallocate 120 megahertz from the broadcast TV bands. The 

proceeding should pursue four sets of actions in parallel to 

achieve this objective. In addition, the FCC should take a fifth 

set of actions to increase efficiency of spectrum use in the 

broadcast TV bands.

1. Update rules on TV service areas and distance 

separations and revise the Table of Allotments to ensure 

the most efficient allotment of 6 megahertz channel 

assignments as a starting point.

Changes to the current broadcast TV technical rules and 

channel assignments could reduce the amount of spectrum 

allocated to its use without impacting the bandwidth of any 

individual station. First, updating the technical rules defining 

TV service areas and required distance separations between 

stations may enable stations to operate at currently prohibited 

spacing on the same or adjacent channels without increasing 

interference to unacceptable levels.93 Second, the FCC may be 

able to “repack” channel assignments more efficiently to fit 

current stations with existing 6 megahertz licenses into fewer 

total channels, thus freeing spectrum for reallocation to broadband use. 

Repacking alone could potentially free up to 36 megahertz 

of spectrum from the broadcast TV bands.94 If the repacking 

takes place in conjunction with updated technical rules and 

some or all of the additional recommendations below, the 

amount of spectrum recovered could be substantially greater.95
9 0 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 5

2. Establish a licensing framework to permit two or more 

stations to share a 6 megahertz channel.

With the appropriate regulatory structure in place, broadcasters could combine multiple TV stations onto single 

six-megahertz channels. The current broadcast TV rules 

provide each licensee a six-megahertz channel that is capable 

of transmitting data at a rate of 19.4 Mbps. Television stations 

broadcast their primary video signal either in high definition 

(HD), requiring approximately 6–17 Mbps, or in standard definition (SD), requiring approximately 1.5–6 Mbps.96

Two stations could generally broadcast one primary HD 

video stream each over a shared six-megahertz channel.97

Some stations are already broadcasting multiple HD streams 

simultaneously today and claim to deliver “spectacular” signal 

quality that “consistently satisfies [their] discerning viewers.”98

Alternatively, more than two stations broadcasting in SD (not 

HD) could share a six-megahertz channel. Numerous permutations are possible, including dynamic arrangements whereby 

broadcasters sharing a channel reach agreements to exchange 

capacity to enable higher or lower transmission bit rates depending on market-driven choices.99 The FCC should ensure 

that the framework it adopts retains carriage rights for the 

primary signal of each station with a modified license to share a 

six-megahertz channel.100 The FCC also should address any potential concerns regarding anti-competitive behavior or media 

ownership consolidation arising from such arrangements. 

To date, although there are examples of individual stations 

employing these techniques to broadcast multiple HD streams or 

signals from two major broadcast networks, there are no examples 

of two or more stations combining transmissions to share a single 

channel. Television stations will need to consider their desire to 

multicast additional video streams, such as digital side channels 

and mobile DTV streams, relative to the possible sharing of channels. Multicasting mobile DTV streams and digital side channels 

requires additional bandwidth to ensure reception quality. Stations 

are just now beginning to deploy such services, and it is not yet 

clear whether they will be widely accepted or how they might affect 

the ability of stations to share channels. 

3. Determine rules for auctions of broadcast spectrum 

reclaimed through repacking and voluntary channel sharing.

The FCC should conduct an auction of some or all of the 

nationwide, contiguous spectrum recovered through the repacking described above and through decisions by stations to 

voluntarily relinquish some or all of their bandwidth. Stations 

would receive a share of the proceeds from the spectrum they 

directly contribute to the auction.101 By this time, Congress 

would need to have authorized the FCC to conduct such an 

incentive auction and share proceeds. Stations could choose 

to share channels voluntarily under the regulatory framework 

established for channel sharing described above in order to 

participate in the incentive auction. Following the auction, 

stations continuing to broadcast over the air would receive 

channel assignments according to a new Table of Allotments, 

modified licenses if they are sharing a channel with other 

stations, and reimbursement from auction winners for any 

expenses incurred as a result of repacking.

The preference is to establish a voluntary, market-based 

mechanism to effect a reallocation, such as the incentive auctions described previously in this chapter. To date, markets 

have only operated within the broadcast TV allocation and 

license regime—e.g., ownership of TV stations changing hands, 

stations going out of business and returning licenses for reissue, or stations leasing bandwidth for other broadcast uses. 

Additional market mechanisms could broaden choices for both 

incumbent and would-be licensees and facilitate movement of 

spectrum to flexible broadband use. Market trends and legal 

and regulatory developments could affect the outcome of these 

auctions, including the demand trajectory for mobile broadband services, the financial condition of broadcast TV stations, 

the resolution of Cablevision’s must-carry challenge in the 

Supreme Court,102 and the outcome of the FCC’s quadrennial 

review of broadcast ownership rules.

The voluntary, market-based reallocation should be implemented in a way that will have limited long-term impact on 

consumers overall, broadcast business models and the public 

interest, including the FCC’s goals with respect to competition, 

diversity and localism. Moreover, the substantial benefits of 

more widespread and robust broadband services would outweigh 

any impact from reallocation of spectrum from broadcast TV.

Consumers would continue to receive over-the-air television. Some over-the-air consumers would lose reception from 

one or more stations as a result of stations voluntarily going 

off the air, choosing to share channels with other stations (and 

thus change their service area), or experiencing loss in service area due to increased interference following a repacking. 

Others might gain reception from one or more stations as a 

result of changes to service areas. In addition, over-the-air consumers would need to reorient antennas or rescan their TVs, as 

they did following the DTV Transition in June 2009. 

There are several actions the FCC should take to mitigate 

the impact on over-the-air consumers. First, as a matter of 

policy, the FCC should ensure that consumers in rural areas 

and smaller markets retain service and are not significantly 

impacted by these changes. The reallocation mechanisms are 

most likely to be in the country’s largest, most densely populated markets, where the greatest demand for spectrum and the 

greatest congestion within the broadcast TV bands coincide. 

Consumers in these markets tend to have a relatively large 

number of alternatives to view television content—a median of 
F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 9 1

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 5

16 over-the-air full-power television stations, over-the-air lowpower stations and digital multicast channels, at least three to 

four multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs), 

and a growing amount of broadband Internet video content, 

increasingly delivered to the TV (see Chapter 3).

Second, in all markets, the FCC should seek to ensure that 

longstanding policy goals under the Communications Act are to 

be met, such as localism, viewpoint diversity, competition and 

opportunities for new entrants to participate in the industry, 

including women and members of minority groups. 

Finally, the FCC should explore through rulemaking proceedings appropriate compensation mechanisms and levels to 

retain free television service for those consumers who meet 

the criteria established. For example, these consumers could 

become eligible for a “lifeline” video service from MVPDs, 

consisting of all over-the-air television signals in their market. 

These mechanisms could be coordinated with the provision of 

broadband service for unserved and underserved populations. 

Congress would determine the criteria and compensation mechanisms, if necessary, and allocate the funding (e.g., from auction 

proceeds). In all areas, the incentives provided by the incentive auction, the focus of reallocation mechanisms only where 

needed, and ongoing FCC vigilance would ensure that decisions 

made by broadcasters and the FCC itself do not adversely affect 

particular communities of American consumers.103

Under the recommended voluntary approach, some broadcasters moving channel assignments would need to replace 

transmission equipment (with reimbursement) and adjust 

transmission parameters to match previous coverage areas. 

Any impact on a broadcast TV station’s revenue or business 

model would result from a decision that station chose to make 

regarding participation in the incentive auction. Broadcast TV 

stations derive their revenue primarily based on “eyeballs,” 

or the size and composition of viewership on their primary 

video signal.104 Stations gain viewers through distribution 

reach and the appeal of their programming.105 The reallocation 

mechanisms described above could have a negative impact on 

reach for some stations, but would most likely affect reach in a 

neutral to positive way overall.106 The effect on programming 

appeal would depend on the choices broadcasters make as a 

result of an incentive auction and on the importance of and 

impact on picture quality to viewers. Based on analyses of programming and signal throughput, as well as case examples, two 

stations could each broadcast a primary video stream in HD simultaneously over the same channel without causing material 

changes in the current consumer viewing experience.107 As a result of neutral impacts on both reach and programming appeal 

of stations’ primary signals, the impact of a voluntary, marketbased reallocation on current revenue streams for stations that 

continue broadcasting over-the-air could be minimal.

The voluntary incentive auction would give stations another 

variable to consider in choosing the type of primary video 

signal to broadcast over-the-air, HD or SD, and in pursuing new 

business models enabled by the DTV Transition: multicasting 

and mobile DTV. Stations could balance these choices, based on 

projected market demand for these services, against the market 

value of bandwidth for other uses, such as wireless broadband. 

Multicasting additional digital sub-channels can generate 

advertising, leasing or subscription revenue. To date, stations 

have launched approximately 1,400 multicast channels, or 

fewer than one per station on average.108 The revenue generated by such services has been modest thus far and is forecast to 

remain so in the near term—0.9% of revenue for broadcast TV 

stations in 2010, projected to rise to 1.5% of revenue in 2011.109

The second newly emerging business model, mobile DTV, 

could serve as a potential evolution path for broadcasters to 

fixed/mobile and broadcast/broadband convergence. In particular, broadcasting popular video content to mobile devices may 

help offload growing video streaming traffic from mobile pointto-point broadband networks.110 As of July 2009, approximately 

70 broadcast stations serving 28 markets had announced plans 

to begin mobile broadcasting through the Open Mobile Video 

Coalition. The business model for mobile DTV is uncertain, 

with forecasts and comparisons to domestic and international 

examples representing varying points of view.111 Many entities 

are pursuing the delivery of television content to mobile devices, but the method of delivery that will be favored by consumers 

and be successful in the market has yet to be determined.

By preserving over-the-air television as a healthy, viable medium, 

while reallocating spectrum from broadcast TV bands to flexible 

mobile broadband use, the recommendations in this plan seek to 

protect longstanding policy goals and public interests served by overthe-air television and further support those served by broadband use. 

In particular, all stations that broadcast a primary video signal would 

continue to serve existing public interest requirements. 

Depending on the particular mechanisms pursued and on 

the individual choices of TV stations, the reallocation mechanisms could impact the number and diversity of broadcast 

“voices” in a community or market. As noted above, these 

effects would primarily take place in major markets, where the 

number and diversity of local community voices are the highest. The FCC should implement these mechanisms consistently 

with its policies supporting competition, localism, and diversity, and with the outcome of the current quadrennial review of 

broadcast ownership rules. In particular, the FCC should study 

the potential impact on minority and women ownership of TV 

stations. Recommendations in the plan to create a public interest media trust fund (see Chapter 15) will fortify public media 

across platforms, further bolstering viewpoint diversity and 

localism in communities throughout the country.
9 2 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 5

4. Explore alternatives—including changes in broadcast 

technical architecture, an overlay license auction or 

more extensive channel sharing—in the event the 

preceding recommendations do not yield a significant 

amount of spectrum.

If the FCC does not receive authorization to conduct 

incentive auctions, or if the incentive auctions do not yield a 

significant amount of spectrum, the FCC should pursue other 

mechanisms.112 Through a rule-making proceeding, it should 

consider other approaches, potentially including: 

➤ Transition to a cellular architecture on a voluntary or involuntary 

basis. With a cellular architecture, stations would broadcast 

television service over many low-powered transmitters that 

collectively provide similar coverage to the current architecture with one high-powered transmitter. Cellularizing the 

architecture could reduce or eliminate the need for channel 

interference protections that result in only a fraction of the total spectrum allocated to broadcast TV being used directly by 

stations.113 A cellular architecture could also facilitate broadcasters’ offerings of converged broadcast/broadband services. 

The FCC has approved Distributed Transmission Systems/

Single Frequency Networks (DTS/SFN), using multiple transmitters operating on a single channel, as one alternative for a 

cellular architecture.114 Other alternatives are possible, such 

as a Multi-Frequency Network (MFN).115 Moving to a cellular 

architecture would be expensive, take a long period of time, 

and potentially introduce substantial operational challenges 

for broadcasters. The potential spectrum dividend is unknown 

at this point, but could be very high.116 Though stations could 

voluntarily move to a cellular architecture on individual bases, 

such moves would achieve greater overall spectrum efficiency 

if they are conducted in a coordinated manner by all stations 

in major markets. DTS/SFN and MFN are cutting-edge technologies that need to be developed further to evaluate their 

viability and the various trade-offs. The FCC should encourage and closely monitor their development. 

➤ Auction of overlay licenses. Under its current authority,117 

the FCC could auction overlay, flexible-use licenses with 

secondary rights in the broadcast TV bands. Overlay auction winners would negotiate with broadcast TV stations 

and other licensed users to clear their respective bands.118

Proceeds from the overlay auction would go to the U.S. 

Treasury but could be significantly lower than the proceeds 

of an incentive auction, primarily due to greater uncertainty over the amount and timing of spectrum recovered.119

➤ More extensive channel sharing of two or more broadcast TV 

stations on a single six-megahertz channel. Under this alternative, the FCC would modify licenses to require channel 

sharing where necessary.

➤ Other innovative solutions that may emerge. Stations would 

not share in auction proceeds under these alternatives, but 

they should receive reimbursement from auction winners 

for any relocation or other transition expenses incurred.

5. Take additional measures to increase efficiency of 

spectrum use in the broadcast TV bands.

In addition to the above, the following recommendations 

would enable more efficient use of the broadcast TV spectrum:

➤ Full-power TV spectrum fees. If authorized by Congress, the 

FCC should consider assessing spectrum fees on commercial, full-power broadcast TV licensees as part of a broader 

review of broadcast ownership rules and public interest 

obligations.120

➤ Low power DTV transition. The FCC should establish a deadline 

to achieve the DTV transition of low-power TV (LPTV) stations by the end of 2015 or after the reallocation of spectrum 

from the broadcast TV bands is complete.121 In addition, the 

FCC should grant similar license flexibility to LPTV stations 

post-DTV transition as full-power stations have, allow LPTV 

stations to use certain technologies (such as mask filters) to 

enable more efficient channel allotments, and authorize LPTV 

stations to participate in incentive auctions.

➤ Very high frequency (VHF) reception issues. The FCC should 

pursue additional options to address VHF reception issues, 

such as increased power limits or adoption of enhanced 

antenna and receiver standards.122 Without these measures, 

VHF stations may continue to request channel reassignments to the UHF band, complicating efforts to reallocate 

spectrum from that band to mobile broadband use.

➤ Trust fund for public media. Congress should consider legislation 

to establish an endowment to fund public interest media from 

auction proceeds or spectrum fees (see Chapter 15).

The recommendations in this section depending on the 

extent to which that are implemented, might not significantly 

affect other current or future occupants of the broadcast TV 

bands, notably land mobile radio system (LMRS) operators, 

wireless microphone users, and TV white spaces devices. LMRS 

operators would continue to operate under existing licenses in 

channels 14–20 in certain major metropolitan areas. The FCC 

should complete rulemaking proceedings on the above steps for 

which it currently has authority as soon as practicable, but no 

later than 2011, and should conduct an auction of some or all 

of the reallocated spectrum in 2012. If Congress grants the 

FCC authority to conduct incentive auctions prior to the 

auction in 2012, then the FCC should delay any auction of 

reallocated broadcast TV spectrum until 2013. This delay 

would allow time to complete rulemaking proceedings on a 

voluntary incentive auction. All reallocated spectrum should be 
F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 9 3

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 5

cleared by 2015. Though aggressive by historical standards, this 

timeline would bring additional mobile broadband capacity to 

market when it may be most needed.

5.5 INCREASING 

THE FLEXIBILITY, 

CAPACITY AND COSTEFFECTIVENESS OF 

SPECTRUM FOR POINTTO-POINT WIRELESS

BACKHAUL SERVICES

Many wireless providers increasingly rely on microwave for 

backhaul, especially in rural areas. Therefore, the FCC should 

take steps to ensure that sufficient microwave spectrum is 

available to meet current and future demand for wireless 

backhaul, especially in the prime bands below 12 GHz. As a 

starting point, the FCC is considering revisions to its Part 101 

rules permitting operation of wider channels in the Upper 6 

GHz Band, and faster activation of links on additional channel 

pairs in the 23 GHz Band. The FCC should take further actions 

to enhance the flexibility and speed with which companies can 

obtain access to spectrum for use as wireless backhaul, which 

is critical to the deployment of wireless broadband and other 

wireless services

Backhaul costs currently constitute a significant portion of 

a cellular operator’s network operating expense. With 4G deployments, this burden will become more acute as the demand 

for backhaul capacity increases. When fiber is not proximate 

to a cell site, microwave backhaul can often provide a costeffective substitute for data rates up to 600 Mbps. Further, 

in certain remote geographies, microwave is the only practical high-capacity backhaul solution available. Policies that 

facilitate microwave usage for backhaul will lower the cost of 

4G deployment and increase 4G availability in rural America. 

As with all wireless communications, operators’ ability to use 

microwave depends on availability of spectrum and the distance of the link itself. In general, spectrum below 12 GHz is 

preferred for long-link backhaul because of rain-fading effects 

at higher frequencies.123

Although microwave backhaul is a point-to-point service, 

interference with other systems may occur in the beam contour 

as well as in side lobes near the radiating antenna. Therefore, 

frequency coordination is required to ensure sufficient spectral and geographic reuse to maintain a high level of service 

reliability. 124 In practice, this can create a scarcity of useful 

backhaul spectrum in high-traffic locations. This scarcity will 

only be exacerbated as the increase in broadband traffic drives 

greater use of microwave services.

Recommendation 5.9: The FCC should revise Parts 74, 

78 and 101 of its rules to allow for increased spectrum sharing among compatible point-to-point microwave services.

The FCC should commence a proceeding to examine Parts 

74, 78 and 101 of its rules and opportunities to increase sharing of spectrum bands currently used for Mobile Broadcast 

Auxiliary Service (BAS) and Mobile Cable TV Relay Service 

(CARS) with microwave services. Such sharing appears feasible 

as BAS and CARS have started to migrate to Internet protocol 

(IP)-based communications, making the traffic that is carried 

on these links fundamentally the same as that on common 

carrier microwave links. Increased sharing would have the 

practical effect of increasing the supply of backhaul-suitable 

spectrum in the prime frequencies below 12 GHz.125 In the 

course of this review, the FCC should consider making below-1 

GHz “white spaces” spectrum available for backhaul in very 

rural areas where it otherwise may go unused, to the extent that 

such use is consistent with Recommendation 5.8.5 above and 

the ongoing white spaces proceeding. 

Recommendation 5.10: The FCC should revise its rules 

to allow for greater flexibility and cost-effectiveness in 

deploying wireless backhaul.

The FCC’s Part 101 microwave rules are intended to enable a 

high level of service reliability, but they may also limit deployment flexibility in coverage- or capacity-limited situations. 

Therefore, the FCC should commence a proceeding to update 

these rules to reduce the cost of backhaul in capacity-limited 

urban areas and range-limited rural areas. In particular, the 

proceeding should revise rules consistent with the following:

➤ Greater spatial reuse of microwave frequencies, particularly in 

urban areas. Public comment has raised the possibility that 

rule changes could enable more efficient use of spectrum, 

particularly in the area immediately surrounding a microwave station.126 Such changes, it is claimed, could dramatically increase the ability to use spectrum for backhaul in 

high-congestion areas, especially urban areas. The FCC, in 

the context of a larger Part 101 proceeding, should expeditiously consider whether the proposal merits changes to the 

existing rules.

➤ Modification of minimum throughput rules, particularly in 

rural areas. The FCC should consider modifying rules on 

minimum data throughput for each authorized microwave 
9 4 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 5

channel when the benefits are clear. Several parties have 

noted the potential benefits of using adaptive modulation 

in rural areas to expand the range of backhaul systems.127

Adaptive modulation is a technique whereby the data rate 

is dynamically adjusted based on channel conditions at 

any moment in time. All of these changes could potentially 

reduce operational costs, particularly in rural areas where 

microwave backhaul is essential to providing broadband 

service.

➤ Restrictions on antenna size. The tower lease costs for mounting antennas can constitute up to 40% of the total cost of 

microwave ownership.128 These lease costs are directly related to the size of the antenna. Smaller antennas may also 

“cost less to manufacture and distribute, are less expensive 

to install because they weigh less and need less structural 

support, and cost less to maintain because they are less subject to wind load and other destructive forces.”129 Current 

rules on antenna sizes are designed to maximize the use of 

microwave spectrum while avoiding interference between 

operators. It is important to ensure these standards are 

up-to-date in order to maximize the cost-effectiveness of 

microwave services. 

➤ Use of higher frequencies. Technology has historically been the 

most important factor limiting the use of higher frequencies. Every successive decade has seen that limit pushed 

higher. This does not mean that differences in propagation 

factors at higher frequencies can be ignored. Systems using 

higher frequencies will need to adopt new architectures and 

technologies, appropriate to the frequency and the application, as has every past innovative radio application. It must 

be emphasized that the use of higher frequencies is “compatible and synergistic” with the new wireless paradigms, 

rather than the new paradigms evolving as forced responses 

to the necessity of using higher frequencies. Simultaneously, it is important to be mindful of the implications for network engineering of systems operating at higher frequencies, and the impact of those implications on the economic 

viability of those systems. This Part 101 proceeding should 

commence in 2010.

5.6 EXPANDing

OPPORTUNITIES FOR

INNOVATIVE SPECTRUM 

ACCESS MODELS

Advances in technology hold much promise for enabling new 

modes of efficient spectrum access. Many of these advances 

have led to the development of innovative uses and, ultimately, 

can complement more conventional licensed approaches. It 

is important to create a spectrum environment that provides 

plenty of room for experimentation and growth of new technologies to ensure that the next great idea in broadband spectrum 

access is first developed and deployed in the U.S. 

The FCC and NTIA have made progress in making spectrum 

available and open to the development and evolution of new 

technologies. The FCC’s decision not to dictate a technological standard for PCS licenses ultimately contributed to the 

development and widespread commercialization of the CDMA 

technology now widely in use by 3G networks. Similarly, the 

creation of the flexible Part 15 rules allowed for the growth and 

proliferation of unlicensed devices, particularly in the 2.4 GHz 

Industrial, Scientific and Medical (ISM) band. More recently, 

the FCC has taken steps to allow innovative spectrum access 

models in the white spaces of the digital television spectrum 

bands and in the 3.65 GHz band. Notably, and not coincidentally, innovation sometimes occurs in bands that conventional 

wisdom had at one time considered to be “junk” spectrum.

In June 2006, the FCC concluded a rulemaking allowing 

commercial users to employ opportunistic sharing techniques 

to share 355 MHz of radio spectrum with incumbent federal 

government radar system operators. Using Dynamic Frequency 

Selection detect-and-avoid algorithms, commercial interests 

are now able to operate Wireless Access Systems in the radio 

spectrum occupied by preexisting radar systems. Opportunistic 

sharing arrangements offer great potential to meet an increasing market demand for wireless services by promoting more 

efficient use of radio spectrum.130

The FCC and NTIA can take significant steps toward ensuring that the next generation of spectrum access technology can 

take root in the next few years.

Recommendation 5.11: The FCC, within the next 10 

years, should free up a new, contiguous nationwide band 

for unlicensed use. 

As the FCC seeks to free up additional spectrum for broadband, 

it should make a sufficient portion available for use exclusively or 
F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 9 5

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 5

predominantly by unlicensed devices. This would enable innovators to try new ideas to increase spectrum access and efficiency 

through unlicensed means, and should enable new unlicensed providers to serve rural and unserved communities. Such an approach 

would represent a departure from the way the FCC has treated 

most unlicensed operations in the past. Unlicensed operations are 

typically overlays to licensed bands, with intensive unlicensed use 

emerging in some bands (e.g., the 2.4 GHz band) over a long period 

of time. However, targeting bands for unlicensed use could yield 

important benefits. 

The FCC’s Part 15 rules131 permit unlicensed devices to 

operate on any spectrum except spectrum specifically designated as restricted.132 This widespread access to spectrum 

comes with a trade-off—unlicensed devices must generally 

operate at very low power levels and on a sufferance basis with 

respect to any allocated service. In particular, they are subject 

to the conditions that they cause no harmful interference and 

must accept interference that may be caused by other operations in the band, including licensed operations.133 Ever since 

such unlicensed operation under these rules has been allowed, 

developers have found ways to provide for a wide variety of 

devices that perform an assortment of applications that serve 

consumers. These innovations continue to evolve and proliferate, and include not only garage-door openers, key fobs to open 

car doors, and Bluetooth headsets, but also the increasingly 

important deployment of Wi-Fi access points. 

The innovations spurred by unlicensed device usage have 

occurred because of benefits associated with such usage, 

including low barriers to entry and faster time to market, that 

have reduced costs of entry, spurred innovation and enabled 

very efficient spectrum usage. Taken together, these benefits 

have allowed many communities, entrepreneurs and small 

businesses to rapidly deploy broadband systems. Often, as has 

been the case for many WISPs, this has occurred in rural or 

previously underserved communities.

As mentioned previously, unlicensed and licensed broadband networks can complement one another in important 

ways. For instance, with the availability of Wi-Fi networks in 

many locations that enable users to take much of their data off 

of a licensed network, users benefit by obtaining much faster 

service while licensed providers have less congestion and can 

deliver a better overall quality of service. Near-field communications devices operating under the unlicensed provisions 

are being integrated into cell phones to facilitate electronic 

transactions. ZigBee and other unlicensed devices are being 

integrated with Smart Grid applications on licensed wireless 

systems. Providing additional spectrum for unlicensed use will 

only amplify these and other complementary benefits by allowing carriers to optimize their networks for mobile use in areas 

where Wi-Fi is not available or not practical. 

Recommendation 5.12: The FCC should move expeditiously to conclude the TV white spaces proceeding.

The FCC should move expeditiously to resolve pending 

petitions for reconsideration in the TV white spaces proceeding (ET Docket No. 04-186). This proceeding has introduced 

a new approach to gaining access to spectrum through use of 

a database and cognitive radio techniques. The approach to 

spectrum access used in this proceeding could conceivably be 

expanded and extended to other spectrum on either a licensed 

or unlicensed basis. 

Industry has demonstrated the promise of and potential for 

use of the TV white space spectrum. For example, TV white 

space devices have been used to provide broadband service 

to a school in rural Virginia and are currently being used for 

demonstration of a wireless broadband network in Wilmington, 

North Carolina. 

The development of rules for TV white space devices has 

taken several years. Industry has invested heavily in this process by offering prototype devices that were submitted to the 

FCC for testing in an open process that included laboratory 

and field tests. The FCC should complete the final rules for 

TV white space devices in order to accelerate the introduction 

of new innovative products and services. As the FCC considers other changes to the TV broadcast spectrum, it should also 

evaluate the impact on the viability of use of TV white spaces.

Recommendation 5.13: The FCC should spur further 

development and deployment of opportunistic uses across 

more radio spectrum.

Using existing allocations more intelligently is another 

way to provide for growth in data services. Public comment 

has suggested that “opportunistic” or “cognitive” technologies 

can significantly increase the efficiency of spectrum utilization by enabling radios to access and share available spectrum 

dynamically.134 These technologies could allow access to many 

different frequencies across the spectrum chart that may not 

be in use at a specific place and time and could do so without 

harming other users’ operations or interests. Given the upside 

potential of these technologies, the FCC and NTIA should take 

steps to expand the environment in which new, opportunistic 

technologies can be developed and improved.135

Opportunistic spectrum use involves a spectrum-agile 

radio that can operate on spectrum determined to be unused 

and available at any moment in time over a given transmission path. That determination can be made through devices 

that effectively sense available spectrum or consult a database 

containing that information. Thus, the radio would be able to 

access available spectrum on a dynamic basis as the opportunity presents itself.136 Many entities are conducting research 

or taking part in standardization efforts aimed at continued 
9 6 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 5

development. Much of this research is still in its early stages 

and some barriers must be overcome before the technology 

gains wide acceptance.137 The FCC should take two actions to 

accelerate the development of opportunistic use technologies 

and expand access to additional spectrum.

First, the FCC should allow opportunistic radios to operate on spectrum currently held by the FCC (such as in certain 

license areas where spectrum was not successfully auctioned). 

The availability of such unauctioned spectrum in multiple 

bands could provide a technical “sandbox” for the creation of, 

and innovation in, cognitive technologies (including frequency 

hopping) that take advantage of the ability to operate in different frequency bands dispersed throughout the radio spectrum. 

Use of a geo-location database that enables opportunistic 

devices to identify this available spectrum, as discussed below, 

could be helpful in the development and future deployment of 

such technologically sophisticated devices. 

Second, the FCC should initiate a proceeding that examines 

ways to extend the geo-location database concept, currently 

being implemented in the TV bands, to additional spectrum 

bands that are made available for access by opportunistic radios.138 As described above, the FCC adopted rules which permit 

unlicensed devices to access TV white spaces after checking a 

database to determine which channels are available for use. In 

the TV bands, the development of an effective database is possible because TV stations, as well as other facilities that must 

be protected, generally are fixed and known, so that locating 

the specific protection zone around these facilities is relatively 

straightforward. It is possible to extend this concept for opportunistic use to other frequency bands where the behavior 

of stations is well understood and predictable.139 In addition, 

devices that operate under this database approach may serve 

effectively as “listening posts” to measure and report usage of 

the spectrum back to the database. These reports could improve the opportunistic use of the selected frequencies without 

causing harmful interference. 

The FCC should determine which particular frequency 

bands should be identified for opportunistic use and what 

specific information may need to be included in the relevant 

database. Such determination should also include whether and 

to what extent the FCC should exclude LPTV band devices in 

the border areas with Mexico and Canada, including the Tribal 

lands in those areas, and whether to allow higher power fixed 

operations in rural areas, which often include Tribal lands. For 

example, some frequency bands are used for satellite and fixed 

microwave operations. Similar to TV, microwave stations are 

fixed and can be protected fairly easily. Protecting satellite use 

is more complicated, but it is possible if earth station locations 

can be found through a database search. Moreover, the spectrum dashboard could eventually provide a data resource to 

enable a more generalized geo-location system, particularly if 

supplemented with data on spectrum construction and usage 

(see Recommendations 5.1 and 5.2).

Recommendation 5.14: The FCC should initiate proceedings to enhance research and development that will advance the science of spectrum access.

A robust research and development pipeline is essential to 

ensuring that spectrum access technologies continue to evolve 

and improve. As described in Chapter 7, the FCC should start 

a rule-making process to establish more flexible experimental 

licensing rules. Additionally, the National Science Foundation, 

in consultation with the FCC and NTIA, should fund wireless 

research and development that will advance the science of 

spectrum access.

5.7 TAKING ADDITIONAL 

STEPS TO MAKE U.S. 

SPECTRUM POLICY 

MORE Comprehensive 

Recommendation 5.15: The FCC and NTIA should 

develop a joint roadmap to identify additional candidate 

federal and non-federal spectrum that can be made accessible for both mobile and fixed wireless broadband use, on 

an exclusive, shared, licensed and/or unlicensed basis.

As noted elsewhere in this plan, additional spectrum is needed for wireless broadband use. While the plan identifies specific 

bands that can partially meet this need, access to additional spectrum will still be required in the future. NTIA and the FCC, as 

co-managers of the spectrum, should develop a plan by October 

1, 2010 to identify additional federal and non-federal spectrum 

that can be made accessible for wireless broadband use.

In developing a national spectrum policy, this plan makes 

recommendations for reallocating or repurposing several 

non-federal spectrum bands for wireless broadband use. This 

plan also recommends that the FCC should coordinate with 

NTIA on the possible reallocation of certain federal spectrum 

in the 1755–1850 MHz band. Certain recommendations apply 

to both non-federal and federal spectrum, such as providing for 

increasing opportunistic use of the spectrum. However, these 

steps alone are insufficient. All of the non-federal and federal 

spectrum, not just certain bands, must be closely examined for 

possible reallocation.

NTIA and FCC staff have held initial discussions to identify additional candidate federal spectrum bands that might be considered 
F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 9 7

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 5

for reallocation, sharing or opportunistic use to help meet the 

spectrum needs for wireless broadband. These discussions are 

not sufficiently advanced to identify specific bands at this time. 

However, this process should continue and be accelerated. 

Any reallocation or repurposing of federal spectrum is a 

complex process. Federal spectrum is used to support national 

security and public safety applications that must be protected 

and preserved. Many federal systems have unique capabilities 

that cannot be easily replaced with off-the-shelf equipment 

operating in other spectrum, which means it may not be possible to gain access to the spectrum for many years. As in the 

case of the reallocation of the federal spectrum at 1710–1755 

MHz to AWS-1, federal users may require access to non-federal 

spectrum to accommodate displaced systems. 

Given these complexities and timing considerations, it is 

vital to develop a well-defined and ongoing process to ensure 

that all spectrum is examined for additional opportunities. 

Recommendation 5.16: The FCC should promote within 

the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) innovative and flexible approaches to global spectrum allocation 

that take into consideration convergence of various radio 

communication services and enable global development of 

broadband services.

As the FCC participates in international organizations like 

the ITU and regional organizations such as the Inter-American 

Telecommunication Commission of the Organization of 

American States, it should promote innovative approaches 

to spectrum allocation to ensure maximum flexibility for 

advanced communications services that will enable global 

broadband services. 

In addition to multilateral and regional organizations, the 

FCC also participates with other U.S. government agencies, 

such as the U.S. Department of State and NTIA, in bilateral 

meetings where spectrum issues and approaches to broadband 

deployment are discussed. In all of these fora, the FCC should 

ensure that innovative approaches to spectrum allocation are 

considered and supported.

For example, an item on the agenda for consideration at the 

ITU’s World Radiocommunication Conference in 2012 (WRC12) calls for taking appropriate action with a view to enhancing 

the international regulatory framework and the international 

spectrum framework (Agenda Item 1.2). The primary objective 

of this agenda item is to examine international radio allocation 

and associated regulatory procedures to meet the demands of 

current, emerging and future radio technologies, while also taking into account existing services and spectrum usage. 

The introduction of many new wireless technologies and 

applications, especially in consumer products, has spurred 

growing interest in reviewing spectrum management practices. 

Consumers want to use many applications offered on wireline 

and fixed radio communication systems on mobile terminals. 

The next generation of mobile terminals encompasses multiple 

radio communication services functions (e.g., fixed, mobile, 

broadcasting and even radio determination) that provide for 

voice, data and video as well as positioning (i.e., convergence). 

The ITU’s Radio Regulations, however, may not be sufficiently flexible to accommodate these technological changes. 

Therefore, the FCC and the U.S. government should consider 

whether alternatives are necessary to accommodate advancements in technologies, particularly those that allow many 

radio communication services to be implemented in the same 

terminal or handset. 

Recommendation 5.17: The FCC should take into account 

the unique spectrum needs of U.S. Tribal communities140

when implementing the recommendations in this chapter.

Some Tribes have successfully used wireless infrastructure to deliver broadband connectivity to their communities. 

Increasing Tribal access to and use of spectrum would create 

additional opportunities for Tribal communities to obtain 

broadband access. Through the following actions, the FCC 

should evaluate its policies and rules to address obstacles to 

greater use of spectrum on Tribal lands, including access to 

spectrum by Tribal communities:

➤ Spectrum dashboard. Facilitating access to the FCC’s 

spectrum dashboard described in Recommendation 5.1 will 

be critical to helping Tribal communities use spectrum or 

identify non-Tribal parties that hold licenses to serve Tribal 

lands.141 To enhance Tribal access to such information, 

future iterations of the spectrum dashboard should include 

information identifying spectrum allocated and assigned 

in Tribal lands. If the FCC conducts spectrum utilization 

studies in the future, those studies should identify Tribal 

lands as distinct entities.

➤ Tribal Land Bidding Credit. Since 2000, the Commission has 

administered a Tribal Land Bidding Credit (TLBC) program to provide incentives to wireless telecommunications 

carriers to serve Tribal lands.142 The FCC should revisit the 

TLBC program to determine whether it can be modified 

to facilitate Tribal access to spectrum in Tribal lands and 

better promote deployment of communications services to 

Tribal communities. 

➤ Tribal priority. The FCC has established a Tribal priority in 

the threshold analysis stage of the FM radio allotment and 

AM radio licensing processes.143 Recognizing that the statutory and regulatory procedures for licensing wireless services are different in some respects from those applicable 

to broadcast stations, the FCC should consider expanding 

any Tribal priority policy to include the process for licens-
9 8 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 5

ing fixed and mobile wireless licenses covering Tribal lands, 

potentially considering geographic carve-out license areas 

for Tribal lands.

➤ Build-out. The FCC should consider providing additional 

flexibility and incentives for the build-out of facilities serving Tribal lands. For example, if a licensee has fulfilled its 

construction requirement but has failed to provide service 

to Tribal lands, the FCC should consider alternative mechanisms to facilitate Tribal access to such unused spectrum. 

These mechanisms might include developing rules for 

re-licensing the unused spectrum to the Tribal community 

for the provision of services, mandating partitioning or 

disaggregation of the spectrum, and encouraging the use of 

secondary market mechanisms for the purpose of deploying 

services to Tribal areas.144

➤ White spaces. The FCC should move expeditiously to resolve 

pending petitions for reconsideration in the TV white 

spaces proceeding. Among other issues, this proceeding 

should determine whether and to what extent the FCC 

should exclude LPTV band devices in the border areas with 

Mexico and Canada, including the Tribal lands in those 

areas. Further, the FCC should proceed to consider higherpower fixed operations in rural areas, which often include 

Tribal lands. 
F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 9 9

c h a p t e r 5 E n d n o t e s 

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 5

1 See Gerald R. Faulhaber & David Farber, Spectrum 

Management: Property Rights, Markets, and the 

Commons (AEI-Brookings Jt. Ctr., Working Paper No. 

02-12, Dec. 2002).

2 Harold Furchtgott-Roth, The Wireless Services Sector: 

A Key to Economic Growth in America 1 (Jan. 2009) 

(unpublished manuscript, on file with the Commission) 

(Furchtgott-Roth Wireless Services Sector Report).

3 See Mary Meeker et al., Morgan Stanley Research, 

The Mobile Internet Report 1 (2009) (Meeker et al. 

The Mobile Internet Report) (Copyright 2009 Morgan 

Stanley. Courtesy of Morgan Stanley).

4 See Meeker et al. The Mobile Internet Report 5.

5 Kris Rinne, Sr. Vice Pres. of Architecture & Planning, 

AT&T, Remarks at the FCC Spectrum Workshop 11–12 

(Sept. 17, 2009), available at http://www.broadband.

gov/docs/ws_25_spectrum.pdf. Ms. Rinne added that in 

addition to increased data usage, voice usage continues 

to rise also. Id.

6 Bill Stone, Executive Director of Network Strategy, 

Verizon Wireless, Remarks at the FCC Spectrum 

Workshop 14–15 (Sept. 17, 2009), available at http://

www.broadband.gov/docs/ws_25_spectrum.pdf. See 

also Verizon Wireless Comments in re NBP PN #6 

(Comment Sought on Spectrum for Broadband—NBP 

Public Notice #6, GN Docket Nos. 09-51, 09-47, 09-137, 

24 FCC Rcd 12032 (WTB 2009) (NBP PN #6)), filed 

Oct. 23, 2009, at 3. 

7 Cisco Sys., Cisco VisualNetworking Index GlobalMobile

Data Forecast 2009–2014 (2010) (Cisco, GlobalMobile

Data Forecast 2009–2014), available at http://www.cisco.

com/en/US/solutions/collateral/ns341/ns525/ns537/

ns705/ns827/white_paper_c11-520862.pdf .

8 Philip Marshall, Yankee Group, Spectrum-Rich 

Players Are in the Driver’s Seat for Mobile Broadband 

Economics (2009) (unpublished manuscript, on file 

with the FCC); Coda Res. Consultancy, US Mobile 

Traffic Forecasts: 2009–2015, at 25 (2009) (unpublished 

manuscript, on file with the FCC).

9 Meeker et al., The Mobile Internet Report.

10 For example, T-Mobile states that its G1 customers 

consume 300+ MB per month. Neville Ray, Sr. Vice 

Pres., Engineering Operations, T-Mobile USA, 

Presentation at the FCC Wireless Broadband Workshop 

(Aug. 12, 2009), available at http://www.broadband.

gov/docs/ws_deployment_wireless/ws_deployment_

wireless_Ray.pdf. See also T-Mobile Comments in re 

NBP PN #6, filed Oct. 23, 2009, at 4–6. According to 

research conducted by Validas for Consumer Reports, 

iPhone users consume almost twice the data most other 

smart phones do, on average 273 MB per month. See Jeff 

Blyskal, Exclusive: iPhones Hog Much More Data Than 

Other Smart Phones, Consumer Reports Electronics

Blog, Feb. 10, 2010, http://blogs.consumerreports.org/

electronics/2010/02/iphone-data-usage-smart-phonessmartphones-blackberry-mb-network-att-carrieristress.html.

11 For example, Bill Stone stated that laptops consume 

“north of 1 GB per month.” Bill Stone, Executive 

Director of Network Strategy, Verizon Wireless, 

Remarks at the FCC Spectrum Workshop 72 (Sept. 17, 

2009), available at http://www.broadband.gov/docs/

ws_25_spectrum.pdf. According to research conducted 

by Validas for Consumer Reports, the average “aircard” 

user consumes 1.4 GB per month. See Jeff Blyskal, 

Exclusive: iPhones Hog Much More Data Than Other 

Smart Phones, Consumer Reports Electronics Blog, 

Feb. 10, 2010, http://blogs.consumerreports.org/

electronics/2010/02/iphone-data-usage-smart-phonessmartphones-blackberry-mb-network-att-carrieristress.html.

12 Cisco, Global Mobile Data Forecast 2009–2014.

13 See, e.g., Harbor Research, Announcing Harbor 

Research’s 2009 Pervasive Internet/M2M Forecast 

Report, Feb. 24, 2009, http://www.harborresearch.com/

AnnouncementRetrieve.aspx?ID=17927 (last visited 

Feb. 18, 2010) (“[T]he number of intelligent device 

shipments will grow from 73 million units in 2008 to 

430 million units in 2013”).

14 Colin Gibbs, Multiple Mobile Devices = Increased 

Spending, GigaOm, Oct. 8, 2009, http://gigaom.

com/2009/10/08/multiple-mobile-devices-increasedspending/.

15 Robert C. Atkinson & Ivy E. Schultz, Columbia

Institute for Tele-Information, Broadband in America: 

Where It Is and Where It Is Going (According to

Broadband Service Providers) 8 (2009) (Atkinson & 

Schultz, Broadband Report), available at http://www4.

gsb.columbia.edu/citi.

16 See AdMob, AdMob Mobile Metrics Report 2 (2008), 

available at http://www.admob.com/marketing/pdf/

mobile_metrics_nov_08.pdf.

17 Letter from Christine A. Varney, Ass’t Atty. General, U.S. 

Dep’t of Justice, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, 

GN Docket No. 09-51 (Jan. 4, 2010) (DOJ Jan. 4, 2010 

Ex Parte) at 21.

18 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, Fifth Report, 15 FCC Rcd 

17660, 17677 (2000).

19 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. 08-27, Thirteenth Report, 

24 FCC Rcd 6185, 6276, tbl. 12 (2009).

20 Robert F. Roche & Lesley O’Neill, CTIA’s Wireless

Industry Indices—Semi-Annual Data Survey Results: A

Comprehensive Report From CTIA Analyzing the U.S. 

Wireless Industry, Year End 2008 Results 27( 2009) 

(Roche and O’Neill, CTIA Survey Results).

21 Roche and O’Neill, CTIA Survey Results at 126.

22 Roche and O’Neill, CTIA Survey Results at 150.

23 Roche and O’Neill, CTIA Survey Results at 167.

24 DOJ Jan. 4, 2010 Ex Parte at 17.

25 NTIA allocates certain spectrum for restricted uses 

by federal entities for purposes such as defense, public 

safety, national security and scientific uses. Similarly, 

the FCC allocates spectrum for restricted uses by 

commercial entities and for use by state and local 

governments for purposes such as public safety and 

maintenance of critical infrastructure.

26 This figure aggregates the values the four largest wireless 

providers placed on their holdings in the most recently filed 

10-Q. See Verizon Communications Inc., Quarterly Report 

(Form 10-Q), at 10 (Oct. 29, 2009), available at http://

go.usa.gov/lEG (valuing wireless licenses at $71.9 billion); 

AT&T Inc., Quarterly Report (Form 10-Q), at 3 (Nov. 5, 

2009), available at http://go.usa.gov/lEo (valuing licenses 

at $47.9 billion); Sprint Nextel Corp., Quarterly Report 

(Form 10-Q), at 1 (Nov. 6, 2009), available at http://go.usa.

gov/lEs (valuing FCC licenses and trademarks at $19.8 

billion); T-Mobile, T-Mobile USA Reports Third Quarter 

2009 Results, (press release Nov. 5, 2009 at 10), available at

http://www.t-mobile.com/Cms/Files/Published/0000BD

F20016F5DD010312E2BDE4AE9B/5657114502E70FF

30124C645BC1131D6/file/TMUS%20Q3%20Press%20

Release%20FINAL.pdf (valuing licenses at $15.2 billion).

27 See, e.g., Gregory L. Rosston, The Long and Winding 

Road: The FCC Paves the Path with Good Intentions, 

27 Telecomms. Pol’y 501, 513 (2003); Coleman 

Bazelon, The Need for Additional Spectrum for 

Wireless Broadband: The Economic Benefits and Costs 

of Reallocations, attached to Consumer Electronics 

Association Comments in re NBP PN #6, filed Oct. 23, 

2009, at 2.

28 Legislation currently pending in Congress would require 

an inventory of radio spectrum bands managed by NTIA 

and the FCC. Radio Spectrum Inventory Act, H.R. 3125, 

111th Cong. (2009); Radio Spectrum Inventory Act, S. 

649, 111th Cong. (2009). 

29 Detailed information is available for: 700 MHz Band; 

Advanced Wireless Service (AWS); Broadband Personal 

Communications Service (PCS); Broadband Radio 

Service (BRS); Educational Broadband Service (EBS); 

Cellular; 2.3 GHz Wireless Communications Service 

(WCS); Full Power TV Broadcast; and Mobile Satellite 

Services (MSS). The FCC will also begin gathering data 

on state and local spectrum.

30 Facilitating access to the FCC’s spectrum dashboard will 

be a critical predicate for helping Tribal communities use 

spectrum or identify non-Tribal parties that hold licenses to 

serve Tribal lands. Letter from Loris Ann Taylor, Executive 

Director, Native Public Media, et al., to Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary, FCC, GN Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 09-137 (Dec. 

24, 2009) (Joint Native Filers Dec. 24, 2009 Ex Parte) at 7.

31 NTIA has endorsed the idea of a spectrum inventory. 

See Letter from Lawrence E. Strickling, Ass’t Sec’y for 

Commc’ns & Info., U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, to Julius 

Genachowski, Chairman, FCC, GN Docket No. 09-51 

(Jan. 4, 2010) (NTIA Jan. 4, 2010 Ex Parte) at 5.

32 Congress is considering legislation that may specify a 

different frequency range for a spectrum inventory. See

Radio Spectrum Inventory Act, H.R. 3125, 111th Cong. 

(2009) (requiring an inventory of spectrum between 

225 MHz and 10 GHz as of February 18, 2010); Radio 

Spectrum Inventory Act, S. 649, 111th Cong. (2009) 

(requiring an inventory of spectrum between 300 MHz 

and 3.5 GHz as of February 18, 2010).

33 New America Foundation Comments in re National 

Broadband Plan NOI, filed June 8, 2009, at 16. But see 

AT&T Comments in re NBP PN #6, filed Oct. 23, 2009, 

at 30.
1 0 0 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

c h a p t e r 5 E n d n o t e s 

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 5

34 The FCC has developed Project Roll Call for the purpose 

of conducting spectrum usage analysis in areas affected 

by major emergencies such as hurricanes. With the 

acquisition of additional equipment, the capabilities of 

Project Roll Call could be expanded to provide more 

comprehensive data on spectrum usage nationwide. 

See FCC, Project Roll Call, http://go.usa.gov/lER (last 

visited Feb. 18, 2010).

35 A fleet of vehicles was equipped to scan frequencies 

between 10 MHz and 5 GHz. Over a one-year period, 

the fleet drove 65,000 kilometers, measuring spectrum 

use 4.2 million times. See Ofcom, Capture of Spectrum

Utilisation Information Using Moving Vehicles v 

(2009), available at http://www.ofcom.org.uk/research/

technology/research/state_use/vehicles/vehicles.pdf.

36 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 

103-66, § 6002, 107 Stat. 312, 387–92 (1993) (codified at 

47 U.S.C. § 309( j)).

37 Commercial Spectrum Enforcement Act, Pub. L. No. 

108-494, 118 Stat. 3991 (2004).

38 In addition, the FCC could grant incumbents more 

flexible rights to use the re-purposed spectrum as long 

as they agreed to participate in the auction. Requiring 

licensees to participate in the auction as a pre-condition 

for acquiring enhanced rights forces them to consider 

the opportunity cost of holding the repurposed 

licenses—since in the auction they will actually observe 

what other bidders are willing to pay for their licenses. 

See Evan Kwerel & John Williams, A Proposal for a 

Rapid Transition to Market Allocation of Spectrum 2 

(Office of Strategic Planning & Policy Analysis, Working 

Paper No. 38, 2002), available at http://wireless.fcc.

gov/auctions/conferences/combin2003/papers/

masterevanjohn.pdf.

39 To provide further incentives for rapid aggregation of a 

significant spectrum block, a larger portion of proceeds 

could be offered to early participants.

40 Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act (CSEA), Pub. 

L. No. 108-494, 118 Stat. 3986, Title II (2004) (codified 

in different sections of Title 47 of the United States Code).

41 CSEA §§ 201–209. Relocation costs are “costs incurred 

by a federal entity to achieve comparable capability 

of systems” and include “costs associated with the 

accelerated replacement of systems and equipment 

if such acceleration is necessary to ensure the timely 

relocation of systems to a new frequency assignment.” 

See 47 U.S.C. § 923(g)(3).

42 See Nat’l Telecomms. & Info. Agency, U.S. Dep’t of

Commerce, Relocation of Federal Radio Systems From

the 1710–1755 MHz Spectrum Band, Second Annual

Progress Report (2009), available at http://www.

ntia.doc.gov/reports/2009/Final2ndAnnual

RelocationReport20090416.pdf.

43 Examples of flexible use bands include the Cellular, PCS, 

and AWS services.

44 For federal government users a similar effect could be 

achieved without any money changing hands. The relevant 

federal agency could simply include the value of its 

spectrum in its budget, and it could then decide whether to 

keep its spectrum allotment as is or use less spectrum and 

thus make money available in its budget for other priorities.

45 As the FCC has noted in other proceedings, it may 

lack the authority to impose certain user fees. See 

Implementation of Sections 309( j) and 337 of the 

Communications Act of 1934 as Amended; Promotion 

of Spectrum Efficient Technologies on Certain Part 90 

Frequencies; Establishment of Public Service Radio Pool 

in the Private Mobile Requencies Below 800 MHz, Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking, WT Docket No. 99-87, RM9332, RM-9405, 14 FCC Rcd 5206, 5244 (1999). The 

urgent need to make spectrum available for broadband 

heightens the importance of this authority at this time. 

46 GAO, Options for and Barriers to Spectrum Reform 11, 

GAO-06-526T (2006), available at http://www.gao.gov/

new.items/d06526t.pdf.

47 NTIA imposes fees to recover a portion of its spectrum 

management costs, but not fees that more closely 

resemble market prices and encourage greater spectrum 

efficiency among government users. Currently, NTIA 

does not have authority to impose fees that exceed its 

spectrum management costs.

48 See Ofcom, Ofcom Policy Evaluation Report: AIP

(2009), available at http://www.ofcom.org.uk/research/

radiocomms/reports/policy_report/ (Ofcom AIPReport). 

Note that Australia and Canada also have adopted versions 

of spectrum incentive fees. See GAO, Comprehensive

Review of U.S. Spectrum Management with Broad

Stakeholder Involvement Is Needed 20–26 (2003).

49 Ofcom AIP Report at 7.

50 William Webb, Head of Research and Development, 

Ofcom, Remarks at FCC Spectrum Workshop (Sept. 17, 

2009), available at http://www.broadband.gov/docs/

ws_25_spectrum.pdf.

51 See GPO Access, Budgets of the United States 

Government, Fiscal Years 2000 through 2011, http://

www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/browse.html (last visited 

Mar. 5, 2010). Every administration since 1999 has 

requested authority to impose user fees.

52 See, e.g., Verizon and Verizon Wireless Comments, filed 

Sept. 30, 2009, at 110–17 (citing numbers of secondary 

market transactions providing spectrum access to nonnationwide providers); (Comment Sought on Defining 

“Broadband”—NBP Public Notice #1, GN Docket Nos. 09-

47, 09-51, 09-137, Public Notice, 24 FCC Rcd 10897 (WCB 

2009) (NBP PN #1)); [[after National Broadband Plan NOI 

((A National Broadband Plan for Our Future, GN Docket 

No. 09-51, Notice of Inquiry, 24 FCC Rcd 4342 (2009))

53 See, e.g., National Telecommunications Cooperative 

Association Comments in re National Broadband 

Plan NOI, filed June 8, 2009, at 5 (would increase 

access to smaller providers in rural areas); MetroPCS 

Communications, Inc. Comments in re National 

Broadband Plan NOI, filed Sept. 30, 2009, at 14–15; 

United States Cellular Corporation Comments in re 

National Broadband Plan NOI, filed Sept. 30, 2009, at 

24–26 (spectrum aggregation limits); see also Letter 

from Caressa D. Bennet, Counsel, NEP Cellcorp., Inc., 

to Ruth Milkman, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications 

Bureau, GN Docket No. 09-157 (Nov. 30, 2009) 

(asserting that reasonable efforts to obtain spectrum, 

either through a license transfer or a spectrum leasing 

arrangement, have been to no avail). 

54 See, e.g., Principles for Promoting Efficient Use of 

Spectrum By Encouraging the Development of Secondary 

Markets, Policy Statement, 15 FCC Rcd 24178, 24178, 

para. 1 (2000) (Secondary Markets Policy Statement); 

Promoting Efficient Use of Spectrum Through 

Elimination of Barriers to the Development of Secondary 

Markets, WT Docket No. 00-230, Second Report and 

Order, Order on Reconsideration, and Second Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 19 FCC Rcd 17503 

(2004) (Secondary Markets Second R&O). The FCC’s 

secondary market policies are not limited to wireless 

broadband services.

55 See, e.g., Secondary Markets Policy Statement, 15 FCC 

Rcd at 24183, para. 11.

56 These spectrum-leasing policies apply to spectrum 

license authorizations in which the licensee holds 

“exclusive use” rights. Secondary Markets Second R&O, 

19 FCC Rcd 17503.

57 See Secondary Markets Second R&O, 19 FCC Rcd 17503.

58 Secondary Markets Second R&O, 19 FCC Rcd at 

17547–49, paras. 88–90; Service Rules for the 698–746, 

747–762 and 777–792 MHz Bands; Implementing a 

Nationwide, Broadband, Interoperable Public Safety 

Network in the 700 MHz Band; WT Docket Nos. 06-150, 

01-309, 03-264, 06-169, 06-229, 96-86, 07-166, CC 

Docket No. 94-102, PS Docket No. 06-229, Second 

Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 15289, 15374–80, paras. 

231–48 (2007) (discussing the FCC’s dynamic spectrum 

leasing policies).

59 The data shows, for instance, that the majority of 

cellular, broadband PCS, and AWS licenses has been 

assigned/transferred to different entities, including 

both the largest providers (who have consolidated their 

holdings into nationwide footprints), and regional and 

smaller providers. Similarly, many of these licenses have 

been partitioned or disaggregated, again transferring the 

spectrum to a wide range of entities of different sizes. 

There are many instances of spectrum leasing, although 

most of these are procedural in nature and none to date 

involve dynamic spectrum leasing arrangements.

60 See, e.g., Secondary Markets Policy Statement, 15 FCC 

Rcd at 24178, para. 1. 

61 Timing and quantity depends on outcome of the 

investigation into possibility of reallocating federal 

spectrum in the 1755–1850 MHz band.

62 Timing and quantity depends on Congressional action 

to grant incentive auction authority as well as voluntary 

participation of broadcasters in an auction.

63 This does not include the 14 megahertz of licensed 

ESMR spectrum pending completion of the 800 MHz 

rebanding because broadband operations have not been 

shown to be viable under the interference protections 

provided to neighboring public safety operations per 47 

CFR § 90.672.

64 Letter from 21st Century Telecommunications et al., 

Members of the Consumer Electronic Association et al., 

to Chairman Julius Genachowski and Commissioners, 

FCC, GN Docket No. 09-51 (Dec. 2, 2009) at 1 (filed 

by Consumer Electronics Association ) (on behalf of 

115 parties).
F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 1 0 1

c h a p t e r 5 E n d n o t e s 

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 5

65 Clearwire states that 120 megahertz of contiguous 

spectrum is needed for true mobile broadband. John 

Saw, Senior Vice President and Chief Technology 

Officer, Clearwire, Remarks at FCC Spectrum Workshop 

(Sept. 17, 2009), available at http://www.broadband.

gov/docs/ws_25_spectrum.pdf. Fibertower argues that 

100 megahertz or more of spectrum will be needed for 

wireless backhaul in the next few years. Tarun Gupta, 

Vice President of Strategic Development, FiberTower, 

Remarks at FCC Spectrum Workshop (Sept. 17, 2009). 

T-Mobile’s smartphone customers use 50 times more 

data than its average non-smartphone customers. 

T-Mobile Comments in re NBP PN #26, (Data Sought 

on Users of Spectrum—NBP Public Notice #26, GN 

Docket Nos. 09–47, 09–51, 09–137, Public Notice, 24 

FCC Rcd 14275 (OBI 2009) (NBP PN #26)), filed Dec. 

22, 2009, at 4. Verizon Wireless states that it might 

acquire more than 100 megahertz of spectrum within the 

next five years, if it were available. Bill Stone, Executive 

Director, National Strategy, Verizon Wireless, Remarks 

at FCC Spectrum Workshop (Sept. 17, 2009), available 

at http://www.broadband.gov/docs/ws_25_spectrum.

pdf. WCAI states that 100 megahertz of new spectrum 

would be a substantial beginning for mobile broadband 

wireless providers to meet future needs. Wireless 

Communications Association International Reply in re 

NBP PN #6, filed Nov. 13, 2009, at 4.

66 CTIA Reply in re NBP PN #6, filed Nov. 13, 2009, at 2.

67 Int’lTelecomm. Union, Estimated Spectrum Bandwidth

Requirements for the FutureDevelopment of IMT-2000 

and IMT-Advanced, Report ITU-RM.2078 (2006).

68 Ofcom, Predicting Areas of Spectrum Shortage (2009),

available at http://www.ofcom.org.uk/research/

technology/research/spec_future/predicting/shortage.pdf.

69 The 2.3 GHz WCS spectrum includes two 15 megahertz 

bands (2305–2320 MHz, 2345–2360 MHz), which 

envelope the 25 megahertz SDARS band and is adjacent 

to the aeronautical telemetry band at 2360–2390 MHz. 

The WCS spectrum is licensed in two 10-megahertz 

blocks (each 5 megahertz paired) in 52 Major Economic 

Areas (MEAs), and in two 5 megahertz blocks in 12 

Regional Economic Area Groupings (REAGs). The 52 

MEA license areas encompass 172 Economic Areas 

(EAs). The FCC’s 1997 auction of WCS spectrum netted 

$13.6 million.

70 See FCC, Amendment of Part 27 of the FCC’s Rules to 

Govern the Operation of Wireless Communications 

Services in the 2.3 GHz Band, WT Docket No. 

07-293, http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/

view?name=07-293 (last visited Feb. 22, 2010). As of 

Feb. 22, 2010, the docket contained 282 filings, according 

to the Electronic Comments Filing System.

71 Time Division Duplex (TDD) is a technology where 

bi-directional communications occurs within the 

same frequency band as compared with Frequency 

Division Duplex technology where one band is used 

for transmission from base stations to mobile units 

and another band is used for transmission from mobile 

units to base stations. Orthogonal Frequency Division 

Multiplexing (OFDM) is a digital multi-carrier 

modulation scheme in which each signal is split into 

multiple smaller sub-signals that are then transmitted 

simultaneously at different frequencies to the receiver. 

WiMAX, for example, is being implemented today using 

TDD and OFDM technology.

72 See, e.g., APCO Comments in re NBP PN #8, (Additional 

Comments Sought on Public Safety, Homeland Security 

and Cybersecurity Elements of National Broadband 

Plan—NBP Public Notice #8, GN Docket Nos. 09–47, 

09–51, 09–137, PS Docket Nos. 06–229, 07–100, 07–114, 

WT Docket No. 06–150, CC Docket No. 94–102, WC 

Docket No. 05–196, Public Notice, 24 FCC Rcd 12136 

(PSHSB 2009) (NBP PN #8). filed Nov. 12, 2009, at 11; 

AT&T Comments in re NBP PN #8, filed Nov. 12, 2009, 

at 2; Verizon Comments in re NBP PN #8, filed Nov. 12, 

2009, at 6; Public Safety Spectrum Trust Comments in 

re Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau Seeks 

Comment on Petitions for Waiver to Deploy 700 MHz 

Public Safety Broadband Networks, PS Docket No. 06-

229, Public Notice, 24 FCC Rcd 10814 (2009), filed Oct. 

16, 2009, at 17. 

73 Presently, the LTE specification designates “Band 14” 

as a single band class that incorporates both the Public 

Safety Broadband License (763–768 MHz and 793–798 

MHz) and the Upper 700 MHz D Block (758–763 MHz 

and 788–793 MHz). See 3rd Generation Partnership

Project, 3GPP TS 36.101 v8.8.0: 3rd Generation

Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group

Radio Access Network; Evolved Universal Terrestrial

Radio Access (E-UTRA), User Equipment (UE) 

Radio Equipment and Reception, Release 8, at 14 & 

tbl. 5-5.1 (2009), available at http://www.quintillion.

co.jp/3GPP/Specs/36101-880.pdf; 3rd Generation

Partnership Project, 3GPP TS 36.104 v8.8.0 (2009-

12) 3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical

Specification Group Radio Access Network; Evolved

Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA), Base

Station (BS) radio Equipment and Reception, Release 8, 

at 13 & tbl. 5-5.1 (2009). 

74 3GPP band class 3 includes 1710–1785 MHz and is used 

in Europe, Asia, and Brazil. See, e.g., Fred Christmas, on 

behalf of the GSM Association, Benefits of Frequency 

Harmonisation, Presentation at ITU Workshop on Market 

Mechanisms for Spectrum Management 8 (Jan. 2007), 

available at http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/stn/spectrum/

workshop_proceedings/Presentations_Abstracts_

Speeches_Day_1_Final/ITU%20worshop%20jan%20

07%20v2%201+%20FAC%20comments%203.pdf.

75 NTIA Jan. 4, 2010 Ex Parte at 5.

76 See MetroPCS Comments in re NBP PN #6, filed Oct. 

23, 2009, at 11–12; MetroPCS Reply in re NBP PN #6, 

filed Nov. 13, 2009, at 2–8; Sprint Comments in re NBP 

PN #6, filed Oct. 23, 2009, at 8–12; AT&T Reply in re 

NBP PN #6, filed Nov. 13, 2009 at 12–13 (filed as AT and 

T Inc.); CTIA Reply in re NBP PN #6, filed on Nov. 13, 

2009, at 28–29; MSTV and NAB Comments in re NBP 

PN #6, filed Oct. 23, 2009, at 3–4; but see New DBSD 

Satellite Services Reply in re NBP PN #6, filed on Nov. 

13, 2009, at 4–7; TerreStar Ex Parte Reply in re NBP PN 

#6, filed on Dec. 8, 2009, Attach. at 1–8; DISH Network 

and Echostar Corporation Reply in re NBP PN #6, filed 

on Nov. 13, 2009, at 7 (filed by Dish Network LLC); 

Satellite Industry Association Comments in re NBP PN 

#6, filed on Oct. 23, 2009, at 9. 

77 These numbers are current as of the end of third quarter, 

2009. See SkyTerra Commc’ns, Inc., Quarterly Report 

(Form 10-Q), at 32 (Nov. 9, 2009) (number refers to 

telephony subscribers only); Inmarsat, Condensed 

Consolidated Financial Results 3 (Sept. 30, 2009), 

available at http://www.inmarsat.com/Downloads/

English/Investors/IHL_Q_3_2009.pdf (number 

refers to “active terminals,” which Inmarsat describes 

as “the number of subscribers or terminals that have 

been used to access commercial services (except 

certain SPS [satellite phone service] terminals) at any 

time during the preceding twelve-month period and 

registered at 30 September [2009]. Active terminals also 

include the average number of certain SPS terminals 

. . . active on a daily basis during the period. Active 

terminals exclude our terminals (Inmarsat D+ and 

Isat M2M) used to access our Satellite Low Data Rate 

(“SLDR”) or telemetry services.”). As of 30 September 

2009, Inmarsat had 231,486 SLDR terminals. Inmarsat, 

Condensed Consolidated Financial Results 3 (Sept. 

30, 2009), available at http://www.inmarsat.com/

Downloads/English/Investors/IHL_Q_3_2009.pdf; 

Globalstar, Inc., Quarterly Report (Form 10-Q), at 27 

(Nov. 16, 2009); Iridium Commc’ns Inc., Quarterly 

Report (Form 10-Q), at 37, 40, 43 (Nov. 16, 2009).

78 In the bands 1544–1545 and 1645.5–1646.5 MHz, 

the Mobile Satellite Service is limited to distress and 

safety communication and is not included in the 40 

megahertz count.

79 Flexibility for Delivery of Communications by Mobile 

Satellite Service Providers in the 2 GHz Band, the L-band, 

and the 1.6/2.4 GHz Band; Review of the Spectrum 

Sharing Plan Among Non-Geostationary Satellite Orbit 

Mobile Satellite Service Systems in the 1.6/2.4 GHz Bands, 

IB Docket No. 01-185, Report and Order and Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, 18 FCC Rcd 1962, 1964–65, para. 

1 (2003). 

80 Globalstar Licensee LLC, filed December 14, 2009, 

IBFS File No. SAT-MOD-20091214-00152. SkyTerra 

Subsidiary LLC, filed April 29, 2009, IBFS File Nos. SATMOD-20090429-00046; SAT-MOD-20090429-00047; 

SES-MOD-20090429-00536.

81 See, e.g., Infineon, Technology is Breakthrough 

for Mass-Market and Feature-Rich Multi-Mode 

Handsets (press release), Apr. 1, 2009, http://www.

infineon.com/cms/en/corporate/press/news/

releases/2009/INFWLS200903-047.html; Letter 

from Dean R. Brenner, Vice President, Government 

Affairs, Qualcomm, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, 

FCC, GN Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 09-137 (Oct. 23, 

2009). For example, Globalstar has partnered with 

Open Range to lease spectrum for the deployment 

of wireless broadband service in underserved and 

rural areas using WiMAX technology; TerreStar has 

partnered with Nokia Siemens Networks to provide 

mobile broadband coverage in urban areas through a 

high-speed packet access (HSPA) network and recently 

announced roaming and distribution deals with AT&T. 

See Globalstar, Inc., Globalstar Becomes The First Mobile 
1 0 2 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

c h a p t e r 5 E n d n o t e s 

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 5

Spectrum Satellite Services Authority to Utilize It’s ATC 

Spectrum Authority (press release), Jan. 12, 2009, http://

www.globalstar.com/en/news/pressreleases/press_

display.php?pressId=522; TerreStar Corp., TerreStar 

Announces Nationwide Roaming Agreement with AT&T 

(press release), Aug. 1, 2008, http://www.terrestar.

com/press/archive/20080801.html; TerreStar Corp., 

TerreStar Announces Distribution Agreement with AT&T

(press release), Sept. 30, 2009, http://www.terrestar.

com/press/20090930.html.

82 The 120 megahertz objective is based on the need 

for additional spectrum allocated to flexible, mobile 

broadband use outlined earlier in this chapter and 

on scenario modeling and analysis of the broadcast 

TV bands. For a more detailed analysis see Omnibus

Broadband Initiative, Spectrum Reclamation: Options

for Broadcast Spectrum (forthcoming) (OBI, Spectrum

Reclamation).

83 For example, Designated Market Areas (DMAs) with 

more than 1 million TV homes have a median of 16 

full-power stations, while DMAs with fewer than 1 

million TV homes have a median of 6. FCC, DTV Station 

Search, http://licensing.fcc.gov/cdbs/cdbs_docs/pa/

dtvsearch/dtv_search.cfm (last visited Jan. 21, 2010). 

The FCC is required to allocate channels among States 

and communities so as to provide a “fair, efficient, and 

equitable distribution” of service, 47 U.S.C. § 307(b), and 

should ensure minimum service levels in each market as 

determined by the rule-making proceeding and pursuant 

to its § 307(b) mandate. 

84 The 85–90% of U.S. households that subscribe to 

service through multichannel video programming 

distributors (MVPDs) pay for the programming that 

over-the-air television viewers receive for free. These 

households pay for broadcast network programming 

through retransmission fees that broadcast TV stations 

negotiate with MVPDs—fees that MVPDs then pass 

on to their customers. SNL Kagan has forecasted total 

cash retransmission fees for 2009 at $738.7 million. See 

SNL Kagan (a division of SNL Financial LC), Broadcast

Investor: Deals & Finance, Broadcast Retrans Fees

on Track to Break $1 Bil. by 2011 (2009). Moreover, 

dedicating spectrum to broadcast use imposes on all 

consumers an implicit “opportunity cost” for that use of 

the spectrum over other potential uses.

85 The following market value analysis does not take into 

account social value or other measures of consumer 

surplus associated with either over-the-air broadcast TV 

or mobile broadband use.

86 See generally FCC, Summary for Auction 73 (700 

MHz Band), http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/default.

htm?job=auction_summary&id=73 (last visited Feb. 20, 

2010). Dollars per megahertz of spectrum, per person 

reached ($ per megahertz-pop) is the convention used to 

estimate the market value of spectrum. In the 700 MHz 

auction, $ per megahertz-pop values ranged from $0.03 

in Paducah, Ken., Cape Girardeau, Mo., and HarrisburgMt. Vernon, Ill. to $3.86 in Philadelphia.

87 This valuation assumes (1) that the total broadcast 

television industry enterprise value is $63.7B; (2) that 

the over-the-air audience is 14–19% of total TV 

viewership; (3) that the value of over-the-air broadcast 

television is $8.9–$12.2 billion; (4) that there is 294 

megahertz of TV spectrum; and (5) that the United 

States has a population of 281.4 million people. These 

figures were calculated as follows. The total broadcast 

television industry’s enterprise value equals industry 

revenue multiplied by average operating margin and 

by average EBITDA multiple. See BIA/Kelsey, BIA/

Kelsey Expects TV Station Revenues to End Year Lower 

Than Anticipated; Levels Last Seen in 1990s Predicted 

Through 2013 (press release), Dec. 22, 2009, http://

www.bia.com/pr091222-IITV4.asp (BIA/Kelsey, 

TV Station Revenues) (estimating average broadcast 

television industry revenue to be $17.9 billion (2008 

actual and 2009 estimate)).  The average operating 

margin equals 35%, based on the average operating 

margin from company reports and the SEC filings of 

Belo Corp., Entravision Communications Corporation, 

Fischer Communications, Inc., Gannett Company, 

Gray Television, Hearst Corporation, LIN TV Corp., 

Nexstar Broadcasting Group, Sinclair Broadcast 

Group, Univision Communications, Inc., and Young 

Broadcasting, Inc. See U.S. Securities & Exchange 

Comm’n, EDGAR: Filings & Forms, http://www.sec.gov/

edgar.shtml (last visited Mar. 5, 2010) (U.S. Securities 

& Exchange Comm’n, EDGAR) (providing access to 

the filings of publicly held companies).  The average 

EBITDA multiple equals 10.2, based on 2000–2009 

monthly averages from the SEC filings of Gray 

Television, Inc., LIN TV Corp., Nexstar Broadcasting 

Group, and Sinclair Broadcast Group. See U.S. Securities 

& Exchange Comm’n, EDGAR; Yahoo! Finance, http://

finance.yahoo.com (last visited Mar. 5, 2010). Yahoo 

Finance was used to identify year-end stock share prices. 

The over-the-air TV audience is based on a range of 

estimates. See Nielsen Co., National Media Universe 

Estimate database (accessed Feb. 2010) (estimating 

9.7% of viewers are over-the-air only); GAO, Digital

Television Transition: Broadcasters’ Transition

Status, Low-Power Station Issues, and Information on

Consumer Awareness of the DTV Transition 11, GAO08-881T (2008), (estimating 15% of viewers are overthe-air only and finding that ~21% of MVPD households 

have secondary TV sets that receive signals over-theair). Available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/

d0888H.pdf. Assuming secondary TV sets are viewed 

20% as often as primary sets, the overall over-the-air 

TV audience equals 9.7–15% plus 4.2%, or 14–19%. 

The value of over-the-air broadcast television equals 

the total enterprise value of the broadcast television 

industry times the over-the-air audience. The amount of 

TV spectrum equals 294 MHz, as allocated by the FCC. 

Off. of Eng. & Tech. FCC Online Table of Frequency

Allocations 17–18, 22, 26 (rev. Jan. 25, 2010) (updating 

47 C.F.R. § 2.106), available at http://www.fcc.gov/oet/

spectrum/table/fcctable.pdf. 

88 Economist Coleman Bazelon calculated value at 

$0.15 per megahertz-pop. See Consumer Electronics 

Association Comments in re NBP PN #6, filed Oct. 23, 

2009, Attach. at 19. 

89 Nielsen Co., National Media Universe Estimates, Nov. 

1998–Feb. 2010 (2010).

90 BIA/Kelsey, TV Station Revenues. 

91 The latest employment figures from the U.S. Census 

Bureau for broadcast TV show a 0.3% decline in total 

from 2002 to 2007. Compare U.S. Census Bureau, 

2002 Economic Census Television Broadcasting 

Industry Statistics, http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/

IBQTable?-NAICS1997=513120&-ds_name=EC0251I2

(last visited Mar. 5, 2010), with U.S. Census Bureau, 

2007 Economic Census Television Broadcasting 

Industry Statistics, http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/

IBQTable?-NAICS2007=515120&-ds_name=EC0751I1

(last visited Jan. 21, 2010). Data are not yet available 

for 2008 or 2009, when the most meaningful declines 

are likely to have occurred. NAB data indicates a 4.5% 

decline in industry employment in 2008. See Nat’l Ass’n

of Broad., NAB Television Financial Report 2 (2008); 

Nat’l Ass’n of Broad., NAB Television Financial Report

2 (2009).

92 For example, full-power stations directly use a median 

of 120 megahertz (20 channels) out of 294 megahertz 

total in the top 10 DMAs; full-power stations in the most 

congested DMA, Los Angeles, directly use 156 megahertz 

(26 channels); across all 210 DMAs, full-power stations 

directly use a median of 42 megahertz (7 channels). 

FCC, DTV Station Search, http://licensing.fcc.gov/cdbs/

cdbs_docs/pa/dtvsearch/dtv_search.cfm (last visited 

Jan. 21, 2010).

93 The DTV Table of Allotments is predicated on specific 

TV service areas established by FCC rules. See 47 C.F.R. 

§ 73.623(b); see also Off. of Eng. & Tech., FCC, Longley-Rice 

Methodology for Evaluating TV Coverage and Interference

(OET Bulletin No. 69, 2004); 47 C.F.R. § 73.623(c)–(d) 

(establishing rules for required distance separations). TV 

service areas are defined by theoretical receiver antennas 

10 meters off the ground that receive signals at given field 

strengths 90% of the time, in 50% of locations at the edge 

of a station’s coverage (noise-limited) contour, where its 

signal is weakest. Stations wishing to establish broadcast 

operations that violate the allowable service areas or 

required distance separations must negotiate between 

themselves and obtain FCC approval.

94 OBI, Spectrum Reclamation

95 There are existing television broadcast agreements 

with Canada and Mexico. If the implementation of 

recommendations in the plan cause any broadcast TV 

station bordering on Canada or Mexico to alter its existing 

station structure (e.g., channel reassignment, relocation, 

change in transmission parameters), the FCC would need 

to coordinate these changes with Canada or Mexico. 

96 Data ranges represent upper and lower bounds from public 

filings and assume current technology; future technologies 

could reduce the bandwidth required. See Hampton 

Roads Educational Telecommunications Association, Inc. 

Comments in re NBP PN #26, filed Dec. 22, 2009, at 4; 

WITF, Inc. Comments in re NBP PN #26, filed Dec. 22, 

2009, at 4; Iowa Public Broadcasting Board Comments in 

re NBP PN #26, filed Dec. 22, 2009, at 4.

97 Each station may not have sufficient capacity to 

maintain current HD picture quality if both are 

transmitting highly complex HD programming 
F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 1 0 3

c h a p t e r 5 E n d n o t e s 

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 5

simultaneously. Such incidences occur infrequently, 

however. OBI, Spectrum Reclamation. Furthermore, 

any such infrequent incidences would not impact the 

quality of signals delivered to MVPDs that receive 

broadcast TV signals through direct fiber or microwave 

feeds—approximately 50% of cable headends and 27% 

of DirecTV local collection facilities. Letter from Jane E. 

Mago, Executive Vice President and General Counsel, 

Legal and Regulatory Affairs, National Association of 

Broadcasters, to Blair Levin, Executive Director, OBI, 

FCC, GN Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 09-137 (Dec. 23, 

2009) at 1. Stations have several options to mitigate the 

potential impact to over-the-air signal quality, including 

statistical multiplexing, bit grooming, and rate shaping. 

In addition, stations may be able to achieve at least 

a 15% improvement in MPEG-2 efficiency through 

more advanced encoding techniques. See Matthew S. 

Goldman, “It’s Not Dead Yet!”—MPEG-2 Video Coding

Efficiency Improvements (2009), attached to Letter 

from Matthew Goldman, Vice President of Technology, 

TANDBERG Television, part of the Ericsson Group, 

to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC (Jan. 22, 2010) 

(TANDBERG Jan. 22, 2010 Ex Parte); Matthew S. 

Goldman, “It’s Not Dead Yet!”—MPEG-2 Video Coding 

Efficiency Improvements, Presentation at the Broadcast 

Engineering Conference (Apr. 22, 2009), attached to 

TANDBERG Jan. 22, 2010 Ex Parte.

98 Letter from Craig Jahelka, Vice President and General 

Manager, WBOC 16, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, 

FCC, GN Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 09-137 (Jan. 15, 

2010) at 1; see also Walt Disney Company Comments in 

re NBP PN #26, filed Dec. 22, 2009, at 1. 

99 For example, a station that broadcasts sports in HD 

and another that broadcasts talk shows during the same 

time period could agree on the best mechanisms to 

share their bandwidth dynamically to enable each to 

broadcast signals at certain quality levels, similar to how 

stations manage bandwidth allocations across multiple 

video streams today. These arrangements could further 

mitigate any risk to HD signal quality resulting from 

reduced bandwidth capacity per station.

100 See 47 U.S.C. § 534.

101 For example, stations could receive a portion of the 

proceeds from the megahertz-pops they contributed 

(megahertz-pops would equal the amount of megahertz 

contributed multiplied by the station’s population 

coverage). The U.S. Treasury could receive proceeds from 

the adjacent channels recovered and auctioned as a result 

of stations clearing the band. In most markets, the number 

of adjacent channels recovered exceeds the bandwidth 

directly contributed by stations. See Recommendation 5.4, 

supra, for more details on incentive auctions.

102 Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Cablevision Sys. Corp. v. 

FCC, No. 09-901 (Jan. 27, 2010).

103 The FCC should continue to recognize that “Congress 

intended [47 U.S.C. § 307(b)] to check the inevitable 

economic pressure to concentrate broadcast service 

in urban areas at the expense of service to smaller 

communities and rural areas.” Educational Information 

Corporation For Modification of Noncommercial 

Educational Station WCPE (FM) Raleigh, North 

Carolina, File No. BPED-930125IH, Memorandum 

Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 6917, 6920 (1997) 

(citing Pasadena Broad. Co. v. FCC, 555 F.2d 1046, 

1049–50 (D.C. Cir. 1975)).

104 89.7% of revenue in 2010 for broadcast TV stations 

is forecast to come from advertising on the primary 

channel, 4.8% from retransmission consent, 4.4% from 

Internet, 0.9% from digital sub-channels, and 0.2% from 

Mobile. Television Bureau of Advertising, A Look at

2010, at 34 (2009). 

105 85–90% of the distribution reach of stations comes 

through MVPDs, and 10–15%comes through over-theair broadcasts. In general, stations with retransmission 

consent agreements with MVPDs earn more revenue 

from an MVPD viewer than from an over-the-air 

viewer—the same advertising revenue from each, but 

retransmission fee revenue only from the MVPD viewer.

106 Repacking channels could result in declines in service 

areas for some stations, due to increased co-channel 

or adjacent channel interference, and in increases in 

service areas for others. Channel sharing would require 

collocation of signal transmission, which would lead 

to coverage shifts for the station(s) moving to a new 

transmission location. In general, these shifts would 

expand the number of consumers who receive a given 

station’s signal, as stations would choose to consolidate 

closer to population centers and at transmission 

facilities with the most favorable coverage attributes. 

Many broadcasters could also reduce transmissionrelated operating and capital expenses by sharing 

facilities. The FCC would have to ensure that shifts as 

a result of channel repacking or sharing comport with 

Section 307(b), and should work with affected stations 

on potential means to mitigate coverage losses, such 

as low power translators and boosters with off- and 

on-channel signal repeaters. In addition, the FCC would 

need to define “acceptable” thresholds for service loss 

as it did during and after the DTV Transition. In that 

situation, acceptable thresholds for service loss were 

2.0% for evaluating channel and facilities changes during 

the DTV Transition, 0.1% during the process of stations 

electing their post-transition channel, and 0.5% for 

evaluating post-transition channel and facilities changes.

107 There are several examples of stations multi-casting 

two HD streams in the broadcast TV market today. 

There is no universal technical standard for objectively 

measuring the quality of an HD picture, no HD 

reporting requirement, and thus no official database 

of HD streams. OBI, Spectrum Reclamation. Section 2 

(Viability of Channel Sharing for HD Programming).

108 MSTV and NAB Comments in re NBP PN #26, filed Dec. 

23, 2009, at 10. Some broadcasters are seeking to develop 

new nationwide audiences through airing or syndicating 

national programming over multicast channels (e.g., Live 

Well in HD, MHz Worldview, V-me, and ThisTV). Other 

stations are leasing capacity for ethnic programming or 

for hybrid broadcast-broadband competitive offerings 

to MVPD services, such as Sezmi Corporation. Sezmi 

Corporation Comments in re NBP PN #26, filed Dec. 23, 

2009, at 1–2.

109 Television Bureau of Advertising, A Look at 2010, at 

34 (2009).

110 Harris Corporation Comments in re NBP PN #26, filed 

Dec. 22, 2009, at 4.

111 Japan and South Korea have 69 million mobile TV users, or 9 

out of every 10 worldwide. Note that the largest subscription 

service in the world, run by South Korea Telecom’s TU Media 

Corp., is a satellite-delivered service. Broadcasters in these 

countries, however, have yet to leverage this viewership into 

sustainable ad revenue to support free-to-air service. See

JohnFletcher, SNLKagan (a divisionofSNLFinancial

LC), Comparing BroadcastMobileTVServices: Japan, 

South Korea, Italy, U.S. (2009). The NAB issued base case 

projections, forecasting mobile DTV advertising would 

generate $2 billion in revenues in 2012, of which $1.1 billion 

would accrue to broadcasters, generating ~$9.1 billion in 

incremental market value. See Broadcast Engineering, OMVC 

Concurs with NAB Study; Mobile Digital TV Service Could 

Generate Billions (2008). A subscription-based domestic 

mobile broadcast TV service, MediaFlo, using spectrum 

bought at auction, also has generated varying opinions on the 

future of the format.

112 These other mechanisms should also be implemented 

in a way that preserves minimum acceptable broadcast 

service levels and protects smaller and rural markets.

113 For example, full-power stations directly use a median 

of 120 megahertz (20 channels) out of 294 megahertz 

total in the top 10 DMAs; full-power stations in the most 

congested DMA, Los Angeles, directly use 156 megahertz 

(26 channels); across all 210 DMAs, full-power stations 

directly use a median of 42 megahertz (7 channels). See

FCC, DTV Station Search, http://licensing.fcc.gov/cdbs/

cdbs_docs/pa/dtvsearch/dtv_search.cfm (last visited 

Jan. 21, 2010).

114 Digital Television Distributed Transmission System 

Technologies, MB Docket No. 05-312, Report and Order, 

23 FCC Rcd 16731, 16732, para. 1 (2008). For more 

information, see CTIA & CEA Comments in re NBP PN 

#26, filed Dec. 22, 2009, at 9–17.

115 In an MFN, multiple stations consolidate their capacity 

and broadcast over different channels at different 

sites and times, similar to a frequency re-use pattern 

employed by mobile operators to avoid interference 

between cell sites. CTB Group, Inc. Comments in re 

NBP PN #26, filed Dec. 22, 2009, at 4. Letter from Peter 

Tannenwald, Counsel for CTB Group, Inc., to Marlene 

H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 09-51, MB 

Docket No. 05-312, RM 11574 (Jan. 15, 2010) (CTB 

Group, Inc. Jan. 15, 2010 Ex Parte) at 10. An MFN would 

require the FCC to grant additional licenses and/or 

modify existing licenses.

116 CTIA and CEA estimate the cost to implement this type 

of architecture at $1.4–$1.8 billion and the amount of 

spectrum that could be freed at 100–180 megahertz. 

CTIA & CEA Comments in re NBP PN #26, filed Dec. 

22, 2009, at 3.

117 See Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 of the Commission’s 

Rules with regard to Filing Procedures in the Multipoint 

Distribution Service and in the Instructional Television 

Fixed Service; Implementation of Section 309( j) of the 

Communications Act—Competitive Bidding, MM Docket 

No. 94-131, PP Docket No. 93-253, Report and Order, 
1 0 4 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

c h a p t e r 5 E n d n o t e s 

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 5

10 FCC Rcd 9589, 9612 (1995); Amendment of the 

Commission’s Rules Regarding Multiple Address Systems, 

WT Docket No. 97-81, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 

11956, 11984 (2000); Amendment of the Commission’s 

Rules Regarding the 37.0–38.6 GHz and 38.6–40.0 

GHz Bands; Implementation of Section 309( j) of the 

Communications Act—Competitive Bidding, 37.0–38.6 

GHz and 38.6–40.0 GHz, ET Docket No. 95-183, PP 

Docket 93-253, Report and Order and Second Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking, 12 FCC Rcd 18600, 18637–38 

(1997); Auction of Broadband Radio Service (BRS) 

Licenses Scheduled for October, AU Docket No. 09-56, 

Public Notice, 24 FCC Rcd 8277, 8288 (WTB 2009).

118 Stations could clear the overlay license bands by ceasing 

to broadcast over-the-air or by relocating to another 

broadcast TV band with or without overlay licenses. As 

part of the agreement to cease over-the-air broadcasts, 

stations or overlay license winners could reach private 

contractual carriage agreements with MVPDs to reach 

the remaining 85–90% of households. Thomas Hazlett 

Comments in re NBP PN #26, filed Dec. 18, 2009, at 9. 

With FCC approval, relocating to another band could 

involve either occupying another available 6-megahertz 

channel or sharing a channel with another station.

119 For example, Auctions 44, 49, and 60 of licenses in the 

700 MHz band generated proceeds of $0.03–0.05 per 

megahertz-pop in 2002, 2003, and 2005, respectively, 

with these low valuations driven primarily by 

uncertainty over timing and cost to clear incumbent 

broadcast TV licensees in that band. Once the DTV 

Transition timeline was finalized, Auction 73 of similar 

licenses in the 700 MHz band generated proceeds of 

$1.28 per megahertz-pop. Auction data available on FCC 

auction website: FCC, Auctions Home, http://wireless.

fcc.gov/auctions/default.htm?job=auctions_home

(last visited Feb. 18, 2010). In addition, a holder of 

licenses from Auctions 44, 49, and 60, Aloha Partners, 

subsequently sold its licenses to AT&T for $1.06 per 

megahertz-pop. See Om Malik, AT&T Buys 700 MHz 

Spectrum Licenses, GigaOm, Oct. 9, 2007, http://

gigaom.com/2007/10/09/att-buys-700-mhz-spectrumlicenses/. 

120 Subject to Congressional input and authorization, the 

FCC could consider loosening certain public interest 

obligations on commercial broadcasters as part of 

a broad review and potential rule-making involving 

spectrum fees. See Norman Ornstein Reply in re 

NBP PN #30 (Reply Comments Sought in Support of 

National Broadband Plan—NBP Public Notice #30, 

GN Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 09-137, Public Notice, 

25 FCC Rcd 241 (WCB, rel. Jan. 13, 2010) (NBP PN 

#30)), filed Jan. 20, 2010, at 10–13. The spectrum fees 

would be in addition to existing annual regulatory fees 

that broadcast TV stations pay. These regulatory fees 

vary depending on VHF/UHF placement and market 

location, ranging from $5,600 to $71,050 for VHF, and 

from $1,800 to $21,225 for UHF. 

121 Congress did not set a digital conversion date for low 

power stations when it established the date for full power 

stations. The FCC concluded that it has such authority 

in Amendment of Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission’s 

Rules to Establish Rules for Digital Low Power Television, 

Television Translator, and Television Booster Stations 

and to Amend the Rules for Digital Class A Television 

Stations, Report & Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19331, 19336–39, 

paras. 11–19 (2004). Low power stations are licensed 

spectrum users, but most have secondary spectrum 

rights to full power stations; “Class A” stations operate 

at low power but have primary spectrum rights with 

interference protections.

122 Since the transition to digital, many VHF stations 

have reported that some over-the-air viewers have 

experienced degraded reception due to the impact of 

environmental radio frequency noise on their digital 

signal.

123 Currently, the following bands below 12 GHz are 

available for point-to-point microwave backhaul, 

either on a primary basis or secondary to other uses 

in the band: 3700–4200 MHz (Fixed Satellite—Space 

to Earth), 5925–6425 MHz (Fixed Satellite—Earth to 

Space), 6525–6875 MHz (Fixed Satellite—Earth to 

Space), 10550–10600 MHz (no other services sharing 

the band), 10600–10680 MHz (Earth Exploration 

Satellite, Space Research), and 10700–11700 MHz 

(Fixed Satellite).

124 For frequencies below 15 GHz, National Spectrum 

Manager Association guidelines call for coordination 

within a 125-mile circle around a terrestrial microwave 

station and within 250 miles for the “keyhole” extending 

5 degrees on either side of the main beam azimuth. 

See Nat’l Spectrum Managers Ass’n, Coordination 

Contours For Terrestrial Microwave Systems 2, Rec. 

WG 3.90.026 (2009), available at http://www.nsma.org/

recommendation/WG3.90.026.pdf (last visited Feb. 18, 

2010).

125 Bands where sharing is currently and potentially viable 

include 6425–6525 MHz (Mobile Microwave, Broadcast 

Auxiliary Service (BAS), Cable Television Relay Service 

(CARS), Mobile Local Television Transmission Service 

(LTTS), Fixed Satellite Service (FSS)), 6875–7025 MHz 

(BAS, CARS, LTTS, FSS), 7025–7075 MHz (BAS, CARS, 

LTTS, FSS), and 7075–7125 MHz (BAS, CARS, LTTS).

126 Letter from Michael Mulcay, Chairman, Wireless 

Strategies Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, 

GN Docket No. 09-51, WT Docket No. 07-121 (Nov. 4, 

2009) at 1; Letter from Richard B. Engelman, Director, 

Spectrum Resources, Sprint Nextel Corp., to Marlene H. 

Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 07-121 (Mar. 12, 

2009) at 1–2.

127 Letter from Mitchell Lazarus, Counsel, Alcatel-Lucent 

et al., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket 

No. 09-106 (May 8, 2009) at 3 (requesting interpretation 

of Section 101.141(a)(3) of the Commission’s Rules to 

Permit the Use of Adaptive Modulation Systems); Fixed 

Wireless Communications Coalition Comments in re 

Adaptive Modulation PN (Wireless Telecommunications 

Bureau Seeks Comment on Request of Alcatel-Lucent 

et al. For Interpretation of 47 C.F.R. §101.141(a)(3) to 

Permit the Use of Adaptive Modulation Systems, WT 

Docket No. 09-106, Public Notice, 24 FCC Rcd 8549 

(WTB 2009) (Adaptive Modulation PN)), filed July 27, 

2009, at 1–2; Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition 

Reply in re Adaptive Modulation PN, filed Aug. 11, 2009, 

at 2; Letter from Mitchell Lazarus, Counsel, Fixed 

Wireless Communications Coalition, to Marlene H. 

Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket Nos. 09-106, 09-114 

(Oct. 30, 2009), Attach. at 7–9.

128 DragonWave Inc., Understanding the Total Cost of

Ownership of Wireless Backhaul: Making the Right

Choice at the Right Time 12, DWI-APP-190 (2010), 

available at http://www.wcai.com/images/pdf/wp_

DragonWave_APP-190.pdf.

129 Amendment of Part 101 of the Commission’s Rules to 

Modify Antenna Requirements for the 10.7–11.7 GHz 

Band, WT Docket No. 07-54, Report and Order, 22 FCC 

Rcd 17153, 17161, para. 11 (2007).

130 Opportunistic sharing techniques allow users to 

operate at low power simultaneously with incumbent 

users or during periods when incumbent users are not 

transmitting on their assigned frequencies.

131 47 C.F.R. Part 15.

132 See 47 C.F.R. § 15.205 for a list of the restricted bands in 

which only spurious emissions are permitted. In many 

cases, these bands correspond to federal-only allocations 

that are used for passive spectrum sensing applications.

133 47 C.F.R. § 15.5(b).

134 Public Interest Spectrum Coalition (PISC) Comments 

in re Wireless Innovation NOI (Fostering Innovation and 

Investment in the Wireless Communications Market; A 

National Broadband Plan For Our Future, GN Docket Nos. 

09-157, 09-51, Notice of Inquiry, 24 FCC Rcd 11322 (2009) 

(Wireless Innovation NOI)), filed Nov. 5, 2009, at 20–25.

135 NTIA has expressed the need to explore innovative 

spectrum access models, including opportunistic or 

dynamic use. See Letter from Kathy D. Smith, Chief 

Counsel, NTIA, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, 

GN Docket No. 09-51 (Jan. 4, 2010) at 5.

136 The ITU-R Study Group 1 has defined a cognitive 

radio system as a radio system employing technology 

that allows the system to obtain knowledge of its 

operational and geographical environment, established 

policies, and its internal state; to dynamically and 

autonomously adjust its operational parameters and 

protocols according to its obtained knowledge in order 

to achieve predefined objectives; and to learn from the 

results obtained. In layman’s terms, this describes a 

radio and network that can react and self-adjust to local 

changes in spectrum use or environmental conditions. 

Cognitive radio is often confused with software defined 

radio (SDR). However, while often a cognitive radio will 

contain an SDR, an SDR does not necessarily imply a 

cognitive radio. 

137 A few of the more prominent projects are DARPA’s neXt 

Generation Communications (XG) Program, the Federal 

Spectrum Sharing Innovation Test-Bed Pilot Program, 

and the European Commission’s End-to-End Efficiency 

(E3

) Project. In April 2007, the IEEE created the IEEE 

Standards Coordinating Committee 41 (SCC41) on 

Dynamic Spectrum Access Networks. Finally, the IEEE 

802.22 working group is developing a standard for 

wireless regional area networks for a cognitive radiobased air interface for use by unlicensed devices on a 

non-interfering basis in TV Broadcast spectrum.
F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 1 0 5

c h a p t e r 5 E n d n o t e s 

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 5

138 See, e.g., Public Interest Spectrum Coalition Reply in re 

Wireless Innovation NOI, filed Nov. 5, 2009, at 20–30.

139 See New America Foundation Comments in re National 

Broadband Plan NOI, filed Jun. 8, 2009, at 24. New 

America Foundation states that it believes, “the most 

promising mechanism for making substantial new 

allocations of spectrum available for wireless broadband 

deployments and other innovation is to leverage the TV 

Bands Database . . . .” Id.

140 For the purposes of the Plan, we define “Tribal lands” 

as any federally recognized Tribe’s reservation, pueblo 

and colony, including former reservations in Oklahoma, 

Alaska Native regions established pursuant to the 

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (85 Stat. 688), 

and Indian allotments. The term “Tribe” means any 

American Indian or Alaska Native Tribe, Band, Nation, 

Pueblo, Village or Community which is acknowledged 

by the Federal government to have a government-togovernment relationship with the United States and is 

eligible for the programs and services established by the 

United States. See Statement of Policy on Establishing a 

Government-to-Government Relationship with Indian 

Tribes, 16 FCC Rcd 4078, 4080 (2000). Thus, “Tribal 

lands” includes American Indian Reservations and 

Trust Lands, Tribal Jurisdiction Statistical Areas, Tribal 

Designated Statistical Areas, and Alaska Native Village 

Statistical Areas, as well as the communities situated 

on such lands. This would also include the lands of 

Native entities receiving Federal acknowledgement or 

recognition in the future. While Native Hawaiians are 

not currently members of federally-recognized Tribes, 

they are intended to be covered by the recommendations 

of this Plan, as appropriate.

141 Letter from Native Public Media et al., to Marlene H. 

Dortch, Secretary, FCC, in re NBP PN #5, Docket Nos. 

09-47, 09-51, 09-137 (Dec. 24, 2009) at 7.

142 See generally Extending Wireless Telecommunications 

Services to Tribal Lands, WT Docket No. 99-266, Report 

and Order, 15 FCC Rcd. 11794 (2000).

143 See Policies to Promote Rural Radio Service and to 

Streamline Allotment and Assignment Procedures, MB 

Docket No. 09-52, First Report and Order and Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 10-24 (rel. Feb. 3, 

2010); 47 U.S.C. § 307(b).

144 To the extent the FCC issues licenses or requires 

partitioning of licenses for very small tribal areas, 

however, consideration must be given to whether special 

technical or coordination rules are necessary in order to 

facilitate service to the tribal lands while minimizing the 

potential for interference among neighboring licensees.

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 6

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 1 0 7

INFRASTRUCTURE

c h a p t e r 6

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 6

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 1 0 9

Just as wireless networks USE publicly owned spectrum, wireless and wired networks rely 

on cables and conduits attached to public roads, bridges, poles and tunnels. Securing rights 

to this infrastructure is often a difficult and time-consuming process that discourages private 

investment. Because of permitting and zoning rules, government often has a significant role in 

network construction. Government also regulates how broadband providers can use existing 

private infrastructure like utility poles and conduits. Many state and local governments have 

taken steps to encourage and facilitate fiber conduit deployment as part of public works projects like road construction. Similarly, in November 2009, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) established timelines for states and localities to process permit requests to 

build and locate wireless equipment on towers.1

While these are positive steps, more can and should be done. 

Federal, state and local governments should do two things to 

reduce the costs incurred by private industry when using public 

infrastructure. First, government should take steps to improve 

utilization of existing infrastructure to ensure that network providers have easier access to poles, conduits, ducts and rights-of-way. 

Second, the federal government should foster further infrastructure deployment by facilitating the placement of communications 

infrastructure on federally managed property and enacting “dig 

once” legislation. These two actions can improve the business case 

for deploying and upgrading broadband network infrastructure 

and facilitate competitive entry.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Improving utilization of infrastructure

➤ The FCC should establish rental rates for pole attachments 

that are as low and close to uniform as possible, consistent 

with Section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, to promote broadband deployment.

➤ The FCC should implement rules that will lower the cost of 

the pole attachment “make-ready” process.

➤ The FCC should establish a comprehensive timeline for each 

step of the Section 224 access process and reform the process for resolving disputes regarding infrastructure access. 

➤ The FCC should improve the collection and availability of 

information regarding the location and availability of poles, 

ducts, conduits and rights-of-way.

➤ Congress should consider amending Section 224 of the Act 

to establish a harmonized access policy for all poles, ducts, 

conduits and rights-of-way. 

➤ The FCC should establish a joint task force with state, 

Tribal and local policymakers to craft guidelines for rates, 

terms and conditions for access to public rights-of-way.

Maximizing impact of federal resources

➤ The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) should 

make federal financing of highway, road and bridge projects 

contingent on states and localities allowing joint deployment of conduits by qualified parties.

➤ Congress should consider enacting “dig once” legislation 

applying to all future federally funded projects along rightsof-way (including sewers, power transmission facilities, rail, 

pipelines, bridges, tunnels and roads). 

➤ Congress should consider expressly authorizing federal 

agencies to set the fees for access to federal rights-of-way 

on a management and cost recovery basis. 

➤ The Executive Branch should develop one or more master 

contracts to expedite the placement of wireless towers on 

federal government property and buildings.

6.1 IMPROVING 

UTILIZATION OF 

INFRASTRUCTURE

The cost of deploying a broadband network depends significantly on the costs that service providers incur to access 

conduits, ducts, poles and rights-of-way on public and private 

lands.2

 Collectively, the expense of obtaining permits and leasing pole attachments and rights-of-way can amount to 20% of 

the cost of fiber optic deployment.3
1 1 0 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 6

These costs can be reduced directly by cutting fees. The 

costs can also be lowered indirectly by expediting processes 

and decreasing the risks and complexities that companies face 

as they deploy broadband network infrastructure. 

The FCC has already begun to take important steps in this 

direction with policies that will speed the deployment of wireless equipment on towers. With regard to other infrastructure 

such as utility poles, the FCC has authority to improve the 

deployment process and should use that authority. Lowering 

the costs of infrastructure access involves every level of government; active consultation among all levels of government will 

be needed to put in place pro-deployment policies such as joint 

trenching, conduit construction and placement of broadband 

facilities on public property. 

Recommendation 6.1: The FCC should establish rental 

rates for pole attachments that are as low and close to uniform 

as possible, consistent with Section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, to promote broadband deployment.

As Exhibit 6-A shows, the rental rates paid by communications companies to attach to a utility pole vary widely—from 

approximately $7 per foot per year for cable operators to $10 

per foot per year for competitive telecommunications companies to more than $20 per foot per year for some incumbent 

local exchange carriers (ILECs).4 The impact of these rates 

can be particularly acute in rural areas, where there often are 

more poles per mile than households.5

 In a rural area with 15 

households per linear mile, data suggest that the cost of pole 

attachments to serve a broadband customer can range from 

$4.54 per month per household passed (if cable rates are used) 

to $12.96 (if ILEC rates are used). If the lower rates were applied, and if the cost differential in excess of $8 per month were 

passed on to consumers, the typical monthly price of broadband for some rural consumers could fall materially.6 That 

could have the added effect of generating an increase—possibly 

a significant increase—in rural broadband adoption.

Different rates for virtually the same resource (space on 

a pole), based solely on the regulatory classification of the 

attaching provider, largely result from rate formulas established by Congress and the FCC under Section 224 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as amended (“the Act”).8

 The 

rate structure is so arcane that, since the 1996 amendments 

to Section 224, there has been near-constant litigation about 

the applicability of “cable” or “telecommunications” rates to 

broadband, voice over Internet protocol and wireless services.9

To support the goal of broadband deployment, rates for 

pole attachments should be as low and as close to uniform as 

possible. The rate formula for cable providers articulated in 

Section 224(d) has been in place for 31 years and is “just and 

reasonable” and fully compensatory for utilities.10 Through a 

rulemaking, the FCC should revisit its application of the telecommunications carrier rate formula to yield rates as close as 

possible to the cable rate in a way that is consistent with the Act.

Applying different rates based on whether the attacher is 

classified as a “cable” or a “telecommunications” company 

distorts attachers’ deployment decisions. This is especially 

true with regard to integrated, voice, video and data networks. 

This uncertainty may be deterring broadband providers that 

pay lower pole rates from extending their networks or adding Annual Pole Rates Vary Considerably by Provider Type, Leading capabilities (such as high-capacity links to wireless towers). By 

to Highly Variable Costs, Especially in Low-Density Geographies

Cable

Telco

ILEC

Households per plant/mile

0 10 $20

7

10

20

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

$13

15 45 90

Cable

Telco

ILEC

Average pole attachment rates

Dollars per foot of pole space per year

Pole attachment operating

expenditure/subscribing household

Dollars per foot of pole space per year

Exhibit 6-A:

Annual Pole Rates 

Vary Considerably by 

Provider Type7
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 6

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 1 1 1

expanding networks and capabilities, these providers risk having a higher pole rental fee apply to their entire network.11

FCC rules that move toward low rates that are as uniform 

as possible across service providers would help remove many 

of these distortions. This approach would also greatly reduce 

complexity and risk for those deploying broadband. 

Recommendation 6.2: The FCC should implement rules 

that will lower the cost of the pole attachment “makeready” process.

Rearranging existing pole attachments or installing new 

poles—a process referred to as “make-ready” work—can be a significant source of cost and delay in building broadband networks. 

FiberNet, a broadband provider that has deployed 3,000 miles of 

fiber in West Virginia, states that “the most significant obstacle to 

the deployment of fiber transport is FiberNet’s inability to obtain 

access to pole attachments in a timely manner.”12

Make-ready work frequently involves moving wires or other 

equipment attached to a pole to ensure proper spacing between 

equipment and compliance with electric and safety codes. The 

make-ready process requires not only coordination between 

the utility that owns the pole and a prospective broadband 

provider, but also the cooperation of communications firms 

that have already attached to the pole. Each attaching party 

is generally responsible for moving its wires and equipment, 

meaning that multiple visits to the same pole may be required 

simply to attach a new wire.

Reform of this inefficient process presents significant 

opportunities for savings. FiberNet commented that its makeready charges for several fiber runs in West Virginia averaged 

$4,200 per mile and took 182 days to complete,13 but the 

company estimates that these costs should instead have averaged $1,000 per mile.14 Another provider, Fibertech, states that 

the make-ready process averages 89 days in Connecticut and 

100 days in New York, where state commissions regulate the 

process directly.15

Delays can also result from existing attachers’ action (or 

inaction) to move equipment to accommodate a new attacher, 

potentially a competitor.16 As a result, reform must address the 

obligations of existing attachers as well as the pole owner.

An evaluation of best practices at the state and local levels reveals ample opportunities to manage this process more 

efficiently. Yet, absent regulation, pole owners and existing 

attachers have few incentives to change their behavior. 

To lower the cost of the make-ready process and speed it up, 

the FCC should, through rulemaking:

➤ Establish a schedule of charges for the most common 

categories of work (such as engineering assessments and 

pole construction).

➤ Codify the requirement that gives attachers the right to use 

space- and cost-saving techniques such as boxing or extension arms where practical and in a way that is consistent 

with pole owners’ use of those techniques.17

➤ Allow prospective attachers to use independent, utilityapproved and certified contractors to perform all engineering assessments and communications make-ready work, as 

well as independent surveys, under the joint direction and 

supervision of the pole owner and the new attacher.18

➤ Ensure that existing attachers take action within a specified 

period (such as 30 days) to accommodate a new attacher. 

This can be accomplished through measures such as mandatory timelines and rules that would allow the pole owner 

or new attacher to move existing communications attachments if the timeline is not met.

➤ Link the payment schedule for make-ready work to the 

actual performance of that work, rather than requiring all 

payment up front. 

These cost-saving steps can have an immediate impact on 

driving fiber deeper into networks, which will advance the deployment of both wireline and wireless broadband services. 

Recommendation 6.3: The FCC should establish a comprehensive timeline for each step of the Section 224 access 

process and reform the process for resolving disputes 

regarding infrastructure access. 

There are no federal regulations addressing the duration of 

the entire process for obtaining access to poles, ducts, conduit 

and rights-of-way. While the FCC in the past has recognized 

that “time is critical in establishing the rate, terms and conditions for attaching,” current FCC rules only require that a 

utility provide a response to an application within 45 days.19

The FCC does not have any deadlines for subsequent steps in 

the process, which can drag on for months if not years.20 This 

causes delays in the deployment of broadband to communities 

and anchor institutions.21

Several states, including Connecticut and New York, have 

established firm timelines for the entire process, from the day 

that a prospective attacher files an application, to the issuance 

of a permit indicating that all make-ready work has been completed.22 Timelines speed the process considerably in states 

where they have been implemented,23 thus facilitating the 

deployment of broadband. 

The FCC should establish a federal timeline that covers 

each step of the pole attachment process, from application to 

issuance of the final permit. The federal timeline should be 

implemented through a rulemaking and be comprehensive and 

applicable to all forms of communications attachments.24 In 

addition, the FCC should establish a timeline for the process of 

certifying wireless equipment for attachment.25
1 1 2 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 6

The FCC also should institute a better process for resolving 

access disputes. For large broadband network builds, the pole 

attachment process is highly fragmented and often involves 

dozens of utilities, cable providers and telecommunications 

providers in multiple jurisdictions. Yet there is no established 

process for the timely resolution of disputes.26

The FCC has the authority to enforce its pole attachment 

rules, but today it generally attempts to informally resolve 

attachment disputes through mediation. This process has 

significant flaws. Under the current system of case-by-case 

adjudication, the attacher always bears the burden of bringing a formal complaint.27 The formal dispute rules also do not 

provide for compensation dating from the time of the injury, so 

attachers have minimal incentive to initiate costly formal pole 

attachment cases that may linger for years. 

Also, because time is often of the essence during the makeready process, methods for resolving disputes over application 

of individual safety and engineering standards may be necessary. Informal local procedures and mediation may sometimes 

result in satisfactory settlements, but they do not create precedents for what constitutes a “just and reasonable” practice 

under Section 224 of the Act.

In revising its dispute resolution policies, the FCC should consider approaches that not only speed the process but also provide 

future guidelines for the industry. Institutional changes, such as 

the creation of specialized fora and processes for attachment disputes, and process changes, such as target deadlines for resolution, 

could expedite dispute resolution and serve the overarching goal 

of lowering costs and promoting rapid broadband deployment. 

The FCC also could use its authority under Section 224 to require 

utilities to post standards and adopt procedures for resolving 

safety and engineering disagreements and encourage appropriate state processes for resolving such disputes. Finally, awarding 

compensation that dates from the denial of access could stimulate 

swifter resolution of disputes. 

Recommendation 6.4: The FCC should improve the collection and availability of information regarding the location and 

availability of poles, ducts, conduits and rights-of-way.

There are hundreds of private and public entities that own and 

control access to poles, ducts, conduits and rights-of-way, and 

an even greater number of parties that use that infrastructure. 

Accurate information about pole owners and attachments is critical if there is to be a timely and efficient process for accessing and 

utilizing this important infrastructure.28 The FCC should ensure 

that attachers and pole owners have the data they need to lower 

costs and accelerate the buildout of broadband networks.

Consistent with its current jurisdiction under Section 224, 

the FCC should ensure that information about utility poles 

and conduits is up-to-date, readily accessible and secure, and 

that the costs and responsibility of collecting and maintaining 

data are shared equitably by owners and users of these vital 

resources. For example, data could be collected systematically 

as in Germany, which is mapping fiber, ducts and conduits and 

is planning to coordinate these data with information about 

public works and infrastructure projects.29 Existing industry 

efforts to collect and coordinate data could be expanded and 

made more robust.30 In addition, the participation of all pole 

owners subject to Section 224 and attaching parties in any such 

database effort could be regulated and streamlined. These databases should be easily searchable, identify the owner of each 

pole and should contain up-to-date records of attachments 

and make-ready work that has been performed. For conduits 

and ducts, any database should note whether there is space 

available. Whichever methods are used, data must be regularly 

updated, secure and accessible in order to further the FCC’s 

efforts to ensure that broadband providers have efficient access 

to essential infrastructure information.

Recommendation 6.5: Congress should consider amending Section 224 of the Act to establish a harmonized access 

policy for all poles, ducts, conduits and rights-of-way. 

Even if the FCC implemented all of the recommendations 

related to its Section 224 authority, additional steps would 

be needed to establish a comprehensive national broadband 

infrastructure policy. As previously discussed, without statutory 

change, the convoluted rate structure for cable and telecommunications providers will persist. Moreover, due to exemptions 

written into Section 224, a reformed FCC regime would apply to 

only 49 million of the nation’s 134 million poles.31 In particular, 

the statute does not apply in states that adopt their own system 

of regulation and exempts poles owned by co-operatives, municipalities and non-utilities.32

The nation needs a coherent and uniform policy for 

broadband access to privately owned physical infrastructure. 

Congress should consider amending or replacing Section 224 

with a harmonized and simple policy that establishes minimum standards throughout the nation—although states should 

remain free to enforce standards that are not inconsistent with 

federal law. The new statutory framework could provide that:

➤ All poles, ducts, conduits and rights-of-way be subject to 

a regulatory regime addressing a minimum set of criteria 

established by federal law.

➤ All broadband service providers, whether wholesale or 

retail, have the right to access pole attachments, ducts, 

conduit and rights-of-way based on reasonable rates, terms 

and conditions.

➤ Infrastructure access be provided within standard timelines 

established by the FCC, and that the FCC has the authority 

to award damages for non-compliance.
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 6

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 1 1 3

➤ The FCC has the authority to compile and update a comprehensive database of physical infrastructure assets.

Recommendation 6.6: The FCC should establish a joint 

task force with state, Tribal and local policymakers to craft 

guidelines for rates, terms and conditions for access to 

public rights-of-way.

Because local, state, Tribal and federal governments control 

access to important rights-of-way and facilities, a comprehensive broadband infrastructure policy necessarily requires a 

coordinated effort among all levels of government. 

There is wide diversity among state and local policies 

regarding access to and payment for accessing public rightsof-way. Many jurisdictions charge a simple rental fee. Other 

jurisdictions use other compensation schemes, including 

per-foot rentals, one-time payments, in-kind payments (such 

as service to public institutions or contributions of fiber to city 

telecommunications departments) and assessments against 

general revenues.33 Some jurisdictions calculate land rental 

rates based on local real estate “market value” appraisals. 

Many states have limited the rights-of-way charges that 

municipalities may impose, either by establishing uniform 

rates (Michigan) or by limiting fees to administrative costs 

(Missouri).34 Other states, including South Carolina, Illinois 

and Florida, do not allow municipalities to collect rightsof-way fees directly; instead, the state compensates local 

governments for the use of their rights-of-way with proceeds 

from state-administered telecommunications taxes.

Broadband service providers often assert that the expense 

and complexity of obtaining access to public rights-of-way 

in many jurisdictions increase the cost and slow the pace of 

broadband network deployment.35 Representatives of state 

and local governments dispute many of these contentions.36

However, nearly all agree that there can and should be better 

coordination across jurisdictions on infrastructure issues.37

Despite past efforts by the National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration (NTIA) and the National Association 

of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC),38 a coordinated 

approach to rights-of-way policies has not taken hold. There are 

limits to state and local policies; Section 253 of the Communications 

Act prohibits state and local policies that impede the provision of 

telecommunications services while allowing for rights-of-way management practices that are nondiscriminatory, competitively neutral, 

fair and reasonable.39 However, disputes under Section 253 have 

lingered for years, both before the FCC and in federal district courts.40

In consultation and partnership with state, local and Tribal 

authorities, the FCC should develop guidelines for public 

rights-of-way policies that will ensure that best practices from 

state and local government are applied nationally. For example, 

establishing common application information and inspection 

protocols could lower administrative costs for the industry and 

governmental agencies alike. Fee structures should be consistent with the national policy of promoting greater broadband 

deployment. A fee structure based solely upon the market value 

of the land being used would not typically take into account 

the benefits that the public as a whole would receive from 

increased broadband deployment, particularly in unserved and 

underserved areas. In addition, broadband network construction often involves multiple jurisdictions. The timing of the 

process and fee calculations by one local government may not 

take into account the benefits that constituents in neighboring jurisdictions would receive from increased broadband 

deployment. The cost and social value of broadband cut across 

political boundaries; as a result, rights-of-way policies and best 

practices must reach across those boundaries and be developed 

with the broader public interest in mind.

To help develop this consistent rights-of-way policy, the 

FCC should convene a joint task force of state, local and Tribal 

authorities with a mandate to:

➤ Investigate and catalog current state and local rights-ofway practices and fee structures, building on NTIA’s 2003 

compendium and the 2002 NARUC Rights-of-Way Project. 

➤ Identify public rights-of-way and infrastructure policies 

and fees that are consistent with the national public policy 

goal of broadband deployment and those that are inconsistent with that goal.41

➤ Identify and articulate rights-of-way construction and 

maintenance practices that reduce overall capital and maintenance costs for both government and users and that avoid 

unnecessary delays, actions, costs and inefficiencies related 

to the construction and maintenance of broadband facilities 

along public rights-of-way.42

➤ Recommend appropriate guidelines for what constitutes 

“competitively neutral,” “nondiscriminatory” and “fair and 

reasonable” rights-of-way practices and fees.

➤ Recommend a process for the FCC to use to resolve disputes under Section 253. Creating a process should expedite resolution of public rights-of-way disputes in areas 

either unserved or underserved by broadband.

The FCC should request that the task force make its recommendations within six months of the task force’s creation. 

These recommendations should then be considered by the FCC 

as part of a proceeding that seeks industry-wide comment on 

these issues.
1 1 4 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 6

6.2 Maximizing

Impact of Federal

Resources

Federal government can also play an important role in directly 

lowering the costs of future infrastructure deployment. The 

federal government has already made efforts to simplify access 

to federal rights-of-way under President George W. Bush,43 and 

to improve access to federal government facilities for wireless services under President William J. Clinton.44 However, 

policies have generally taken a permissive approach, simply 

allowing the federal government to take steps, rather than 

requiring that those steps be taken. 

Recommendation 6.7: The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) should make federal financing of highway, 

road and bridge projects contingent on states and localities 

allowing joint deployment of conduits by qualified parties.

Recommendation 6.8: Congress should consider enacting “dig once” legislation applying to all future federally 

funded projects along rights-of-way (including sewers, 

power transmission facilities, rail, pipelines, bridges, tunnels and roads). 

Although pushing fiber deeper into broadband networks 

considerably improves the performance and reliability of those 

networks, deploying a mile of fiber can easily cost more than 

$100,000 (see Exhibit 6-B). The largest element of deployment 

costs is not the fiber itself, but the placement costs associated 

with burying the fiber in the ground (or attaching it to poles in 

an aerial build). These placement costs can, in certain cases, 

account for almost three-quarters of the total cost of fiber 

deployment. Running a strand of fiber through an existing conduit is 3–4 times cheaper than constructing a new aerial build.45

Substantial savings can be captured if fiber builds are 

coordinated with other infrastructure projects in which the 

right-of-way (e.g., road, water, sewer, gas, electric, etc.) is 

already being dug. For example, the city of San Francisco has 

a “trench once” policy, in which a 5-year moratorium is placed 

on opening up a road bed once the trench along that road bed 

has been closed.47 San Francisco uses a notification process to 

ensure that other interested parties have the opportunity to 

install conduits and cabling in the open trench.48 The city of 

Boston has implemented a “Shadow Conduit Policy,” in which 

the first company to request a trench takes a lead role, inviting other companies to add additional empty (or “shadow”) 

conduits for future use by either the city of Boston or a later 

entrant.49 The city of Chicago seeks to “inexpensively deploy 

excess conduit when streets are opened for other infrastructure 

and public works projects.”50 In the Netherlands, a committee in the city of Amsterdam similarly coordinates digging and 

trenching activities between the public and private sector.51

These policies have clear benefits, as shown by the case of 

Akron, Ohio. When Akron was deploying facilities and conduit 

to support its public safety network, it shared those facilities 

with OneCommunity, a northeast Ohio public-private partnership that aggregates demand by public institutions and private 

Exhibit 6-B:

Joint Deployment Can 

Materially Reduce 

the Cost of Fiber 

Deployment46

Total Materials Splicing Placement

144 28

101

43

26

6

6

69

41

3,600110

2

0

Additional costs when 

not jointly deployed

Costs in joint 

deployment case

Cost per mile for fiber deployment

Thousands of dollars
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 6

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 1 1 5

space in 8,600 buildings nationwide.57 To effectively deploy 

broadband, providers often need to be able to place equipment 

on this federally controlled property, or to use the rights-ofway that pass through the property.

Based on an August 1995 executive memorandum by 

President Clinton,58 GSA developed guidelines to allow wireless antennas on federal buildings and land.59 Additionally, since 

1989, GSA has run the National Antenna Program to facilitate 

wireless tower placement on federal government buildings.60

On more than 1,900 buildings administered by GSA, there are 

currently antennas covered by approximately 100 leases that 

result in millions of dollars in revenue for the Federal Buildings 

Fund annually.61 For each of the leases managed by GSA, market 

rent is charged, and the leases are tightly crafted to cover rooftop space, specific equipment and technology.

Even given this progress, the federal government can do 

more to facilitate access to its rights-of-way and facilities that 

it either develops or maintains. In many instances, federal law 

currently requires that rental fees for rights-of-way controlled 

by federal agencies be based upon the market value of the land. 

As a result, these fees are often much higher than the direct 

costs involved.62 To facilitate the development of broadband 

networks, Congress should consider allowing all agencies to 

set the fees for access to rights-of-way for broadband services 

on the basis of a direct cost recovery approach, especially in 

markets currently underserved or unserved by any broadband 

service provider. 

The Executive Branch should also develop one or more 

master contracts for all federal property and buildings covering 

the placement of wireless towers. The contracts would apply to 

all buildings, unless the federal government decides that local 

issues require non-standard treatment. In the master contracts, GSA should also standardize the treatment of key issues 

covering rooftop space, equipment and technology. The goal of 

these master contracts would be to lower real estate acquisition 

costs and streamline local zoning and permitting for broadband 

network infrastructure. 

While reducing the prices for leases on government property 

may reduce fees paid to governments at the local, state and 

federal levels, the decline in prices may also greatly increase 

the number of companies that acquire leases on government 

property. In any case, the increased deployment of broadband 

will stimulate investment and benefit society.

broadband service providers. As a result of that coordination, 

those same facilities and conduits now support health care 

institutions, schools and Wi-Fi access in Akron.52 Similarly, 

along Interstate 91 in western Massachusetts, collaboration 

among the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, the 

Massachusetts Broadband Institute and the federal DOT is 

resulting in the installation of 55 miles of fiber optic cable with 

34 interconnection points.53

DOT should implement “joint trenching” and conduit policies to lower the installation costs for broadband networks.54

At a minimum, states and localities undertaking construction along rights-of-way that are partially or fully financed by 

DOT should be required to give at least 90 days’ notice before 

projects begin. This would allow private contractors or public 

entities to add conduits for fiber optic cables in ways that do not 

unreasonably increase cost, add to construction time or hurt the 

integrity of the project. Opportunities for joint trenching and 

conduit deployment are varied, from construction of Intelligent 

Transportation Systems alongside interstates to building and 

maintenance of recreational rail trails.55 As a result, information about potential joint trenching and conduit deployment 

opportunities should be available and accessible to prospective 

broadband network providers whenever government engages in 

an infrastructure project, subject to security precautions. 

Congress also should consider enacting “dig once” legislation 

to extend similar joint trenching requirements to all rights-ofway projects (including sewers, power transmission facilities, 

rail, pipelines, bridges, tunnels and roads) receiving federal 

funding. 

Recommendation 6.9: Congress should consider expressly authorizing federal agencies to set the fees for access to 

federal rights-of-way on a management and cost recovery 

basis. 

Recommendation 6.10: The Executive Branch should 

develop one or more master contracts to expedite the placement of wireless towers on federal government property 

and buildings.

The federal government is the largest landowner in the 

country—650 million acres, constituting nearly one-third of 

the land area of the United States.56 The federal government’s 

General Services Administration (GSA) also owns or leases 
1 1 6 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

c h a p t e r 6 E n d n o t e s 

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 6

1 Petition for Declaratory Ruling to Clarify Provisions of 

Section 332(c)(7)(B) to Ensure Timely Siting Review and 

to Preempt Under Section 253 State and Local Ordinances 

that Classify All Wireless Siting Proposals as Requiring a 

Variance, WT Docket No. 08-165, Declaratory Ruling, 24 

FCC Rcd 13994 (2009).

2 See Letter from Judith A. Dumont, Director, 

Massachusetts Broadband Initiative, to Marlene H. 

Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 

09-137 (Jan. 8, 2010) (Dumont Jan. 8, 2010 Ex Parte) at 

2 (noting that permitting requirements and procedures 

for rights of way, poles, conduits and towers “are key to 

the efficient and streamlined deployment of broadband,” 

and that difficulties in such access “often prove to be the 

greatest impediment to the efficient, cost-effective, and 

timely deployment of broadband.”).

3 We derive this estimate from several sources. Omnibus

Broadband Initiative, The Broadband Availability Gap. 

(forthcoming) See Letter from Thomas Jones, Counsel 

to FiberNet, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, 

GN Docket No. 09-51, WC Docket No. 07-245 (Sept. 

16, 2009) (FiberNet Sept. 16, 2009 Ex Parte) at 20 

(noting average cost for access to physical infrastructure 

of $4,611–$6,487 per mile); Comment Sought on 

Cost Estimates for Connecting Anchor Institutions to 

Fiber—NBP Public Notice #12, GN Docket Nos. 09-47, 

09-51, 09-137, Public Notice, 24 FCC Rcd 12510 (2009) 

(NBP PN #12) App. A (Gates Foundation estimate of 

$10,500–$21,120 per mile for fiber optic deployment); 

see also Letter from Charles B. Stockdale, Fibertech, to 

Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket Nos. 09-

47, 09-51, 09-137 (Oct. 28, 2009) at 1–2 (estimating costs 

ranging from $3,000–$42,000 per mile).

4 One wireless carrier has cited instances in which it has 

been asked to pay a rental rate of $1,200–$3,000 per 

pole per year. See, e.g., Letter from T. Scott Thompson, 

Counsel for NextG Networks, to Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 07-245, RM-11293, RM11303 (June 27, 2008) Attach. at 11.

5 See, e.g., Am. Cable Ass’n Comments in re National 

Broadband Plan NOI, filed June 8, 2009, at 8–9; 

Amendment of the Commission’s Rules and Policies 

Governing Pole Attachments, WC Docket No. 07-245, 

Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 6453, 6507–08, para. 118 

(2000) (“The Commission has recognized that small 

systems serve areas that are far less densely populated 

areas than the areas served by large operators. A small 

rural operator might serve half of the homes along a road 

with only 20 homes per mile, but might need 30 poles to 

reach those 10 subscribers.”).

6 This analysis assumes that the customer purchases from 

an ILEC that rents all of its poles.

7 NCTA Comments in re American Electric Power Service 

Corp. et al., Petition for Declaratory Ruling that the 

Telecommunications Rate Applies to Cable System 

Pole Attachments Used to Provide Interconnected 

Voice over Internet Protocol Service, WC Docket 

No. 09-154 (filed Aug. 17, 2009) (Pole Attachments 

Petition), filed Sept. 24, 2009, App. B at 8–10; Letter 

from Thomas Jones, Counsel, Time Warner Telecom 

Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC RM11293, RM 11303 (Jan. 16, 2007) Attach., US Telecom 

Comments in re Pole Attachments Petition, filed Sept. 

24, 2009, at 8; George S. Ford et al., Phoenix Ctr., 

The Pricing of Pole Amendment: Implications and

Recommendations 7 (2008); Independent Telephone 

and Telecommunications Alliance (ITTA) Comments in 

re implementation of Section 224 of the Act; Amendment 

of the Commission’s Rules and Policies Governing 

Pole Attachments, WC Docket No. 07–245, Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, 22 FCC Rcd 20195 (2007) (Pole 

Attachments NPRM), filed Mar. 7, 2008. As Pelcovits 

notes, monthly cost assumes 35 poles per mile and a 

30% take rate. NCTA Comments in re Pole Attachments 

Petition, filed Sept. 24, 2009, App. B at 14. Additionally, 

this analysis assumes that all poles are rented by the 

broadband provider and not owned by it.

8 The variation in rates charged to incumbent LECs also can 

arise from the history of pole ownership by the incumbent 

LECs and certain “joint use” agreements that exist between 

some incumbent LECs and electric utilities.

9 See, e.g., Nat’l Cable & Telecom. Ass’n v. Gulf Power Co.,

534 U.S. 327 (2002).

10 See, e.g., Alabama Power Co. v. FCC, 311 F.3d 1357 (11th 

Cir. 2002); FCC v. Florida Power Corp., 480 U.S. 245 

(1987).

11 See, e.g., Letter from Daniel L. Brenner, Counsel, Bright 

House Networks, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, 

FCC, GN Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 09-137 (Jan. 8, 

2010) Attach. at 4; Letter from Daniel L. Brenner, 

Counsel, Bright House Networks, to Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary, FCC, GN Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 09-137 

(Feb. 16, 2010) Attach. (Affidavit of Nick Lenochi) 

(providing example of how application of higher 

telecommunications rate for poles would increase 

expense of deploying Fast Ethernet connections to 

a large school district by $220,000 annually); NCTA 

Comments in re Pole Attachments Petition, filed Sept. 

24, 2009, at 15–17.

12 tw telecom et al. Comments in re NBP Staff Workshops 

PN (The Commission Welcomes Responses to Staff 

Workshops, GN Docket No. 09-51, Public Notice, 24 FCC 

Rcd 11592 (WCB 2009) (NBP Staff Workshops PN)), 

filed Sept. 15, 2009, at 14.

13 FiberNet Sept. 16, 2009 Ex Parte Attachs.; Letter from 

Thomas Jones, Counsel, FiberNet, LLC, to Marlene 

H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 07-245, 

GN Docket No. 09-51 (Nov. 16, 2009) (filed by One 

Communications Corp.) (FiberNet Nov. 16, 2009 

Ex Parte) at 3 (providing cost estimate breakdown). 

Similarly, Fibertech reports that it pays pole owners 

anywhere from $225–$780 

to move a single cable on a pole, even though it estimates 

that it could do the work itself for $60. Fibertech 

Comments in re NBP PN #12, filed Oct. 26, 2009, 

at 2–3; see also Dumont Jan. 8, 2010 Ex Parte at 5–6 

(proposing changes to pole attachment regulations

 so as to “facilitate easier access to existing 

infrastructure,” including reform to the application and 

make-ready process).

14 FiberNet Nov. 16, 2009 Ex Parte Attach. C (providing 

cost estimate breakdown).

15 Letter from Kelley A. Shields, Counsel, Fibertech and 

Kentucky Data Link, Inc. (KDL), to Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary, FCC, GN Docket Nos. 09-51, WC Docket No. 

07-25, RM-11293, RM-11303 (Jan. 7, 2009) Attach. 2 at 2.

16 Letter from Joseph R. Lawhon, Counsel, Georgia 

Power Co., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC 

Docket No. 07-245, GN Docket Nos. 09-29, 09-51 (Nov. 

17, 2009) Attach. B (noting one example covering 294 

poles in Georgia in which the electric utility completed 

its work within 55 days but in which the process of 

coordinating with existing attachers took an additional 5 

months).

17 The FCC has already decided that utilities cannot 

discriminatorily prohibit such techniques when they use 

those techniques themselves. See Salsgiver Commc’ns, 

Inc. v. North Pittsburgh Tel. Co., Memorandum Opinion 

and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 20536, 20543–44 (EB 2007); 

Cavalier Tel. v. Virginia Elec. and Power Co., Order and 

Request for Information, 15 FCC Rcd. 9563, 9572 (EB 

2000). One provider asserts that rules allowing these 

practices more generally in Connecticut has allowed it 

to deploy many more miles of fiber in its Connecticut 

markets. Fibertech & KDL Comments in re Pole 

Attachments NPRM, filed Mar. 25, 2009, at 7–8.

18 Letter from John T. Nakahata, Counsel to Fibertech and 

KDL, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC Docket 

No. 07-245, RM 11293, RM 11303, GN Docket Nos. 09-

29, 09-51 (July 29, 2009) at 7.

19 Implementation of Section 703(e) of the 

Telecommunications Act of 1996; Amendment of 

the Commission’s Rules and Policies Governing Pole 

Attachments, Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 6777, 

6787–88, para. 17 (1998) (1998 Pole Attachment Order).

20 See, e.g., Crown Castle Comments in re Pole 

Attachments NPRM, filed Mar. 11, 2008, at 7 (12 month 

delay); Sunesys Comments in Petition for Rulemaking 

of Fibertech Networks, LLC, RM-11303 (Dec. 7, 

2005) (Fibertech Petition), filed Jan. 30, 2006, at 11 

(15 months); The DAS Forum Comments in re Pole 

Attachments NPRM, filed Mar. 7, 2008, at 11 (3 years); 

T-Mobile Comments in re Pole Attachments NPRM, 

filed Mar. 7, 2008, at 7 (4 years).

21 See, e.g., Fibertech & KDL Comments in re Pole 

Attachments NPRM, filed Mar. 25, 2009, at 4 (describing 

project to construct fiber to three rural school districts 

in Kentucky that KDL was unable to complete because 

of pole access delays); 1998 Pole Attachment Order, 13 

FCC Rcd. at 6788, para. 17 (delays in resolving access 

disputes can “delay a telecommunication’s carrier’s 

ability to provide service and unnecessar[ily] obstruct 

the process”).

22 Order Adopting Policy Statement on Pole Attachments, 

Case 03-M-0432 (New York Pub. Serv. Comm’n 

2004) (New York Timeline Order) (requiring that all 

work be completed in 105 days), available at http://

documents.dps.state.ny.us/public/Common/ViewDoc.

aspx?DocRefId={C0C4902C-7B96-4E20-936B2174CE0621A7}; Review of the State’s Public Service 

Company Utility Pole Make-Ready Procedures, Decision,

Docket No. 07-02-13 (Conn. Dep’t of Pub. Util. Control, 

Apr. 30, 2008) (Connecticut Timeline Order) available at 
F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 1 1 7

c h a p t e r 6 E n d n o t e s 

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 6

http://www.dpuc.state.ct.us/dockhist.nsf/8e6fc37a5411

0e3e852576190052b64d/69ccb9118f035bc38525755a

005df44a/$FILE/070213-043008.doc (90 days or 125 

days when poles must be replaced).

23 See, e.g., Fibertech Comments in re NBP PN #12, filed 

July 21, 2009, Attach. (noting that since implementing 

timelines, in Connecticut it takes pole owners an average 

of 89 days to issue licenses and New York pole owners 

average 100 days for Fibertech’s applications, compared 

to longer intervals elsewhere). 

24 See, e.g., Connecticut Timeline Order; New York Timeline 

Order; Utah Admin. Code § R746-345-3; Vermont Public 

Service Board, Rules 3.708; See also Utility Pole MakeReady Procedures, Docket No. 07-02-13 (Conn. Dep’t of 

Pub. Util. Control, 2008), available at http://www.dpuc.

state.ct.us/dockhist.nsf/8e6fc37a54110e3e8525761900

52b64d/69ccb9118f035bc38525755a005df44a?OpenD

ocument; Sunesys Comments in re National Broadband 

Plan NOI, filed June 8, 2009, at 6 (“By permitting pole 

owners to have an uncapped and unspecified period 

of time in which to issue a permit, many pole owners 

have caused tremendous delays in the process, thereby 

undermining broadband deployment.”); Letter from 

Jacqueline McCarthy, Counsel, Broadband & Wireless 

Pole Attachment Coalition, to Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 07-245 (Feb. 23, 2009) 

at 1–5.

25 Wireless providers assert that negotiations with pole 

owners to attach wireless devices “often face a period 

of years in negotiating pole agreements.” PTIA—The 

Wireless Infrastructure Association & The DAS Forum 

Comments in re National Broadband Plan NOI, filed 

June 8, 2009, at 7. As telecommunications providers, 

wireless providers have the right to attach to poles under 

Section 224 of the Act to provide service.

26 Letter from Joshua Seidemann, Vice President, 

Regulatory Affairs, ITTA, to Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 07-245, RM-11293, WC 

09-154 (Dec. 22, 2009) (ITTA Dec. 22, 2009 Ex Parte) 

at 3 (noting a pole attachment dispute pending before a 

state for five years before the parties settled).

27 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1404–1.1410 (pole attachment 

complaint procedures).

28 See, e.g., ITTA Dec. 22, 2009 Ex Parte at 3 (noting that 

one provider alone deals with 600 separate entities and 

that the “lack of uniform rules, standards, and oversight 

makes negotiating reasonable attachment terms very 

difficult and extremely time consuming”).

29 Fed. Ministry of Econ. & Tech., Gov’t of Germany, The

Federal Government’s Broadband Strategy 12 (2009), 

available at http://www.bmwi.de/English/Redaktion/

Pdf/broadband-strategy,property=pdf,bereich=bmwi,sp

rache=en,rwb=true.pdf. 

30 For example, many pole owners utilize the National Joint 

Utilities Notification System (NJUNS) for maintaining 

and communicating data about their pole infrastructure. 

See generally National Joint Utilities Notification System—

NJUNS, Inc., http://www.njuns.com/NJUNS_Home/

default.htm (last visited Mar. 2, 2010).

31 NCTA Comments in re Pole Attachments Petition, filed 

Sept. 24, 2009, App. B (Declaration of Dr. Michael D. 

Pelcovits) Attach. 2 (Methodology and Sources) at 1–3. 

32 Nineteen states and the District of Columbia 

(representing approximately 45% of the U.S. population) 

have exercised this type of “reverse preemption” and 

have certified that they directly regulate utility-owned 

infrastructure in their regions. See Corrected List of 

States That Have Certified That They Regulate Pole 

Attachments, WC Docket No. 07-245, Public Notice, 

23 FCC Rcd 4878 (WCB 2008). Section 224(a)(1) 

expressly excludes poles owned by cooperatives from 

regulation, an exemption that dates back to 1978. 

According to the National Rural Electric Cooperative 

Association, electric co-operatives own approximately 

42 million poles. Letter from David Predmore, National 

Rural Electric Cooperative Association, to Marlene H. 

Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 

09-137, WC Docket No. 09-245 (Feb. 26, 2010). The 

exclusion of co-operatives from Section 224 regulation 

may impede broadband deployment in rural areas. For 

instance, one small broadband cable company claims 

that it ceased offering service in two rural communities 

in Arkansas because of an increase in pole attachment 

rates by unregulated electric cooperatives that owned 

the poles in those communities. Letter from Bennett 

W. Hooks, Jr., Buford Media Group, LLC, to Bernadette 

McGuire-Rivera, Assoc. Adm’r, Office of Telecom. & 

Info. Admin., Dep’t of Comm. (Apr. 13, 2009) at n.2, 3, 

available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/broadbandgrants/

comments/79C5.pdf.

33 For a review of various approaches to state and local 

rights of way policies, see NTIA, State and Local Rights

of Way Success Stories, available at http://www.ntia.

doc.gov/ntiahome/staterow/ROWstatestories.pdf .

34 In 2003, the NTIA compiled a comprehensive survey 

of state rights-of-way approaches that may be found at 

NTIA, Rights-of-Way Laws by State, http://www.ntia.

doc.gov/ntiahome/staterow/rowtableexcel.htm (last 

visited Feb. 18, 2010). In 2002, the National Association 

of Regulatory Utility Commissions undertook a similar 

project and issued a comprehensive report. See NARUC, 

Promoting Broadband Access Through Public Rightsof-Way and Public Lands (July 31, 2002).

35 See, e.g.,Level 3 Comments in re National Broadband Plan 

NOI, filed Jun. 8, 2009, at 19; Windstream Comments in 

re National Broadband Plan NOI, filed Jun. 8, 2009, at 2; 

Verizon Comments in re National Broadband Plan NOI, 

filed June 8, 2009, at 66; Qwest Comments in re National 

Broadband Plan NOI, filed June 8, 2009, at 27. Sunesys 

urges the FCC to “clarify the standards related to timely 

and reasonably priced access to necessary governmental 

rights of way.” Sunesys Comments in re NBP PN #7 

(Comment Sought on the Contribution of Federal, State, 

Tribal, and Local Government to Broadband—NBP Public 

Notice #7, GN Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 09-137, Public 

Notice, 24 FCC Rcd 12110 (WCB 2009) (NBP PN #7)), 

filed Nov. 6, 2009, at 4.

36 See, e.g., NATOA et al. Reply in re NBP PN #30, (Reply 

Comments Sought in Support of National Broadband 

Plan—NBP Public Notice #30, GN Docket Nos. 09–47, 

09–51, 09–137, Public Notice 25 FCC Rcd 241 (2010) 

(NBP PN #30) filed Jan. 27, 2010, at 12–13; NATOA et 

al. Comments in re NBP PN #7, filed Nov. 7, 2009, at 

46–47; City of New York Comments in re NBP PN #7, 

filed Nov. 6, 2009, at 8; City and County of San Francisco 

Comments in re NBP PN #7, filed Nov. 6, 2009, at 

16–20. But cf. Dumont Jan. 8, 2010 Ex Parte at 2 (noting 

that “difficulties involved in negotiating and gaining 

access to the rights of way often prove to be the greatest 

impediment to the efficient, cost-effective, and timely 

deployment of broadband.”).

37 For example, the Broadband Principles adopted by 

the National Association of Telecommunications 

Officers and Advisors (NATOA), an organization for 

local government agencies, staff and public officials, 

states that “[t]he desired development of high capacity 

broadband networks and broadband services will 

require extensive collaboration among parties: local 

communities, regions, state governments, national 

government, the private sector, interest groups, and 

others.” NATOA et al. Comments in re National 

Broadband Plan NOI, filed Jun. 8, 2009, at 3; see also

Gary Gordier, CIO and IT Director, El Paso, Texas, 

Remarks at the FCC State and Local Government 

Workshop 161 (Sept. 1, 2009) (“There needs to be a lot 

better coordination across all jurisdictional levels to 

economize and share jointly in the infrastructure”), 

available at http://www.broadband.gov/docs/

ws_19_state_and_local.pdf; Ray Baum, Comm’r, Oregon 

Pub. Util. Comm’n, Remarks at FCC State and Local 

Government Workshop 61 (Sept. 1, 2009) (“[W]e have 

a lot of infrastructure out there owned by utilities[,] 

both public and private[,] that sitting there that could be 

better utilized than it is today”); Lori Sherwood, Cable 

Adm’r, Howard County, Maryland, Remarks at the FCC 

State and Local Government Workshop 120 (Sept. 1, 

2009) (“We have an opportunity to do this right and 25 

years from now we don’t want to say that we should have 

done a better job coordinating and talking to each other. 

For development of a national policy, the FCC should 

draw on its decade of government experiences including 

local governance.”).

38 See note 34, supra.

39 See 47 U.S.C. § 253(c).

40 A public record search by FCC Staff revealed that since 

passage of the 1996 Act, the FCC has taken an average of 

661 days to resolve Section 253 disputes filed before it, and 

federal district court litigation of similar disputes has taken 

an average of 580 days to conclude. Disputes often extend 

further through review by courts of appeal, as well.

41 See NATOA et al. Reply in re NBP PN #30, filed Jan. 

27, 2010, at 38 (recommending that the FCC “consider 

creating a special task force” of rights-of-way experts 

that would “catalog federal, state, and local right-of-way 

practices and fees in an effort to identify and articulate 

existing best practices being employed by federal, state, and 

local authorities for different categories of public rights of 

way and infrastructure.”). As proposed by NATOA, the task 

force “could also examine and report to the Commission 

regarding the advantages and disadvantages of alternative 

forms of compensation for use of public rights of way, and 

other rights of way related infrastructure, such as poles and 

conduits.” Id. at 39.
1 1 8 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

c h a p t e r 6 E n d n o t e s 

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 6

42 See NATOA et al. Reply in re NBP PN #30, filed Jan. 27, 

2010, at 38–39.

43 Memorandum on Improving Rights-of-Way 

Management Across Federal Lands to Spur Greater 

Broadband Deployment, 40 Wkly. Comp. Pres. Doc. 696 

(May 3, 2004).

44 Memorandum on Facilitating Access to Federal 

Property for the Siting of Mobile Services Antennas, 31 

Wkly. Comp. Pres. Doc. 1424 (Aug. 10, 1995).

45 See Letter from Thomas Cohen, Counsel for the Fiber 

to the Home Council, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, 

FCC, GN Docket No. 09-51 (Oct. 14, 2009).

46 “Splicing” includes splice kit, installation of splicing 

enclosure, and splicing of fiber. Splice kit is excluded 

from “materials” cost. Cost of construction in joint 

deployment case refers to construction of a single 1-mile, 

2” conduit containing 216-count fiber, when coordinated 

with a road construction project. Additional costs reflect 

the same project independent of road construction. 

Letter from Matthew R. Johnson, Legal Fellow, NATOA, 

to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 

09-51 (Sept. 17, 2009) (attaching Columbia Telecomm. 

Corp. Brief Engineering Assessment: Efficiencies

Available Through Simultaneous Construction And CoLocation Of Communications Conduit And Fiber tbls. 1, 

2 (2009)).

47 Moratoria on re-opening streets for further 

telecommunications facilities could impede broadband 

deployment in certain circumstances.

48 Dep’t of Public Works, City and County of San

Francisco, Order No. 176,707 (rvsd): Regulations for

Excavating and Restoring Streets in San Francisco § 5 

(Mar. 26, 2007), available at http://www.sfgov.org/site/

uploadedfiles/sfdpw/bsm/sccc/DPW_Order_176-707.

pdf; see also City and County of San Francisco 

Department of Public Works, Coordinating Street 

Construction, http://www.sfgov.org/site/sfdpw_page.

asp?id=32429 (last visited Jan. 4, 2010).

49 Pub. Improvement Comm’n, City of Boston, Policy 

Relating to Grants of Location for New Conduit Network 

for the Provision of Commercial Telecommunications 

Services (Aug. 4, 1988), as amended.

50 Hardik V. Bhatt, CIO, City of Chicago, Remarks at 

FCC State and Local Governments: Toolkits and Best 

Practices Workshop (Sept. 1, 2009), available at http://

www.broadband.gov/docs/ws_19_state_and_local.

pdf; see also id. at 94 (“we have now started knowing 

every time a street gets dug up either for putting in a 

traffic signal interconnect, or putting some street light 

interconnects, or maybe a private utility has dug up the 

street, we have an opportunity to see if we could leverage 

that digging up of the street and maybe put conduit or if 

conduit is there to put fiber there”).

51 Gordon Cook, Amsterdam’s Huge FTTH Build, 

Broadband Properties, Sept. 2006, at 68.

52 NATOA et al. Comments in re NBP PN #7, filed Nov. 9, 

2009, App. at 14.

53 Dumont Jan. 8, 2010 Ex Parte at 3.

54 Dumont Jan. 8, 2010 Ex Parte at 4 (recommending 

“a mechanism to ensure that all U.S. Department of 

Transportation projects are deploying conduit, and that 

space is created for four cables”).

55 Dumont Jan. 8, 2010 Ex Parte.

56 United States Department of the Interior, National Atlas 

of the United States, http://www.nationalatlas.gov/

printable/fedlands.html (last visited Jan. 7, 2010).

57 General Services Administration, GSA Properties 

Overview, http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/

ep/contentView.do?contentType=GSA_

OVERVIEW&contentId=8513 (last visited Jan. 7, 2010).

58 Memorandum on Facilitating Access to Federal 

Property for the Siting of Mobile Services Antennas, 31 

Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 1424 (Aug. 10, 1995).

59 See Siting Antennas on Federal Property, 41 C.F.R. §§ 

102-79.70–.100.

60 GSA, GSA’s National Antenna Program Wins Vice 

President Al Gore’s Hammer Award Agency’s National 

Antenna Program Fosters Innovation and Saves Tax 

Dollars, Showing Government Can Work Better and Cost 

Less, GSA #9552 (press release), Jan. 13, 1999 (GSA,

GSA’s National Antenna Program), http://www.gsa.gov/

Portal/gsa/ep/contentView.do?contentType=GSA_

BASIC&contentId=9125.

61 GSA, GSA’s National Antenna Program. These facts have 

been confirmed via follow-up e-mails and conversations 

with GSA.

62 NTIA, Improving Rights-of-Way Management Across

Federal Lands: A Roadmap for Greater Broadband

Deployment 31–33, available at http://www.ntia.doc.

gov/reports/fedrow/frowreport (discussing applicable 

statutes and agency procedures). For example, the 

Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976, which 

applies to the Department of Interior Bureau of Land 

Management and National Forest Service, requires that 

“fair market value, as determined by the Secretary.” 43 

U.S.C. § 1764(g). In addition, OMB Circular A-25 (rvsd), 

§ 6(a)(2)(b) requires that agencies assess “user charges 

based on market prices,” although exceptions can be 

granted.
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 7

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 1 1 9

RESEARCH AND

DEVELOPMENT

c h a p t e r 7

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 7

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 1 2 1

In the 1970s, research funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and later the National Science Foundation (NSF) was an important part of the development of the 

Internet. In the late 20th century, American companies led in the development of digital 

switching technologies, optical communications, cellular communications, Internet hardware and Internet applications. Federal investments in research and development, coupled 

with private firms’ innovative research and product development, have led to the robust 

broadband ecosystem users enjoy today. Such investments have also made possible the 

creation of multibillion-dollar companies that are global leaders in networking, search and 

other Internet-based businesses.1

This R&D activity drove innovation and productivity gains, 

which aided economic growth. The National Research Council 

found that in the case of information technology (IT), “The 

unanticipated results of research are often as important as the 

anticipated results,” “The interaction of research ideas multiplies their impact,” and “Past returns on federal investment 

in IT research have been extraordinary for both United States 

society and the United States economy.”2

America’s top research universities and laboratories 

continue this R&D effort today in their experiments with 

very fast 1 Gbps networks (gigabit networks). For example, 

Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, with 40 

institutional partners, vendors and community organizations, 

is planning a University Circle Innovation Zone in the economically impoverished area around the university to provide 

households, schools, libraries and museums with gigabit fiber 

optic connections.3

 Case Western expects this network to 

create jobs in the community and spawn software and service development for Smart Grid, health, science and other 

applications, as well as foster technology, engineering and 

mathematics education services.4

The private sector continues to invest in high-speed networks, 

as revealed in several recent announcements during the course of 

the National Broadband Plan proceeding. Google has announced 

a plan to provide 50,000 to 500,000 consumers in a small number 

of test communities with gigabit connections.5

 And Cisco Systems 

is deploying a telemedicine pilot solution to 15 medical sites in 

California to spur e-health application development.6

All of these efforts aim to accelerate the pace of innovation 

by placing next-generation technology in the hands of individuals and entrepreneurs, and allowing them to discover the 

best uses for it. Very fast networks may lead to unanticipated 

discoveries that will change how people connect, work, learn, 

play and contribute online. 

The federal government must continue to do its part to 

foster the development of research networks and wireless 

testbeds through a clear R&D funding agenda that is focused 

on broadband networks, equipment, services and applications. 

These efforts should include expanding access to ultra-highspeed connectivity through regulatory policy and direct action 

in communities where the federal government has a long-term 

presence, such as Department of Defense (DoD) installations. 

The broadband ecosystem—networks, devices and applications—has benefited from research breakthroughs in a broad 

variety of areas such as networking, software, semiconductors, material sciences, applied mathematics, construction and 

engineering. Advancement in all these fields and many others is 

essential for continued innovation and improvement. For U.S. 

companies to continue to be leaders in high-value areas of the 

global broadband ecosystem, they must continue to generate 

and benefit from scientific innovation.

Although measuring the effects of R&D is difficult, studies 

find that firms earn 20% to 30% returns on their investments.7

R&D returns to society are even higher as innovators beyond 

original research teams are able to access research and take 

work in new directions.8

 The gap between R&D returns for 

private companies and those for society presents a challenge 

for funding and conducting R&D.9

Government can help fill the R&D investment gap by funding research that would yield net benefits to society but that 

would not earn sufficient returns to be privately profitable.10

This approach should include funding for direct research, for 

R&D at universities and other institutions, and for subsidizing 

private R&D through mechanisms such as the R&D tax credit.11

Alongside direct funding, the government can take an active role 

in creating new next-generation applications and uses by linking 

DoD locations with ultra-high-speed broadband connectivity.

The federal government needs to create a clear agenda 

and priorities for broadband-related R&D funding, focused 

on important research that would not be conducted absent 

government intervention. The government can also promote 

R&D through regulatory policies allowing increased use of 
1 2 2 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 7

government resources. Examples include establishing research 

centers or allowing access to spectrum in order to evaluate new 

technologies in ways that theoretical studies and simulations 

do not support.

RECOMMENDATIONS

➤ The government should focus broadband R&D funding on 

projects with varied risk-return profiles, including a mix 

of short-term and long-term projects (e.g., those lasting 5 

years or longer). 

➤ Congress should consider making the Research and Experimentation (R&E) tax credit a long-term tax credit to 

stimulate broadband R&D.

➤ The federal government should provide ultra-high-speed 

broadband connectivity to select DoD installations to 

enable the development of next-generation broadband applications. 

➤ The National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering (National Academies) should develop a 

research road map to guide federal R&D funding priorities.

➤ NSF should establish an open, multi-location, interdisciplinary research center for broadband, addressing technology, policy and economics. Center priorities should be 

driven by the agenda identified in the National Academies 

research road map.

➤ NSF, in consultation with the Federal Communications 

Commission (FCC), should consider funding a wireless 

testbed for promoting the science underlying spectrum 

policymaking and a testbed for evaluating the network security needed to provide a secure broadband infrastructure. 

➤ The FCC should start a rulemaking process to establish 

more flexible experimental licensing rules for spectrum and 

facilitate the use of this spectrum by researchers. 

Some high-risk, high-return R&D initiatives or projects requiring sustained, long-term collaboration across highly diverse 

fields may be underfunded by the private sector. Federal research 

funding should close any potential gaps due to private sector riskreward expectations or inability to coordinate and cooperate.

Recommendation 7.1: The government should focus 

broadband R&D funding on projects with varied risk-return profiles, including a mix of short-term and long-term 

projects (e.g., those lasting 5 years or longer). 

In September, the White House Office of Science and 

Technology Policy (OSTP) found that, in regards to R&D 

policy, “[a] short-term focus has neglected fundamental investments.”12 The National Research Council’s report, Renewing 

U.S. Telecommunications Research, states, “Long-term, fundamental research aimed at breakthroughs has declined in favor 

of shorter-term, incremental and evolutionary projects whose 

purpose is to enable improvements in existing products and 

services. This evolutionary work is aimed at generating returns 

within a couple of years to a couple of months and not at addressing the needs of the telecommunications industry as a 

whole in future decades.”13

Similarly, in FCC workshops, researchers repeatedly noted 

that, like industry funding, federal funding is now focused 

more on short-term work than on long-term fundamental 

research projects.14

The academic community also noted the lack of funding 

for research that has a high probability of failure, even when 

success would lead to significant advances in technology. 

Researchers have indicated that the current review process for 

government research grants takes a conservative approach to 

project review and more risky projects are rarely funded.15

Recommendation 7.2: Congress should consider making 

the Research and Experimentation (R&E) tax credit a longterm tax credit to stimulate broadband R&D.

A number of economic studies have shown that R&D tax incentives are a cost-effective way to spur private sector research 

and investment. These types of tax incentives may help move 

the United States toward the goal of developing and building 

world-class broadband networks.

The Research and Experimentation tax credit, established 

in the 1980s, stimulated about $2 billion in research per year 

while costing about $1 billion in lost tax revenue.16 Bronwyn 

Hall has estimated that a permanent 5% R&E tax credit would 

lead to a permanent increase in R&D spending of 10% to 

15%. Similarly, Klassen, Pittman and Reed have found that 

R&D tax incentives stimulate $2.96 of additional R&D investment for every dollar of lost tax revenue.17

The long-term R&E tax credit applies broadly across and 

will benefit many industries.

Recommendation 7.3: The federal government should 

provide ultra-high-speed broadband connectivity to select 

DoD installations to enable the development of next-generation broadband applications. 

The nation’s military installations “are the platforms from 

which America’s military capability is generated, deployed and 

sustained.”18 These installations house, train, educate and support tens of thousands of service personnel and their families.19

There is no doubt that the nation’s military personnel deserve 

to have access to the latest technology, the most resilient and 

cost-effective methods of communications and services, and 

ultra-high-speed broadband connectivity.
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 7

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 1 2 3

As a start, DoD, in consultation with OSTP, should consider 

expanding the deployment of ultra-high-speed connectivity to a 

select number of DoD installations in a manner consistent with 

the missions and operational requirements of the Armed Forces.

DoD installations are ideal communities for ultra-highspeed broadband due to their scale and the variety of services 

they provide to military personnel and their families. Expanded 

access to ultra-high-speed connectivity will further enable 

educational applications such as advanced distance learning. 

In addition, base personnel will have greater access to distance 

learning content from military staff colleges to better prepare 

the them to be the next generation of officers, while enhanced 

distance post-secondary offerings can smooth the transitions of 

those looking for new careers in civilian life.

Typical base medical facilities treat thousands of soldiers, 

retirees and their families every year. Next-generation health 

applications, such as high-definition video consultations and 

continuous remote monitoring of patients, can improve quality 

of care for these patients. 

Bases are also intense users of energy. DoD is the nation’s 

single largest energy user, accounting for nearly 1% of all energy 

consumed by the United States in FY2006.20 Broadband capability and advanced information services allow deployment of 

Smart Grid and smart meter technologies. If deployed on military 

installations, these technologies would facilitate improved power 

management that will reduce energy consumption, allow for 

incorporating more renewable generation on site and enable new 

continuity of operations capabilities like micro-grids.21

Because of bases’ large population under the age of 25, 

including families and children, increased access to ultra-highspeed Internet would act as a catalyst for the development of 

increasingly sophisticated applications that would support 

military personnel and their families. Indeed, as these applications evolve, DoD installations would be showcases for 

advanced educational, training and other uses of broadband. 

The first step in implementing this idea should be a task 

force led by DoD, with consultation from OSTP. This task 

force should make recommendations on installation selection, 

level of connectivity and potentially, next-generation applications—both commercial and military—that could be deployed 

to these installations. The task force must consider a variety of 

requirements in order to prevent adverse operational impact 

to force readiness. These requirements include information 

assurance, integration and governance with existing commercial and DoD networking capability, non-federal spectrum 

availability, identification of funding sources and a cost-benefit 

analysis. In selecting the initial sites, the task force should also 

explore whether this program should work in conjunction with 

DoD’s existing “green bases” effort. DoD would of course retain 

operational control of the project to ensure that the technology 

and services deployed are consistent with the missions of the 

Armed Forces, and may terminate the project at any time based 

on mission impacts, capabilities delivered and cost. 

Recommendation 7.4: The National Academy of Sciences 

and the National Academy of Engineering (National Academies) should develop a research road map to guide federal 

broadband R&D funding priorities.

The National Academies, which gather committees of 

experts across scientific and technological endeavors to offer 

advice to the federal government and the public,22 should take 

the lead in developing a research road map to guide federal 

broadband R&D funding priorities. The road map should 

identify gaps, critical issues, competitive shortfalls and key 

opportunities in areas associated directly or indirectly with 

broadband networks, devices or applications. It should leverage the input of public and private stakeholder communities. 

Additionally, the President’s Council of Advisors on Science 

and Technology, an advisory group of the nation’s leading scientists and engineers, as well as the FCC’s Technology Advisory 

Committee might play key advisory roles.23

Input from the Broadband Research Public Notice and 

Workshop24 identified the following potential research priorities, which are summarized as input to the National Academies:

➤ Breakthroughs in network price/performance. Increasing 

price/performance and lowering unit costs fuel the computer industry. Research is needed to enable similar price/

performance improvements in wired and wireless networks 

to make truly high-speed broadband more affordable. 

Closing gaps to achieve these breakthroughs may require 

research in networking, materials science, optics, semiconductors, electromagnetism, construction engineering and 

other fields.

➤ Communications research to support national purposes. In 

the Recovery Act, Congress defined key national purposes 

that broadband should support. Multi-disciplinary, government-funded communications research may be required to 

ensure progress in accessibility, health care, energy management, education and public safety networks. 

➤ Social science and economic research on broadband adoption 

and usage. Lack of adoption is a larger barrier to universal 

broadband than lack of availability. Moreover, usage and 

acceptance of broadband varies greatly across population 

segments and the sources of this variation are not well 

understood. Social science and economic research may help 

explain the reasons underlying broadband non-adoption, as 

well as network evolution and its impact on the user.

➤ Secure, trustworthy and reliable broadband infrastructure. 

The vast complexity of today’s networks has created massive vulnerabilities to security at the same time that society 
1 2 4 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 7

has become increasingly dependent on these networks. 

Research is needed to improve the trustworthiness, security 

and reliability of these networks, the devices that attach to 

them and the software and applications they support. This 

is critical to continued growth of networks and applications.

➤ Broadband network measurement and management. Research is needed to provide the tools to measure network 

operations and to gain a better understanding of the Internet’s “health.”

Enabling new service models. Continued exponential 

improvements in processing power and storage, coupled with 

broadband networking, are enabling both new applications 

and more cost-effective means of providing those applications. 

Research is needed to support development of new architectures and operational breakthroughs in emerging issue areas 

like cloud computing, content distribution networks, content 

centered networks, network virtualization, social applications 

and online personal content—as well as topics of study that 

remain nascent.

Recommendation 7.5: NSF should establish an open, multilocation, interdisciplinary research center for areas related 

to broadband, addressing technology, policy and economics. 

Center priorities should be driven by the agenda identified in 

the National Academies research road map.

Creating new technologies often involves interdisciplinary 

collaboration. In networking, for example, scientists in fields 

such as dynamic spectrum access, robust wireless networking 

and applications might need to work together to develop breakthrough solutions.25

The NSF should consider establishing an interdisciplinary 

research center for broadband networking, devices, applications and enabling technologies. Such a center could be 

modeled on the Engineering Research Centers (ERCs) that the 

NSF established in 1984. ERCs are partnerships among universities, technology-based industries and the NSF that focus on 

integrated engineering systems and produce technological innovations that strengthen the competitive position of industry. 

They currently operate in a number of fields such as biotechnology, energy and microelectronics. The NSF funds each ERC 

for 10 years, and most centers become self-sustaining.26

Only 2 of the existing ERCs touch on broadband networking, 

and their current research is limited to optical technologies and 

integrated microsensor networks. The NSF should establish a 

broadband networking research center in partnership with the 

FCC. The involvement of the FCC, as the government’s expert 

agency on telecommunications, would help assure that the ERC 

agenda includes topics that are relevant to broadband policy.

The research center could illustrate what can be 

accomplished by connecting multiple, geographically dispersed 

physical research centers through very-high-speed optical 

wavelength networking. Examples of such connectivity include 

Internet2 and National LambdaRail in the United States and 

SURFnet in the Netherlands.27 As a platform for research and 

innovation, the center ought to collaborate with private research 

centers, academic research networks and the gigabit community 

testbeds referenced above that are being constructed by industry and the non-profit sector. The center should practice open 

research, and the networks connecting these locations should 

adhere to open network principles as defined by the FCC.28

The research center should be broadly interdisciplinary 

so that it can address not only the technical issues raised by 

broadband, but also the economic and policy issues it raises. 

Researchers should include not only technologists such as engineers, computer scientists and physicists, but also economists 

and other social scientists. Bringing together a large number of 

diverse researchers should allow the center to work on projects 

of a larger scale than is typical under NSF grants. 

Recommendation 7.6: NSF, in consultation with the FCC, 

should fund both a wireless testbed for promoting the science underlying spectrum policymaking and a testbed for 

evaluating the network security needed to provide a secure 

broadband infrastructure.

Spectrum (along with fiber) will be critical to the effective operation of future communications networks. However, 

there is uncertainty about how spectrum can be most efficiently and innovatively used in such networks. Wireless 

testbeds could be valuable tools to develop the science to 

support modern spectrum policy principles, which could 

guide FCC rulemaking on spectrum matters. For example, 

today there is uncertainty about how best to establish technical rules for exclusive spectrum, unlicensed spectrum and 

shared spectrum. Wireless testbeds can permit empirical 

assessment of radio systems and the complex interactions 

of spectrum users, which are nearly impossible to assess 

through simulation or analytical methods. As a result, they 

can reveal a great deal about how sharing can best be facilitated, how spectrum rights might be established, and the 

impact of dynamic spectrum access radios on existing and 

future communications services. 

A request for proposal should be made to build and assess a 

network testbed that is sufficiently secure. With sensitive information about almost all Americans available in computerized 

databases and with the recent growth of electronic commerce, 

cybersecurity has become a vital issue. Many of the tools exist 

for building secure networks, but from an end-to-end systems 

perspective, difficult problems remain to be solved (particularly those that cross technical and non-technical disciplines).29
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 7

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 1 2 5

Recommendation 7.7: The FCC should start a rulemaking 

process to establish more flexible experimental licensing 

rules for spectrum and facilitate the use of this spectrum 

by researchers.

For the most part, spectrum is lightly used outside major urban areas. This holds true for prime frequency bands 

such as 800 MHz cellular and 1850–1990 MHz Personal 

Communications Services. In non-prime frequency bands such 

as those above 20 GHz, use may be modest even in major urban 

areas and limited or nonexistent in most other areas. Allowing 

research organizations such as universities greater flexibility 

to temporarily use fallow spectrum can promote more efficient 

and innovative communications systems. 

Currently, there are restrictions on market trials conducted 

under experimental authorizations.30 The FCC, building 

on relevant ideas from the Wireless Innovation Notice of 

Inquiry,31 should evaluate whether regulatory restrictions 

should be relaxed to permit research organizations to conduct 

broader market studies. Similarly, such organizations could be 

permitted to operate experimental stations without individual 

coordination of frequencies, conditioned on not causing harmful interference to authorized stations. Such a program could 

allow the FCC to work cooperatively with research organizations to identify topics and frequency bands for further study 

and to learn about new wireless technologies.

To facilitate the use of spectrum by researchers, the FCC 

should work with the National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration (NTIA) to identify underutilized 

spectrum that may be suitable for conducting research activities. It should also conduct workshops with NTIA to advance 

research activities involving spectrum use.
1 2 6 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 7

c h a p t e r 7 E n d n o t e s 

1 Nat’l Research Council, Innovation in Information

Technology 5–7 (2003).

2 See Nat’l Research Council, Innovation in Information

Technology 2–3 (2003). 

3 Case Western Reserve University, A Smarter Region 

One Neighborhood at a Time: University Circle 

Innovation Zone 2 (University Circle Innovation Zone), 

http://www.case.edu/its/publication/documents/

BetaBlockPublic030210.pdf (last visited Mar. 4, 2010).

4 University Circle Innovation Zone at 6.

5 Minnie Ingersoll & James Kelly, Think Big with a Gig: 

Our Experimental Fiber Network, The Official Google

Blog, Feb. 10, 2010 (Ingersoll & Kelly, Think Big with a 

Gig), http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/thinkbig-with-gig-our-experimental.html.

6 Cisco, Cisco and Molina Healthcare Announce 

Transformative Telemedicine Pilot Program for 

Underserved and Underinsured Communities (press 

release), Jan. 15, 2010, http://newsroom.cisco.com/

dlls/2010/prod_011510b.html.

7 Bronwyn H. Hall et al., Measuring the Returns to R&D

(Nat’l Bur. of Econ. Res. Working Paper No. 16522, 

2009), available at http://www.nber.org/papers/w15622

(requires purchase).

8 David B. Audretsch & Maryann Feldman, R&D Spillovers 

and the Geography of Innovation and Production, 86 Am. 

Econ. Rev. 630 (1996).

9 A recent study prepared for the Technology 

Administration of the Department of Commerce noted 

the “persuasive research that shows that innovation 

drives economic growth and that the private sector 

will tend to underinvest in R&D, as the social value for 

innovation will outstrip private value.” George S. Ford

et al., Valley of Death in the Innovation Sequence: 

An Economic Investigation 2 (2007) (Ford et al., 

Valley of Death), available at http://www.ntis.gov/

pdf/ValleyofDeathFinal.pdf. However, diffusion of 

basic research discoveries is not automatic—the study 

notes that government R&D efforts must be cognizant 

of and overcome “the roadblocks that may exist in 

the innovation process between basic research and 

commercialization.” Id.

10 Ford et al., Valley of Death at 11–14. This seminal 

insight was first provided by Nobel Laureate economist 

Kenneth J. Arrow. Kenneth J. Arrow, Economic Welfare 

and the Allocation of Resources for Invention, in The Rate

and Direction of Inventive Activity 609–25 (1962); 

see also Stephen Martin & John T. Scott, The Nature of 

Innovation and Market Failure and the Design of Public 

Support for Private Innovation, 29 Res. Pol’y 437, 438 

(2000); Scott Wallsten, The Effects of GovernmentIndustry R&D Programs on Private R&D: The Case of the 

Small Business Innovation Research Program, 31 RAND

J. Econ. 82 (2000). 

11 See, e.g., Bronwyn Hall, The Private and Social Returns 

to Research and Development: What Have We Learned?,

in Technology, R&D, and the Economy 140 (L.R. Smith 

& Claude E. Barfield eds., 1996); Paul David et al., Is 

Public R&D a Complement or Substitute for Private 

R&D? A Review of the Econometric Evidence, 29 Res. 

Pol’y 497 (2000).

12 See Office of Sci. & Tech. Pol’y, Exec. Office of the Pres., 

AStrategy For American Innovation: Driving Towards

Sustainable Growth And Quality Jobs 1 (2009), available 

at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/

microsites/20090920-innovation-whitepaper.PDF.

13 See Nat’l Res. Council, Renewing U.S. 

Telecommunications 23 (2006), available at 

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_

id=11711&page=23.

14 See, e.g., Adam Drobot, CTO & Pres., Advanced 

Tech. Solutions, Telcordia Techs., Remarks at FCC 

Research Recommendations for the Broadband Task 

Force Workshop (Nov. 23, 2009), available at http://

broadband.gov/docs/ws_research_bb/ws_research_bb_

transcript.pdf.

15 See, e.g., David Clark, Senior Research Scientist, MIT, 

Remarks at FCC Research Recommendations for the 

Broadband Task Force Workshop (Nov. 23, 2009), 

available at http://broadband.gov/docs/ws_research_

bb/ws_research_bb_transcript.pdf.

16 Bronwyn Hall, R&D Tax Policy During the Eighties: 

Success or Failure? (NBER Working Paper No. 4240, 

1993). Nat’l Bur. of Econ. Res.

17 Kenneth J. Klassen et al., A Cross-National Comparison 

of R&D Expenditure Decisions: Tax Incentives and 

Financial Constraints. 21 Contemp. Acct. Res. 639 

(2003).

18 Statement of Mr. Wayne Arny, Deputy Undersecretary 

of Defense (Installations and Environment) Before 

the Subcommittee on Military Construction, 

Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies of the House 

Appropriations Committee (May 19, 2009), at 2.

19 As noted in the 2007 Defense Installations Strategic 

Plan, this support is a “long-term, day-to-day 

commitment to deliver quality training, modern and 

well-maintained weapons and equipment, a safe, secure 

and productive workplace, a healthy environment, and 

good living conditions” for service personnel and their 

families. U.S. Department of Defense, 2007 Defense 

Installations Strategic Plan, 10 (2007), available at: 

http://www.acq.osd.mil/ie/download/DISP2007_final.

pdf.

20 Department of Defense, Facilities and Vehicles Energy 

Use, Strategies, and Goals, May 11, 2009.

21 Also known as “islanding,” micro-grids are the concept of 

a base being able to disconnect from the grid and operate 

using only local renewable power and other on-base 

generation.

22 See The National Academies, About The National 

Academies, http://www.nationalacademies.org/about

(last visited Feb. 18, 2010).

23 See The White House, Office of Science and Technology 

Policy: About OSTP, http://www.whitehouse.gov/

administration/eop/ostp/about (last visited Feb. 18, 

2010).

24 See FCC Research Recommendations for the Broadband 

Taskforce Workshop (Nov. 23, 2009), available at

http://www.broadband.gov/docs/ws_research_bb/

ws_research_bb_transcript.pdf.

25 See Charles Bostian, Alumni Distinguished Professor, 

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 

Remarks at FCC Research Recommendations for the 

Broadband Task Force Workshop (Nov. 23, 2009), 

available at http://broadband.gov/docs/ws_research_

bb/ws_research_bb_transcript.pdf.

26 Note that total funding for the individual ERCs from all 

sources in 2009 ranged from $4.1 to $8.8 million. Nat’l

Science Found., Engineering Research Centers: Linking

Discovery to Innovation (2009), available at http://

www.erc-assoc.org/factsheets/ERC%20Overview%20

Fact%20Sheet_09-final.pdf.

27 See Internet2 Home, http://www.internet2.edu/

(last visited Mar. 4, 2010); LambdaRail Home, http://

www.nlr.net/ (last visited Mar. 4, 2010) (“National 

LambdaRail (NLR) is the innovation network for 

research and education. NLR’s 12,000 mile, nationwide, 

advanced optical network infrastructure supports many 

of the world’s most demanding scientific and network 

research projects.”). For a description of a number of 

research and education networks in the United States, 

see U.S. R&E Networks Comments in re NBP PN # 22, 

(Comment Sought on research Necessary for Broadband 

Leadership—NBP PN #22, GN Docket Nos. 09–47, 

09–51, 09–137, Public Notice, 24 FCC Rcd 13820 (2009) 

(NBP PN #22)) filed Dec. 8, 2009, at 2–10 (describing 

Internet2, NLR, CENIC, FLR, GPN, GlobalNOC, 

MAX, MCNC/NCREN, MCAN, NYSERNet, OARnet, 

OSHEAN, PNWGP, The Quilt, 3ROX, and UEN); 

SURFnet, About SURFnet: Mission, http://www.surfnet.

nl/en/organisatie/Pages/Mission.aspx (last visited 

Mar. 4, 2010) (“It is SURFnet’s mission to facilitate 

groundbreaking education and research through 

innovative network services. SURFnet combines the 

demand of the institutions connected to SURFnet. In 

doing so we create advantages of scale, innovation and 

collaboration from which they benefit. The SURFnet 

network services comprise five focus areas: Network 

infrastructure, Security, Authentication & authorisation, 

Group communication and Multimedia distribution.”).

28 See Digital Connections Council, Comm. for Econ. Dev., 

Harnessing Openness to Improve Research, Teaching, 

and Leaning in Higher Education (2009).

29 TIA states that “[s]trengthening the robustness and 

resilience of our broadband networks is necessary not 

only to protect against attacks, but also to reduce the 

current drag on productivity caused by malware and 

attacks.” Letter from Carolyn Holmes Lee, Dir., Legis. & 

Gov’t Aff., TIA, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, 

GN Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 09-137 (Dec. 18, 2009), 

App. at 2; see also Subcomm. on Networking & Info. Tech. 

Res. & Dev., Nat’l Sci. & Tech.Council, The Information

Technology Research and Development Program: 

Supplement to the President’s Budget for Fiscal Year

2010, at 6–9 (2009).

30 See 47 C.F.R. § 5.93 (2008). These limitations affect the 

size and scope of the marketing trial, as well as restrict 

ownership of equipment used in the trial to the licensee.

31 See Fostering Innovation and Investment in the Wireless 

Communications Market; A National Broadband Plan 

For Our Future, GN Docket Nos. 09-51, 09-157, Notice of 

Inquiry, 24 FCC Rcd 11322 (2009).
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n P a r t II

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d PLAN 1 2 7

PART II—

INCLUSION

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n P a r t II

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d PLAN 1 2 9

Access to broadband is the latest challenge to equal opportunity, but it also offers new and innovative avenues to achieve 

it. Broadband can be a platform for significant economic, 

cultural and social transformation, overcoming distance and 

transcending the limitations of one’s physical surroundings. 

Americans can use broadband to take online classes and read 

digital textbooks. They can utilize broadband to make and 

maintain community connections and obtain information 

about their health care. They can use broadband to bank, shop 

and apply for jobs. In these many ways, broadband can help 

create opportunity.

Yet approximately 100 million people in the United States 

do not use broadband at home.2

 Some of these Americans do 

not see the need for the technology; they may not value the 

extra speed broadband delivers or do not think it is relevant to 

their day-to-day lives. And some will never choose to subscribe 

to broadband, just as a small percentage of Americans do not 

see the need for television or telephone service. 

But for others, lack of broadband is not a simple choice. 

More than 14 million Americans do not have access to broadband infrastructure that can support today’s applications. 

Some cannot afford broadband service or the cost of a computer. Some lack the basic skills needed to take advantage of 

broadband. Still others may only get service via satellite. 

The cost of this digital exclusion is large and growing. For 

individuals, the cost manifests itself in the form of lost opportunities. As more aspects of daily life move online and 

offline alternatives disappear, the range of choices available to 

people without broadband narrows. Digital exclusion compounds inequities for historically marginalized groups. People 

with low incomes, people with disabilities, racial and ethnic 

minorities, people living on Tribal lands and people living in 

rural areas are less likely to have broadband at home. Digital 

exclusion imposes inefficiencies on our society as one-third of 

Americans carry out tasks by means that take more time, effort 

and resources than if they had used broadband. Since government agencies must maintain both offline and online systems 

for transactions, many government services are not as effective 

or efficient as they could be.3

Like the costs of poverty, it is difficult to quantify the costs 

of digital inequality. It is certain, however, that people will not 

experience the promised benefits of broadband—increased 

earning potential, enhanced connections with friends and 

family, improved health and a superior education—without a 

connection. 

Some of the recommendations in Part I of this plan 

(Innovation and Investment) discussed improving the economics of deploying and upgrading networks, both in unserved and 

served areas. More spectrum for wireless broadband, reducing 

the cost and complexity of access to utility poles and rights-ofway, ensuring fair prices in the wholesale market for backhaul 

service and implementing policies to stimulate broadband 

demand will ultimately push the network farther into unserved 

areas. Unfortunately, this will not finish the job of connecting 

people to broadband, since many areas of the country are just 

too expensive to serve without government support. 

Part II (Inclusion) makes recommendations to ensure that 

any American who wants to subscribe to broadband can get 

the service. Chapter 8 sets a path to providing broadband to all 

Americans by extending the network through public investment in privately owned infrastructure. Chapter 9 examines 

the barriers many Americans face in adopting broadband—such 

as cost, digital literacy and relevance—and considers specific 

programs to reduce these barriers.

At stake is the equality of opportunity on which America was 

built. The nation needs to provide everyone with the opportunity to join the world that broadband is helping reshape. 

Equality of opportunity is a fundamental principle of American democracy. For too 

long, the geographic limitations of one’s life have determined access to many critical resources—

employment, schools and services. Too often, we can predict the outcome of children’s lives 

by the ZIP code in which they live.1 People are shut out from economic and social opportunity 

by blighted neighborhoods, lack of sustainable employment and failing schools—excluded 

from making informed choices about their family’s future. 

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n P a r t II

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d PLAN 1 3 1

P a r t I I E n d n o t e s 

1 See generally Susan Mayer, What Money Can’t Buy: 

Family Income and Children’s Life Chances (1997).

2 John Horrigan, Broadband Adoption and Use in 

America (OBI Working Paper No. 1, 2010); Omnibus

Broadband Initiative, The Broadband Availability Gap

(forthcoming). See U.S. Census Bureau, USA, http://

quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html (last 

visited Feb. 26, 2010) (providing general population 

numbers).

3 Toby Bell, Gartner Res., Success Factors Emerge

from e-Forms Engagement for U.S. Army 3 (2008) 

(“The Army estimates that moving nearly 2,400 

forms online will save $1.3 billion each year.”). (The 

National Broadband Plan contains several references 

to Gartner. The Gartner Report(s) described herein, 

(the “Gartner Report(s)”) represent(s) data, research 

opinion or viewpoints published, as part of a syndicated 

subscription service, by Gartner, Inc. (“Gartner”), and 

are not representations of fact. Each Gartner Report 

speaks as of its original publication date and the 

opinions expressed in the Gartner Report(s) are subject 

to change without notice.) IRS, Advancing E-File Study: 

Phase 1 Report—Executive Summary, v1.3, Case No. 

08-1063, Doc. No. 0206.0209, at 13 (2008), available 

at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/irs_advancing_efile_study_phase_1_executive_summary_v1_3.pdf; Jill R. 

Aitoro, IRS Continues to Pay Millions to Process Paper 

Tax Returns, NextGov, Sept. 23, 2009, http://www.

nextgov.com/nextgov/ng_20090923_7490.php. 

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 8

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d PLAN 1 3 3

AVAILABILITY

c h a p t e r 8

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 8

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d PLAN 1 3 5

Everyone in the United States today should have access to broadband services supporting 

a basic set of applications that include sending and receiving e-mail, downloading Web pages, 

photos and video, and using simple video conferencing.1

Ensuring all people have access to broadband requires the 

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to set a national 

broadband availability target to guide public funding. An 

initial universalization target of 4 Mbps of actual download 

speed and 1 Mbps of actual upload speed, with an acceptable 

quality of service for interactive applications, would ensure 

universal access.2

This represents a speed comparable to what the typical 

broadband subscriber receives today, and what many consumers are likely to use in the future, given past growth rates.3

While the nation aspires to higher speeds as described in 

Chapter 2, it should direct public investment toward meeting 

this initial target. 

A universalization target of 4 Mbps download and 1 Mbps 

upload is aggressive. It is one of the highest universalization 

targets of any country in the world. Many nations, such as 

South Korea and Finland, have already adopted short-term 

download targets around 1 Mbps (see Exhibit 8-A). Over time, 

these targets, both in the United States and abroad, will continue to rise.

It is possible the speed requirements for the most common 

applications will grow faster than they have historically. But it 

is also possible compression technology or shifts in customer 

usage patterns will slow the growth of bandwidth needs. To 

account for this uncertainty, the FCC should review and reset 

this target for public investment every four years.5

RECOMMENDATIONS

The FCC should conduct a comprehensive reform of 

universal service and intercarrier compensation in three 

stages to close the broadband availability gap.

Stage One: Lay the foundation for reform (2010–2011)

➤ The FCC should improve Universal Service Fund (USF) 

performance and accountability.

➤ The FCC should create the Connect America Fund (CAF).

➤ The FCC should create the Mobility Fund. 

➤ The FCC should design new USF funds in a tax-efficient 

manner to minimize the size of the gap. 

Exhibit 8-A:

Universalization 

Goals in Selected 

Countries4

Country

“Universal” availability 

target (download) Type of speed Date

United States 4 Mbps Actual 2020

South Korea 1 Mbps (99%) Actual 2008

Finland 1 Mbps Actual 2009

Australia 0.5 Mbps Unspecified 2010

Denmark 0.5 Mbps Unspecified 2010

Ireland 1 Mbps Unspecified 2010

France 0.5 Mbps Unspecified 2010

Germany 1 Mbps Unspecified 2010

United Kingdom 2 Mbps Unspecified 2012

Australia 12 Mbps Unspecified 2018

National Broadband Availability Target 

Every household and business location in America should 

have access to affordable broadband service with the following 

characteristics:

• Actual download speeds of at least 4 Mbps and actual 

upload speeds of at least 1 Mbps 

• An acceptable quality of service for the most common 

interactive applications 

The FCC should review and reset this target every four years.

BOX 8-1:
1 3 6 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 8

➤ Throughout the USF reform process, the FCC should solicit 

input from Tribal governments on USF matters that impact 

Tribal lands.

➤ The FCC should take action to shift up to $15.5 billion over 

the next decade from the current High-Cost program to 

broadband through common-sense reforms.

➤ The FCC should adopt a framework for long-term intercarrier compensation (ICC) reform that creates a glide path 

to eliminate per-minute charges while providing carriers 

an opportunity for adequate cost recovery, and establish 

interim solutions to address arbitrage.

➤ The FCC should examine middle-mile costs and pricing. 

Stage Two: Accelerate reform (2012–2016)

➤ The FCC should begin making disbursements from the CAF. 

➤ The FCC should broaden the universal service contribution 

base. 

➤ The FCC should begin a staged transition of reducing perminute rates for intercarrier compensation. 

Stage Three: Complete the transition (2017–2020)

➤ The FCC should manage the total size of the USF to remain 

close to its current size (in 2010 dollars) in order to minimize the burden of increasing universal service contributions on consumers. 

➤ The FCC should eliminate the legacy High-Cost program, 

with all federal government funding to support broadband 

availability provided through the CAF. 

➤ The FCC should continue reducing ICC rates by phasing 

out per-minute rates for the origination and termination of 

telecommunications traffic.

Accelerating broadband deployment

➤ To accelerate broadband deployment, Congress should 

consider providing optional public funding to the Connect 

America Fund, such as a few billion dollars per year over a 

two to three year period. 

Congress should consider providing other grants, loans 

and loan guarantees

➤ Congress should consider expanding combination grantloan programs.

➤ Congress should consider expanding the Community Connect program.

➤ Congress should consider establishing a Tribal Broadband 

Fund to support sustainable broadband deployment and 

adoption on Tribal lands, and all federal agencies that upgrade connectivity on Tribal lands should coordinate such 

upgrades with Tribal governments and the Tribal Broadband Fund grant-making process.

Government should facilitate Tribal, state, regional, and 

local broadband initiatives

➤ Congress should make clear that state, regional and local 

governments can build broadband networks. 

➤ Federal and state policies should facilitate demand aggregation and use of state, regional and local networks when that 

is the most cost-efficient solution for anchor institutions to 

meet their connectivity needs. 

➤ Congress should consider amending the Communications Act 

to provide discretion to the FCC to allow anchor institutions on 

Tribal lands to share broadband network capacity that is funded by the E-rate or the Rural Health Care program with other 

community institutions designated by Tribal governments.

➤ The federal government and state governments should 

develop an institutional framework that will help America’s 

anchor institutions obtain broadband connectivity, training, applications and services.

8.1 THE BROADBAND

AVAILABILITY GAP

Setting a target clarifies where the United States should focus 

its resources to universalize broadband. At present, there are 

14 million people living in seven million housing units6 that do 

not have access to terrestrial broadband infrastructure capable 

of meeting the National Broadband Availability Target.7

This broadband availability gap is greatest in areas with low 

population density.8

 Because service providers in these areas 

cannot earn enough revenue to cover the costs of deploying and 

operating broadband networks, including expected returns on 

capital, there is no business case to offer broadband services in 

these areas. As a result, it is unlikely that private investment 

alone will fill the broadband availability gap. The question, 

then, is how much public support will be required to fill the gap.

An FCC analysis finds that the level of additional funding 

required is approximately $24 billion (present value in 2010 

dollars) as described in Exhibit 8-B.9

Exhibit 8-B presents the broadband availability gap in greater detail. Initial capital expenditures (“initial capex”) are the 

incremental investments required to deploy networks that can 

deliver the targeted level of service to everyone in the United 

States; this covers new networks and upgrades of existing 

networks. “Ongoing costs” are the incremental costs that must 

be incurred to operate those networks. They include the cost 

of replacing old or outdated equipment, access to middle-mile 

transport and other continuing costs such as customer service, 

marketing and network operations. 
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 8

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d PLAN 1 3 7

“Revenue” includes all incremental revenue generated 

as a result of deploying the networks that meet the National 

Broadband Availability Target, whether the revenue comes 

from the sale of voice, data or, in limited cases, multichannel 

video services.

Adding initial capex and continuing costs and subtracting 

revenue yields a gap of approximately $24 billion.11

This estimate is based on a number of key assumptions:

➤ First, the gap was calculated based on the economics of terrestrial technologies only, although a variety of technologies 

and architectures were considered. While satellite is capable 

of delivering speeds that meet the National Broadband Availability Target,12 satellite capacity can meet only a small portion 

of broadband demand in unserved areas for the foreseeable future.13 Satellite has the advantage of being both ubiquitous and 

having a geographically independent cost structure, making it 

particularly well suited to serve high-cost, low-density areas. 

However, while satellite can serve any given household, satellite capacity does not appear sufficient to serve every unserved 

household. In addition, the exact role of satellite-based broadband and its impact on the total cost of universalizing access to 

broadband depends on the specific disbursement mechanism 

used to close the broadband availability gap. 

➤ Second, this calculation assumes that, whenever possible, 

a market-based mechanism will be used to select which 

providers receive support (as discussed in Section 8.3), and 

that there is competitive interest in receiving a subsidy to 

extend broadband to an unserved area. But it is impossible 

to know precisely how and whether this will occur until the 

details of the distribution mechanism are defined. 

➤ Third, the estimated gap does not assume that currently 

announced fourth-generation (4G) wireless buildouts will 

provide service that meets the target without investments 

incremental to the planned commercial builds. Fourthgeneration technology holds great promise and will likely 

play a large role in closing the broadband availability gap if 

speed and consumer satisfaction are comparable to traditional wired service, such as that provided over Digital 

Subscriber Line (DSL) or cable modem. If buildouts occur as 

announced, about five million of the seven million unserved 

housing units will have 4G coverage.14 However, in order to 

provide actual download speeds of 4 Mbps or more, it may 

be necessary for providers to make investments that are incremental to their planned commercial builds. The FCC will 

revisit this issue as this new technology is implemented. 

➤ Fourth, the estimated gap does not include any amounts 

necessary to support companies that currently receive universal service support for voice and already offer broadband 

that meets the National Broadband Availability Target. 

Some federal USF amounts indirectly support broadband, 

and going forward will do so directly. Nor do the estimates 

take into account the impact on existing recipients of support if other providers receive support to build out broadband in an area where the current provider has a carrier of 

last resort obligation. 

➤ Fifth, there are a number of recommendations throughout 

this plan that may lower the cost of entering or operating in 

currently unserved areas, or that could increase or decrease 

potential revenues. The calculation does not include the 

impact of any of these recommendations. To the extent 

Exhibit 8-B:

The Present Value 

(in 2010 Dollars) of the 

Broadband Availability 

Gap is $24 Billion10

Initial capex Ongoing costs Total cost Revenue Broadband

availabiliy gap

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Billions of dollars (present value)

15.2

18.2

33.4

9.1

24.3

Cash Flows Associated With Broadband Availability Gap
1 3 8 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 8

these recommendations are implemented, they may change 

the overall gap. The analysis also does not take into account 

any available federal, state, regional, Tribal, local or other 

funding sources that could help close the gap.

The support needs of different geographic areas are distinct 

and depend on many factors, including the existing network 

infrastructure and household density. In some areas, subsidizing all or part of the initial capex will allow a service provider 

to have a sustainable business. Elsewhere, subsidizing initial 

capex will not be enough; service providers will need support 

for continuing costs. Support for one-time deployment or upgrades will likely be enough to provide broadband to 46% of the 

seven million unserved housing units. Closing the gap for the 

remaining 54% of housing units will probably require support 

for both one-time and recurring costs.

Moreover, serving the 250,000 housing units with the 

highest gaps accounts for $14 billion of the broadband availability gap. As Exhibit 8-C depicts, this represents less than 

two-tenths of 1% of all housing units in the United States. The 

average amount of funding per housing unit to close the gap for 

these units with terrestrial broadband is $56,000.15

8.2 CLOSING THE

BROADBAND

AVAILABILITY GAP

Closing the broadband availability gap requires financial support from federal, state and local governments. This section will 

discuss the current state of government support for infrastructure deployment and will make recommendations for targeting 

this support more directly to close the availability gap. 

The federal government spends nearly $10 billion annually on grants, loans and other subsidy programs that support 

communications connectivity; in 2010, the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act) provided an additional 

$7.2 billion in one-time funding (see shaded rows Exhibit 8-D). 

Historically, much of this funding has supported voice service 

in certain areas of the country, but more recently it also has 

been used to modernize networks to deliver broadband as well. 

While this funding has improved broadband infrastructure in 

the U.S., federal efforts have not been coordinated to meet the 

universal broadband goals of Congress. 

Nearly half of the funding appropriated in 2010 to support greater connectivity comes from the Recovery Act, which 

Congress passed in February 2009. Congress appropriated 

$7.2 billion to create the Broadband Telecommunications 

Exhibit 8-C:

The Most Expensive 

Unserved Housing 

Units Represent a 

Disproportionate Share 

of the Total Gap16

Broadband Availability Gap, by percent of U.S. 

housing units served Billions of dollars (present value)

Percentile of U.S. housing units by gap

95.5 96.5 97.5 98.5 99.5
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 8

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d PLAN 1 3 9

Opportunities Program (BTOP) at the U.S. Department of 

Commerce and the Broadband Initiatives Program (BIP) at 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture. BTOP “makes available 

grants for deploying broadband infrastructure in unserved and 

underserved areas in the United States, enhancing broadband 

capabilities at public computer centers, and promoting sustainable broadband adoption projects.”19 BIP “extend[s] loans, 

grants and loan/grant combinations to facilitate broadband 

deployment in rural areas.”20

Awards under BTOP and BIP are ongoing, and many 

projects should help meet the goal of providing universal 

broadband access. For instance, the ION Rural Broadband 

Initiative will add middle-mile connectivity for 70 rural communities in upstate New York, and Project Connect South 

Dakota will provide a cash infusion to add 140 miles of backhaul service and 219 miles of middle-mile connections to an 

existing fiber optic network.21

Through the Broadband Data Improvement Act mapping 

process, the FCC may be able to improve its estimate of the 

gap. But it is impossible to know with precision how much the 

BTOP and BIP programs will contribute to closing the gap 

before all of the funds are awarded. 

In any event, BTOP and BIP alone will not be sufficient to 

close the broadband availability gap. Other government support is required to complete the task of connecting the nation 

to ensure that broadband reaches the highest-cost areas of the 

country. Closing the broadband availability gap and connecting the nation will require a substantial commitment by states 

and the federal government alike. This commitment must 

include initial support to cover the capital costs of building new 

networks in areas that are unserved today, as well as ongoing support for the operation of newly built networks in areas 

where revenues will be insufficient to cover ongoing costs. 

Exhibit 8-D:

Existing Sources of Federal Support for Communications Connectivity17

Agency Program Description Annual funding amount

Federal 

Communications 

Commission 

Universal Service Fund Provides funding for companies serving high-cost areas, lowincome consumers, rural health care providers, and schools 

and libraries.

$8.7 billion (FY2010)

National Telecommunications 

and Information 

Administration 

Broadband Technology 

Opportunities Program 

Grant program to promote deployment and adoption of broadband throughout the country, particularly in unserved and 

underserved areas. Priority in the second Notice of Funding 

Availability (NOFA) will be given to middle-mile broadband 

infrastructure projects that offer new or substantially upgraded connections to community anchor institutions, especially 

community colleges.

$4.7 billion (one-time 

ARRA)—includes at least 

$2.5 billion for infrastructure, $250 million for 

adoption, and $200 

million for public 

computing centers. 

Rural Utilities 

Service 

Broadband Initiatives 

Program 

Loan, loan guarantee and grant program to increase broadband penetration and adoption, primarily in rural areas. Priority in the second NOFA will be given to last-mile projects, 

and middle-mile projects involving current RUS program 

participants.

$2.5 billion (one-time 

ARRA)—includes at 

least $2.2 billion for 

infrastructure.

Rural Utilities 

Service

Telephone Loans and 

Loan Guarantees 

Program

Provides long-term, direct and guaranteed loans to qualified 

organizations, often telephone companies, to support investment in broadband-capable telephone networks. 

$685 million

Rural Utilities 

Service

Rural Broadband 

Access Loans and Loan 

Guarantees Program 

Provides loans and loan guarantees to eligible applicants—including telephone companies, municipalities, non-profits and 

Tribes—to deploy broadband in rural communities.

$298 million

Institute of Museum and Library 

Services

Library Services and 

Technology Act Grants 

Provides funds for a wide range of library services including 

installation of fiber and wireless networks.

$164 million

Multiple agencies Other programs18 Multiple purposes $49 million

Total $17.1 billion
1 4 0 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 8

8.3 UNIVERSAL SERVICE

Universal service has been a national objective since the 

Communications Act of 1934, in which Congress stated its 

intention to “make available, so far as possible, to all the 

people of the United States... a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, 

and world-wide wire and radio communication service with 

adequate facilities at reasonable charges.”22

The current federal universal service programs were created 

in the aftermath of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 at a 

time when only 23% of Americans had dial-up Internet access 

at home, and virtually no one had broadband.23 While the federal USF and earlier programs have played a critical role in the 

universalization of voice service in the last century, the current 

USF was not designed to support broadband directly, other 

than for schools, libraries and rural health care providers.24

In 2010, the federal USF is projected to make total outlays of 

$8.7 billion through four programs (see Exhibit 8-E).25 The HighCost program, which subsidizes telecommunications services 

in areas where costs would otherwise be prohibitively high, will 

spend $4.6 billion. E-rate, which supports voice and broadband 

connectivity for schools and libraries, will spend $2.7 billion.26

The Low Income program, which subsidizes the cost of telephone 

service for low-income people, will spend $1.2 billion, and the 

Rural Health Care program, which supports connectivity for 

health care providers, will spend $214 million. 

At least 21 states have high-cost funds that collectively distribute over $1.5 billion.28 Thirty-three states have a state low-income 

program, nine states have a state subsidy program for schools and 

libraries, and at least 27 states support state telehealth networks.29

A number of states have established specific programs to fund 

broadband deployment.30 Some states provide tax credits for 

investment in broadband infrastructure.31

The remainder of this section will discuss how the current 

federal High-Cost program should be modernized to shift from 

supporting legacy telephone networks to directly supporting 

high-capacity broadband networks. The federal Low Income 

program provides critical support to low-income households 

and will be discussed in Chapter 9. The Rural Health Care and 

E-Rate programs provide important support for broadband to 

critical institutions like schools, libraries and health care facilities, and will be addressed in Chapters 10 and 11.

Accelerating the pace of investment in broadband networks 

in high-cost areas will also require consideration of related policy issues that affect the revenue streams of existing carriers. 

The ICC system provides a positive revenue stream for certain 

carriers, which in turn affects their ability to upgrade their 

networks during the transition from voice telephone service to 

broadband service. In rural America USF and ICC represent a 

significant portion of revenues for some of the smallest carriers—i.e., 60% or more of their regulated revenues.32 The rules 

governing special access services also affect the economics of 

deployment and investment, as middle-mile transmission often 

represents a significant cost for carriers that need to transport 

their traffic a significant distance to the Internet backbone. For 

that reason, the FCC needs to consider the middle mile in any 

discussion of government support to high-cost areas.33

USF and ICC regulations were designed for a telecommunications industry that provided voice service over circuit-switched 

networks. State and federal ratemaking created implicit subsidies at both the state and federal levels and were designed to 

Exhibit 8-E:

The Federal Universal Service Fund27

Program Description

FY 2010 disbursements 

(projected)

High Cost Ensures that consumers in all regions of the nation have access to and pay 

rates for telecommunications services that are reasonably comparable to 

those in urban areas.

$4.6 billion

Low Income (Lifeline and 

Link-Up)

Provides discounts that make basic, local telephone service affordable for 

low-income consumers.

$1.2 billion 

Schools and Libraries (E-rate) Subsidizes telecommunications services, Internet access and internal connections to enable schools and libraries to connect to the Internet.$2.7 billion

Rural Health Care Provides reduced rates to rural health care providers for telecommunications and Internet access services and, on a pilot basis, support for infrastructure. $214 million

Total $8.7 billion
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 8

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d PLAN 1 4 1

shift costs from rural to urban areas, from residential to business 

customers, and from local to long distance service.

Unfortunately, the current regulatory framework will not 

close the broadband availability gap. A comprehensive reform 

program is required to shift from primarily supporting voice 

communications to supporting a broadband platform that enables many applications, including voice. This reform must be 

staged over time to realign these systems to support broadband 

and minimize regulatory uncertainty for investment.

The goal of reform is to provide everyone with affordable 

voice and broadband. The reforms must be achieved over 

time to manage the impact on consumers, who ultimately pay 

for universal service. The FCC should target areas that are 

currently unserved, while taking care to ensure that consumers continue to enjoy broadband and voice services that are 

available today. Given that USF is a finite resource, the FCC 

should work to maximize the number of households that can be 

served quickly, focusing first on those areas that require lower 

amounts of subsidy to achieve that goal, and over time addressing those areas that are the hardest to serve, recognizing that 

the subsidy required may decline in the future as technology 

advances and costs decline. Ongoing support should be provided where necessary. 

Sudden changes in USF and ICC could have unintended 

consequences that slow progress. Success will come from a 

clear road map for reform, including guidance about the timing 

and pace of changes to existing regulations, so that the private 

sector can react and plan appropriately.

Stage One of this comprehensive reform program starts with 

building the institutional foundation for reform, identifying 

funding that can be shifted immediately to jumpstart broadband deployment in unserved areas, creating the framework 

for a new Connect America Fund and a Mobility Fund, establishing a long-term vision for ICC, and examining middle-mile 

costs and pricing (see Chapter 4). In Stage Two, the FCC will 

begin disbursements from the CAF and Mobility Fund, while 

implementing the first step in reducing intercarrier compensation rates and reforming USF contribution methodology. Stage 

Three completes the transformation of the legacy High-Cost 

program, ends support for voice-only networks and completes 

reforms on ICC.

Before going into the details of this plan, it is important 

to consider the unique characteristics of each system in 

more detail. 

The High-Cost Program

The High-Cost program ensures that consumers in all parts 

of the country have access to voice service and pay rates for 

that service that are reasonably comparable to service in urban 

areas. The program currently provides funding to three groups 

of eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs) (see Box 8-2). 

In 2009, approximately $2 billion went to 814 rate-of-return 

carriers, $1 billion to 17 price-cap carriers and $1.3 billion to 

212 competitive eligible telecommunications carriers (competitive ETCs).34

The current High-Cost program is not designed to universalize broadband. While some companies receiving High-Cost 

support have deployed broadband-capable infrastructure 

to serve most of their customers,35 others have not. Carriers 

receiving High-Cost support are not required to provide any 

households in their service area with some minimal level of 

broadband service, much less provide such service to all households in their service area.

In addition, the High-Cost program only supports certain 

components of a network, such as local loops and switching 

equipment, but not other components necessary for broadband, like middle-mile infrastructure that transports voice and 

data traffic to an Internet point of presence. As a result, the 

amount of support provided is not appropriately sized for the 

provision of broadband in high-cost areas. 

Because broadband is not a supported service, today there 

is no mechanism to ensure that support is targeted toward extending broadband service to unserved homes. Today, roughly 

half of the unserved housing units are located in the territories of the largest price-cap carriers, which include AT&T, 

Verizon and Qwest, while about 15% are located in the territories of mid-sized price-cap companies such as CenturyLink, 

Windstream and Frontier.36 While current funding supports 

phone service to lines served by price-cap carriers, the amounts 

do not provide an incentive for the costly upgrades that may be 

required to deliver broadband to these customers.37

In addition, current oversight of the specific uses of High-Cost 

support is limited. While some states require both incumbents 

High-Cost Program Recipients 

Rate-of-Return Carriers—Incumbent telephone companies that 

are given the opportunity to earn an 11.25% rate of return on 

their interstate services.

Price-Cap Carriers—Incumbent telephone companies that may 

only raise interstate rates on the basis of a formula that considers 

expense growth and a productivity growth factor.

Competitive ETCs—Competitive wireline and wireless providers 

that are certified by a state utility regulator or the FCC to receive 

funds from the High-Cost program based on the level of support 

provided to the incumbent in a given area.

BOX 8-2:
1 4 2 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 8

and competitive ETCs to report on their use of funding for network infrastructure projects,38 many states do not.39 There is no 

uniform framework at the federal level to track the progress of 

any infrastructure deployment, broadband-capable or not, that is 

subsidized through the use of federal funds.

While the High-Cost program has made a material difference in enabling households in many high-cost areas of 

America to have access to affordable voice service, it will not do 

the same for broadband without reform of the current system. 

Intercarrier Compensation 

ICC is a system of regulated payments in which carriers 

compensate each other for the origination, transport and 

termination of telecommunications traffic. For example, when 

a family in Philadelphia calls Grandma in Florida, the family’s 

carrier usually pays Grandma’s carrier a per-minute charge, 

which may be a few cents a minute, for terminating the call. 

Estimates indicate that this system results in up to $14 billion 

in transfers between carriers every year.40

The current per-minute ICC system was never designed 

to promote deployment of broadband networks. Rather, ICC 

was implemented before the advent of the Internet when there 

were separate local and long distance phone companies. Local 

companies incurred a traffic-sensitive cost to “switch” or 

connect a call from the long distance company to the carrier’s 

customer. The per-minute rates charged to the long distance 

carrier were set above cost and provided an implicit subsidy 

for local carriers to keep residential rates low and promote 

universal telephone service.41 ICC has not been reformed to 

reflect fundamental, ongoing shifts in technology and consumer behavior, and it continues to include above-cost rates. 

The current ICC system is not sustainable in an all-broadband 

Internet Protocol (IP) world where payments for the exchange 

of IP traffic are not based on per-minute charges, but instead 

are typically based on charges for the amount of bandwidth 

consumed per month. 

The current ICC system also has fundamental problems that 

create inefficient incentives. First, terminating rates are not 

uniform despite the uniformity of the function of terminating a 

call, which leads to unproductive economic activity. Rates vary 

from zero to 35.9 cents per minute,42 depending on the jurisdiction of the call, the type of traffic43 and the regulatory status of 

the terminating carrier.44 Rate differences lead to arbitrage opportunities such as phantom traffic, in which traffic is masked 

to avoid paying the terminating carrier intercarrier compensation entirely, and/or redirected to make it appear that the 

call should be subject to a lower rate.45 Such behavior leads to 

disputes and underpayment to the terminating carrier. 

Most ICC rates are above incremental cost, which creates 

opportunities for access stimulation, in which carriers artificially inflate the amount of minutes subject to ICC payments. 

For example, companies have established “free” conference 

calling services, which provide free services to consumers while 

the carrier and conference call company share the ICC revenues paid by interexchange carriers.46 Because the arbitrage 

opportunity exists, investment is directed to free conference 

calling and similar schemes for adult entertainment that 

ultimately cost consumers money, 47 rather than to other, more 

productive endeavors. 

Broadband providers have begun migrating to more efficient IP interconnection and compensation arrangements for 

the transport and termination of IP traffic. Because providers’ 

rates are above cost, the current system creates disincentives 

to migrate to all IP-based networks. For example, to retain ICC 

revenues, carriers may require an interconnecting carrier to 

convert Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) calls to time-division multiplexing in order to collect intercarrier compensation 

revenue. While this may be in the short-term interest of a 

carrier seeking to retain ICC revenues, it actually hinders the 

transformation of America’s networks to broadband.48

ICC may be stalling the development of the broadband ecosystem in other ways as well. For example, there are allegations 

that regulatory uncertainty about whether or what intercarrier 

compensation payments are required for VoIP traffic,49 as well 

as a lack of uniform rates, may be hindering investment and the 

introduction of new IP-based services and products.50

Moreover, fewer terminating minutes ultimately mean a 

smaller revenue base for intercarrier compensation. According 

to FCC data, for example, total minutes of use of incumbent 

carriers decreased from 567 billion minutes in 2000 to 316 

billion minutes in 2008, a drop of 56%.51 Price-cap carriers 

have no means of increasing per-minute rates to offset these 

declines. Even rate-of-return carriers, who are permitted to 

increase per-minute rates so they have the opportunity to earn 

their authorized rate of return, acknowledge that the current 

system is “not sustainable” and could lead to a “death spiral” as 

higher rates to offset declining minutes exacerbate arbitrage 

and non-payment.52 As the small carriers recognize, revenues 

are also decreasing due to arbitrage and disputes over payment 

for VoIP traffic.53

The continued decline in revenues and free cash flows at unpredictable levels could hamper carriers’ ability to implement 

network upgrade investments or other capital improvements. Any consideration of how government should provide 

supplemental funding to companies to close the broadband 

availability gap should recognize that ICC revenue is an important part of the picture for some providers. 
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 8

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d PLAN 1 4 3

Special Access Policies

High-capacity dedicated circuits are critical inputs in the provision of fixed and mobile broadband services in rural America. 

Special access circuits connect wireless towers to the core network,54 provide fiber optic connectivity to hospitals and health 

centers,55 and are sometimes the critical broadband link that 

traverses up to 200 miles between a small town and the nearest 

Internet point of presence.56 The law requires that the rates, 

terms and conditions for these circuits be just and reasonable.57

The rates that firms pay for these critical middle- and 

second-mile connections have an impact on the business case 

for the provision of broadband in high-cost areas. Small local 

exchange carriers, wireless firms and small cable companies 

typically purchase these connections from other providers. It 

may well be the case that the cost of providing these circuits 

is so high that there is no private sector business case to offer 

broadband in some areas, even if the rates, terms and conditions are just and reasonable. 

High-Cost funds today are generally distributed on the basis 

of loop and switching costs and not the cost of middle-mile 

transport of voice traffic. Because data traffic is aggregated 

on backhaul facilities, per-customer middle-mile costs will 

increase significantly as consumers and businesses use their 

broadband connections more.58

It is not clear whether the high costs of middle-mile connectivity in rural areas are due solely to long distances and low 

population density, 59 or also reflect excessively high special access prices as some parties have alleged.60 The FCC is currently 

examining its analytic framework for regulating special access 

services generally (see Chapter 4). Because of the link between 

middle- and second-mile costs and special access policies, the 

FCC’s review of its special access policies should be completed 

in concert with other aspects of this reform plan. 

Comprehensive Reform

As federal and state regulators have recognized, the federal 

USF must be modernized to support the advanced broadband 

networks and services of the future—and must be modernized 

quickly, in a way that will accelerate the availability of broadband to all Americans.61 Closing the broadband availability 

gap requires comprehensive reform of the USF High-Cost 

program, as well as consideration of ICC and an examination 

of special access costs and pricing. These actions should be 

consistent with a set of guiding principles:

➤ Support broadband deployment directly. The federal government should, over time, end all financial support for networks 

that only provide “Plain Old Telephone Service” (POTS) and 

should provide financial support, where necessary and in an 

economically efficient manner, for broadband platforms that 

enable many applications, including voice.62

➤ Maximize broadband availability. USF resources are finite, 

and policymakers need to weigh tradeoffs in allocating 

those resources so that the nation “gets the most bang for 

its buck.” The objective should be to maximize the number 

of households that are served by broadband meeting the 

National Broadband Availability Target.63

➤ No flash cuts. New rules should be phased in over a reasonable time period. Policymakers must give service providers 

and investors time to adjust to a new regulatory regime.64

➤ Reform requires federal and state coordination. The 

FCC should seek input from state commissions on how 

to harmonize federal and state efforts to promote broadband availability.65

These guiding principles will inform a long-term plan for 

reform that will unfold over a decade (see Exhibit 8-F). This plan 

balances the need to direct more capital to broadband networks, 

particularly in high-cost areas, while recognizing the significant 

role that the private sector plays in broadband deployment. 

One variable that will impact the pace of broadband availability is the time it will take to implement various reforms. 

The proposed reforms on the timeline presented could enable 

the buildout of broadband infrastructure to more than 99% of 

American households by 2020. Any acceleration of this path 

would require more funding from Congress, deeper cuts in 

the existing USF program or higher USF assessments, which 

ultimately are borne by consumers. While this plan makes the 

best use of the assets the country currently has to advance the 

availability of broadband, a more aggressive path is available if 

Congress so chooses. 

Before discussing the reforms in Stage One to advance 

broadband availability, we address administrative reforms to 

improve the management and oversight of USF. 

Recommendation 8.1: The FCC should improve Universal Service Fund (USF) performance and accountability.

The Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC), 

a not-for-profit subsidiary of the National Exchange Carrier 

Association (NECA), serves as the day-to-day administrator 

of USF, working under FCC direction. As part of its overall 

effort to make the FCC more open and transparent, datadriven and a model of excellence in government, the FCC is 

reviewing its oversight of the funds it administers to determine 

whether changes are necessary to improve efficiency and 

effectiveness. USF is part of that review and includes oversight and management of USAC and all of the universal service 

programs. While there is no doubt that federal universal service 

programs have been successful in preserving and advancing 

universal service, it is vital to ensure that these public funds 

are administered appropriately. 
1 4 4 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 8

To provide stronger management and oversight of the 

program, the FCC already has begun to implement a number 

of changes: 

➤ The FCC has moved oversight of the audit program to the 

Office of Managing Director and has directed USAC to 

revise its audit approach.

➤ The FCC has implemented a new Improper Payments 

Information Act (IPIA) assessment program that is tailored 

to cover all four USF disbursement programs, measure the 

accuracy of payments, evaluate the eligibility of applicants, 

test information obtained by participants, and ensure a 

reasonable cost while meeting IPIA requirements. 

➤ The FCC has implemented a new compliance audit program 

for all four USF disbursement mechanisms and contributors. This audit program takes into account such factors 

as program risk elements and size of disbursements. This 

audit program is also conducted at a reasonable cost in relation to program disbursements and reduces unnecessary 

burdens on beneficiaries. 

These new assessment and audit programs will reduce the 

cost of USF-related audits going forward and will be more efficient. These changes will also help deter fraud, waste and abuse 

and identify levels of improper payments.

As the FCC reforms its USF support and disbursement 

mechanisms after the release of the National Broadband 

Plan, it should also ensure that any future enhancements to 

the USF program have accountability and oversight provisions built in from the outset. The FCC should also examine 

its Memorandum of Understanding with USAC to ensure that 

it reflects programmatic changes and evaluate whether any 

modifications to its existing relationship with USAC 

are necessary.66

Across the four USF programs, there is a lack of adequate 

data to make critical policy decisions regarding how to better 

utilize funding to promote universal service objectives. For 

instance, recipients of USF funding currently are not required 

to report the extent to which they use the funding they receive 

to extend broadband-capable networks. As the FCC moves 

forward on the reforms in the plan, it should enhance its data 

collection and reporting to ensure that the nation’s funds are 

being used effectively to advance defined programmatic goals. 

Stage One: Laying the Foundation for Reform (2010–2011)

The FCC should create a Connect America Fund to address the 

broadband availability gap in unserved areas and provide any 

ongoing support necessary to sustain service in areas that already have broadband because of previous support from federal 

USF. The FCC should create a fast-track program in CAF for 

providers to receive targeted funding for new broadband construction in unserved areas. In addition, the FCC should create 

a Mobility Fund to provide one-time support for deployment of 

Exhibit 8-F:

Roadmap for 

USF/ICC Reform

Roadmap for USF/ICF Reform

Stage Three

(2017-2020)

Stage Two

(2012-2016)

Stage One

(2010-2011)

Universal

service

Intercarrier

compensation

Create Connect America

Fund and Mobility Fund

Begin disbursements from 

new Connect America 

Fund and Mobility Fund

Eliminate legacy 

High-Cost programs

Implement reformed 

contribution methodology

Phase out all remaining 

competitive ETC support

Adopt rules to eliminate 

Interstate Access Support 

and re-target funding 

levels to broadband

Adopt rules to move rateof-return carriers to 

incentive regulation

Begin implementation of 

Sprint/Verizon Wireless 

merger commitments to 

reduce their competitive ETC 

funding to zero

Adopt rules to phase out 

other competitive ETC 

support to zero over five years

Adopt framework for 

long-term intercarrier 

compensation reform, while 

implementing interim 

measures to curb arbitrage

Begin reductions in ICC 

rates

Phase out per-minute rates
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 8

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d PLAN 1 4 5

3G networks (used for both voice and data) to bring all states 

to a minimum level of 3G availability which will improve the 

business case for investment in the rollout of 4G in harder to 

serve areas. 

In Stage One, a series of actions will identify initial funds to 

be shifted from the current High-Cost program to the CAF and 

Mobility Funds. The FCC also should establish a glide path to 

long-term ICC reform, while taking interim steps to address 

phantom traffic and access stimulation to provide the industry 

a greater degree of revenue stability and predictability. Because 

middle- and second-mile connectivity is a key cost component 

for broadband service providers in high-cost areas, the FCC 

should also examine the rates for high-capacity circuits to 

ensure they are just and reasonable. 

Throughout the USF reform process, the FCC should solicit 

input from Tribal governments on USF matters that impact 

Tribal lands.67

Recommendation 8.2: The FCC should create the Connect America Fund (CAF). 

The FCC’s long range goal should be to replace all of the 

legacy High-Cost programs with a new program that preserves 

the connectivity that Americans have today and advances 

universal broadband in the 21st century. CAF will enable all 

U.S. households to access a network that is capable of providing both high-quality voice-grade service and broadband that 

satisfies the National Broadband Availability Target. There 

are many issues that will need to be addressed in order to fully 

transition the legacy programs into the new fund. The FCC 

should create an expedited process68, however, to fund broadband infrastructure buildout in unserved areas with the USF 

savings identified below.

As a general roadmap, CAF should adhere to the following 

principles:

➤ CAF should only provide funding in geographic areas where 

there is no private sector business case to provide broadband 

and high-quality voice-grade service.69 CAF support levels 

should be based on what is necessary to induce a private 

firm to serve an area. Support should be based on the net 

gap (i.e., forward looking costs less revenues).70 Those costs 

would include both capital expenditures and any ongoing costs, including middle-mile costs, required to provide 

high-speed broadband service that meets the National 

Broadband Availability Target.71 Revenues should include 

all revenues earned from broadband-capable network infrastructure, including voice, data and video revenues,72 and 

take into account the impact of other regulatory reforms 

that may impact revenue flows, such as ICC, and funding 

from other sources, such as Recovery Act grants.73 The FCC 

should evaluate eligibility and define support levels on the 

basis of neutral geographic units such as U.S. Census-based 

geographic areas, not the geographic units associated with 

any particular industry segment.74

In targeting funding to the areas where there is no private 

sector business case to offer broadband service, the FCC 

should consider the role of state high-cost funds in supporting universal service and other Tribal, state, regional and local 

initiatives to support broadband. A number of states have established state-level programs through their respective public 

utility commissions to subsidize broadband connections, while 

other states have implemented other forms of grants and loans 

to support broadband investment.75 As the country shifts its efforts to universalize both broadband and voice, the FCC should 

encourage states to provide funding to support broadband and 

to modify any laws that might limit such support.76

➤ There should be at most one subsidized provider of broadband per geographic area. 77 Areas with extremely low population density are typically unprofitable for even a single 

operator to serve and often face a significant broadband 

availability gap. Subsidizing duplicate, competing networks 

in such areas where there is no sustainable business case 

would impose significant burdens on the USF and, ultimately, on the consumers who contribute to the USF. 

➤ The eligibility criteria for obtaining support from CAF 

should be company- and technology-agnostic so long as the 

service provided meets the specifications set by the FCC.

Support should be available to both incumbent and competitive telephone companies (whether classified today as 

“rural” or “non-rural”), fixed and mobile wireless providers, 

satellite providers and other broadband providers, consistent with statutory requirements.78 Any broadband provider 

that can meet or exceed the specifications set by the FCC 

should be eligible to receive support. 

➤ The FCC should identify ways to drive funding to efficient 

levels, including market-based mechanisms where appropriate, to determine the firms that will receive CAF support and 

the amount of support they will receive.79 If enough carriers 

compete for support in a given area and the mechanism is 

properly designed, the market should help identify the provider that will serve the area at the lowest cost. 

➤ Recipients of CAF support must be accountable for its use 

and subject to enforceable timelines for achieving universal 

access. USF requires ongoing adjustment and re-evaluation 

to focus on performance-based outcomes.The recipients of 

funding should be subject to a broadband provider-of-lastresort obligation.80 The FCC should establish timelines for 

extending broadband to unserved areas. It should define 

operational requirements and make verification of broadband availability a condition for funding.81 The subsidized 

providers, should be subject to specific service quality and 
1 4 6 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 8

reporting requirements, including obligations to report 

on service availability and pricing. Recipients of funding should offer service at rates reasonably comparable 

to urban rates.82 The FCC should exercise all its relevant 

enforcement powers if recipients of support fail to meet 

FCC specifications. 

Recommendation 8.3: The FCC should create the Mobility Fund. 

As discussed in Chapter 3, both broadband and access to 

mobility are now essential needs, and America should have 

healthy fixed and mobile broadband ecosystems. Based on past 

experience with mobile wireless, it is not clear that government intervention will be necessary to enable a robust mobile 

broadband ecosystem in most parts of the country. According 

to American Roamer, 3G wireless networks, used for both voice 

and data, cover 98% of the population in the United States—

more people than are passed by terrestrial broadband.83

However, some states have materially lower 3G deployment than the national average. For example, 77% of Alaska’s 

population is covered by 3G networks, and a mere 71% of West 

Virginia’s population is covered by 3G networks.84

This lack of coverage is even more significant if one considers that 3G infrastructure will be used in many cases to enable 

the rollout of 4G networks. U.S. companies will soon embark 

on 4G buildouts, expecting to reach at least 94% of the U.S. 

population by 2013.85 The 4G footprint is likely to mirror 

closely the 3G footprint, because providers will use their existing infrastructure as much as possible. But how much this build 

will ultimately cost, and exactly which parts of the country it 

will cover, or not cover, remains unclear. 

Timely, limited government intervention to expand the 

availability of 3G networks would help states with 3G buildout 

below the national standard to catch up with the rest of the 

nation and improve the business case for 4G rollout in harderto-serve areas. In addition, expanding 3G coverage would 

benefit public safety users to the extent that public safety agencies use commercial services. It would benefit public safety by 

establishing more cell sites that could be used for a 4G publicprivate broadband network, serving commercial as well as 

public safety users. 

The FCC should create a Mobility Fund to provide one-time 

support for deployment of 3G networks, to bring all states to a 

minimum level of 3G (or better) mobile service availability.86

The FCC should select an efficient method, such as a marketbased mechanism, for supporting mobility in targeted areas. 

Recommendation 8.4: The FCC should design new 

USF funds in a tax-efficient manner to minimize the size 

of the gap.87

In certain circumstances, the Department of Treasury’s 

Internal Revenue Service treats governmental payments to 

private parties for the purpose of making capital investments 

to advance public purposes as contributions to capital under 

section 118 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code. Such treatment 

allows recipients to exclude the payments from income, but reduces depreciation deductions in future years. The Department 

of Treasury recently issued a ruling that BTOP grants to corporations that are restricted solely to the acquisition of capital 

assets to be used to expand the business and that meet a fivepart test would be excluded from income as a nonshareholder 

contribution to capital under section 118(a).88 Ultimately, the 

impact of taxes incurred may depend on the specific details of 

how the support is distributed, as well as the profitability of the 

service providers that receive support. 

Recommendation 8.5: Throughout the USF reform process, the FCC should solicit input from Tribal governments 

on USF matters that impact Tribal lands.

In recognition of Tribal sovereignty, the FCC should solicit 

input from Tribal governments on any proposed changes to 

USF that would impact Tribal lands. Tribal governments 

should play an integral role in the process for designating 

carriers who may receive support to serve Tribal lands.91 The 

ETC designation process should require consultation with the 

relevant Tribal government after a carrier files an ETC application to serve a Tribal land. It should also require that an ETC 

file a plan with both the FCC (or state, in those cases where a 

carrier is seeking ETC designation from a state) and the Tribe 

on proposed plans to serve the area. 

Tribal Input 

The United States currently recognizes 564 American Indian 

Tribes and Alaska Native Villages (Tribes).89 Tribes are inherently 

sovereign governments that enjoy a special relationship with the 

U.S. predicated on the principle of government-to-government 

interaction. This government-to-government relationship warrants a tailored approach that takes into consideration the unique 

characteristics of Tribal lands in extending the benefits of broadband to everyone. 

Any approach to increasing broadband availability and adoption should recognize Tribal sovereignty, autonomy and independence, the importance of consultation with Tribal leaders, 

the critical role of Tribal anchor institutions, and the communityoriented nature of demand aggregation on Tribal lands.90

BOX 8-3:
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 8

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d PLAN 1 4 7

Recommendation 8.6: The FCC should take action to 

shift up to $15.5 billion over the next decade from the current High-Cost program to broadband through commonsense reforms.92

In Stage One, the FCC should identify near-term opportunities to shift funding from existing programs to advance the 

universalization of broadband. These targeted changes are 

designed to create a pathway to a more efficient and targeted 

funding mechanism for government support for broadband 

investment, while creating greater certainty and stability for 

private sector investment. 

While these shifts could move as much as $15.5 billion (present value in 2010 dollars) into new broadband programs, they 

are not risk-free. Shifting identified funds to support broadband 

could have transitional impacts that will need to be carefully 

considered. To the extent the FCC does not realize the full 

amount of savings described below, it will need to identify additional opportunities for savings in Stage Two in order to achieve 

the National Broadband Availability Target, unless Congress 

chooses to provide additional public funding for broadband to 

mitigate some of hese risks. 

First, the FCC should issue an order to implement the voluntary commitments of Sprint and Verizon Wireless to reduce 

the High-Cost funding they receive as competitive ETCs to 

zero over a five-year period as a condition of earlier merger 

decisions.93 Sprint and Verizon Wireless received roughly $530 

million in annual competitive ETC funding at the time of their 

respective transactions with Clearwire and Alltel in 2008. 

Their recaptured competitive ETC funding should be used to 

implement the recommendations set forth in this plan. This 

represents up to $3.9 billion (present value in 2010 dollars) 

over a decade. 

Second, the FCC should require rate-of-return carriers to 

move to incentive regulation. As USF migrates from supporting voice telephone service to supporting broadband platforms 

that can support voice as well as other applications, and as 

recipients of support increasingly face competition in some 

portion of their service areas,94 how USF compensates carriers 

needs to change as well. 

Rate-of-return regulation was implemented in the 1960s, 

when there was a single provider of voice services in a given 

geographic area that had a legal obligation to serve all customers in the area and when the network only provided voice 

service. Rate-of-return regulation was not designed to promote 

efficiency or innovation; indeed, when the FCC adopted pricecap regulation in 1990, it recognized that “rate of return does 

not provide sufficient incentives for broad innovations in the 

way firms do business.”95. In an increasingly competitive marketplace with unsubsidized competitors operating in a portion 

of incumbents’ territories, permitting carriers to be made 

whole through USF support lessens their incentives to become 

more efficient and offer innovative new services to retain and 

attract consumers. 

Conversion to price-cap regulation would be revenue 

neutral in the initial year of implementation, assuming that 

amounts per line for access replacement funding known as 

Interstate Common Line Support (ICLS) would be frozen 

(consistent with existing FCC precedent).96 Over time, however, freezing ICLS would limit growth in the legacy High-Cost 

program on an interim basis, while the FCC develops a new 

methodology for providing appropriate levels of CAF support 

to sustain service in areas that already have broadband.97 This 

step could yield up to $1.8 billion (present value in 2010 dollars) in savings over a decade.

The amount of interim savings achieved by freezing ICLS 

support during the CAF transition is dependent on the timing 

of the conversion to price caps and carrier behavior before the 

conversion. There is some chance that rate-of-return carriers could accelerate their investment before conversion to 

price caps to lock in higher support per line. Depending on the 

details of implementation, such a spike in investment activity could result in further broadband deployment that would 

narrow the broadband availability gap, but could increase the 

overall size of the fund.

Third, the FCC should redirect access replacement funding 

known as Interstate Access Support (IAS) toward broadband 

deployment.98 Incumbent carriers received roughly $457 million 

in IAS in 2009.99 When the FCC created IAS in 2000, it said it 

would revisit this funding mechanism in five years “to ensure that 

such funding is sufficient, yet not excessive.”100 That re-examination never occurred. Now, in order to advance the deployment of 

broadband platforms that can deliver high-quality voice service 

as well as other applications and services, the FCC should take 

immediate steps to eliminate this legacy program and re-target its 

dollars toward broadband. This could yield up to $4 billion (present value in 2010 dollars) in savings over a decade.

Freezing ICLS and refocusing IAS could have distributional 

consequences for existing recipients; individual companies 

would not necessarily receive the same amount of funding 

from the CAF as they might otherwise receive under the legacy 

programs. As the FCC considers this policy shift, it should take 

into account the impact of potential changes in free cash flows 

on providers’ ability to continue to provide voice service and on 

future broadband network deployment strategies. 

Fourth, the FCC should phase out the remaining legacy 

High-Cost support for competitive ETCs.101 In 2008, the FCC 

adopted on an interim basis an overall competitive ETC cap 

of approximately $1.4 billion, pending comprehensive USF 
1 4 8 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 8

reform.102 As the FCC reforms USF to support broadband, it is 

time to eliminate ongoing competitive ETC support for voice 

service in the legacy High-Cost program. 

In some areas today, the USF supports more than a dozen competitive ETCs that provide voice service,103 and in many instances, 

companies receive support for multiple handsets on a single 

family plan. Given the national imperative to advance broadband, 

subsidizing this many competitive ETCs for voice service is clearly inefficient.104 The FCC should establish a schedule to reduce 

competitive ETC support to zero over five years, which will be 

completed in Stage Two. In order to accelerate the phase-down of 

legacy support, the FCC could immediately adopt a rule that any 

wireless family plan should be treated as a single line for purposes 

of universal service funding.105 As competitive ETC support levels 

are reduced, this funding should be redirected toward broadband. 

This could yield up to $5.8 billion (present value in 2010 dollars) 

in savings over a decade.

Depending on the details and timing of implementation, 

these actions collectively will free up to $15.5 billion (present 

value in 2010 dollars) in funding from the legacy High-Cost 

program between now and 2020. In addition to funding the 

CAF, the savings identified should be used to implement 

a number of USF and ICC recommendations in this plan. 

Approximately $4 billion (present value in 2010 dollars) will go 

to a combination of activities including the new Mobility Fund, 

potential revenue replacement resulting from intercarrier 

compensation reform, expanding USF support for health care 

institutions up to the existing cap, enabling E-rate funding to 

maintain its purchasing power over time, and conducting pilots 

for a broadband Lifeline program. The remaining amount, up 

to $11.5 billion (present value in 2010 dollars), can be expressly 

targeted to supporting broadband through the CAF so that no 

one is left behind.

Recommendation 8.7: The FCC should adopt a framework 

for long-term intercarrier compensation (ICC) reform that 

creates a glide path to eliminate per-minute charges while 

providing carriers an opportunity for adequate cost recovery, 

and establish interim solutions to address arbitrage.

During Stage One, the FCC should establish a framework 

for phased reform of ICC to eliminate current distortions that 

are created by recovering fixed network costs through perminute rates for the origination and termination of traffic. The 

FCC also should provide carriers the opportunity for adequate 

cost recovery. 

The first step of the staged reform should move carriers’ 

intrastate terminating switched access rates to interstate 

terminating switched access rate levels in equal increments 

over a period of two to four years.106 The FCC has authority to 

establish a new methodology for ICC, but Congress could make 

explicit the FCC’s authority to reform intrastate intercarrier 

rates by amending the Communications Act in order to reduce 

litigation and expedite reform. Following the intrastate rate reductions, the framework should set forth a glide path to phase 

out per-minute charges by 2020. 

To offset the impact of decreasing ICC revenues, the FCC 

should permit gradual increases in the subscriber line charges 

(SLC) and consider deregulating the SLC in areas where states 

have deregulated local rates.107

The FCC should also encourage states to complete rebalancing of local rates to offset the impact of lost access revenues. Even 

with SLC increases and rate rebalancing, some carriers may also 

need support from the reformed Universal Service Fund to ensure 

adequate cost recovery. When calculating support levels under the 

new CAF, the FCC could impute residential local rates that meet 

an established benchmark.108 Doing so would encourage carriers 

and states to “rebalance” rates to move away from artificially low 

$8–$12 residential rates that represent old implicit subsidies to 

levels that are more consistent with costs.109

As part of comprehensive ICC reform, the FCC should adopt interim rules to reduce ICC arbitrage. The FCC should, for example, 

prohibit carriers from eliminating information necessary for a 

terminating carrier to bill an originating carrier for a call. Similarly, 

the FCC should adopt rules to reduce access stimulation and to 

curtail business models that make a profit by artificially inflating 

the number of terminating minutes. The FCC also should address 

the treatment of VoIP traffic for purposes of ICC. 

Recommendation 8.8: The FCC should examine middlemile costs and pricing. 

As discussed above, the cost of second- and middle-mile 

connectivity has a direct impact on the cost of providing broadband service in unserved areas of the country. As a result, there 

is a direct link between whether the FCC’s policies regarding 

the rates, terms and conditions of special access services are effective and the funding demands that will be placed on the new 

CAF. It may be the case that the cost of providing these circuits 

in areas supported by CAF is so high that there is no private 

sector business case to offer broadband services, even if the 

rates, terms and conditions are just and reasonable. An examination of middle-mile costs and pricing should occur in concert 

with the comprehensive USF/ICC reform program.

Stage Two: Accelerating Reform (2012–2016)

In Stage Two, the FCC will need to take further steps and answer a number of questions in order to accelerate reform of the 

High-Cost program and ICC. Some have proposed other ways 

that current High-Cost funding could be shifted towards broadband without having a deleterious effect on existing network 

deployment or operations.110 The FCC should examine the 
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 8

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d PLAN 1 4 9

potential costs and benefits of additional ways to shift funding 

from the legacy High-Cost program to the CAF. 

Implementation decisions in Stage Two will impact the 

speed with which broadband service is available throughout 

the United States and the overall cost of filling the broadband 

availability gap. Two critical issues will be to determine what 

ongoing support is necessary to sustain areas that already meet 

the National Broadband Availability Target due to current 

USF subsidies, and how rights and responsibilities should be 

modified when the incumbent is not the broadband providerof-last-resort for a particular geographic area.111

During this phase, the FCC will begin distributing support 

from CAF, with an initial focus on extending broadband to 

unserved areas. Intrastate rates for ICC will be lowered over 

several years to interstate levels, and competitive ETC support 

will be phased out. The FCC should also stabilize USF for the 

future by expanding the USF contribution base. 

Recommendation 8.9: The FCC should begin making 

disbursements from the CAF. 

Once the FCC completes rulemakings to establish the 

parameters of the new CAF, it should begin to distribute CAF 

funding to discrete geographic areas that contain unserved 

households. The FCC potentially could focus first on those 

states that have a higher absolute number or percentage of 

unserved housing units per capita, or those states that provide 

matching funds for broadband construction. 

Recommendation 8.10: The FCC should broaden the 

universal service contribution base. 

Today, federal universal service funding comes from assessments on interstate and international end-user revenues 

from telecommunications services and interconnected VoIP 

services. Service providers typically pass the cost of these assessments on to their customers.

The revenue base for universal service contributions—telecommunications services—has remained flat over the last 

decade, even though total revenues reported to the FCC by 

communications firms grew from $335 billion in 2000 to more 

than $430 billion in 2008.112 Broadband-related revenues are 

projected to grow steadily over time.113

Service providers are increasingly offering packages that 

“bundle” voice and broadband and deliver them over the same infrastructure. Assessing only telecommunications services revenues 

provides incentives for companies to characterize their offerings as 

“information services” to reduce contributions to the fund.

There is an emerging consensus that the current contribution base should be broadened, though with differing views 

on how to proceed. Some parties urge the FCC to expand the 

contribution base to include broadband revenues,114 while 

others urge the FCC to assess broadband connections through 

a hybrid numbers- and connections-based approach.115 Some 

parties suggest that the FCC should explore some method of 

assessing entities that use large amounts of bandwidth.116 Some 

suggest that broadband should not be assessed because that 

would lessen broadband adoption, or that residential broadband 

should be exempted.117

As the FCC establishes the CAF, it also should adopt revised 

contribution methodology rules to ensure that USF remains 

sustainable over time. Whichever path the FCC ultimately 

takes, it should take steps to minimize opportunities for arbitrage as new products and services are developed and remove 

the need to continuously update regulation to catch up with 

technology and the market.

Recommendation 8.11: The FCC should begin a staged 

transition of reducing per-minute rates for intercarrier 

compensation. 

The comprehensive ICC reforms adopted in Stage One 

should be implemented in Stage Two. The FCC should begin by 

reducing intrastate rates to interstate rate levels in equal increments over a period of time. The FCC should also implement 

interim solutions to address arbitrage, which will help offset 

revenue losses from the reduction in intrastate rates. 

The FCC should continue the staged reduction of perminute rates adopted as part of the comprehensive ICC reform. 

After reducing intrastate rates, the FCC could, for example, 

reduce interstate rates to reciprocal compensation rate levels 

for those carriers whose interstate rates exceed their reciprocal compensation rates, and reduce originating access rates in 

equal increments. Doing so would transition all ICC terminating rates to a uniform rate per carrier, which is an important 

step to eliminate inefficient economic behavior. The rate 

reduction in a staged approach will give carriers adequate time 

to prepare and make adjustments to offset the lost revenues.

Stage Three: Completing the Transition (2017–2020)

In Stage Three, the FCC should complete the transition with an 

emphasis on measurement and adjustment. To the extent there 

remain a small number of households that still do not have service meeting the National Broadband Availability Target, the 

FCC should consider alternative approaches to extend service 

to those areas. 

Recommendation 8.12: The FCC should manage the total 

size of the USF to remain close to its current size (in 2010 

dollars) in order to minimize the burden of increasing universal service contributions on consumers. 

Unrestrained growth of the USF, regardless of reason, could 

jeopardize public support for the goals of universal service.118
1 5 0 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 8

The USF has grown from approximately $4.5 billion in 2000 to a 

projected $8.7 billion in 2010.119 Portions of the USF are already 

capped, and with the implementation of the interim competitive 

ETC cap for the High-Cost program in 2008, the only significant 

parts of the fund that remains uncapped are the Low Income 

program and a part of the High-Cost program that provides access 

replacement funding (ICLS) to small, rate-of-return carriers.

The FCC’s Low Income program has grown significantly 

in the last year,120 in large part due to the efforts of companies 

to create targeted offerings for Lifeline recipients. Since Low 

Income support comes from an uncapped fund for which eligibility is determined by need, future demand for Low Income 

support will likely depend on many factors, including the state of 

the economy, the efficacy of outreach efforts, the level of subsidy 

provided, the price elasticity of demand among low-income 

households, the number and type of eligible service offerings and 

the evolution of consumer demand. 

The FCC needs to proceed with measured steps to assure 

that as it advances the nation’s broadband goals, it does not increase the USF contribution factor, which is already at a public 

historic high. Unless Congress chooses to provide additional 

public funding to accelerate broadband deployment, the FCC 

should aim to keep the overall size of the fund close to its current size (in 2010 dollars), while recognizing that the uncapped 

parts of USF may continue to grow due to factors outside the 

scope of this plan.121 As the FCC implements the recommendations of the plan, it should evaluate innovative strategies to 

leverage the reach of existing governmental support programs 

and evaluate whether to adjust the relative proportion of 

supply-side versus demand-side subsidies over time.

Recommendation 8.13: The FCC should eliminate the 

legacy High-Cost program, with all federal government 

funding to support broadband availability provided through 

the CAF. 

By 2020, the “old” High-Cost program will cease operations, 

and service providers will only receive support for deployment 

and provision of supported services (i.e., broadband that offers 

high-quality voice) through the CAF. 

The FCC should set a deadline for recipients of USF to offer 

supported services. As noted above, based on current terrestrial 

technology, providing broadband to the 250,000 housing units with 

the highest gaps accounts for approximately $14 billion of the total 

investment gap, which represents an average cost of $56,000 per 

housing unit to serve the last two-tenths of 1% of all housing units. 

The FCC should consider alternative approaches, such as 

satellite broadband, for addressing the most costly areas of 

the country to minimize the contribution burden on consumers across America. The FCC could consider means-tested 

consumer subsidies for satellite service. Another approach 

would be to provide a limited waiver of the requirement to offer 

broadband to providers that demonstrate that it is economically or technically infeasible to upgrade a line to offer broadband 

service,122 while ensuring that consumers are able to continue 

to receive the high-quality voice service that they enjoy today. 

Recommendation 8.14: The FCC should continue 

reducing ICC rates by phasing out per-minute rates for the 

origination and termination of telecommunications traffic. 

The elimination of per-minute above-cost charges should 

encourage carriers to negotiate alternative compensation arrangements for the transport and termination of voice and data traffic. 

Given that there may be market power for terminating traffic, the 

FCC should carefully monitor compensation arrangements for 

IP traffic as the industry transitions away from per-minute rates, 

particularly in areas where there is little or no competition, to 

ensure that such arrangements do not harm the public interest.123

In summary, this roadmap for comprehensive universal 

service and ICC reform over the next decade represents a critical first step to ensure that all people in the United States have 

access to affordable broadband. To begin turning this roadmap 

into reality, the FCC will embark on a series of rulemakings to 

seek public comment and adopt rules to implement this reform. 

Although these proceedings will need to make specific decisions on implementation details, this plan sets forth a clear 

vision for the end state we seek to achieve as a nation—preserving the connectivity that Americans have today and advancing 

universal broadband in the 21st century.

Achieving this vision will not happen automatically. Indeed, 

significant changes to the existing regulatory structure will 

need to be made, including adjustments to existing USF support mechanisms to redirect funding away from supporting 

single-purpose voice telephone networks and toward supporting integrated, multifunctional broadband platforms in a more 

efficient manner. Additional capital must be directed toward 

broadband infrastructure. The plan sets forth a pathway to 

shift up to $15.5 billion (present value in 2010 dollars) over 

the next decade from the existing USF High-Cost program 

to broadband, with up to $11.5 billion specifically focused on 

broadband deployment in unserved areas. By implementing 

this plan as written, broadband will be available to more than 

99% of the people in the United States by 2020. 

This plan is not without risk. The baseline estimates that 

form the foundation for this plan are subject to a number of 

assumptions, most notably relating to the timing and outcome 

of regulatory proceedings. 124 The timing of some shifts such 

as implementation of the voluntary commitments from Sprint 
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 8

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d PLAN 1 5 1

and Verizon Wireless to give up their competitive ETC funding is known, while the timing of other changes that could yield 

savings is not. 

The FCC’s ability to shift funds from existing programs to 

broadband assumes that shifting the identified money from 

voice service to broadband will not negatively impact company 

operations or future deployment strategies. 

The gap estimates assume that the FCC implements an 

effective market-based mechanism to determine who should 

receive support and the level of that support, and that the 

market-based mechanism is designed in a way to target support 

first to those areas that require only support for new construction. The estimates also assume that the market mechanism 

will fund the areas requiring the least amount of support first, 

thus connecting the most housing units as quickly as possible. 

In some areas of the country, however, the number of interested parties may be insufficient to implement a market-based 

mechanism, and the FCC therefore may need to use an alternative approach to drive subsidies to efficient levels.

The plan does not estimate the amount of support that may 

be necessary to sustain broadband service in those areas where 

it already is available. The estimates focus on the investment 

gap to make broadband capable of delivering high-quality 

voice universally available in unserved areas. While the FCC 

will initially target CAF funding toward unserved areas, the 

objective over time is to develop a mechanism that supports the 

provision of affordable broadband and voice in all areas, both 

served and unserved, where governmental funding is necessary. 

The amount of support ultimately required for those areas that 

currently are served through the receipt of universal service 

subsidies will depend on many factors, including the evolution 

of market demand, the precise distribution mechanism selected, and the achievement of efficiencies in an IP-based network. 

To the extent an incumbent rate-of-return company is not the 

designated broadband provider-of-last-resort for its entire 

territory, for instance, the FCC would need to determine how 

changing support levels would impact service to consumers and 

how to address the costs of past network investments.

The fact that many questions remain to be answered should 

not stop the nation from starting down the road to universal 

broadband. There will be ample opportunity to adjust in the 

years ahead.

Accelerating Broadband Deployment

Active management of the entire USF program by the FCC as 

described in this plan is the best way to mitigate these risks 

going forward. To speed deployment, provide the FCC greater 

flexibility, and ensure significant capital available for broadband, Congress should act. 

Recommendation 8.15: To accelerate broadband deployment, Congress should consider providing optional public 

funding to the Connect America Fund, such as a few billion 

dollars per year over a two to three year period. 

If Congress were to provide such funding in a timely 

manner, it would enable the FCC to achieve more quickly 

the objectives set forth in the plan for universal broadband, 

without having to obtain such funding through the current USF 

contribution mechanism. Since consumers and businesses bear 

both the USF contribution burden and the general tax burden, 

additional public funding would draw money for deployment 

from the same parties that contribute today, but potentially 

with less relative impact on vulnerable populations that may 

have lower broadband adoption rates than the general population.125 Additional funding would allow the country to achieve 

the National Broadband Availability Target faster and ease 

the glide path for implementing other reforms in this plan by 

removing regulatory uncertainty over USF and ICC revenue 

streams potentially available for further broadband deployment. In addition, in the event additional funding becomes 

available, whether through new government funding or careful 

management of existing funds, that funding could be used to 

build upon lessons learned from successful Lifeline broadband 

pilots and expand innovations in the E-rate and other programs 

to support community institutions (see Chapters 9 and 11).

Although the plan sets forth a vision to achieve universal 

broadband, no one can accurately foresee every potential market dynamic between now and 2020, nor would it be possible 

for the plan to accurately predict how private sector investment 

may occur in the future. The precise timing to achieve universal 

availability will depend on multiple variables, many of which 

are beyond the control of regulators. Technology, markets and 

the industry can and will change. One thing that we can reliably 

predict is that the world in 2020 will be different than what we 

envision today. But the fact that the FCC may need to make 

mid-course corrections along the way does not change the overarching national policy imperative—the need for a connected, 

high-performance America. For the nation to achieve this goal, 

the steps outlined in this plan must be taken promptly.
1 5 2 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 8

8.4 OTHER

GOVERNMENT

ACTIONS TO PROMOTE

AVAILABILITY 

Other Federal Financing

Congress should also consider measures to provide greater 

flexibility to the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) and other 

agencies in order to provide additional financing solutions to 

advance broadband availability. 

Recommendation 8.16: Congress should consider expanding combination grant-loan programs.

Most existing funding mechanisms for telecommunications 

infrastructure, such as those run by RUS, are designed to provide 

funds via loans, loan guarantees or grants. Recovery Act funding 

and RUS’s Farm Bill Broadband Program and Distance Learning 

Program have allowed some combinations. To optimize use of 

taxpayer dollars, more funding should be directed to such combinations. By allowing agencies like RUS to structure funding as 

combinations of loans, grants and guarantees,126 they can select 

the most efficient use of taxpayer dollars while simultaneously 

providing service providers a one-stop financing solution.

Recommendation 8.17: Congress should consider expanding the Community Connect program.

The Community Connect program, administered by RUS, 

is intended to provide funding for broadband to communities 

that are otherwise unserved. The program had $13.4 million in 

funding available in 2009,127 while demand for program funding 

runs into the hundreds of millions of dollars, principally from 

communities that are too small to attract interest from private 

capital. To meet the needs of such communities, Congress 

should consider expanding the Community Connect program 

(both in size and in the scope of its eligibility criteria) to be 

more inclusive in serving such communities.

Recommendation 8.18: Congress should consider establishing a Tribal Broadband Fund to support sustainable 

broadband deployment and adoption in Tribal lands, and all 

federal agencies that upgrade connectivity on Tribal lands 

should coordinate such upgrades with Tribal governments 

and the Tribal Broadband Fund grant-making process. 

Tribal lands face unique connectivity challenges (see Box 

8-4). Grants from a new Tribal Broadband Fund would be used 

for a variety of purposes, including bringing high-capacity 

connectivity to Tribal headquarters or other anchor institutions, deployment planning, infrastructure buildout, feasibility 

studies, technical assistance, business plan development and 

implementation, digital literacy, and outreach.128 In addition, 

a portion of the fund should be allocated to provide small, 

targeted grants on an expedited basis for Internet access 

and adoption programs.129 The fund should be administered 

by NTIA in consultation with the FCC and the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs. 

In order to provide state-of-the-art services to Tribal 

communities and promote the deployment of high-capacity 

infrastructure on Tribal lands, Congress should consider 

providing ongoing public funding for federal facilities serving 

Tribal lands in order to upgrade and maintain their broadband infrastructure. Telecommunications infrastructure 

at federal facilities located on Tribal lands frequently has 

limited broadband capacity.130

Consistent with Recommendation 6.8, which encourages 

government entities to actively seek out and leverage “dig 

once” coordination opportunities, all federal agencies that 

upgrade network connectivity on Tribal lands should coordinate such upgrades with Tribal governments and the Tribal 

Broadband Fund grant-making process to exploit opportunities for joint trenching, laying of conduit or construction of 

additional fiber optic facilities.131

Broadband on Tribal Lands

Available data, which are sparse, suggest that less than 10% 

of residents on Tribal lands have broadband available.132 The 

Government Accountability Office noted in 2006 that “the rate 

of Internet subscribership [on Tribal lands] is unknown because 

no federal survey has been designed to capture this information for Tribal lands.”133 But, as the FCC has previously observed, 

“[b]y virtually any measure, communities on Tribal lands have 

historically had less access to telecommunications services than 

any other segment of the population.”134

Many Tribal communities face significant obstacles to the 

deployment of broadband infrastructure, including high buildout costs, limited financial resources that deter investment 

by commercial providers and a shortage of technically trained 

members who can undertake deployment and adoption planning.135 Current funding programs administered by NTIA and RUS 

do not specifically target funding for projects on Tribal lands and 

are insufficient to address all of these challenges.136 Tribes need 

substantially greater financial support than is presently available to them, and accelerating Tribal broadband deployment will 

require increased funding.137

BOX 8-4:
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 8

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d PLAN 1 5 3

Tribal, State, Regional and Local Broadband Initiatives

In addition to Tribal, federal, and state efforts to support 

broadband deployment, local governments and regions often 

organize themselves to support deployment in their communities. According to recent market research, as of October 2009, 

there were 57 fiber-to-the-premises (FTTP) municipal deployments, either in operation or actively being built, in 85 towns 

and cities in the United States. These deployments collectively 

serve 3.4% of the FTTP subscribers in North America.138

Not all government-sponsored networks serve consumers directly. Several government-sponsored entities, such as 

NOANet in the Pacific Northwest and OneCommunity in Ohio, 

are major providers of backhaul capacity in areas that benefit 

community institutions and local broadband service providers. 

Their networks are often “constructed” by patching together 

and opening up to wider use fiber and other connections that 

might originally have been built for single-purpose institutional needs, such as the needs of government offices and local 

transportation. By offering up that existing capacity to wider 

use, including the service provider community, these efforts 

can benefit an entire community, not just one institution.139

While it is difficult to measure the impact of many local 

efforts, these efforts should be encouraged when they make 

sense. However, 18 states have passed laws to restrict or explicitly prohibit municipalities from offering broadband services. 

Some states, like Nebraska, have outright bans on municipalities offering any wholesale or retail broadband service. Other 

states, such as South Carolina and Louisiana, set conditions 

that make municipal broadband both harder to deploy and 

more costly for consumers.140 In addition, restrictions on the 

use of institutional networks can substantially impede the 

ability of local and regional authorities to utilize that infrastructure to benefit the broadband needs of the community as 

a whole. Restricting these networks in some cases restricts the 

country’s ability to close the broadband availability gap, and 

should be revisited.

Recommendation 8.19: Congress should make clear 

that Tribal, state, regional and local governments can build 

broadband networks. 

Local entities typically decide to offer services when no 

providers exist that meet local needs. These local entities do so 

only after trying to work with established carriers to meet local 

needs.141 This experience is similar to how some municipalities 

responded in the early part of the 20th century, when investorowned electric utilities left rural America in the dark while they 

electrified more lucrative urban centers. Public and cooperatively owned power utilities were created to fill the void. More 

than 2,800 public and co-op operators still provide electricity 

to 27% of Americans today.142 Many of these same rural areas 

now face similar challenges attracting private investment to 

connect civic institutions, businesses and residences to highspeed data networks. In some areas, local officials have decided 

that publicly–owned communications services are the best way 

to meet their residents’ needs (see Box 8-5).

Municipal broadband has risks. Municipally financed service may discourage investment by private companies. Before 

embarking on any type of broadband buildout, whether wired 

or wireless, towns and cities should try to attract private sector 

broadband investment. But in the absence of that investment, 

they should have the right to move forward and build networks 

that serve their constituents as they deem appropriate.

Recommendation 8.20: Federal and state policies should 

facilitate demand aggregation and use of state, regional and 

local networks when that is the most cost-efficient solution 

for anchor institutions to meet their connectivity needs. 

Government policy often limits the ability of schools, hospitals and other community institutions to serve as community 

broadband anchors. FCC universal service policies and the 

policies of other grant-making agencies frequently drive institutions to use dedicated, single-purpose networks that are not 

available for broader community use, resulting in a situation in 

which “[c]ommunity residents working in healthcare or education often have unlimited access to the Internet while other 

rural residents are left with no access.”143 These restrictions 

make it difficult to expand and share broadband with other 

community institutions in the most cost-effective way.

This problem is especially acute in rural areas and Tribal 

lands where broadband may only be available and affordable 

to residents and small businesses in a community if the fiber 

optic infrastructure in that town is shared not only by commercial users but also by the local hospital, government office 

Community Broadband in Rural America

Bristol, Va., provides a good example of the potential of community broadband in rural America. This small town, which also 

operates the local electric utility, initially deployed a fiber optic 

network to connect its government, electric utility and school 

buildings. Local businesses and residents expressed interest in 

connecting to this high-speed network, so Bristol made plans to 

build a fiber-to-the-premises network. After overcoming a series 

of state legislative barriers and legal challenges by incumbent 

providers offering slower services, Bristol launched a FTTP 

service. Today 62% of Bristol’s residents and businesses subscribe to the service despite competition from the incumbent 

telephone company and cable.

BOX 8-5:
1 5 4 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 8

and school system.144 Because broadband networks—particularly fiber optic networks—demonstrate large economies of 

scale, bulk purchasing arrangements for forms of connectivity like second-mile and middle-mile access can drive down 

the per-megabit cost of such access considerably. As a result, 

policy restrictions that impede the ability of school networks 

funded by E-rate to share capacity with hospitals funded by the 

Rural Health Care program, or the public safety system which 

may be funded by state and other federal sources, drive up the 

cost of connectivity for those institutions and for others in 

the community.145

At least 30 states have established state networks operated by 

public agencies or the private sector to aggregate demand among 

schools, universities, libraries, and state and local government 

agencies to reduce costs.146 Better collaboration among government agencies could reduce the potential for waste of federal 

resources and maximize available federal funding for broadband-related community development projects. Federal and 

state policy should not preclude or limit networks that serve one 

category of institution from serving other institutions and the 

community as a whole.147 The FCC should explore creative solutions to help schools, libraries and health care providers reduce 

their broadband-related costs by aggregating demand with other 

community institutions so that they can purchase the maximum 

amount of broadband with their USF dollars. For instance, the 

FCC should remove barriers to the shared use of state, regional, 

Tribal, and local networks by schools, libraries and health care 

providers when such networks provide the most cost-efficient 

choice for meeting broadband needs.148

Because community anchor institutions are large—if not the 

largest—potential consumers of broadband in even the smallest of towns, adopting these recommendations will not only 

expand broadband options for the institutions themselves but 

also will improve availability in the community as a whole.

Recommendation 8.21: Congress should consider amending the Communications Act to provide discretion to the 

FCC to allow anchor institutions on Tribal lands to share 

broadband network capacity that is funded by the E-rate 

or the Rural Health Care program with other community 

institutions designated by Tribal governments.

In recognition of the unique challenges facing Tribal communities, Congress should consider amending the Communications 

Act to provide discretion to the FCC to define circumstances in 

which schools, libraries and health care providers that receive 

funding from the E-rate or Rural Health Care program may share 

broadband network capacity that is funded by the E-rate or the 

Rural Health Care program with other community institutions 

designated by Tribal governments. 149

Recommendation 8.22: The federal government and state 

governments should develop an institutional framework that 

will help America’s anchor institutions obtain broadband connectivity, training, applications and services.

Earlier in this chapter, the plan proposes a path to ensure 

that homes in high-cost areas have access to broadband, largely 

by reforming the High-Cost program and intercarrier compensation. In other chapters, the plan proposes reforms to USF 

to improve connectivity to schools, libraries and health care 

providers. Government should take additional steps to enable 

these and other community institutions to better utilize their 

connectivity to provide a better quality of life for all people.

One approach to ensure connectivity for facilities that serve 

public purposes is to give a non-profit institution the mission and capability to focus on serving the broadband needs 

of public institutions, including health clinics, community 

colleges, schools, community centers, libraries, museums, 

and other public access points. In the past, the connectivity 

needs of research institutions have been met by non-profit 

research and education (R&E) networks such as Internet2 

and National LambdaRail. R&E networks played a central role 

in the development and growth of the Internet itself through 

ARPANET and later NSFNET. Today, similar R&E networks 

provide high-speed (10 Mbps-1 Gbps) connectivity to 66,000 

community anchor institutions.150 But more can be done—it 

is estimated that only one-third of anchor institutions have 

access to an R&E network today.151 This model should be expanded to other community institutions. 

A group of R&E networks, including Internet2 and the 

National LambdaRail, with the support of the National 

Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors 

and the Schools, Health and Libraries Broadband Coalition, 

have proposed that the federal government and state governments create a non-profit coordinating entity, the “Unified 

Community Anchor Network,” that would support and assist anchor institutions in obtaining and utilizing broadband 

connectivity.152 Expanding the R&E network model to other 

anchor institutions would offer tremendous benefits. Many 

community institutions lack the institutional resources to undertake the many tasks necessary to maximize their utilization 

of broadband. Facilitating collaboration on network design 

and how best to utilize applications to meet public needs could 

result in lower costs and a far more efficient and effective utilization of broadband by these institutions. 

Working with the R&E and non-profit community, the 

federal government and state governments should facilitate 

the development of an institutional framework that will help 

anchor institutions obtain broadband connectivity, training, 

applications and services. One method of implementation 
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 8

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d PLAN 1 5 5

would be to establish federal and state coordinators and consortia of anchor institutions. These coordinators would help 

secure connectivity and would also provide hands-on experience and capacity in the building and running of networks.153

A coordinating entity also could have a national procurement 

role in negotiating bulk equipment and connectivity purchase 

agreements, acting as a sophisticated buyer, which would then 

be available to community institutions.154 There also could be 

a platform for interconnected networks to share resources and 

applications and provide training opportunities. Coordinating 

and building common resources and capacity in this manner 

at the national and state levels would lower the overall costs of 

building and running anchor institutional networks. 
1 5 6 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

c h a p t e r 8 E n d n o t e s 

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 8

1 Here, “access” refers only to the capability of the lastmile network. Service providers may, for any number 

of reasons, make only lower-speed services available 

to customers—in other words, the speeds or products 

to which consumers have access may not fully reflect 

network capabilities. Because access networks are 

the most capital-intensive elements of the broadband 

infrastructure, it is reasonable to expect that providers 

will meet demand for higher speeds once the access 

network is capable of supporting such speeds. 

2 For purposes of the plan, “actual speed” refers to the data 

throughput delivered between the network interface 

unit (NIU) located at the end-user’s premises and the 

service provider Internet gateway that is the shortest 

administrative distance from that NIU. In the future, the 

technical definition of “actual speed” should be crafted 

by the FCC, with input from consumer groups, industry 

and other technical experts as is proposed in Chapter 4. 

The technical definition should include precisely defined 

metrics to promote clarity and shared understanding 

among stakeholders. For example, “actual download 

speeds of at least 4 Mbps” may require certain achievable 

download speeds over a given time period. Acceptable 

quality of service should be defined by the FCC. See supra 

Chapter 4 (Transparency Section).

3 In the first half of 2009, the median actual speed for those 

that subscribe to broadband in the United States was 3 

Mbps download speed. comScore, Inc., Jan.–June 2009 

Consumer Usage database (sampling 200,000 machines 

for user Web surfing habits) (on file with the Commission) 

(comScore database). Given past annual growth rates in 

subscribed speed of approximately 20–25% per year, we 

expect the median to exceed 4 Mbps by the end of 2010. Cf.

Akamai, The State of the Internet, 3rd Quarter, 2009, at 10 

(2010) (finding median download speeds to be 3.9 Mbps in 

the third quarter of 2009), available athttp://www.akamai.

com/dl/whitepapers/Akamai_State_Internet_Q3_2009.

pdf?curl=/dl/whitepapers/Akamai_State_Internet_

Q3_2009.pdf&solcheck=1& (registration required); see also 

OmnibusBroadband Initiative, Broadband Performance

(forthcoming) (discussing past growth rates).

4 Countries use different incentive policies for 

“universalizing” speeds. For instance, Canada awards 

funding for rural build-out above 1.5 Mbps actual speeds, 

while Finland has mandated that incumbent providers 

deliver a minimum of 0.5–1.0 Mbps actual download 

speeds (varying by time of day) to all citizens. Gov’t of 

Australia, Dep’t of Broadband, Commc’ns & the Digital 

Econ., Australian Broadband Guarantee—Frequently 

Asked Questions, http://www.dbcde.gov.au/__data/

assets/pdf_file/0017/114281/ABG_FAQ-lowres.pdf

(last visited Mar. 7, 2010) (particularly “speeds of at 

least 512 kbps download and 128 kbps upload, at least 

3 GB monthly download limits, and a price of no more 

than $2500 (including GST) over a three year period, 

including all connection and equipment cost”); Gov’t of 

Australia—Prime Minister of Australia, New National 

Broadband Network (press release), Apr. 7, 2009, http://

www.pm.gov.au/node/5233 (last visited Mar. 7, 2010) 

(specifically “[c]onnect 90 percent of all Australian 

homes, schools and workplaces with broadband services 

with speeds up to 100 megabits per second—100 times 

faster than those currently used by many households 

and businesses; Connect all other premises in Australia 

with next generation wireless and satellite technologies 

that will be deliver broadband speeds of 12 megabits per 

second”); Danish Gov’t, IT and Telecommunications

Policy Report 2009, at 6 (2009) (English translation) 

(“The Government’s target is for all Danes to have 

broadband access by the end of 2010 at the latest”), 

available at http://en.itst.dk/the-governments-it-andtelecommunications-policy/it-and-telecommunicationspolicy-reports/filarkiv/IT_and_Telecommunications_

Policy_Report_2009.pdf; Danish Gov’t, Annual

Broadband Mapping 2009, at 6 (2009) (Danish) 

(referencing the measurement threshold for broadband 

as 512 kbit/s set in bilateral agreement between service 

providers and the government), available at http://

www.itst.dk/statistik/Telestatistik/Bredbandstatistik/

bredbandskortlegning-1/bredbandskortlegning-2009/

Bredbandskortlegning%202009.pdf; Ministry of Transp. 

& Commc’ns, Gov’t of Finland, Making Broadband

Available to Everyone 2–4 (2008) (English Version) 

(particularly “[t]he report proposes that the public 

sector introduce business subsidies to enterprises that 

upgrade the public telecommunications network into 

a condition that makes available to most all citizens 

by 2015 an optical fiber or cable network supporting 

100 Mbit connections. Prior to this goal, the speed of 

the broadband connection included in the universal 

service obligation must be raised to an average of 

1 Mbit/s by the end of 2010 at the latest” with 100 

Mbps target set to be delivered within 2 kilometers 

of all households), available at http://www.lvm.fi/c/

document_library/get_file?folderId=57092&name=D

LFE-4311.pdf; Éric Besson, Secrétariat D’état Chargé

De La Prospective, Gov’t of France, De L’évaluation

Des Politiques Publiques Et Du Développement De

L’économie Numérique, Plan de développement de

l’économie numérique 4 (2008) (French), available 

at http://lesrapports.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr/

BRP/084000664/0000.pdf; see also European Comm’n, 

Progress Report on the Single European Electronic

Communications Market 2008, 14th report 4 (English)

(“The Plan announced the launch of a call for tenders 

in the first half of 2009, for designating the provider 

that would ensure that service (a minimum of 512 

kb/s) at an affordable price (35 euros/month) to all.”), 

available at http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/

policy/ecomm/doc/implementation_enforcement/

annualreports/14threport/fr.pdf; Ministry of Econ. & 

tech., Gov’t of Germany, The Federal Government’s

Broadband Strategy 8 (2009) (“Gaps in broadband 

penetration are to be eliminated and capable broadband 

access made available nationwide by the end of 2010. . . . 

[Capable broadband connections] are currently defined 

as having transmission rates of at least 1MBit/s”; “A total 

of 75 percent of households are to have Internet access 

with transmission rates of at least 50MB/sec by 2014.”), 

available at http://www.bmwi.de/English/Navigation/

Service/publications,did=294718.html; Gov’t of Ireland, 

Dep’t of Commc’ns, Energy, and Natural Resources, NBS 

Frequently Asked Questions, http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/

Communications/Communications+Development/

NBS+FAQs (last visited Mar. 7, 2010) (referencing Plan 

of December 23, 2008, particularly “3, the [National 

Broadband Scheme] Service Provider, will extend its 

network to provide mobile wireless broadband services 

into the NBS area. The mobile broadband service 

(I-HSPA) will have a minimum download speed of 

1.2Mbps and a minimum upload speed of 200kpbs 

with a contention ratio of 36:1. In recognition of the 

fact that some areas will be very costly and difficult to 

reach, in a very limited number of cases, 3 will make 

available a satellite product of 1Mbps download and 

128kbps upload. This will cover up to a maximum 

of 8% of fixed residences and businesses in the NBS 

coverage area. . . . An uncharged monthly data cap of 

15GB (12GB download and 3GB upload) will apply 

for the wireless product while 11GB (10GB download 

and 1GB upload) will be available for satellite users”); 

Ministry Of Internal Aff. & Commc’ns, Gov’t Of

Japan, Digital Divide Elimination Strategy 1 (2008) 

(Japanese, staff translation) (calling for elimination of 

all areas not served by broadband by 2010, and ultra 

high speed broadband coverage for 90% of households 

by 2010), available at http://www.soumu.go.jp/

menu_news/s-news/2008/pdf/080624_3_bt2.pdf. Also, 

note the inclusion of targets for fixed and mobile class 

infrastructures. See IT Strategy Headquarters, Gov’t

of Japan, i-Japan Strategy 2015, at 26 (2009) (English 

translation) (“The following measures will be carried 

out by 2015 . . . further advances in ultra-high-speed 

broadband infrastructure will be made (in the Gbps 

class for fixed and in excess of 100 Mbps [class] for 

mobile) to allow everyone to easily obtain and exchange 

information safe[l]y and securely from anywhere at 

anytime.”), available at http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/

policy/it/i-JapanStrategy2015_full.pdf; Letter from 

Young Kyu Noh, Minister Counselor of Broad. & ICT, 

Embassy of the Republic of Korea, to Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary, FCC, GN Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 09-137 

(Feb. 3, 2010) Attach. at 3, 6 (The 1.5–2M[bps] class 

high-speed network was completely established in 2008 

with a goal of minimum 50Mbps to 95% of households 

by 2013; also shows that Korea served 99% of population 

with 1Mbps service by 2008.); Korean Commc’ns 

Comm’n, Korean Internet Speeds to Be Ten Times Faster 

by 2012 (press release) (Mar. 28, 2009) (noting that 

1Gbps is not an established download minimum for a 

percentage of the population at this time), available at

http://eng.kcc.go.kr/user.do?mode=view&page=E040

10000&dc=E04010000&boardId=1058&cp=1&search

Key=ALL&searchVal=broadband+&boardSeq=15621; 

Ministry of Enter., Energy and Commc’ns, Gov’t of

Swed., Broadband Strategy for Sweden 15 (2009) 

(particularly “In 2020 . . . 90 per cent of all households 

and businesses have access to broadband at a minimum 

speed of 100 Mbps. . . . In 2015 . . . 40 per cent of all 

households and businesses have access broadband at 

a minimum speed of 100 Mbps”), available at http://

www.sweden.gov.se/content/1/c6/13/49/80/112394be.

pdf; Dep’t for Culture, Media and Sports , Gov’t of the
F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d PLAN 1 5 7

c h a p t e r 8 E n d n o t e s 

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 8

U.K., Digital Britain 12 (2009) (particularly “[t]o ensure 

all can access and benefit from the network of today, we 

confirm our intention to deliver the Universal Service 

Broadband Commitment at 2Mbps by 2012”), available

at http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/

digitalbritain-finalreport-jun09.pdf.

5 Section 254(c) (1)requires the FCC to establish 

periodically the definition of universal service that is 

supported by federal USF.

6 Housing units are distinct from households. “A housing 

unit is a house, an apartment, a mobile home, a group 

of rooms, or a single room that is occupied (or if vacant, 

is intended for occupancy) as separate living quarters.” 

In contrast, “A household includes all the persons 

who occupy a housing unit. . . . The occupants may be 

a single family, one person living alone, two or more 

families living together, or any other group of related 

or unrelated persons who share living arrangements.” 

There are 130.1 million housing units and 118.0 million 

households in the United States. U.S. Census Bureau, 

Households, Persons Per Household, and Households 

with Individuals Under 18 Years, 2000, http://

quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/meta/long_71061.htm (last 

visited Mar. 7, 2010); Omnibus Broadband Initiative, The

Broadband Availability Gap (forthcoming) (OBI, The

Broadband Availability Gap).

7 See OBI, The Broadband Availability Gap. Seven 

million housing units without access to 4 Mbps service 

are outside the cable footprint and are more than 

approximately 11,000–12,000 feet from the nearest 

DSLAM location. An FCC estimate shows that 12 

million people in six million housing units do not have 

access to terrestrial broadband capable of 768 kbps 

actual download speeds; those 6 million housing units 

without access to any always-on service are more than 

approximately 16,000 feet from the nearest DSLAM.

8 See OBI, The Broadband Availability Gap.

9 The analysis depends on a variety of data sources. See

OBI, The Broadband Availability Gap. Where the quality 

of data is limited, broadband-gap calculations will be 

affected. For example, there are 12 wire centers in 

Alaska that show no population within their boundaries, 

and an additional 18 wire centers that have no paved 

public-use roads (i.e., no roads other than 4WD or 

forest-service roads). All 30 of these wirecenters were 

excluded from wired broadband-gap calculations; 

however, all areas with population were covered by the 

wireless calculations. In addition, due to insufficient 

demographic and infrastructure data for Puerto Rico 

and the U.S. Virgin Islands in the Caribbean and Guam, 

American Samoa, and the Northern Marianas in the 

Pacific to calculate baseline availability, the broadband 

availability gap for these territories is not included. 

10 The estimate includes capital expenditure and 20 years 

of operating expenditure and revenue. All calculations 

use an annual discount rate of 11.25%. The calculation of 

the broadband availability gap does not include the cost 

of spectrum. Recent 700 MHz auctions in the A, B, C and 

E blocks had mean prices between $0.74 and $2.65 per 

MHz-POP, including a top price for a market of over $9.00 

per MHz-POP; median prices for these same auctions 

were between $0.20 and $0.42 per MHz-POP. At $1.00 

per MHz-POP, well above the median price of recent 

auctions, the cost of 40 megahertz of spectrum for serving 

14 million unserved people would be $0.56 billion. See OBI, 

The Broadband Availability Gap for more detail about the 

financial model and how it functions.

11 Numbers may not add to 100% due to rounding. 

12 For more information about satellite broadband, see 

OBI, The Broadband Availability Gap.

13 Northern Sky Research, How Much HTS Capacity is 

Enough?, http://www.talksatellite.com/Americas-A781.

htm (last visited Mar. 6, 2010).

14 See OBI, The Broadband Availability Gap; American

Roamer, Verizon Wireless 3g Coverage Area (2009); 

Robert C. Atkinson & Ivy E. Schultz, Columbia Inst. 

for Tele-Information, Broadband In America: Where

It Is And Where It Is Going (According To Broadband

Service Providers) 40 (2009) (Atkinson & Schultz, 

Broadband in America).

15 See OBI, The Broadband Availability Gap.

16 See OBI, The Broadband Availability Gap.

17 “Annual funding amount” refers to fiscal year 2008 

funding for all programs except BTOP and BIP, which 

were one-time programs funded by the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, and for the 

Universal Service Fund, which uses FY 2010 projected 

total outlays to ensure consistency with the rest of the 

document. The estimate of $2.5 billion under BTOP 

for infrastructure includes the $119 million in grants 

already awarded, plus the $2.35 billion announced in the 

January 2010 NOFA. GAO, Broadband Deployment Plan

Should Include Performance Goals and Measures to

Guide Federal Investment 13–14, GAO-09-494 (2009) 

(chart is modified from figure in this source), available at 

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09494.pdf; Broadband 

USA, The Portal To Apply for Broadband Funding under 

the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, 

http://www.broadbandusa.gov (last visited Mar. 7, 

2010); NTIA, Commerce Department’s NTIA and USDA’s 

RUS Announce Availability of $4.8 Billion in Recovery 

Act Funding to Bring Broadband to More Americans

(press release), http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press/2010/

BTOP_BIP_NOFAII_100115.html (last visited Mar. 7, 

2010); The White House, Vice President Biden Kicks Off 

$7.2 Billion Recovery Act Broadband Program (press 

release), http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/

vice-president-biden-kicks-72-billion-recovery-actbroadband-program (last visited Feb. 20, 2010); NTIA, 

Broadband Technology Opportunities Program Key 

Revisions in Second Notice of Funds Availability, 

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press/2010/BTOP_NOFAII_

FACTSHEET_100115.pdf (last visited Mar. 7, 2010).

18 “Other programs” include the Rural Utilities Service’s 

Distance Learning and Telemedicine Loans and 

Grants Program and Community Connect Grant 

Program, the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications Initiative, the Economic 

Development Administration’s program for Economic 

Development Facilities and Public Works, and the Delta 

Regional Authority’s program for Delta Area Economic 

Development.

19 Notice of Funds Availability for Broadband Initiatives 

Program and Broadband Technology Opportunities 

Program, 74 Fed. Reg. 33, 104 (July 9, 2009).

20 Notice of Funds Availability for Broadband Initiatives 

Program and Broadband Technology Opportunities 

Program, 74 Fed. Reg. 33, 104 (July 9, 2009).

21 NTIA, ION Upstate New York Rural Broadband Initiative 

Grant Award, http://www.ntia.doc.gov/broadbandgrants/

BTOPAward_IONHoldCoLLC_121709.pdf (last visited 

Feb. 20, 2010); NTIA, Project Connect South Dakota 

Grant Award, http://www.ntia.doc.gov/broadbandgrants/

BTOPAward_SDakotaNetwork_121709.pdf (last visited 

Feb. 20, 2010).

22 47 U.S.C. § 151.

23 J.M. Bauer et al., Whither Broadband Policy (30th 

Annual Telecomms. Policy Research Conf. Paper, 

2002), available at http://tprc.org/papers/2002/72/

Broadband_v1.pdf.

24 The FCC has relied on the statutory language in section 

254(h) to support internet access for schools, libraries 

and health care providers.

25 Universal Serv. Admin. Co., Universal Service Fund, 

http://www.usac.org/about/universal-service/ (last 

visited Mar. 7, 2010). The estimated annual projected 

outlay for the federal USF can be found in the FY 2010 

Federal budget. Office of Mgmt. & Budget, Exec. 

Office of the President, Budget of the United States

Government, Fiscal Year 2010, at 1220 (2010), available 

at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2010/

assets/oia.pdf. 

26 While the E-rate program is capped by FCC 

regulation at $2.25 billion annually, unused funds 

from prior funding years may be rolled over to the 

future, enabling the FCC to disburse more than the 

annual cap in a given year. In addition, in a given 

year, the FCC may disburse more than the cap when 

invoices for funding commitments from prior years 

are presented for payment.

27 Universal Serv. Admin. Co., Universal Service Fund, 

http://www.usac.org/about/universal-service/ (last 

visited Mar. 7, 2010). FCC total outlay estimates 

for FY 2010 submitted to OMB on December 15, 

2009 based on Universal Service Administrative 

Company projections. See USAC, Federal Universal

Service Support Mechanisms Fund Size Projections

for Second Quarter 2010, at 2 (2010), available at

http://www.universalservice.org/about/governance/

fcc-filings/2010/Q2/2Q2010%20Quarterly%20

Demand%20Filing.pdf.

28 Peter Bluhm, et al. State High Cost Funds: Purposes, 

Design, and Evaluation 60 (Nat’l Regulatory Res. Inst. 

(NRRI), Working Paper No. 10-04, 2010), available at 

http://www.nrri.org/pubs/telecommunications/NRRI_

state_high_cost_funds_jan10-04.pdf. (Bluhm et al., State 

High Cost Funds); Public Utility Commission of Texas, 

Texas Universal Service Fund, http://puc.state.tx.us/ocp.

telephone/choice/txunivserv.cfm (more recent data for 

Texas) (last visited Feb. 20, 2010).

29 See Jing Liu & Edwin Rosenberg, State Universal 

Service Funding Mechanisms: Results of the NRRI’s 

2005–2006 Survey 43, 54 (NRRI, Working Paper 
1 5 8 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

c h a p t e r 8 E n d n o t e s 

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 8

No. 06-09, 2006), available at http://nrri.org/pubs/

telecommunications/06-09.pdf (Liu & Rosenberg, 

State Universal Service Funding Mechanisms); Alliance

for Pub. Tech. & Commc’ns Workers of Am., State

Broadband Initiatives 3 (2009), available at http://

www.apt.org/publications/reports-studies/state_

broadband_initiatives.pdf.

30 Not all of these programs are administered by the 

state public utility commission. Bluhm et al. State 

High Cost Funds at 32. Examples of funding programs 

to support the build-out of advanced networks in 

unserved and underserved areas include the California 

Advanced Services Fund, ConnectME Authority, Illinois 

Technology Revolving Loan Program, Idaho Rural 

Broadband Investment Program (IRBIP), Louisiana 

Delta Development Initiative, and Massachusetts 

Broadband Initiative. See Alliance for Pub. Tech. & 

Commc’ns Workers of Am., State Broadband Initiatives

3, 47–49 (2009), available at http://www.apt.org/

publications/reports-studies/state_broadband_

initiatives.pdf.

31 Alliance for Pub. Tech. & Commc’ns Workers of Am., 

State Broadband Initiatives 3, 44–56 (2009), available 

at http://www.apt.org/publications/reports-studies/

state_broadband_initiatives.pdf.

32 Although several commenters submitted estimates into 

the record, not all commenters specified whether figures 

represented a percentage of total revenues or regulated 

revenues. See Western Telecommunications Alliance 

Comments in re NBP PN #19 (Comment Sought on 

the Role of the Universal Service Fund and Intercarrier 

Compensation in the National Broadband Plan, GN 

Docket No. 09-47, 09-51, 09-137, Public Notice, 24 

FCC Rcd 13757 (WCB 2009) (NBP PN #19)), filed Dec. 

7, 2009, at 25, 27 (stating that for small rural LECs, 

high cost represents 30–40% of regulated revenues, 

while intercarrier compensation represents 30–40% of 

regulated revenues); Organization for the Promotion 

and Advancement of Small Telecommunications 

Companies Comments in re NBP PN #19, filed Dec. 

7, 2009, at 25 (stating that intercarrier compensation 

revenues together with high-cost USF support comprise 

approximately 60% of rate of return incumbent LECs’ 

net telephone company operating revenue); Rural High 

Cost Carriers Comments in re NBP PN #19, filed Dec. 

7, 2009, at 11 (noting that federal universal service 

support and intercarrier compensation account for 

between 40–62% of revenues for many rural carriers); 

Texas Statewide Telephone Company Comments in 

re NBP PN #19, filed Dec. 7, 2009, at 13 (intercarrier 

compensation revenues and high-cost support accounts 

for over 60% of rural LECs’ revenue stream).

33 Certain competitive aspects of special access will be 

addressed in Chapter 4 on a pro-competition framework 

for the high capacity circuit wholesale market.

34 Figures based on USAC preliminary 2009 disbursement 

data.

35 See, e.g., National Exchange Carrier Association (NECA) 

Comments in re NBP PN #19, filed Dec. 7, 2009, at 

5 (RLECs added gross investment of $1.2 billion in 

2006–07, $1.6 billion in 2007–08, and $2.1 billion in 

2008–09/10; “the vast majority of these investments in 

network upgrades are for fiber deployment and state-ofthe-art softswitches”); Western Telecommunications 

Association Comments in re National Broadband Plan 

NOI, filed June 9, 2009, at 24–25 (USF support has 

permitted RLECs to install and operate digital switches 

and soft switches, and deploy and extend fiber optic and 

DSL facilities deeper into their networks).

36 See OBI, The Broadband Availability Gap. Estimate does 

not take into account Frontier’s proposed acquisition of 

Verizon lines.

37 Funding levels for the larger carriers are based on a 

forward looking cost model that was designed to estimate 

the cost of providing circuit-switched voice service; it 

was never intended to address the investment necessary 

to extend broadband to unserved areas. In contrast, 

smaller carriers typically receive funding under formulas 

that allow them to recoup their actual costs of extending 

broadband to unserved areas, including the costs of 

deploying fiber and, for some companies, soft switches.

38 See, e.g., AT&T Inc. Comments in re NBP PN #19, filed 

Dec. 7, 2009, at 10 (describing Alabama and Mississippi 

requirements to report on use of high cost funds; AT&T 

reported its plans to spend funding on deployment of 

loop fiber and next generation digital loop carrier).

39 Liu & Rosenberg, State Universal Service Funding 

Mechanisms at 43 & tbl. 26. For instance, in Maine, 

applicants seeking competitive ETC designation must 

file a plan describing with specificity, for the first two 

years, proposed improvements or upgrades to the 

applicant’s network throughout the designated service 

area, projected start and completion date for each 

improvement, estimated amount of investment for 

each project that is funded by high cost support, specific 

geographic areas where improvements will be made, and 

the estimated population that will be served as a result of 

the improvements; only competitive ETCs are required 

to report annually on investments made with high cost 

support. Standards for Designating and Certifying 

Eligible Telecommunications Carriers Qualified to 

Receive Federal Universal Service Funding, 65-407-206 

Me. Code R. § 3, § 6, available at www.maine.gov/sos/

cec/rules/65/407/407c206.doc. 

40 Jonathan E. Nuechterlein & Philip J. Weiser, Digital

Crossroads: American Telecommunications Policy in

the Internet Age 292 (2007). As noted above, ICC 

represents a significant revenue flow for many small 

carriers. See National Exchange Carrier Association 

Comments in re NBP PN #19, filed Dec. 7, 2009, at 

27 (representing that, in 2005, an average 29% of its 

incumbent carriers’ revenues came from intercarrier 

compensation, and some carriers received up to 49% 

of revenues from intercarrier compensation); Fred 

Williams and Associates Comments in re NBP PN 

#19, filed Dec. 7, 2009, at Attach. 1–2; Letter from 

Genevieve Morelli, Counsel for XO et al., to Marlene H. 

Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 

09-137, WC Docket No. 05-337, CC Docket No. 01-92 

(Dec. 9, 2009) Attach. at 1; Independent Telephone & 

Telecommunications Alliance Comments in re NBP PN 

#19, filed Dec. 7, 2009, at 6 (“A survey of ITTA members 

revealed that approximately 12% of member carrier 

revenues are obtained via ICC”); Alaska Telephone 

Association Comments in re NBP PN #19, filed Dec. 7, 

2009, at 6.

41 See Economic Implications and Interrelationships 

Arising from Policies and Practices Relating to Customer 

Information, Jurisdictional Separations and Rate 

Structures, Docket No. 20003, First Report, 61 FCC 2d 

766, 796–97, paras. 81–82 (1976); Gerald W. Brock, The

Second Information Revolution 188 (2003).

42 See Letter from Brian J. Benison, AT&T, to Marlene 

H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 09-51, WC 

Docket Nos. 07-135, 05-337, 99-68, CC Docket Nos. 

01-92, 96-45 (Jan. 6, 2010) Attach. at 2; see also FCC, 

Universal Service Monitors Report 2009, at tbl. 7.10 

(2009), available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_

public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A1.pdf (showing that 

interstate per-minute charges range up to 5.71 cents per 

minute).

43 The FCC has set the rate for ISP-bound traffic at 

$0.0007 per minute. See Implementation of the Local 

Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 

1996, Intercarrier Compensation for ISP-Bound Traffic, 

Order on Remand and Report and Order, CC Docket 

Nos. 99-68, 96-98, Order on Remand and Report and 

Order, 16 FCC Rcd 9151 (2001), remanded WorldCom 

Inc. v. FCC, 288 F.3d 429 (D.C. Cir. 2002); High Cost 

Universal Service Reform; Federal-State Joint Board 

on Universal Service; Lifeline and Link Up; Universal 

Service Contribution Methodology; Numbering Resource 

Optimization; Implementation of the Local Competition 

Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996; 

Developing a Unified Intercarrier Compensation Regime; 

Intercarrier Compensation for ISP-Bound Traffic; 

IP-Enabled Services, CC Docket Nos. 96-45, 99-200, 

96-98, 01-92, 99-68, WC Docket Nos. 05-337, 03-109, 

06-122, 04-36, Order on Remand and Report and Order 

and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 24 FCC 

Rcd 6475 (2008), aff ’d, Core Commc’ns Inc. v. FCC, No. 

86-1365 (D.C. Cir. slip op. Jan. 12, 2010). Other forms of 

ICC include LEC-CMRS traffic.

44 Rates differ depending on if the terminating carrier is 

a rate-of-return carrier, price-cap carrier, competitive 

carrier or mobile wireless provider. 

45 PAETEC Communications et al. Comments in re 

NBP PN #19, filed Dec. 7, 2009, at 18 (“The Joint 

Commenters have invested substantial amounts to 

ensure proper billing . . . . These investments and the 

systems used to bill intercarrier compensation would be 

substantially simpler if Joint Commenters did not have 

to track and classify traffic based on artificial regulatory 

constructs”); US Telecom Comments in re NBP PN 

#19, filed Dec. 7, 2009, at 7; CenturyLink Comments 

in re NBP PN #19, filed Dec. 7, 2009, at 38 (citing 

Central Telephone Company of Virginia et al. v. Sprint 

Communications Company of Virginia, Inc. and Sprint 

Communications Company LP, Case No. 3:09-cv-00720 

(E.D. Va.) (filed Nov. 16, 2009); CenturyTel of Chatham 

LLC et al. v. Sprint Communications Company LP, Case 

No. 3:09-cv-01951 (W.D. La.) (filed Nov. 23, 2009)).

46 See, e.g., Establishing Just and Reasonable Rates for 
F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d PLAN 1 5 9

c h a p t e r 8 E n d n o t e s 

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 8

Local Exchange Carriers, WC Docket No. 07-135, 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 22 FCC Rcd 17989 

(2007) (Access Stimulation NPRM) (seeking comment 

on how to address access stimulation concerns); 

Establishing Just and Reasonable Rates for Local 

Exchange Carriers; Call Blocking by Carriers, WC 

Docket No. 07-135, Declaratory Ruling, 22 FCC Rcd 

11629 (2007) (prohibiting self-help call blocking to 

address access stimulation concerns); Qwest Commc’ns 

Corp. v. Farmers and Merchants Mut. Tel. Co., File No. 

EB-07-MD-001, Second Order on Reconsideration, 

24 FCC Rcd 14801 (2009) Attach. (Second Petition 

for Reconsideration and Petition for Stay pending) 

(resolving dispute regarding payment of access charges 

in alleged access stimulation situation). 

47 AT&T Comments in re Access Stimulation NPRM, 

filed Dec. 17, 2007, Attach. (Decl. of Adam Panagia) at 

para. 11; see also Letter from Brian J. Benison, AT&T, to 

Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 07-

135 (Nov. 20, 2009) Attach. at 4–6; Letter from Donna 

Epps, Verizon, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, 

WC Docket No. 07-135 (June 4, 2008) at 2-3.

48 See Cablevision Comments in re NBP PN #25 (Comment 

Sought on Transition from Circuit-Switched Network to 

All-IP Network, GN Docket No. 09-47, 09-51, 09-137, 

Public Notice, 24 FCC Rcd 14272 (WCB 2009) (NBP 

PN #25)), filed Dec. 22, 2009, at 2 (“[A]s incumbent 

local exchange carriers . . . upgrade their legacy networks 

to IP, they refuse to provide IP interconnection to their 

competitors on reasonable terms or at all. As a result, 

each IP voice call initiated on a competing carriers’ 

network must be reduced to TDM, transmitted over 

an electrical DS-0 or similar connection, and routed 

to an ILEC customer over the legacy hierarchical 

circuit-switched network, with all of its associated 

costs, inefficiencies, and limitations.”); Global Crossing 

Comments in re NBP PN #19, filed Dec. 7, 2009, at 6; 

Sprint Nextel Comments in re NBP PN #25, filed Dec. 

22, 2009, at 10; PAETEC Comments in re NBP PN #25, 

filed Dec. 22, 2009, at 7-10. 

49 See Verizon Comments in re NBP PN #19, filed Dec. 

7, 2009, at 18 (“Ongoing uncertainty regarding the 

compensation due to—and from—providers for IP traffic 

serves as a disincentive to further investment in the very 

next-generation services that consumers seek most”).

50 See Verizon Comments in re NBP PN #19, filed Dec. 7, 

2009, at 17; AT&T Comments in re NBP PN #25, filed 

Dec. 22, 2009, at 12; Global Crossing Comments in re 

NBP PN #19, filed Dec. 7, 2009, at 5.

51 See FCC, Universal Service Monitoring Report 2009, 

at tbl. 8.1 (2009), available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/

edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A1.pdf; see also

AT&T Comments in re NBP PN #25, filed Dec. 21, 2009, 

at 10.

52 Organization for the Promotion and Advancement of 

Small Telecommunications Companies Comments in re 

NBP PN #19, filed Dec. 7, 2009, at 23-24. 

53 Further, the FCC has not addressed whether VoIP 

traffic is subject to ICC charges, and, if so, what type 

of charges apply. Commenters in the record argue that 

the uncertainty regarding the treatment of VoIP traffic 

has resulted in significant disputes and costly litigation 

regarding the payment of intercarrier compensation 

for such traffic. CenturyLink Comments in re NBP PN 

#19, filed Dec. 7, 2009, at 38 (citing Central Telephone 

Company of Virginia, et al v. Sprint Communications 

Company of Virginia, Inc and Sprint Communications 

Company LP, Case No. 3:09-cv-00720 (E.D. Va.) (filed 

Nov. 16, 2009); CenturyTel of Chatham LLC, et al v. 

Sprint Communications Company LP, Case No. 3:09-cv01951 (W.D. La.) (filed Nov. 23, 2009)).

54 Wired special access circuits connect wireless towers to 

the rest of the network. Sprint estimates that one third 

of its total operating costs of a cell site are devoted to 

second and middle-mile connectivity. Sprint Comments 

in re NBP PN #11, (Comments sought in Impact of Middle 

and Second Mile Access on Broadband Availability and 

Development-NBP Public Notice #11, GN Docket Nos. 

09-47, 09-51, 09-13, Public Notice 24 FCC Rcd 12470 

(WCB 2009) NBP PN #11), filed Nov. 19, 2010, at 2. 

55 See, e.g., Comments of Contact Communications, Inc. 

and wwyoming.com in re NBP PN #11, filed Nov. 3, 

2009, at 4-6 (providing connectivity options and costs 

for served middle mile circuits in Wyoming of up to 231 

miles); Letter from Thomas Jones, Counsel, tw telecom 

inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket 

Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 09-137 (Dec. 22, 2009).

56 See, e.g., Comments of Contact Communications, Inc. 

and Wyoming.com in re NBP PN #11, filed Nov. 3, 

2009, at 4-6 (providing connectivity options and costs 

for several middle-mile circuits in Wyoming of up to 

231 miles); National Exchange Carrier Association 

Comments in re NBP PN #11, filed Nov. 4, 2009; 

Wireless Internet Service Provider Association 

Comments in re NBP PN #11, filed Nov. 4, 2009.

57 47 U.S.C. § 201(b).

58 National Telecommunications Cooperative Association 

Comments in re NBP PN #11, filed Nov. 20, 2009, at 

5-13 (asserting that total middle-mile cost will rise as 

Internet demand increases, and small rural providers 

have per Mbps middle-mile costs higher than the larger 

providers).

59 Per-megabit costs can vary significantly for small rural 

providers. The National Exchange Carrier Association 

reports that the price its members pay for a 45 Mbps 

DS3 connection ranges from $50–$375 per month. 

National Exchange Carrier Association Comments in re 

NBP PN# 11, filed Nov. 4, 2009, at 4.

60 See generally Peter Bluhm & Robert Loube, Competitive 

Issues in Special Access Markets (NRRI, Working Paper 

No. 09-02, rev. ed. 2009), available at http://nrri.

org/pubs/telecommunications/NRRI_spcl_access_

mkts_jan09-02.pdf; XO Comments in re NBP PN 

#11, filed Nov. 4, 2009, at 15–27; Letter from Thomas 

Jones, Counsel, tw telecom inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 09-51 (Oct. 14, 2009) 

Attach.; Letter from Thomas Jones, Counsel, tw telecom 

inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket 

No. 09-51 (Dec. 22, 2009) (regarding price, terms, and 

conditions of high-capacity Ethernet transport); Sprint 

Comments in re NBP PN # 11, filed Nov. 4, 2009, at 

13–45; Wireless Internet Service Provider Association 

Comments in re NBP PN # 11, filed Nov. 4, 2009, at 

25–28 (recommending fiber access policy), But cf. 

Verizon Comments in re NBP PN# 11, filed Nov. 4, 

2009, at 4–5, 42 (noting that while “cost and availability 

of middle- and second-mile facilities—generally together 

with other factors—have hindered the deployment 

of broadband in some instances” to the point that 

broadband in those locations “would be too expensive 

for most,” but asserting that “it is the distance such 

facilities must be deployed and the relatively small base 

of customers” that results in high costs); Letter from 

Jeffrey S. Lanning, Director, Federal Regulatory Affairs, 

CenturyLink, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN 

Docket No. 09-51, WC Docket No. 05-25 (Nov. 4, 2009) 

at Attach. (noting that special access circuits “typically 

are sunk cost investments with considerable risk”); 

AT&T Comments in re NBP PN #11, filed Nov. 4, 2009, 

at 3–5, 9–13 (noting per-mile rates for special access 

second and middle-mile connections “typically vary 

little from urban to rural areas”).

61 High-Cost Universal Service Support; Federal-State Joint 

Board on Universal Service, WC Docket No. 05-337, CC 

Docket No. 96-45, Recommended Decision, 22 FCC Rcd 

20477, 20490–92, paras. 55–62 (JB 2007). 

62 See National Exchange Carrier Association Comments 

in re NBP PN #19, filed Dec. 7, 2009, at 8 (as 

mechanisms are put in place to support broadband 

services, funding for existing voice-based programs can 

be phased down). 

63 See, e.g., Letter from Mike Lovett, Executive Vice 

President and Chief Operating Officer, Charter, to 

Chairman Julius Genachoski, FCC, GN Docket Nos. 

09-51, 09-47, 09-137, 09-919, 07-52, WC Docket 

No. 09-154, 05-337, RM-11584 (Feb. 24, 2010) at 8 

(urging FCC to pinpoint support to unserved areas and 

prioritize applications that will deliver broadband to the 

greatest number of now unserved households per public 

dollar invested); Qwest Comments in re NBP PN #19, 

filed Dec. 7, 2009, at 4 (in early years of program, target 

unserved households where it is less costly to provide 

broadband service, in order to maximize the number of 

unserved households in every year). 

64 See, e.g., Organization for the Promotion and 

Advancement of Small Telecommunications Companies 

Comments in re NBP PN #19, filed Dec. 7, 2009, at 10 

(seven year transition period); TDS Telecommunications 

Corp. Comments in re NBP PN #19, filed Dec. 7, 2009, 

at 6–7 (supports OPASTCO proposal); Independent 

Telephone and Telecommunications Alliance Comments 

in re NBP PN #19, filed Dec. 7, 2009, at 16 (five to seven 

year transition); Free Press Comments in re National 

Broadband Plan NOI, filed June 8, 2009, at 29, 255 (ten 

years). 

65 Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Comments in 

re NBP PN #25, filed Dec. 22, 2009, at 5–6 (stating that 

the FCC should seek input on how to reconcile national 

efforts with successful state programs).

66 For the purposes of the Plan, we define “Tribal lands” 

as any federally recognized Tribe’s reservation, pueblo 

and colony, including former reservations in Oklahoma, 

Alaska Native regions established pursuant to the 
1 6 0 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

c h a p t e r 8 E n d n o t e s 

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 8

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (85 Stat. 688), 

and Indian allotments. The term “Tribe” means any 

American Indian or Alaska Native Tribe, Band, Nation, 

Pueblo, Village or Community which is acknowledged 

by the Federal government to have a government-togovernment relationship with the United States and is 

eligible for the programs and services established by the 

United States. See Statement of Policy on Establishing a 

Government-to-Government Relationship with Indian 

Tribes, 16 FCC Rcd 4078, 4080 (2000). Thus, “Tribal 

lands” includes American Indian Reservations and 

Trust Lands, Tribal Jurisdiction Statistical Areas, Tribal 

Designated Statistical Areas, and Alaska Native Village 

Statistical Areas, as well as the communities situated 

on such lands. This would also include the lands of 

Native entities receiving Federal acknowledgement or 

recognition in the future. While Native Hawaiians are 

not currently members of federally-recognized Tribes, 

they are intended to be covered by the recommendations 

of this Plan, as appropriate.

67 See, e.g. CenturyLink et al. Comments in re NBP PN #19, 

filed Dec. 7, 2009, at 3–4 (urging FCC to create expedited 

process to target additional support for broadband 

deployment in unserved areas pending resolution of 

longer term USF reform issues for areas that already 

have broadband and voice services). 

68 The Memorandum of Understanding is posted on the 

FCC’s website. See Memorandum of Understanding 

between the Federal Communications Commission and 

the Universal Service Administrative Company (Sept. 9, 

2008), http://www.fcc.gov/omd/usac-mou.pdf.

69 See, e.g., National Telecommunications Cooperative 

Association Reply in re NBP NOI, filed July 21, 2009, 

at 23–24 (target funding to “Market Failure Areas,” 

defined as areas that lack the population base or 

economic foundation to justify build-out and ongoing 

maintenance without external monetary support); 

Nebraska Public Service Commission Comments in re 

NBP PN #19, filed Dec. 7, 2009, at 7–8 (need to target 

funding to “out of town” areas); National Cable & 

Telecommunications Association Comments in re NBP 

PN # 19, filed Dec. 7, 2009, at 2–3.

70 See, e.g., National Association of State Utility Consumers 

Advocates Comments in re NBP PN #19, filed Dec. 

7, 2009, at 13; Rural Cellular Association Comments 

in re NBP PN #19, filed Dec. 7, 2009, at 14; Comcast 

Comments in re NBP PN #19, filed Dec. 7, 2009, at 2–3.

71 See, e.g., AT&T Comments in re NBP PN #19, filed 

Dec. 7, 2009, at 13; Organization for the Promotion and 

Advancement of Small Telecommunications Companies 

Comments in re NBP PN #19, filed Dec. 7, 2009, at 

10, 16; TDS Telecommunications Corp. Comments 

in re NBP PN # 19, filed Dec. 7, 2009, at 6; Western 

Telecommunications Alliance Comments in re NBP PN 

#19, filed Dec. 7, 2009, at 20–21; Pioneer Comments in 

re NBP PN #19, filed Dec. 7, 2009, at 2.

72 See, e.g., Comcast Comments in re NBP PN #19, filed 

Dec. 7, 2009, at 3–4; New Jersey Rate Division of 

Counsel Comments in re NBP PN #19, filed Dec. 7, 

2009, at 7–8; Letter from Ben Scott, Free Press to 

Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 

09-51 (Jan. 19, 2010) (need for high cost should be based 

on forward-looking infrastructure and total revenue 

earning potential); see also Sprint Comments in re 

National Cable and Telecommunications Association 

Petition for RulemakingTo Reduce Universal Service 

High-Cost Support Provided To Carriers In Areas Where 

There Is Extensive Unsubsidized Facilities-based Voice 

Competition, WC Docket No. 05-337, GN Docket No. 

09-51, RM-11584, filed Jan. 7, 2010, at 7 (FCC must 

recognize that USF recipients derive revenues from 

broadband and video services delivered over common 

network); National Cable & Telecommunications 

Association Petition for Rulemaking, Reducing 

Universal Service Support in Geographic Areas That 

Are Experiencing Unsupported Facilities-Based 

Competition (filed Nov. 5, 2009) (when considering 

need for ongoing support, FCC should consider whether 

ILEC costs, including costs attributable to provider of 

last resort obligations imposed under state law, cannot 

be recovered through the regulated and unregulated 

services provided over the network). 

73 See, e.g., Florida Public Service Commission Comments 

in re NBP PN #19, filed Dec. 15, 2009, at 5 (carriers 

should not be able to double dip from different federal 

agencies for the same project); US Cellular Comments 

in re NBP PN #19, filed Dec. 7, 2009, at 15; Centurylink 

Comments in re NBP PN #19, filed Dec. 7, 2009, at 27.

74 See, e.g., US Cellular Comments in re NBP PN #19, filed 

Dec. 7, 2009, at 15–17; USA Coalition Comments in re 

NBP PN #19, filed Dec. 7, 2009, at 11.

75 Liu & Rosenberg, State Universal Service Funding 

Mechanisms at 70, 76; Alliance for Pub. Tech. & Commc’ns

Workers ofAm., State Broadband Initiatives 3, 47–49 

(2009), available at http://www.apt.org/publications/

reports-studies/state_broadband_initiatives.pdf..

76 See California Public Utility Commission Comments 

in re NBP PN #19, filed Dec. 7, 2009, at 4–5 (arguing 

that states that generate matching funding should get 

supplemental funding; states that do not should only 

get base level funding). In 2007, the Federal-State Joint 

Board on Universal Service recommended that the FCC 

adopt policies to encourage states to provide matching 

funds for the new Broadband Fund that it proposed 

be established. Comprehensive Reform Recommended 

Decision, 22 FCC Rcd at 20489, para. 50.

77 See, e.g., Letter from Ken Pfister, Vice Pres.–Strategic 

Pol’y, Great Plains Communications, Inc., to Marlene H. 

Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 09-51 (Dec. 8, 

2009) Attach. at 6 (arguing that the United States cannot 

afford to support more than one network; support should 

be targeted to where the market will not work); California 

Public Utility Commission Comments in re NBP PN #19, 

filed Dec. 7, 2009, at 6 (arguing that USF should provide 

support to only one provider in a given geographic area); 

Qwest Communications International Inc. Comments in 

re NBP PN #19, filed Dec. 7, 2009, at 3 (arguing that only 

a single provider of broadband, regardless of technology, 

should receive support);Maine Public Utility Commission 

and Vermont Public Service Board Comments in re NBP 

PN #19, filed Dec. 7, 2009, at 4; Charter Communications, 

Inc. Comments in re NBP PN #19, filed Dec. 7, 2009, at 5; 

see alsoComprehensive Reform Recommended Decision, 

22 FCC Rcd at 20481–82, para. 15 (recommending that 

Broadband Fund provide funding for “only one provider in 

any geographic area”).

78 See, e.g., National Cable and Telecommunications 

Association Comments in re NBP PN #19, filed Dec. 7, 

2009, at 7; American Cable Association Comments in 

re NBP PN #19, filed Dec. 7, 2009, at 32 (supporting 

the creation of a new support mechanism that is 

“competitively and technologically neutral”).

79 See, e.g., Maine Public Utilities Commission and 

Vermont Public Service Board Comments in re NBP 

PN #19, filed Dec. 7, 2009, at 4 (arguing that the 

Commission should award support for broadband 

deployment through cost model, Request for Proposal or 

reverse auctions); Qwest Communications International 

Inc. Comments in re NBP PN #19, filed Dec. 7, 2009, 

at 3, 21 (recommending competitive bidding for onetime grant to cover cost of deploying and providing 

broadband in previously unserved area for finite time 

period, such as ten years); AT&T Inc. Comments in 

re NBP PN #19, filed Dec. 7, 2009, at 11 & App. A at 

11 (suggesting competitive project-based funding 

approach); AdHoc Telecommunications Users 

Committee Comments in re NBP PN #19, filed Dec. 7, 

2009, at 10.

80 See National Association of State Utility Consumer 

Advocates Comments in re NBP PN #19, filed Dec. 7, 

2009, at 22 (condition receipt of funding on acceptance 

of broadband carrier of last resort for the area where 

funding is accepted).

81 See, e.g., American Cable Association Comments in 

re NBP PN #19, filed Dec. 7, 2009, at 39 (arguing 

that funding should be provided with strict terms and 

conditions, including time limits for construction, 

reporting requirements, and annual audits); Kansas 

State Representative Tom Sloan and Mary Galligan 

Comments in re NBP PN #28 (Comment Sought on 

Addressing Challenges to Broadband Deployment 

Financing—NBP Public Notice #28, GN Docket No. 

09-47, 09-51, 09-137, Public Notice, 24 FCC Rcd 14610 

(WCB 2009) (NBP PN #28)), filed Jan. 8, 2010, at 1 

(arguing that companies that receive financial support 

must be held accountable for actually signing up 

customers for broadband service, not simply installing 

infrastructure); Organization for the Promotion and 

Advancement of Small Telecommunications Companies 

Comments in re NBP PN #19, filed Dec. 7, 2009, at 10.

82 See, e.g., Cox Communications, Inc. Comments in re 

NBP PN #19, filed Dec. 7, 2009, at 10 (“[M]onopoly 

providers subject to COLR obligations should be 

required to meet service quality standards and reporting 

and oversight obligations to guarantee that they provide 

reasonable service in areas where customers have no 

competitive choice.”); AT&T Inc. Comments in re 

NBP PN #19, filed Dec. 7, 2009, App. A at 19 (arguing 

that recipients should provide supported services at 

rates, terms and conditions reasonably comparable to 

those offered in urban areas); Qwest Communications 

International Inc. Comments in re NBP PN #19, 

filed Dec. 7, 2009, at 4 (arguing that winner bidders 
F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d PLAN 1 6 1

c h a p t e r 8 E n d n o t e s 

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 8

of subsidies to deploy broadband to unserved areas 

should be limited to charging no more than 125% of the 

state-wide average for comparable broadband service); 

OPASTCO Comments in re NBP PN #19, filed Dec. 7, 

2009, at 21 (arguing that ETCs should be required to 

serve all customers at minimum broadband speeds and 

maximum rates). 

83 Data from American Roamer shows geographic coverage 

by technology. The actual service quality of data 

connections experienced by end-users will differ due to 

a large number of factors, such as location and mobility. 

Further, the underlying coverage maps do not include 

information on what level of service (i.e., the quality of 

the signal and the speed of broadband service) provided; 

nor is coverage defined by providers in the same way. 

Thus, coverage as described here does not correspond 

to a specific minimum signal quality or user experience. 

See American Roamer Advanced Services database 

(accessed Aug. 2009) (aggregating service coverage 

boundaries provided by mobile network operators) (on 

file with the Commission) (American Roamer database). 

Population is based on projected census blocks 

figures from Geolytics. See Geolytics Block Estimates 

and BlockEstimates Professional databases (2009) 

(accessed Nov. 2009) (projecting census populations 

by year to 2014 by census block) (on file with the 

Commission) (Geolytics databases). See generally OBI.

84 See American Roamer database; Geolytics databases. See 

generally OBI, The Broadband Availability Gap.

85 Atkinson & Schultz, Broadband in America at 7.

86 See Maine Public Utility Commission and Vermont 

Public Service Board Comments in re NBP PN #19, 

filed Dec. 7, 2009, at 3 (arguing the Commission should 

establish Mobility Fund to expand wireless mobile voice 

services in unserved areas). In 2007, the Federal-State 

Joint Board on Universal Service recommended that 

the FCC create a new Mobility Fund “tasked primarily 

with disseminating wireless voice services to unserved 

areas” with funding targeted to capital spending for new 

construction. Comprehensive Reform Recommended 

Decision, 22 FCC Rcd at 20482, 20486, paras. 16, 36.

87 See, e.g., United States Telecom Association Comments 

in re NBP PN #28, filed Jan. 8, 2010, at 9; Windstream 

Communications, Inc. Comments in re NBP PN #28, 

filed Jan. 8, 2010, at 5.

88 See Letter from William J. Wilkins, Chief Counsel, U.S. 

Department of Treasury, to Cameron K. Kerry, General 

Counsel, U.S. Department of Commerce (Mar.4, 

2010). The five factors outlined in the Treasury ruling 

are: (1) the contribution must become a permanent 

part of the transferee’s working capital structure; (2) 

the contribution may not be compensation, such as 

a direct payment for a specific, quantifiable service; 

(3) the contribution must be bargained for; (4) the 

contributed asset foreseeably must result in a benefit 

to the transferee commensurate with its value; and (5) 

the contributed asset must ordinarily, if not always, 

be employed in or contribute to the production of 

additional income.

89 For the definition of “Tribal lands” as used in this Plan, 

see Chapter 3 note 80, supra.

90 SeeTraciL. Morris & SachaD. Meinrath, Native Public

Media & Open Technology Initiative, New America

Foundation, New Media, Technology and Internet

Use in Indian Country: Quantitative and Qualitative

Analyses 36–37 (2009) (Morris & Meinrath, New Media, 

Technology and InternetUse in Indian Country); Letter 

from Mark Pruner, Pres., Native Am. Broadband Ass’n, to 

Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket Nos. 09-

47, 09-51, 09-137 (Dec. 17, 2009) Attach. at 2–3.

91 Letter from Loris Ann Taylor, Exec. Dir., Native Public 

Media et al., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN 

Docket Nos 09-47, 09-51, 09-137 (Dec. 24, 2009) (Joint 

Native Filers Dec. 24, 2009 Ex Parte) at 12.

92 Cf. Comprehensive Reform Recommended Decision, 22 

FCC Rcd at 20484, paras. 26–27 (recommending overall 

cap on the High Cost fund and a transition in which 

existing funding mechanisms would be reduced, and all, 

or a significant share, of savings transferred to proposed 

new funds for broadband and mobility).

93 Verizon Wireless agreed to a five-year phase-out 

of its competitive ETC High-Cost support for any 

properties that it retained after mandated divestitures. 

Applications of Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon 

Wireless and Atlantis Holdings LLC for Consent to 

Transfer Control of Licenses, Authorizations, and 

Spectrum Manager and De Facto Transfer Leasing 

Arrangements and Petition for Declaratory Ruling that 

the Transaction is Consistent with Section 310( b)(4) of 

the Communications Act, WT Docket No. 08-95, File 

Nos. 0003463892 et al., ITC-T/C-20080613-00270 

et al., ISP-PDR-20080613-00012, Memorandum 

Opinion and Order and Declaratory Ruling, 23 FCC Rcd 

17444, 17529–17532, paras. 192–197 (2008). Similarly, 

Sprint agreed to a five-year phase-out of its competitive 

ETC high-cost support as part of its transaction with 

Clearwire. Applications of Sprint Nextel Corporation and 

Clearwire Corporation For Consent to Transfer Control 

of Licenses, Leases and Authorizations, WT Docket No. 

08-94, File Nos. 0003462540 et al., Memorandum 

Opinion and Order and Declaratory Ruling, 23 FCC Rcd 

17570, 17612, para. 108 (2008).

94 Nat’l Telecomm. Coop. Ass’n, 2009 Broadband/Internet

Availability Survey Report 3, 9 (2009) (89% of those 

surveyed face competition from at least one broadband 

provider in some portion of their service area; 47% face 

broadband competitors serving customers throughout 

their area).

95 Policy and Rules Concerning Rates for Dominant Carriers, 

CC Docket No. 87-313, Second Report and Order, 5 FCC 

Rcd 6786, 6790, para. 32 (1990), aff ’d, Nat’l Rural Telecom 

Ass’n v. FCC, 988 F.2d 174 (D.C. Cir. 1993).

96 A number of the mid-sized telephone companies already 

have elected to convert to price cap regulation, with 

their ICLS support per line frozen; the proposed rule 

change would have no impact on those companies. 

See Windstream Petition for Conversion to Price Cap 

Regulation and for Limited Waiver Relief, WC Docket 

No. 07-171, Order, 23 FCC Rcd 5294 (2008); Petition 

of Puerto Rico Telephone Company, Inc. for Election of 

Price Cap Regulation and Limited Waiver of Pricing and 

Universal Service Rules; Consolidated Communications 

Petition for Conversion to Price Cap Regulation and for 

Limited Waiver Relief; Frontier Petition for Limited 

Waiver Relief upon Conversion of Global Valley 

Networks, Inc., to Price Cap Regulation, WC Docket Nos. 

07-292, 07-291, 08-18, Order, 23 FCC Rcd 7353 (2008); 

Petition of Centurylink for Conversion to Price Cap 

Regulation and for Limited Waiver Relief, WC Docket 

No. 08-191, Order, 24 FCC Rcd 4677 (2009).

97 The Alliance of Rural CMRS Carriers has proposed that 

the FCC adopt an interim cap for incumbent telephone 

company support per line at either March 2010 or 

March 2008 levels, with estimated savings of $1.8 billion 

between 2010 and 2012 repurposed toward broadband 

programs, pending comprehensive USF reform. See

Letter from David LaFuria, Counsel for Alliance for 

Rural CMRS Carriers, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, 

FCC, CC Docket No. 96-45, WC Docket No. 05-337, GN 

Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 09-137 (Mar. 3, 2010).

98 See National Telecommunications Cooperative 

Association Comments in re NBP PN #19, filed Dec. 

7, 2009, at 4 (suggesting that carriers receive future 

funding for broadband through Interstate Access 

Support and Interstate Common Line Support).

99 Figures based on preliminary USAC 2009 disbursement 

data. See Universal Serv. Admin. Co., Disbursement Data 

(High Cost), http://www.usac.org/hc/tools/disbursements/

default.aspx (last visited Mar. 7, 2010) (providing 

disbursement data for all the high-cost programs).

100 Access Charge Reform; Price Cap Performance Review 

for Local Exchange Carriers; Low-Volume Long Distance 

Users; Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, CC 

Docket Nos. 96-262, 94-1, 99-249, 96-45, Sixth Report 

and Order, Report and Order, and Eleventh Report and 

Order, 15 FCC Rcd 12962 (2000), aff ’d in part, rev’d in part, 

and remanded in part, Texas Office of Public Util. Counsel 

et al. v. FCC, 265 F.3d 313 (5th Cir. 2001); on remand, 

Access Charge Reform; Price Cap Performance Review for 

LECs; Low-Volume Long Distance Users; Federal-State 

Joint Board on Universal Service, CC Docket Nos. 96-262, 

94-1, 99-249, 96-45, Order on Remand, 18 FCC Rcd 14976 

(2003). Interstate Access Support was created in 2000 as 

a first step in removing implicit support from the FCC’s 

interstate access charge regime.

101 Competitive ETC support per line is based on the 

incumbent telephone company’s support per line. 

47 C.F.R. § 54.307. As a consequence, the support a 

competitive ETC receives is not based on either its costs 

or the costs of the most efficient technology to support 

customers in a given area.

102 High-Cost Universal Service Support; Federal-State Joint 

Board on Universal Service, WC Docket No. 05-337, CC 

Docket No. 96-45, Order, 23 FCC Rcd 8834 (2008), 

(2008), aff ’d, Rural Cellular Ass’n v. FCC, 588 F.3d 1095 

(D.C. Cir. 2009).

103 See Letter from Michael J. Copps, Acting Chairman, 

FCC, to the Honorable Henry J. Waxman, Chairman, 

Committee on Energy and Commerce, U.S. House 

of Representatives, Part 4 (May 4, 2009), available 

at http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.

php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1644.

104 In 2007, the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal 
1 6 2 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

c h a p t e r 8 E n d n o t e s 

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 8

Service concluded, “We no longer believe it is in the 

public interest to use federal universal service support to 

subsidize competition and build duplicative networks in 

high cost areas.” Comprehensive Reform Recommended 

Decision, 24 FCC Rcd at 6482, para. 12.

105 See Letter from Melissa Newman, Vice Pres., Fed. 

Relations, Qwest Communications International, Inc., 

to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, CC Docket No. 

96-45 (Feb. 4, 2010) (proposing that universal service 

support be limited to one handset per wireless family 

plan and suggesting that could yield savings of up to 

$463 million annually).

106 See, e.g., Broadview Networks et al. Comments in re 

NBP PN #19, filed Dec. 7, 2009, at 4–7; CenturyLink 

Comments in re NBP PN #19, filed Dec. 7, 2009, at 40; 

AT&T Inc. Comments in re NBP PN # 19, filed Dec. 7, 

2009, App. A at 28–29; Verizon Comments in re NBP 

PN #19, filed Dec. 7, 2009 at 19–20.

107 See, e.g., AT&T Comments in re NBP PN #19, filed Dec. 

7, 2009, App. A at 28–29.

108 See AT&T Inc. Comments in re NBP PN #19, filed Dec. 

7, 2009, App. A at 28–29; CenturyLink Comments in re 

NBP PN #19, Dec. 7, 2009, at 40.

109 For example, 8 percent of local residential rates are 

$12 or less (excluding the SLC). See Letter from Mary 

L. Henze, Asst. Vice Pres., Fed. Reg., AT&T Inc., to 

Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC (Nov. 24, 2009) at 

12.

110 See Free Press Comments in re NBP PN#30 (Reply 

Comments Sought in Support of National Broadband 

Plan—NBP Public Notice #30, GN Docket No. 09-47, 

09-51, 09-137, Public Notice, 25 FCC Rcd 241 (WCB 

2010) (NBP PN #30)), filed Jan. 30, 2010, at 9–11 

(suggesting the FCC could phase down over five years 

support for any lines receiving $20/month or less).

111 See American Cable Association in re NBP PN #19, filed 

Dec. 7, 2009, at 40 (providers should not be able to draw 

from both broadband and high cost support mechanism 

for the same area).

112 FCC, Universal Service Monitoring Report 2009, 

tbls. 1.1, 1.2 (2009), available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.

gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A1.pdf. 

According to USAC’s most recent filing, the revenue 

base for second quarter 2010 is $16.6 billion, more 

than a $600 million drop from first quarter 2010. See

USAC, Federal Universal Service Contribution base

Projections for Second Quarter 2010, at 7 (2010), 

available at http://www.universalservice.org/about/

governance/fcc-filings/2010/Q2/2Q2010%20

Quarterly%20Contribution%20Base%20Filing.pdf.

113 According to the Telecommunications Industry 

Association (TIA), overall telecommunications revenues 

in the United States are projected to grow from $990 

billion in 2010 to $1.133 billion in 2012, led by double 

digit growth in web conferencing, broadband, and 

support services. Broadband Internet access revenues 

alone are projected to grow from $39 billion in 2010 

to $49 billion in 2012. TIA also projects that wireless 

data revenue will expand at a 24.6% compound annual 

growth rate between 2009 and 2012. Telecomm. Indus. 

Ass’n, TIA’s 2009 ICT Market Review and Forecast 1–11 

(2009).

114 See, e.g., National Telecommunications Cooperative 

Association Comments in re NBP PN #19, filed Dec. 

7, 2009, at 2–3 (asking the Commission to expand 

contributions to all broadband providers and to 

assess contributions based on telecommunications 

and broadband revenues); TracFone Wireless Inc. 

Comments in re NBP PN #19, filed Dec. 7, 2009, at 

4 (arguing that all providers of services which derive 

revenues from services which use telecommunications 

should be required to contribute to the support of 

universal service); Broadview Networks, Inc. et al. 

Comments in re NBP PN #19, filed Dec. 7, 2009, at 11 

(arguing that all information service revenues, including 

all broadband service provider revenues, should 

be included for contribution purposes); American 

Association of Paging Carriers Comments in re NBP PN 

#19, filed Dec. 7, 2009, at 5–6 (arguing that all revenues 

from high speed Internet access should be subject 

to direct assessment); National Association of State 

Utility Consumer Advocates Comments in re NBP PN 

#19, filed Dec. 7, 2009, at 7–8; Nebraska Public Service 

Commission Comments in re NBP PN #19, filed Dec. 

7, 2009, at 6; Rural Cellular Comments in re NBP PN 

#19, filed Dec. 7, 2009, at 8–10; Vermont Public Service 

Board and Vermont Department of Public Service 

Comments in re National Broadband Plan NOI, filed 

June 8, 2009, at 7.

115 See, e.g., AT&T Inc. Comments in re NBP PN #19, filed 

Dec. 7, 2009, at 4, 6 (suggesting that if the Commission 

assessed $1.01 per month on both telephone numbers 

and residential broadband connections, the inclusion of 

mass market residential broadband connections in the 

contribution base would raise an additional $957 million 

per year); United States Telecom Association Comments 

in re NBP PN#19, filed Dec. 7, 2009, at 9–10; Western 

Telecommunications Alliance Comments in re NBP PN 

#19, filed Dec. 7, 2009, at 9.

116 See, e.g., AT&T Inc. Comments in re NBP PN #19, 

filed Dec. 7, 2009, at 4; Rural High Cost Carriers 

Comments in re NBP PN #19, filed Dec. 7, 2009, 

at 13–14; Rural Independent Competitive Alliance 

Comments in re NBP PN #19, filed Dec. 7, 2009, at 10; 

National Telecommunications Cooperative Association 

Comments in re NBP PN #19, filed Dec. 7, 2009, at 13.

117 See, e.g., National Cable & Telecommunications 

Association Comments in re NBP PN #19, filed Dec. 

7, 2009, at 5; Access Humboldt et al. Comments in re 

NBP PN #19, filed Dec. 7, 2009, at 14–15 (filed as Rural/

Urban Commenters). 

118 See Comprehensive Reform Recommended Decision, 22 

FCC Rcd at 20484, para. 25.

119 USAC, Universal Service Fund, http://www.usac.org/

about/universal-service/ (last visited Feb. 20, 2010). 

The estimated annual projected outlay for the federal 

USF can be found in the FY 2010 Federal budget. Office

Of Mgmt. & Budget, Exec. Office Of The President, 

Budget Of The United States Government, Fiscal

Year 2010, at 1220 (2010), available at http://www.

whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2010/assets/oia.pdf. 

Total outlays for 2000 based the sum of disbursements 

for all four programs as reported in the FCC’s Trends 

in Telephone Service report and USAC administrative 

expenses reported in USAC’s 2000 annual report. FCC, 

Trends in Telephone Service, tbls 19.3, 19.10, 19.13, 19.15 

(2008), available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_

public/attachmatch/DOC-284932A1.pdf; Universal

Service Administrative Company, 2000 Annual Report

5 (2000), available at http://www.usac.org/about/

governance/annual-reports/2000/default.asp.

120 Low Income Support total outlays were $930 million in 

FY 2009, and in annual projections to OMB submitted 

in December 2009, projected to be $1.2 billion in FY 

2010. Based on USAC’s most recent quarterly filing, 

total outlays for the Low Income programs are forecast 

to be approximately $1.4 billion in calendar year 2010. 

USAC, Federal Universal Service Support Mechanisms

Fund Size Projections for Second Quarter 2010, at 15–

17 (2010), available at http://www.universalservice.org/

about/governance/fcc-filings/2010/Q2/2Q2010%20

Quarterly%20Demand%20Filing.pdf.

121 A number of commenters suggest that the FCC 

should work within the existing budget of the current 

Universal Service Fund. See, e.g., Florida Public Service 

Commission Comments in re NBP PN # 19, filed Dec. 

15, 2009, at 3, 6–7 (opposing further growth in fund); 

Verizon and Verizon Wireless Comments in re NBP 

PN #19, filed Dec. 7, 2009, at 4–5 (noting that E-rate 

and rural health care programs are capped and urging 

FCC to set an overall cap for high cost funding); Benton 

Comments in re NBP PN #19, filed Dec. 7, 2009, at 6 

(arguing that the size of the fund should remain the 

same but the FCC should redirect money to support 

broadband); New Jersey Division of Rate Counsel 

Comments in re NBP PN #19, filed Dec. 7, 2009, at 5, 7 

(arguing to cap the high-cost fund and transition support 

to a Mobility Fund, a Broadband Fund and a Provider of 

Last Resort Fund, such that combined total of the three 

stays within cap).

122 See Universal Service Reform Act of 2009, H.R. __, 

111th Cong. (discussion draft), available at http://www.

boucher.house.gov/images/usf%20discussion%20

draft.pdf. The discussion draft legislation to reform the 

universal services provisions of the Communications Act 

of 1934 would exempt a provider from having to serve all 

households in the service territory if the cost per line of 

deploying such service is at least three times the national 

average cost of providing broadband for all wire centers.

123 See U.S. Department of Justice Ex Parte Submission, 

filed Jan. 4, 2010, at 28 (recommending that “the 

Commission monitor carefully those areas in which only 

a single provider offers—or even two providers offer—

broadband service” and cautioning that price regulation 

may be appropriate only “to protect consumers from 

the exercise of monopoly power” and must be careful 

to avoid stifling “incentives to invest in infrastructure 

deployment”).

124 One factor that impacts the sensitivity of estimates is the 

amount of ICC revenue replacement that may ultimately 

be provided to carriers during implementation of long-term 

ICC reform. The need for explicit revenue replacement 

from the CAF depends in part on the rate benchmark 
F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d PLAN 1 6 3

c h a p t e r 8 E n d n o t e s 

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 8

ultimately selected and the extent to which costs are 

recovered from end-user customers. The estimates also do 

not include potential cost savings that would result from 

implementing other parts of the plan, such as lower pole 

and rights-of-way costs or spectrum reforms.

125 Because the current USF contribution methodology 

assesses telecommunications revenues, the burden 

of funding universal service may ultimately fall 

more heavily on households that do not subscribe to 

broadband services, which on average may be lower 

income, older and more likely rural. In contrast, the 

federal income tax system is more progressive so that 

lower-income households pay a lower marginal rate than 

upper-income households.

126 U.S. Metronets, LC Comments in re NBP PN #28, filed 

Mar. 3, 2010,at 4; Letter from Thomas Cohen, Kelley 

Drye & Warren LLP, counsel for Hiawatha Broadband 

Communications, Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, 

FCC (Nov. 25, 2009) at 1; id. Attach. at 1 (Hiawatha 

Broadband Communications Inc. White Paper); see also

Letter from Thomas Cohen, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, 

counsel for Hiawatha Broadband Communications, Inc., 

to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC (Nov. 5, 2009) 

at 1; id. Attach. at 1–3 (Barriers to Broadband Rural 

Deployment—Challenges and Solutions).

127 U.S. Dep’t of Agric., Agriculture Secretary Vilsack 

Seeks Applicants for Broadband Grants in Rural 

Areas (press release), Apr. 28, 2009, available at 

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal?contentidonly=t

rue&contentid=2009/04/0135.xml; see also GAO, 

Telecommunications: Broadband Deployment Plan

Should Include Performance Goals and Measures to

Guide Federal Investment 13, GAO-09-494 (2009).

128 See Joint Native Filers Dec. 24, 2009 Ex Parte at 24–25. 

The Joint Native Filers estimate such a fund would 

require at least $310 million to effectively support 

deployment and adoption objectives. The New America 

Foundation’s Open Technology Initiative (OTI) 

proposes an allocation of $1.2 billion to $4.6 billion for 

broadband deployment on Tribal lands. See Letter from 

Matthew F. Wood, Associate Director, Media Access 

Project, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN 

Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 09-137, CG Docket No. 09-

158, CC Docket No. 98-170 (Jan. 20, 2010) at 2.

129 See Joint Native Filers Dec. 24, 2009 Ex Parte at 25. The 

Joint Native Filers recommend an allocation of at least 

$30 million for funding small grants. See id. at 24.

130 See, e.g., Morris & Meinrath, New Media, Technology

and Internet Use in Indian Country at 52, available at

http://www.nativepublicmedia.org/images/stories/

documents/npm-nafnew-media-study-2009.pdf. Such 

entities include the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Indian 

Health Service, and the Bureau of Indian Education. The 

connectivity at these locations is typically limited to T1 

lines. See generally id. App. II.

131 See California Association of Tribal Governments Ex 

Parte in re National Broadband Plan NOI, filed Dec. 18, 

2009, at 12, 14 (filed by William Micklin); Joint Native 

Filers Dec. 24, 2009 Ex Parte at 9–10. This is consistent 

with the recommendation in Chapter 14 that Federal 

contracting power via Networx be made available to 

connect communities.

132 See Native Public Media et al. Comments in re NBP PN 

#5 (Comment Sought on Broadband Deployment and 

Adoption on Tribal Lands—NBP Public Notice #5, GN 

Docket No. 09-47, 09-51,09-137, Public Notice, 24 FCC 

Rcd 12010 (CGB 2009) (NBP PN #5)), filed Nov. 9, 

2009, at 2–3 (noting that “broadband penetration [on 

Tribal lands] may be as low as five percent (5%)”); Joint 

Native Filers Dec. 24, 2009 Ex Parte at 1 (“Broadband 

deployment on Tribal Lands is at less than a 10 percent 

penetration rate . . . .”); California Association of Tribal 

Governments Ex Parte in re National Broadband Plan 

NOI, filed Dec. 18, 2009, at 2 (filed by William Micklin) 

(stating that “broadband deployment in Indian Country is 

at less than a 10 percent penetration rate”); Native Public 

Media et al. Comments in re NBP PN #1 (Comment 

Sought on Defining Broadband—NBP PN #1, GN Docket 

Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 09-137, Public Notice, 24 FCC Rcd 

10897 (WCB 2009) (NBP PN #1)), filed Aug. 31, 2009, at 

3 (“There are no solid data on broadband deployment on 

Tribal lands, but it is estimated that Tribal penetration 

hovers somewhere around five percent (5%).”).

133 GAO, Challenges to Assessing and Improving

Telecommunications for Native Americans on Tribal

Lands 10, GAO-06-189 (2006).

134 Extending Wireless Telecommunications Services to 

Tribal Lands, WT Docket No. 99-266, Report and 

Order and Further Notice of Rule Making, 15 FCC Rcd 

11794, 11798 (2000); see also General Communication, 

Inc. Comments in re NBP PN #5, filed Nov. 9, 2009, 

at 6; California Association of Tribal Governments 

Comments in re NBP PN #18 (Comment Sought 

on Relationship Between Broadband and Economic 

Development—NBP PN #18, GN Docket No. 09-47, 

09-51, 09-137, Public Notice, 24 FCC Rcd 13736 (WCB 

2009) (NBP PN #18)), filed Dec. 3, 2009, at 2; Letter 

from James M. Smith, Counsel, Davis Wright Tremaine 

LLP on behalf of Kodiak Kenai Cable Company, LLC, 

to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket Nos. 

09-47, 09-51, 09-137 (Dec. 18, 2009) at 9.

135 See Joint Native Filers Dec. 24, 2009 Ex Parte at 25–26.

136 See Joint Native Filers Dec. 24, 2009 Ex Parte at 25–26.

137 See, e.g., Alaska Telephone Association Reply in re NBP 

PN #5, filed Dec. 9, 2009, at 2; General Communication, 

Inc. Comments in re NBP PN #5, filed Nov. 9, 2009, at 

16; Nemont Telephone Cooperative Comments in re 

NBP PN #5, filed Nov. 9, 2009, at 12–13.

138 Fiber-to-the-Home Council, Municipal Fiber to the

Home Deployments 2009 (2009), available at http://

www.ftthcouncil.org/sites/default/files/Municipal%20

FTTH%20Systems%20October%202009%20

Final%20Oct09_1.pdf.

139 See, e.g., Commenters Supporting Anchor Institution 

Networks Reply in re NBP PN #30, filed Jan. 27, 2010, 

at 2–3; Comments of Nat’l Ass’n of Telecomm. Officers 

& Advisors, in re NBP PN #12, filed Oct. 28, 2009, at 

Ex. 2, 3 (providing case studies on many such local and 

regional networks).

140 Baller Herbst Law Group, State Restrictions on

Community Broadband Services or Other Public

Communications Initiatives (2004), available at http://

www.baller.com/pdfs/Barriers2004.pdf.

141 See National Association of Telecommunications 

Officers and Advisors et al. Comments in re NBP PN 

#7 (Comment Sought on the Contribution of Federal, 

State, Tribal, and Local Government to Broadband—NBP 

Public Notice #7, GN Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 09-137, 

Public Notice, 24 FCC Rcd 12110 (WCB 2009) (NBP PN 

#7)), filed Nov. 6, 2009, at 12, 17–20, 37–42.

142 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Electric Power 

Industry Overview 2007, fig. 5, http://www.eia.doe.gov/

cneaf/electricity/page/prim2/toc2.html (Number of 

Ultimate Customers Served by U.S. Electric Utilities by 

Class of Ownership, 2007).

143 Comments of Health Network Group Organized by 

Internet2 in re NBP PN #17, (Comment Sought on 

Health Care Delivery Elements of National Broadband 

Plan—NBP Public Notice #17, GN Docket Nos. 09-47, 

09-51, 09-137, WC Docket No. 02-60, Public Notice, 24 

FCC Rcd 13728 (WCB 2009) (NBP PN #17)), files Dec. 

2, 2006, at 6; see also EDUCAUSE et al. Comments in 

re National Broadband Plan NOI, filed June 8, 2009, 

Attach. at 6 (recommending that state-led grants for 

institutional networks “should be done in a way that 

private sector companies can build upon them to extend 

connectivity to households in the future”).

144 For example, a group of participants in the FCC’s Rural 

Health Care Pilot program have noted that the current 

program results in “the creation of independent special 

purpose networks that are usually not expected to 

interoperate.” As a result, “[t]hese networks are often 

developed using the minimum bandwidth capabilities 

to meet the identified application” and in a manner 

that “does not encourage the aggregation of services” 

and “does not consider the community needs such 

as economic development.” Health Network Group 

Organized by Internet2 Comments in re NBP PN #17 

filed Dec. 2, 2009, at 4–5.

145 U.S. R&E Networks and HIMSS Reply in re NBP PN 

#30, filed Jan. 27, 2010, at 43 (noting that state laws 

that limit networks to single purposes “thereby forc[e] 

the creation of more networks than are necessary,” 

and noting that as a result, “[t]hese laws undermine 

the benefits from, and the efficiencies of, having one 

network, used by all community anchors who wish to be 

a part of it”).

146 See Liu & Rosenberg, State Universal Service Funding 

Mechanisms at 43, 54; Alliance for Public Technology

and Communications Workers of America, State

Broadband Initiatives 3 (2009), available at http://

www.apt.org/publications/reports-studies/state_

broadband_initiatives.pdf.

147 U.S. R&E Networks and HIMSS Reply in re NBP PN 

#30, filed Jan. 27, 2010, at 6, 43–45 (“With regard to 

community anchors, inclusion, rather than exclusion, 

should be the rule of the day.”).

148 American Library Association Comments in re NBP PN 

#15 (Comment Sought on Broadband Needs in Education, 

Including Changes to E-Rate Program to Improve 

Broadband Deployment—NBP Public Notice #15, GN 

Docket No. 09-47, 09-51, 09-137, Public Notice, 24 FCC 

Rcd 13560 (WCB 2009) (NBP PN #15)), filed Nov. 20, 
1 6 4 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

c h a p t e r 8 E n d n o t e s 

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 8

2009, at 14 (noting that “current complexities associated 

with filing consortia applications can be overwhelming 

for even the most seasoned E-rate applicant” and that 

“[m]any consortia leaders are no longer willing to risk 

filing on behalf of member entities” as a result).

149 Native Public Media et al. Comments in re: NBP PN 

#5, filed Nov. 9, 2009, at 18; Morris & Meinrath, New

Media, Technology and Internet Use in Indian Country

at 42; Joint Native Filers Dec. 24, 2009 Ex Parte at 13.

150 U.S. R&E Networks and HIMSS Reply in re NBP PN 

#30, filed Jan. 27, 2010, at 16-18.

151 Letter from John Windhausen, Jr., Coordinator, 

Schools, Health and Libraries Broadband Coalition, to 

Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 09-

51, filed Mar. 5, 2010, at 2. Attach. (citing over 210,000 

community anchor institutions).

152 See generally Commenters Supporting Anchor 

Institution Networks Reply in re NBP PN #30, filed Jan. 

27, 2010.

153 U.S. R&E Networks and HIMSS Reply in re NBP PN 

#30, filed Jan. 27, 2010, at 35–36.

154 Commenters Supporting Anchor Institution Networks 

Reply in re NBP PN #30, filed Jan. 27, 2010, at 3.
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 9

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 1 6 5

ADOPTION

AND UTILIZATION

c h a p t e r 9

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 9

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 1 6 7

While 65% of Americans use broadband at home, the other 35% (roughly 80 million adults) 

do not.1 Some segments of the population—particularly low-income households, racial and 

ethnic minorities, seniors, rural residents and people with disabilities—are being left behind. 

As Exhibit 9-A demonstrates, some communities are significantly less likely to have broadband at home. Half of all Hispanics do not use broadband at home, while 41% of African 

Americans do not. Only 24% of Americans with less than a high school diploma use broadband at home, and the adoption rate for those with annual household incomes less than 

$20,000 is only 40%.

If history is a guide, adoption rates will continue to rise.3

Broadband adoption reached 50% in 2007, up from 12% at the 

end of 2002 and 32% in early 2005.4 But gaps will likely persist 

with certain segments of the population continuing to lag the 

national average. 

Consider the history of telephone adoption. Traditional 

telephone service reached saturation around 1970, when 93% 

of households subscribed. At that point, roughly 20% of African 

Americans and Hispanics did not have telephone service. By 

1985, households earning less than $10,000 per year still lagged 

those earning $40,000 or more by nearly 19 percentage points; 

by 2008, they continued to trail by almost 9 percentage points.5

As described in Chapter 8, government action through the 

Universal Service Fund ultimately contributed to telephone 

adoption to near universal levels.

Absent action, broadband adoption rates will continue to be 

uneven. Even if broadband reaches saturation in coming years, 

the aggregate adoption number may mask troubling differences 

along socioeconomic and racial and ethnic lines. If broadband 

adoption follows the trajectory of telephone adoption, one in 

four African Americans and one in three Hispanics could still 

be without broadband service at home even when an overwhelming majority of Americans overall have it. 

To understand broadband adoption trends, many questions 

must be answered. Who chooses not to adopt, and why? What 

is the appropriate role for government in general, and the 

federal government in particular, to spur sustainable adoption? 

How can stakeholders such as state, local and Tribal leaders, 

non-profit community partners and private industry support 

the goals of bringing all citizens online and maximizing their 

utilization of broadband applications?

The following recommendations outline targeted investments the United States should consider in order to increase 

adoption levels. Federal action is necessary but needs to be 

taken in partnership with and in support of state, local and 

Tribal governments, corporations and non-profits. 

Exhibit 9-A: 

Broadband Adoption 

Among Certain 

Demographic 

Groups2

*

Demographic group Current adoption rates, by %

National average 65

Low income (under $20,000/year) 40

Less educated (no high school degree) 24

Rural Americans 50

Older Americans (65+) 35

People with disabilities 42

African Americans 59

Hispanics 49

*

The sample size of the FCC Survey, though the largest survey of non-adopters to date, is too small to make statistically reliable broadband adoption 

estimates for certain population subgroups, particularly racial and ethnic minorities. Data released by National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey Internet and Computer Use Supplement offer some insight into 

computer and Internet use by less numerous population subgroups. In particular, NTIA reports 67% of Asian Americans have broadband at home 

while 43% of American Indians/Alaska natives (living on and off Tribal lands) report having broadband at home. See NTIA, DIGITAL NATION: 

21st Century America’s Progress Toward Universal Broadband Internet Access (2010), available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/reports/2010/NTIA_

internet_use_report_Feb2010.pdf.
1 6 8 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 9

RECOMMENDATIONS

Address cost barriers to broadband adoption and 

utilization

➤ The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) should 

expand Lifeline Assistance (Lifeline) and Link-Up America 

(Link-Up) to make broadband more affordable for lowincome households.

➤ The FCC should consider free or very low-cost wireless broadband as a means to address the affordability barrier to adoption.

Address digital literacy barriers to broadband adoption 

and utilization

➤ The federal government should launch a National Digital 

Literacy Program that creates a Digital Literacy Corps, increases the capacity of digital literacy partners and creates 

an Online Digital Literacy Portal. 

Address relevance barriers to broadband adoption and 

utilization

➤ The National Telecommunications and Information 

Administration (NTIA) should explore the potential for 

public-private partnerships to improve broadband adoption 

by working with other federal agencies. 

➤ Public and private partners should prioritize efforts to 

increase the relevance of broadband for older Americans. 

➤ The federal government should explore the potential of 

mobile broadband access as a gateway to inclusion.

➤ The private sector and non-profit community should partner to conduct a national outreach and awareness campaign. 

Address issues of accessibility for broadband adoption and 

utilization

➤ The Executive Branch should convene a Broadband 

Accessibility Working Group (BAWG) to maximize broadband adoption by people with disabilities.

➤ The FCC should establish an Accessibility and Innovation 

Forum. 

➤ Congress, the FCC and the U.S. Department of Justice 

(DOJ) should consider modernizing accessibility laws, 

rules and related subsidy programs.

Expand federal support for regional broadband capacitybuilding, program evaluation and sharing of best practices 

➤ Federal support should be expanded for regional capacitybuilding efforts aimed at improving broadband deployment 

and adoption.

➤ Congress and federal agencies should promote thirdparty evaluation of future broadband adoption programs.

➤ NTIA should establish a National Broadband Clearinghouse to promote best practices and information sharing. 

Coordinate with Tribes on broadband issues

➤ The Executive Branch, the FCC and Congress should make 

changes to ensure effective coordination and consultation 

with Tribes on broadband-related issues.

9.1 UNDERSTANDING 

BROADBAND ADOPTION

On Feb. 23, 2010, the FCC published the results of its first 

Broadband Consumer Survey. This national survey of 5,005 

adult Americans focused on non-adopters and the issues 

they face in adopting broadband. While many surveys track 

broadband adoption, this survey is one of the first efforts to 

oversample non-adopters.6 This section builds off these survey 

results to develop a set of programs to improve the adoption 

and utilization of broadband services, focusing on the barriers 

faced by non-adopters.

Barriers to Adoption and Utilization

The 35% of adults who do not use broadband at home generally are older, poorer, less educated, more likely to be a racial 

or ethnic minority, and more likely to have a disability than 

those with a broadband Internet connection at home. The FCC 

survey identified three major barriers that keep non-adopters 

from getting broadband:

Cost. When prompted for the main reason they do not have 

broadband, 36% of non-adopters cite cost. Almost 24% of nonadopters indicate reasons related to the cost of service—15% 

point to the monthly service cost, and 9% say they do not want 

the financial commitment of a long-term service contract or find 

the installation fee too high. For 10% of non-adopters, the cost of 

a computer is the primary barrier. The additional 2% cite a combination of cost issues as the main reason they do not adopt.7

Digital Literacy. About 22% of non-adopters cite a digital 

literacy-related factor as their main barrier. This group includes 

those who are uncomfortable using computers and those who 

are “worried about all the bad things that can happen if [they] 

use the Internet.”8

Relevance. Some 19% of non-adopters say they do not 

think digital content delivered over broadband is compelling 

enough to justify getting broadband service. Many do not view 

broadband as a means to access content they find important 

or necessary for activities they want to pursue. Others seem 

satisfied with offline alternatives. These non-adopters say, for 

instance, the Internet is a “waste of time.”9
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 9

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 1 6 9

An important and cross-cutting issue is accessibility for 

people with disabilities. Some 39% of all non-adopters have 

a disability, much higher than the 24% of overall survey 

respondents who have a disability.10 It is not a surprise that 

non-adopters include a disproportionately high share of people 

with disabilities. Americans with disabilities share many characteristics with other non-adopters (i.e., both groups are older 

and have lower incomes than adopters), but having a disability 

may be an independent factor contributing to lower levels of 

broadband adoption at home.11 For example, some of the other 

impediments that people with disabilities face include: 

➤ Devices often are not designed to be accessible for people 

with disabilities.12

➤ Assistive technologies are expensive (Braille displays, for 

example, can cost between $3,500 and $15,000).13

➤ Services, including emergency services, are not accessible.14

➤ Web pages and new media applications cannot be accessed 

by a person using a screen reader.15

➤ Internet-based video programming does not have captions 

or video descriptions offering an account of what is on 

the screen.16

Despite these barriers, ways that non-adopters use other 

forms of information and communications technology (ICT) 

bodes well for the future of broadband adoption. Some nonadopters have a positive view of the benefits of ICT; they buy 

and use such technology, even though they have not purchased 

broadband. For example, 80% of non-adopters have satellite or 

cable premium television, 70% have cell phones and 42% have 

at least one working computer at home.17

In addition to using ICT, many non-adopters have positive 

attitudes about the Internet. Fifty-nine percent of nonadopters strongly agree with the statement “the Internet is 

a valuable tool for learning;” 54% strongly agree that “it is 

important for children to learn to use the Internet;” and 37% 

strongly agree people can be more productive if they learn to 

use the Internet. This level of ownership of and interest in 

technology indicates that many non-adopters may be inclined 

to subscribe to broadband.18

Overcoming Barriers to Adoption and Promoting Utilization

The recommendations in this chapter address both adoption 

and utilization. “Adoption” refers to whether a person uses a 

broadband service at home or not; “utilization” refers to the 

intensity and quality of use of that connection to communicate 

with others, conduct business and pursue online activities. 

Research indicates that “differentiated use”—different levels 

of intensity and varied complexity of activities one pursues 

online—can affect the kind of offline benefits users experience.24 Adoption is necessary for utilization, but utilization is 

Broadband Means 

Opportunity

Broadband is a platform 

for social and economic opportunity. It can lower the 

geographic barriers and help 

minimize socioeconomic disparities—connecting people 

from otherwise disconnected 

communities to job opportunities, avenues for educational 

advancement and channels for 

communication. Broadband is 

a particularly important platform for historically disadvantaged communities including 

racial and ethnic minorities, 

people with disabilities and recent immigrants. For example:

• In Santa Barbara County, 

Calif., a parent reads an email 

from her child’s teacher. 

Although seemingly unexceptional, this event is actually 

quite remarkable because 

the teacher and the parent do 

not speak the same language. 

Using a donated foreign language translation program, a 

refurbished computer, heavily 

discounted Internet access 

and training provided through 

the local school system, this 

mother can now converse 

with her child’s teacher for the 

first time.19 The Computers for 

Families (CFF) program is a 

partnership between the Santa 

Barbara County Education 

Office and Partners in 

Education, a group of county 

business and education leaders that brings together the 

technological and educational 

resources to allow hundreds 

of families to benefit from 

the power of computers and 

the Internet.20

• Three in 10 families 

headed by a single mother 

live below the federal poverty 

line.21 In 2001, to address the 

barriers that low-wage workers 

face in attaining skills, training 

and education, the New Jersey 

Department of Labor piloted 

a workforce development program in which single, working 

mothers received a computer, 

Internet access and onlineskills training. The program 

had a 92% completion rate. 

Participants saw average annual wage increases of 14%, and 

several enrolled in community 

college, college programs and 

other educational offerings. All 

the women reported that they 

would not have completed 

a training program if it were 

not available at home—just 

one more demonstration of 

how online learning equalizes 

access to education and skills 

training.22

• In Tribal lands in Southern 

California, broadband helps 

bridge the physical distance 

between Tribal residents. 

Although 18 designated 

Tribal lands are located in the 

region, they are geographically 

separated and often isolated. 

In 2005, with a grant from 

Hewlett-Packard, the Southern California Tribal Chairmen’s Association (SCTCA) 

launched the Tribal Digital 

Village. The initiative brought 

communications infrastructure, training and online 

content together. Because of 

the broadband provided via 

this initiative, the SCTCA was 

able to start its first for-profit 

business, Hi-Rez Printing.23

BOX 9-1:
1 7 0 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 9

necessary to extract value from a connection. 

While cost is the leading barrier to adoption, nearly twothirds of non-adopters note that something else keeps them 

from getting broadband at home.25 In addition to cost, lack of 

digital skills, irrelevance of online content and inaccessible 

hardware and software often work together to limit adoption.26 For non-adopters to find broadband valuable enough 

to subscribe, they need a basic knowledge of how to find and 

use trustworthy, substantive content.27 Similarly, if broadband 

costs fall because of lower prices or subsidies, consumers might 

be more willing to try it, in spite of doubts about its relevance 

or their own abilities to use it. 

There is also an important social dimension to broadband 

adoption that cannot be overlooked. The primary incentive 

for broadband adoption is communication—two-way communication through e-mail, social networking platforms, instant 

messaging or video-chatting.28 People find broadband relevant 

when the communities they care about are online, exchanging 

information and creating content.29 Once online, individuals 

will stay online if they continue to find information and broadband applications that are useful and relevant to their lives and 

when the people around them do the same.30 E-mailing friends 

and family is difficult if they do not also have e-mail. 

Ultimately, broadband adoption and utilization are not about 

owning a specific piece of technology or subscribing to a service 

but about making the Internet work for people. Getting people 

online is a critical first step, but the goal must be to keep people online through sustainable efforts that promote utilization and help 

each user derive value from the Internet in his or her own way.

Federal Efforts

Historically, the federal government has supported Internet 

adoption through efforts that are part of broader programs. For 

example, the Community Connect program, run by the Rural 

Utilities Service, has granted more than $39 million to fund 

broadband infrastructure investment in 67 rural communities.31 This program requires communities that apply to create 

a Community-Oriented Connectivity Plan, which must include 

a state-of-the-art community center that provides free Internet 

access to residents with the goal of facilitating economic 

development and enhancing educational and health care opportunities in rural communities.32

To take another example, from 1994-2004, NTIA’s 

Technology Opportunity Program (TOP)*

 made 610 matching grants to Tribal, state and local governments, as well as 

health care providers, schools, libraries and non-profits, for 

self-sustaining adoption programs. The grants totaled $233.5 

million and leveraged $313.7 million in local matching funds.33

TOP emphasized how ICT could be efficiently and innovatively 

deployed. While this program often promoted broadband, 

broadband was not its central focus. TOP has not been funded 

since 2004, but many grantees have maintained operations 

with other funds. In this way, projects such as Austin Free Net, 

which provides technology training and access to residents 

of East Austin, Texas, and the Mountain Area Information 

Network, a community network for western North Carolina, 

continue to serve their communities.34

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

(Recovery Act), in addition to funding broadband deployment, 

marked the first large-scale federal broadband adoption effort. A 

minimum of $450 million within NTIA’s Broadband Technology 

Opportunities Program (BTOP)*

 was set aside for sustainable 

broadband adoption programs and public computing centers.35

Thus far in the first round of BTOP funding awards, $15.9 

million have been allocated for six public computer center 

projects and $2.4 have been for three sustainable broadband 

adoption projects.36 The recipients include:

➤ Fast-Forward New Mexico, which will offer eight training courses on basic computer literacy, Internet use and 

e-commerce while providing outreach to Spanish-, Navajoand Pueblo-speaking populations.37

➤ The Spokane Broadband Technology Alliance in the state of 

Washington,38 which will train 12,000 individuals and 300 

small businesses in courses ranging from basic computer 

skills to advanced multimedia production, e-commerce and 

online business applications. The training will take place at 

public libraries and other area sites.

➤ The Los Angeles Computer Access Network, which received 

$7.5 million to upgrade and expand 188 public computing 

centers that provide free access to broadband Internet.39

Additional awards are expected as this program continues.

State and Local Efforts

While the federal government has provided important financing 

for Internet adoption efforts, Tribal, state and local governments are often in the best position to identify barriers and 

circumstances unique to their communities.40

The Minnesota Ultra High-Speed Broadband Task Force final 

report provides an example of a state-level strategy to address 

adoption. Issued in November 2009, the report recommends that 

the state government promote adoption through general outreach and education and specific policies directed toward people 

who are not connected to the Internet for financial or other 

socioeconomic reasons.41 To boost broadband adoption and utilization, the report suggested programs to make computers more 

affordable, including creating a clearinghouse of used computers, 

expanding the Minnesota Computers for Schools program and *

 BTOP and TOP are distinct programs. BTOP was created and funded by the Recovery Act. 
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 9

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 1 7 1

establishing a support mechanism to provide assistance for the 

cost of monthly broadband service for low-income consumers. 

The plan also suggested that the state explore a variety of partnerships to increase adoption and utilization.42

Local leaders can play an important role by building on 

existing social programs and partnering with community organizations that non-adopters already rely on as trusted sources 

of information.43 They can tailor adoption efforts to address 

language barriers, lack of credit, low basic literacy levels and 

other issues faced by non-adopters.

Cities can also play a role. For instance, the City of Seattle has 

developed a number of initiatives to promote a “technology healthy 

community.” In 2000, the City’s Department of Information 

Technology and the City’s Citizens Telecommunications and 

Technology Advisory Board, with the non-profit Sustainable Seattle, 

launched the Information Technology Indicators project. Through 

this project, the City identified a set of goals for a technology healthy 

community and indicators to track their progress. 44 Using these 

indicators, the city saw its broadband adoption rate grow from 

18% in 2000 to 74% in 2009.45

Over the past several years, Seattle has taken a number of 

steps to address gaps in access, digital literacy and content. 

The City also has a number of ongoing digital inclusion initiatives including: The Bill Wright Technology Matching Fund 

which funds community-driven technology projects; promoting public access terminals in public places; Puget SoundOff, 

a youth-driven online portal to promote civic engagement and 

digital skills46; and, Seniors Training Seniors in Technology, a 

peer education program helping seniors learn basic computer 

and Internet skills.47

The point is that there is no “one-size-fits-all answer. States 

and municipalities across the country are working on specific 

efforts to increase adoption and utilization of broadband. 

Through local action, coupled with federal support, the US can 

connect people with technology to improve their lives.

Guiding Principles for Broadband Adoption and Utilization

Creating the conditions necessary to promote broadband adoption and increase utilization requires a range of activities. The 

federal government has a role in providing support to people with 

low incomes, ensuring accessibility, funding sustainable community efforts, convening key stakeholders and measuring progress. 

Tribal, state and local governments can develop and implement 

specific programs to meet their unique needs. Non-profits and 

philanthropic organizations often work cooperatively with 

government, focusing on issues important in their communities. 

Private industry also has a stake; businesses stand to gain because 

new adopters can become skilled customers and employees.

All stakeholders should work together on broadband adoption issues, guided by a set of consistent principles: 

➤ Focus on the barriers to adoption. Successful efforts address 

multiple barriers to adoption simultaneously. They combine financial support with applications and training that 

make broadband connectivity more relevant for non-adopters. Relevance, in turn, boosts the technology’s perceived 

value and affordability.48

➤ Focus on broadband in the home. While libraries and other 

public places are important points of free access 

that help people use online applications, home access is 

critical to maximizing utilization.49 Broadband home access can also help rural, low-income, minority and other 

communities overcome other persistent socioeconomic or 

geographic disparities.50

➤ Promote connectivity across an entire community. New users 

adopt broadband to stay in touch with others.51 In addition, people are more likely to adopt and use broadband if 

the people they care about are online52 and if they see how 

broadband can improve their quality of life in key areas 

such as education, health care and employment.53

➤ Promote broadband utilization. Promoting access and adoption are necessary steps, but utilization is the goal. People 

must be able to use broadband to efficiently find information or use applications to improve their lives.54 A connection is just the beginning.

➤ Plan for changes in technology. Adoption programs have to 

evolve with technology. Both the trainers and the equipment they use to serve non-adopters must employ up-todate technology and applications.

➤ Measure and adjust. Measurement and evaluation are critical to success because they allow programs to make adjustments on an ongoing basis.55

➤ Form partnerships across stakeholder groups. Promoting 

adoption requires federal commitment, state, local and 

Tribal action, industry partnership and support from nonprofits and philanthropic organizations. Sustainable broadband adoption and use will require efforts from all partners. 

9.2 ADDRESSING 

COST BARRIERS TO

BROADBAND ADOPTION

AND UTILIZATION

As mentioned, some 36% of non-adopters cite a financial reason as the main reason they do not have broadband service at 

home. Nearly a quarter cite service-related concerns, while one 

in 10 says that the cost of getting a computer is too high. 
1 7 2 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 9

To address this barrier directly, the FCC’s Lifeline and 

Link-Up programs—which focus on support for telephone service—should be expanded to include broadband support. 

Recommendation 9.1: The Federal Communications 

Commission (FCC) should expand Lifeline Assistance 

(Lifeline) and Link-Up America (Link-Up) to make broadband more affordable for low-income households.

➤ The FCC and states should require eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs) to permit Lifeline customers 

to apply Lifeline discounts to any service or package 

that includes basic voice service. 

➤ The FCC should integrate the expanded Lifeline and 

Link-Up programs with other state and local e-government efforts. 

➤ The FCC should facilitate pilot programs that will 

produce actionable information to implement the most 

efficient and effective long-term broadband support 

mechanism.

Forty percent of adults with household incomes less than 

$20,000 have broadband at home, compared to 93% with household incomes greater than $75,000.56 Many people with low 

incomes simply cannot afford the costs associated with having 

a broadband connection at home. To make broadband more affordable and overcome some of the barriers that have kept the 

penetration rate for these households low, the FCC should extend 

low-income universal service support to broadband.

The FCC created Lifeline Assistance and Link-Up 

America in the mid-1980s to ensure that low-income 

Americans could afford traditional local telephone service. 

Lifeline lowers the cost of monthly service for eligible consumers by providing support directly to service providers on 

behalf of consumer households. Link-Up provides a onetime discount on the initial installation fee for telephone 

service. Enhanced support is available for Tribal lands. The 

programs helped increase low-income telephone subscribership from 80.1% in 1984 to 89.7% in 2008.57 The FCC expects 

to distribute approximately $1.4 billion in low-income support during calendar year 2010.58

Approximately 7 million of an estimated 24.5 million 

eligible households (less than 29%) participated in Lifeline in 

2008.59 Statewide participation rates vary dramatically; some 

states have participation rates of more than 75% and others 

have rates less than 10%.60

There are several reasons for this variance across states. 

They include different consumer technology preferences; 

restrictions on consumers’ ability to apply the Lifeline discount to certain types of services; lack of service options; lack 

of information about the program; and differences in funding 

levels, enrollment procedures, eligibility criteria and outreach 

and awareness efforts.61 

While the FCC establishes default eligibility criteria 

for Lifeline and Link-Up, states that provide additional 

state-funded discounts can determine their own eligibility 

requirements.62 Some states, such as Florida, rely on the federal 

default eligibility criteria. Others, like Vermont, use more liberal criteria so that more people are eligible for support. Many 

states allow the discount to be used on any basic voice service— 

including voice service bundled with other services—as well 

as packages that include optional features such as caller ID or 

call waiting. In other states, consumers are limited to specific 

Lifeline-branded service offerings. Finally, some states play 

a more active role in managing eligibility certification, outreach and verification, while others leave the burden to service 

providers.

Lifeline discounts apply only to service (not customer premises equipment) offered by participating ETCs. Each eligible 

household is entitled to a discount on only one voice line, either 

fixed or mobile. 

The FCC and states should require eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs) to permit Lifeline customers to apply 

Lifeline discounts to any service or package that includes basic 

voice service. By clarifying that Lifeline consumers can apply 

the current Lifeline discount to any offering that includes 

voice and data service, the FCC and states can help low-income 

consumers benefit from the same discounts provided through 

bundled service offerings that are affordable to wealthier 

households in the United States. Many of these bundled offerings include broadband services. Letting consumers apply their 

Lifeline discounts to bundled offerings will help make broadband more affordable. 

Likewise, as low-income support is extended to cover broadband, the FCC should ensure that consumers are free to apply 

Lifeline discounts to any service offering or package containing 

a broadband service that meets the standards established by 

the FCC.63

The FCC should also integrate the expanded Lifeline and 

Link-Up programs with other state and local e-government efforts. Under the current Lifeline program, ETCs are responsible 

for consumer outreach and confirming consumer eligibility. 

Under this model, multiple service providers collect and maintain personal consumer information to determine eligibility.64

Requiring providers to conduct outreach and verify eligibility 

may add to existing disincentives to serving historically underserved, low-income populations.65 This, in turn, affects consumer 

awareness of and participation in these programs.

State social service agencies should take a more active role 

in consumer outreach and in qualifying eligible end-users.

Agencies should make Lifeline and Link-Up applications 
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 9

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 1 7 3

routinely available and should discuss Lifeline and Link-Up 

when they discuss other assistance programs. The FCC should 

continue to develop and provide educational and outreach 

materials for use in these efforts. 

Furthermore, the FCC should encourage state agencies responsible for Lifeline and Link-Up programs to coordinate with 

other low-income support programs to streamline enrollment for 

benefits. Unified online applications for social services, including 

the low-income programs, and automatic enrollment for Lifeline 

and Link-Up based on other means-tested programs are potential 

examples of such efforts.66 For example, following its introduction of an automatic enrollment process, the state of Florida has 

seen increased Lifeline participation.67 The FCC should also work 

with the states and providers to clarify obligations and identify 

best practices for outreach, certification and verification of eligibility. As part of these efforts, and in conjunction with Universal 

Service Administrative Company (USAC) reform efforts outlined 

in Chapter 8, the FCC should also consider whether a centralized 

database for online certification and verification is a cost-effective way to minimize waste, fraud and abuse.

The broadband marketplace is much more complex than the 

traditional world of voice telephony that the existing Lifeline 

program was designed to support. To make broadband more 

affordable, the low-income support program should expand 

provider eligibility to include any broadband provider selected 

by the consumer—be it wired or wireless, fixed or mobile, 

terrestrial or satellite—that meets minimum criteria to be 

established by the FCC.68 Doing so will maximize consumer 

choice and stimulate innovation in serving low-income users.69

As the FCC designs a Lifeline broadband program, it should 

consider its recent experience with expanding Lifeline to 

non-facilities-based prepaid wireless providers. That change 

substantially increased participation in Lifeline and likely 

made telephone service more available to people who are 

less likely to subscribe to wireline voice services. As noted in 

Chapter 8, increased participation (associated with extending support to prepaid mobile) is one of the factors that led 

USAC to project a 38% year-over-year increase in low-income 

disbursements for calendar year 2010.70 Extending government 

support to prepaid mobile service has created additional complexities when it comes to eligibility and verification.

To ensure Universal Service Fund (USF) money is used 

efficiently, the FCC should begin the expansion of Lifeline to 

broadband by facilitating pilot programs that will experiment 

with different program design elements. The pilots should determine which parameters most effectively increase adoption 

among low-income consumers by examining the effects of: 

➤ Different levels of subsidy and/or minimum-payment requirements for consumers. 

➤ A subsidy for installation (equivalent to Link-Up).

➤ A subsidy for customer premises equipment (CPE) such as 

aircards, modems and computers. 

➤ Alternative strategies for integrating Lifeline into other 

programs to encourage broadband adoption and digital 

literacy. For instance, when signing up for Lifeline, new 

subscribers could be provided with packets of information 

that include sources of refurbished computers and digital 

literacy courses.71 Additionally, they could receive information about Lifeline from organizations offering digital 

literacy courses or refurbished computers.

The FCC should also consider the unique needs of residents 

on Tribal lands. 

The FCC should explore ways to conduct the pilots through 

competitive processes that would encourage providers to test 

alternative pricing and marketing strategies aimed at maximizing adoption in low-income communities.72 Upon completion 

of the pilot programs, the FCC should report to Congress on 

such issues as whether CPE subsidies are a cost-effective way 

to increase adoption. After evaluating the results by looking at 

outputs such as total cost per subscriber, subscriber increases 

and subscriber churn rate, the FCC should begin full-scale 

implementation of a low-income program for broadband. 

Recommendation 9.2: The FCC should consider free or 

very low-cost wireless broadband as a means to address the 

affordability barrier to adoption.

Another option that can reduce the affordability barrier is the 

use of special spectrum rules as an inducement to provide 

a free (or very low-cost), advertising-supported service. The FCC 

could develop rules for one or more spectrum bands requiring 

licensees to provide a free or very low-cost broadband service tier. 

This service would act as a complement to the Lifeline Program. 

A free broadband service requirement would be similar to 

the way in which America currently provides universal access 

to video services. The FCC provides spectrum for broadcast 

television stations on the condition they offer a free service in 

the public interest. As a result, all Americans have access to a 

free, over-the-air video service: broadcast television, in most 

instances, supported by advertising. Broadcast television provides all Americans a basic package of news, information and 

other programming. This free service offers fewer channels and 

less choice in programming than paid services offer. Indeed, 

the difference in offerings is so great that despite the financial 

differences between free and $49, which is the average monthly 

price of a multichannel video subscription, more than 86% of 

American households subscribe to a paid service.73

The FCC could take a similar approach to broadband: license 

spectrum through an auction, conditioned on the offering of a 

free or very low cost broadband service. This free or very-low cost 
1 7 4 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 9

service would provide sufficient connectivity for a basic package of broadband applications.74 As with broadcast television, 

the consumer would still need to purchase a device that could be 

used to access the service. Depending on the specific details of 

implementation, a free or very low-cost service may be unlikely to 

compete with paid services that offer greater capabilities.

The FCC should consider both the likely costs and benefits 

of this program. If undertaken, many more consumers who 

cannot afford any broadband or Internet service would have 

access to 21st century communications infrastructure—especially important as public-interest media content, including 

local news and information, is increasingly provided online. 

In addition, upon becoming operational, such a service could 

reduce the assessment of USF contributions needed to support 

a Lifeline broadband service. However, costs of this approach 

would include lower auction revenues (due to the conditions 

placed on use of the spectrum) and the opportunity cost of using the spectrum for other purposes. 

The FCC would need to ensure that consumers actually 

receive the benefits of the free (or very low-cost) broadband program—for example, ensuring that devices tuned to the applicable 

frequency band(s) are widely available at an affordable price 

and acceptable bandwidth levels, and that sufficient capacity is 

reserved for the service. Historically, free advertising-supported 

telecommunications services have not had the same success as 

free over-the-air television services. But they might meet with 

more success if an appropriate business model can be identified. 

Decisions about the use of spectrum for a particular purpose 

should be reached with special attention paid to whether a suitable band is available for this purpose. These decisions should 

be reached at the same time that the Lifeline pilot programs 

are launched.

9.3 ADDRESSING 

DIGITAL LITERACY 

BARRIERS TO

BROADBAND ADOPTION

AND UTILIZATION

Tasks that experienced users take for granted—using a mouse, 

navigating a website or creating a username and password—can 

be daunting for new or less experienced users of the Internet. 

As described earlier, 22% of non-adopters cite digital literacy 

as their main barrier to broadband adoption. This group 

includes people who are uncomfortable using computers and 

those “worried about all the bad things that can happen if 

[they] use the Internet.”75

Digital literacy is an evolving concept. Though there is no 

standard definition, digital literacy generally refers to a variety 

of skills associated with using ICT to find, evaluate, create and 

communicate information. It is the sum of the technical skills 

and cognitive skills people employ to use computers to retrieve 

information, interpret what they find and judge the quality of 

that information. It also includes the ability to communicate 

and collaborate using the Internet—through blogs, self-published documents and presentations and collaborative social 

networking platforms. Digital literacy has different meanings 

at different stages of a person’s life. A fourth grader does not 

need the same skills or type of instruction as a 45-year-old trying to re-enter the job market. Digital literacy is a necessary life 

skill, much like the ability to read and write. 

The recommendations in this section will help all Americans 

to develop basic digital skills, lowering barriers to broadband 

adoption and utilization. 

Recommendation 9.3: The federal government should 

launch a National Digital Literacy Program that creates a 

Digital Literacy Corps, increases the capacity of digital literacy partners and creates an Online Digital Literacy Portal. 

➤ Congress should consider providing additional public 

funds to create a Digital Literacy Corps to conduct 

training and outreach in non-adopting communities.

➤ Congress, the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) should commit to increase the capacity of 

institutions that act as partners in building the digital 

literacy skills of people within local communities.

➤ Congress should consider providing additional public 

funds to IMLS to improve connectivity, enhance 

hardware and train personnel of libraries and other 

Community-based organizations (CBOs).

➤ OMB consulting with IMLS should develop guidelines 

to ensure that librarians and CBOs have the training 

they need to help patrons use next-generation e-government applications.

➤ Congress should consider funding an Online Digital 

Literacy Portal.

An independent study commissioned by the FCC and conducted by the Social Science Research Council used qualitative 

research techniques to examine broadband adoption and use in 

context, particularly in low-income communities. The report 

draws on focus groups, interviews and group conversations 

with non-adopters, librarians, community organizers, teachers, human service workers, health professionals, AmeriCorps 
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 9

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 1 7 5

volunteers and others involved in supporting digital literacy 

and broadband use in their communities.76

The report highlights the important role of communities in 

supporting digital literacy: Non-adopters and new users often 

rely on the assistance of others to get online or get one-on-one 

support when they use the Internet. As the FCC Survey and a 

recent survey by the Joint Center for Political and Economic 

Studies found, these are most often family and friends, or 

trusted intermediaries like librarians and social service 

providers.77 Very rarely, however, is it someone’s only job to 

provide technical assistance or training in their community.78

The federal government should ensure that all citizens have 

access to the online and offline resources they need to develop 

basic digital literacy by launching a National Digital Literacy 

Program.79 Such a program would have three closely related 

parts: the creation of a Digital Literacy Corps, a commitment to 

increasing the capacity of local institutions that act as partners 

in building digital literacy and the creation of an Online Digital 

Literacy Portal.

Creating A Digital Literacy Corps

Many digital literacy training programs, both in the United 

States and abroad, rely on face-to-face training provided by 

trusted resources within local communities.80 Whether using intergenerational training that allows youth committed 

to community service to train senior citizens,81 peer-to-peer 

training that enhances connections among seniors or youth82 or 

mentoring models under which skilled college graduates reach 

out to underprivileged citizens,83 these programs have helped 

non-adopters become more comfortable with technology while 

also fostering volunteers’ commitment to community service 

and increasing their confidence. 

Efforts to date have provided valuable lessons; a national 

program can build on these successful models and ensure the 

scale needed to address digital literacy barriers. To address 

this national need, Congress should consider providing additional public funding for NTIA to create a Digital Literacy 

Corps. In collaboration with the Corporation for National and 

Community Service (CNCS), NTIA should design and administer a Corps that builds on recognized best practices for both 

national service and technology learning. 

NTIA and CNCS can explore best-practice models for building and managing the Corps, leveraging lessons learned from 

existing programs like AmeriCorps, Senior Corps and Learn 

and Serve America. CNCS can also leverage its own experience 

with the digital television transition, during which it made sure 

that AmeriCorps members were in communities across the 

country helping individuals become more comfortable with 

unfamiliar technology. 

CNCS can provide additional lessons on how to build the 

national scale and operational capabilities (including recruitment, training and technical assistance) to support locally 

based efforts to provide face-to-face assistance for individuals who need help acquiring digital skills.84 CNCS’s history of 

helping people of all ages who are interested in serving their 

communities while learning valuable life skills will help ensure 

that Corps members receive appropriate training through programs that rely on best practices to adapt to the needs of each 

community. 

This training should ensure that Corps members gain a sufficient understanding of digital literacy and learn how to teach 

relevant lesson plans. It should also be designed to improve 

Corps members’ own digital literacy skills, as well as other professional skills that can enhance future career prospects. 

The Corps should target segments of the population that are 

less likely to have broadband at home, including low-income 

individuals, racial and ethnic minorities, senior citizens, people 

with disabilities, those with lower education levels, people in 

rural communities, those on Tribal lands and people whose 

primary or only language is not English.

Efforts should be made to recruit members with foreign language skills who can work in communities where the primary 

language spoken is not English. Research indicates the dearth 

of non-English online content and the lack of comfort with 

English are correlated with low levels of broadband adoption. 

Just 20% of Hispanics who chose to take the FCC survey in 

Spanish have broadband at home. For these non-adopters, perceived irrelevance of broadband and lack of digital skills are the 

primary barriers to adoption.85 One-on-one digital skills training in a user’s native language with accompanying content can 

begin to alleviate the effects of cultural or linguistic isolation. 

Some Corps members might be based out of urban schools 

where they could work with teachers, staff and administrators 

to create digital literacy lesson plans and integrate digital skills 

into the teaching of other subjects (see Box 9-2). Other members 

might work with broader social service programs to provide digital 

literacy training as part of a workforce development program. Still 

other members could incorporate demonstration projects into 

training activities in rural areas to show the relevance of broadband technology to rural non-adopters and to encourage people to 

invest time in digital skills training. 

Corps members will help non-adopters overcome discomfort with technology and fears of getting online while also 

helping people become more comfortable with content and applications that are of immediate and individual relevance. For 

example, Corps members might help people research health 

information, seek employment, manage finances and engage 

with or utilize government services. 

Beyond their service terms, former Corps members 

would bring technology teaching skills back to their own 
1 7 6 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 9

communities, magnifying the impact of the program. As happens in numerous CNCS programs currently, Corps members 

would build other basic work skills: time management, team 

leadership, planning, contingency management and critical 

thinking. For example, 90% of AmeriCorps members reported learning new skills as part of their service, and, of those 

members, nearly all of those members (91%) said they use 

those skills in their education or career pursuits following the 

program.86

Increasing the Capacity of Community Partners

For millions of Americans, libraries and other public computing centers are important venues for free Internet access. 

Libraries are established institutions where non-adopters 

know they can access the Internet, but community centers, 

employment offices, churches and other social service offices 

play increasingly important roles. Low-income Americans and 

racial and ethnic minorities, in particular, rely on public institutions and community access centers for Internet access. Over 

half (51%) of African Americans and 43% of Hispanics who use 

the Internet do so at a public library.88

But public computing centers provide more than just free 

access to the Internet. They provide supportive environments 

for reluctant and new users to begin to explore the Internet, 

become comfortable using it and develop the skills needed to 

find, utilize and create content.89 Patrons of these centers overwhelmingly express the value of the personnel who staff them 

and can offer one-on-one help, training or guidance.90

Researchers from the SSRC have found that communitybased organizations, such as libraries and non-profits, are key 

institutions in underserved and non-adopting communities—

often providing Internet access, training and support services 

even when those activities fall outside their traditional missions.91 While the challenges and opportunities they face vary, 

these libraries and other community partners are critical to 

improving digital proficiency in communities.92

The United States has more than 16,000 public libraries, 

99% of which provide free Internet access. Ninety-one percent 

of libraries overall and 97% of libraries serving high-poverty areas report offering formal training classes in general computer 

skills, and 93% offer classes in general Internet use.93

However, many libraries lack the computer equipment to 

meet the needs of today’s patrons. Eight in 10 libraries report 

hardware shortages that produce waiting lists during part or 

all of the day. More than 80% of libraries enforce time limits 

on use; 45% of libraries enforce time limits ranging from 31 

minutes to 60 minutes,94 which is not enough time to complete 

many popular and highly useful tasks such as the mathematics 

review course for the General Educational Development (GED) 

tests, which can take up to 150 minutes.95 In addition, other 

CBOs such as community centers, churches and local non-profits lack resources to maintain their own computers, technical 

support and Internet access (see Box 9-3).96

Providing Resources for Digital Literacy Partners

Libraries and other CBOs need additional resources to continue to serve as access points and partners in achieving the 

country’s digital literacy goals. IMLS administers the Library 

Services and Technology Act (LSTA) program which funds the 

long-standing Library Grants to States Program97 and Native 

American Library and Museum Services grants. From 2003 to 

2008, these programs distributed over $800 million in federal grants to states and territories. Professionals across the 

country credit LSTA with helping libraries improve technology, 

engage the public and establish new models for serving their 

communities. The State Library of Maryland, for example, 

reports that funds distributed through the program have 

“impacted [their] ability to stay on the leading edge of technology and in the delivery of resources.”98 The recommended 

allocation could enhance connectivity, hardware and personnel 

training at these community anchor institutions.

IMLS should develop guidelines for public access technology based on populations served and organization size. These 

guidelines would help libraries and CBOs assess their needs for 

public access workstations, portable devices and bandwidth. 

IMLS should work with these organizations to develop guidelines and review them annually to reflect changing technology 

and practices. 

A Model for a 

Digital Literacy Corps

In 42 locations across 

the city of Chicago, a group 

of young people is helping 

others unlock the potential 

of information communication technology. These young 

volunteers, mostly in their 20s, 

are CyberNavigators who, in 

conjunction with librarians 

in the Chicago Public Library 

system, help patrons with 

everything from basic computer instruction to advanced 

computer troubleshooting. 

These young people teach 

classes aimed at the beginning computer user—Internet 

Basics, Mouse Skills and 

Introduction to e-mail—to 

support adults trying to enter 

the workforce after an extended absence. For example, 

CyberNavigators work with job 

seekers to update their résumés, set up e-mail accounts, 

post résumés online and email potential employers.

The CyberNavigators provide one-on-one instruction, 

at times roaming the library 

to help users as necessary. 

Many speak a language other 

than English, enabling them to 

better assist a broader group 

of residents.87

BOX 9-2:
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 9

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 1 7 7

After public access technology guidelines are developed, 

Congress should consider providing additional public funds to 

expand organizational training and capacity—with a matching 

requirement and minimum percentage set aside for organizations other than libraries. These funds would enhance 

connectivity, hardware and personnel training at libraries and 

other public access points and shorten the wait for broadband 

access at those sites.

Training the Personnel of Digital Literacy Partners

As government services increasingly go online, libraries 

shoulder responsibility for helping people learn how to use 

these online services.99 Eighty percent of libraries report that 

they help patrons use e-government applications. However, 

some librarians say they have been overwhelmed by patrons 

seeking help with government services and online programs, 

including applications for digital television converter box 

coupons, Federal Emergency Management Agency forms following Hurricane Katrina and Medicare Part D paperwork. 

These librarians also say that they did not receive suitable 

training or information from the agencies that provided the 

e-government solutions.100

OMB should consider developing guidelines to help federal 

agencies develop e-government services that take into account 

the role of public libraries and CBOs as delivery points. OMB 

should consult with IMLS to develop the guidelines. Agencies 

should work with IMLS to develop online tutorials for using 

government websites and toolkits for librarians who help patrons use online government services. 

Creating an Online Digital Literacy Portal

Every American should have access to free, age-appropriate 

content that imparts digital skills. This content should be 

available in a user’s native language and should meet the accessibility requirements applicable to federal agencies under 

Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. 

To achieve this, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), 

FCC, U.S. Department of Education and NTIA should launch 

an Online Digital Literacy Portal. Congress should consider 

providing public funds to support this effort, and these agencies should partner with the technology industry and education 

sector to approve or create high-quality online lessons that 

users can access and use at their own pace. The collaboration 

between the agencies and non-government partners should 

be similar to the efforts that have produced the online safety 

resources available through OnGuardOnline.gov.101 Offline resources will be important complements to this online content. 

They should be made available for printing or ordering and 

distributed by libraries, CBOs and other organizations. 

This collaborative model has been successful in programs such as the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD) Community Outreach Partnerships 

Program, which brings institutions of higher education and community partners together to revitalize communities. Historically 

Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Hispanic-Serving 

Institutions Assisting Communities (HSIACs) and Tribal 

Colleges and Universities (TCUs) serve critical roles educating 

members of minority communities in the United States.102 In 

addition to their educational missions, through the Community 

Outreach Partnerships Program, these organizations provide 

links to community employment assistance, child care, health 

care information, fair housing assistance, job training, youth 

programs and other services. As crucial community institutions and trusted sources of information, HBCUs, HSIACs and 

TCUs could also serve as offline ambassadors to promote digital 

literacy and other national digital priorities. 

Executive Branch agencies such as HUD and NTIA should 

also use existing relationships—for example, with Neighborhood 

Networks and Public Computing Center grant recipients—to distribute outreach materials associated with the Online Digital Literacy 

Portal. E-rate recipients should also be encouraged to promote the 

portal. Chapter 11 details how recipients of E-rate funds could use 

their facilities to allow community members to build digital literacy 

skills through after-hours access to school computing labs. 

The Online Digital Literacy portal should be evaluated after 

Community-Based 

Organizations as Trusted 

Resources for Digital Literacy

The Centro Cultural serves 

as a link between the digital 

world and the rural community 

of Moorhead, Minn. A community center with a public 

computer lab, the Centro 

connects community members 

with online resources—such as 

jobs, scholarships and online 

civic engagement opportunities—that directly affect their 

lives. The staff has demonstrated success in reaching out 

to low-income, high-risk youth 

about the opportunities that 

exist on the Internet. 

Owing to its popularity 

and the diverse populations it 

serves, the Centro has experienced higher than expected 

demand. During the last year, 

it has seen an increase in its 

electricity bills and expenses 

for maintaining equipment 

and has had to hire a full-time 

employee to run the lab. In 

working with refugees and 

recent immigrant youth, the 

Centro Cultural has found that 

it is difficult to provide all of 

the resources needed to make 

their broadband experience 

meaningful. For example, 

keyboards become a barrier when users do not speak 

English. Centro staff members 

have recognized that accessing the Internet in an environment that is multicultural and 

multilingual creates a more 

meaningful experience for 

users of diverse cultural and 

linguistic backgrounds.

BOX 9-3:
1 7 8 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 9

two years to assess its impact. The evaluation should consider, 

among other metrics, the total number of individuals accessing 

the portal, the number of individuals from specific target populations accessing the portal and the effectiveness of different 

offline resources in promoting the portal. 

9.4 ADDRESSING 

RELEVANCE BARRIERS

TO BROADBAND

ADOPTION AND

UTILIZATION

As mentioned, 19% of non-adopters say they do not think 

digital content delivered over broadband is compelling enough 

to justify getting broadband service.103 Many Americans may 

not feel broadband can help them achieve specific purposes and 

do not view online resources as helpful to their lives.104 Others 

seem satisfied with offline alternatives. These respondents 

say, for example, that the Internet is a “waste of time.”105 The 

country has a unique opportunity to spur adoption by making 

broadband content relevant to these non-adopters.

Many federal agencies, from HUD to the Social Security 

Administration (SSA), already administer programs that 

support disconnected Americans, including people with low incomes and senior citizens. These agencies can serve as advisers 

and channels for outreach, training and information to link the 

populations they serve with the digital world.

This effort will require more than federal action. The federal government should support the public-private partnership 

model to implement these programs at the local level; private, 

non-profit and community-based entities should work together 

to draw people online, particularly those that under adopt. Using 

targeted, culturally relevant messaging and trusted community 

intermediaries, these groups should work together to inform their 

communities about the tangible benefits of broadband.

Finally, while the recommendations in this section focus primarily on boosting adoption of fixed Internet at home or at public 

access points, this plan recognizes that Internet use on handheld 

devices may be a gateway for home broadband adoption. Further 

investigation into consumer use of wireless devices is necessary. 

Recommendation 9.4: The National Telecommunications 

and Information Administration (NTIA) should explore the 

potential for public-private partnerships to improve broadband adoption by working with other federal agencies. 

NTIA should consider supporting public-private partnerships of hardware manufacturers, software companies, 

broadband service providers and digital literacy training 

partners to improve broadband adoption and utilization by 

working with federal agencies already serving non-adopting 

communities. Congress should consider providing additional 

public funds, or NTIA should use existing funds to support 

these partnerships. 

Getting people online and connected to technology means 

engaging non-adopters where they are. Low-income and other 

vulnerable populations—groups that make up a disproportionate 

share of non-adopters of broadband—may already receive government services or participate in ongoing public programs. To bring 

non-adopters online, these agencies should integrate broadband 

connectivity into their goals, services and operations (see Box 9-4).

These partnerships would support the communities hit 

hardest by poverty. Participants would be eligible to receive discounted technology products, reduced-priced service offerings, 

basic digital literacy training and ongoing support. In addition, 

these partnerships would offer customized training, applications and tools. Government agencies could facilitate and help 

qualify participants to receive technology products and inspire 

people to use the Internet. Agencies could advise industry and 

non-profit partners how to make broadband service important 

to people’s lives, while simultaneously making agency operations 

more efficient. 

For example, a public-private partnership program specifically targeting people living in HUD-subsidized housing could 

reach more than nine million low-income people including 

nearly four million school-aged children, more than 1.4 million 

older Americans and nearly one million households headed by 

people with disabilities.106 HUD households, including those on 

Tribal lands, are often located in areas of concentrated poverty 

with limited educational and employment opportunities.107

While families with school-age children generally have 

higher-than-average levels of broadband adoption, families 

with annual income less than $20,000, such as the ones living 

in HUD housing, are less likely than higher-earning families to 

have broadband service in the home.108 Children from low-income families that cannot afford broadband devices or services 

are at a disadvantage relative to their connected peers. Recent 

surveys have found that 71% of teens say the Internet has been 

the primary source for recent school projects; 65% of teens go 

online at home to complete Internet-related homework.109

Similar partnerships, working with SSA, could benefit the 

seven million children and adults with disabilities who receive 

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) under the program run by 

the SSA to provide financial assistance to these Americans.110

Like HUD, SSA programs would combine contributions from 

private and non-profit partners to create and fund broad 
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 9

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 1 7 9

solutions that open the way for SSI recipients to receive a similar package of discounted hardware and broadband service, as 

well as access to relevant software, training and applications. 

Initially, HUD, SSA, the U.S. Department of Education and 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture are high-impact agencies 

for partnership programs to target. But interactions with other 

agencies could provide future opportunities for partnerships to 

reach non-adopters. 

Recommendation 9.5: Public and private partners should 

prioritize efforts to increase the relevance of broadband 

for older Americans. 

The broadband adoption rate for Americans over the age of 65 

is 35%—well below the national average. The average age of people who identify relevance as their main barrier to getting online is 

61.111 The lag in broadband adoption is particularly acute for older 

African Americans and Hispanics. Just 21% of African American 

senior citizens and 23% of Hispanic seniors have broadband. This 

means that roughly 1.2 million African American and Hispanic 

seniors do not have broadband at home.112

While cost and lack of comfort with technology are almost 

certainly impediments to older Americans adopting broadband, 

data indicate that relevance is an issue as well. Experience has 

shown that older Americans will adopt broadband at home 

when exposed to its immediate, practical benefits and after 

receiving focused, hands-on training (see Box 9-5).113

 The FCC should work with the National Institute on Aging 

(NIA) to conduct a survey of older Americans to more clearly 

identify barriers to their adoption of broadband technology. The survey should particularly focus on relevance and 

skills. Service providers, other federal agencies and non-profit 

agencies that serve as trusted information sources can work 

together to develop government initiatives, broadband service 

offerings, online tools and content that give people a reason 

to be online, a low-cost way to do it and an easy way to do the 

things they need to do. 

In addition, the FCC and NIA should work together to identify how to best target adoption programs to older Americans. 

These programs should address the social infrastructure that 

supports adoption, including family members and others 

who care for older Americans, and organizations that serve 

as trusted sources of information. This work should focus on 

incorporating the needs of older Americans into the implementation of other recommendations in this section, such 

as the National Digital Literacy Program, the Best Practices 

Clearinghouse and any programs to improve broadband affordability for low-income populations. 

One way to increase the relevance of broadband for older 

Americans is to highlight how broadband can improve their access to health care information and services. Broadband enables 

telemedicine solutions like videoconferencing and remote 

monitoring, which allow for better health management, lower 

health care costs and effective aging-in-place programs (see 

Chapter 10). Numerous initiatives, led by partnerships among 

BOX 9-4:

Using Broadband to Create 

Stronger Communities in 

Washington, D.C.

Engaging people where they 

live has already proven to be a 

successful program model, as 

demonstrated by the example of 

Edgewood Terrace, a mixed-income housing complex in northeast Washington, D.C. Through 

a joint effort, the Community 

Preservation and Development 

Corporation, HUD and the U.S. 

Department of Commerce’s 

TOP initiative developed a 

strategy to create a stronger 

community using broadband.

Each of Edgewood Terrace’s 

792 residences is wired for 

broadband. But connections 

are only one part of the overall 

strategy for this community. 

Edgewood Terrace’s 2,400 network-registered residents use 

subsidized devices to connect 

to the Internet and to a specially 

tailored intranet known as the 

EdgeNet. The EdgeNet gives residents free e-mail accounts and 

access to an online forum which 

residents use to exchange community information and news. 

Community empowerment staff 

members have worked with residents to create training classes 

on community issues.

Beyond the walls of the 

housing complex, project 

partners use broadband to 

connect residents with social 

services, counseling, financial 

and educational resources. The 

community operates learning 

centers where residents take 

instructional classes. In one 

course, the Career and Skills Enhancement Program, students 

receive information technology 

(IT) training, skills training and 

assistance using the Internet to 

search for jobs. Other courses 

focus on career preparation and 

building digital skills (for youth) 

or health IT (for seniors).

Edgewood Terrace residents 

and the community have experienced direct benefits as a result 

of these harmonized efforts. 

School attendance is up, graduates of IT skills training courses 

have seen an increase in their 

average incomes and community residents report feeling more 

engaged. Community members 

are using broadband as a tool 

to accomplish shared goals 

and create a more involved 

neighborhood.

The example of Edgewood 

Terrace makes clear that using 

existing agency channels and 

relationships to incorporate 

broadband into people’s lives 

can have a transformative 

impact on traditionally underserved communities. 
1 8 0 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 9

the medical community, the private sector and the academic 

and research community, are underway.114

In addition, the private sector, in collaboration with nonprofits that serve older Americans, could launch a competition to 

invite development of applications that enhance the social benefits of broadband for older Americans. Social networking tools 

can help older adults to reconnect, to stay connected with others 

or to expand their social network to people they could never have 

met in person without traveling.115 Research shows that social 

networking can help prevent depression116 and provide information resources, feedback and support.117 Despite these benefits, 

older adults rarely use popular social networking websites such as 

Facebook and MySpace,118 which were designed for younger, more 

tech-savvy users. A competition to encourage the development of 

“entry-level” social networking applications for older Americans 

could induce innovators to direct their attention to the needs of 

this community and encourage older Americans to adopt other 

broadband applications in the future.

Recommendation 9.6: The federal government should explore the potential of mobile broadband access as a gateway 

to inclusion.

Although home broadband adoption (of wireline or fixed 

wireless technology) is lower for African Americans and 

Hispanics, these groups are relatively heavier users of mobile 

Internet. Although African Americans and Hispanics are as 

likely as other demographic groups to own a cell phone (86% 

do), they are more likely to have ever accessed the Internet on 

a mobile handheld device.119 This handheld access may or may 

not be high-speed; it is difficult to determine in a survey whether participants’ access occurs over 3G networks. Research also 

indicates that handheld online access is often a supplementary 

access path rather than a substitute.120

As broadband technology and devices continue to evolve, 

mobile broadband applications may become important gateways to broadband.121 The FCC should conduct an in-depth 

examination of consumer mobile use with particular focus on 

Americans with lower broadband adoption rates—low-income 

households, people with lower education levels, seniors, nonEnglish speakers and rural Americans. Any study should also 

consider mobile use among racial and ethnic minorities that 

tend to have higher than average use of the mobile Internet. 

The results of the study will give developers, community 

leaders and private industry insight into potential opportunities 

to use mobile Internet to support individuals and communities. 

Recommendation 9.7: The private sector and non-profit 

community should partner to conduct a national outreach 

and awareness campaign. 

How people perceive the Internet shapes how they use it. 

People with strong concerns about potential hazards online 

reported engaging in a narrower range of activities online than 

users without those worries.122 For broadband to be beneficial 

to their lives, consumers need to be aware of both the benefits 

of broadband as a means for solving everyday problems and of 

ways to manage potential hazards. While digital literacy training supports this goal, it is important to explicitly demonstrate 

the relevance of broadband to people’s lives in order to create 

comfort and familiarity with technology in communities.123

Leading media, broadband providers and other technology companies should partner with national non-profits with 

strong ties to underserved communities to conduct a nationwide outreach and awareness campaign.124

The campaign should specifically target key segments of 

non-adopters such as the elderly, low-income Americans, ethnic 

and racial minorities and rural Americans. Its messaging should 

communicate to audiences and their families, in a culturally 

relevant way, why broadband matters.125 The campaign’s media 

strategy should include public service announcements and local 

broadcast messages, but should also focus on printed materials and other resources for local media outreach. In addition to 

creating targeted, culturally relevant outreach information and 

materials, the campaign should make media and other resources available in multiple languages so that they are accessible by 

non-adopters whose primary or only language is not English.

Although the federal government may not directly coordinate 

the campaign, the FCC and other actors from federal, Tribal, 

state and local government should work with the partnership to 

ensure that existing government outreach efforts communicate 

consistent messages (when possible). The FCC’s Consumer 

Advisory Committee should also monitor the campaign and 

A Web Portal for Senior 

Citizens

The Brooklyn, N.Y., nonprofit Older Adults Technology 

Services (OATS) encourages 

older adults to use information technology to enhance 

their quality of life. In addition 

to specially targeted training 

methods and device support, 

OATS has developed a model 

to engage older adults with 

information technology by 

aggregating useful, trustworthy information. 

SeniorPlanet is a Web 

portal for older adults. It 

promotes health, wellness and 

quality-of-life improvements. 

Developed by OATS in 2006, 

SeniorPlanet is a grassroots 

digital community seeded 

with trusted resources and 

improved by users. The site 

includes a forum for resource 

exchanges, an events calendar and user-created blogs. 

Through SeniorPlanet, a 

person can register to attend a 

seminar on Internet safety, ask 

a technology question, create 

and share content or find information about legal services in 

the New York area.

BOX 9-5:
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 9

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 1 8 1

report back to the FCC on the campaign’s effectiveness and 

private sector’s level of engagement with the campaign.

9.5 ADDRESSING ISSUES

OF ACCESSIBILITY FOR

BROADBAND ADOPTION

AND UTILIZATION

Broadband-enabled applications create unique opportunities 

for people with disabilities. To allow Americans with disabilities to experience the benefits of broadband, hardware, 

software, services and digital content must be accessible and 

assistive technologies must be affordable. 

In order to achieve this goal, the federal government must 

become a model for accessibility. Further, the federal government must promote innovative and affordable solutions 

to ensure that people with disabilities have equal access to 

communications services and that they do not bear disproportionate costs to obtain that access. 

Recommendation 9.8: The Executive Branch should convene a Broadband Accessibility Working Group (BAWG) to 

maximize broadband adoption by people with disabilities.

The Executive Branch should convene a working group to 

coordinate federal efforts to maximize broadband adoption by 

people with disabilities. The BAWG also should work to make 

the federal government itself a model of accessibility. Members 

of the BAWG would bring together representatives from the 

Executive Branch including the departments of Agriculture, 

Commerce, Defense, Education, Health and Human Services, 

Justice, Labor and Veterans Affairs; the Access Board; the FCC; 

the FTC; the General Services Administration; the National 

Council on Disability and the National Science Foundation.

The BAWG would take on several important tasks:

➤ Ensure the federal government complies with Section 508 

of the Rehabilitation Act.126 Under Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, federal agencies must “develop, procure, 

maintain and use” electronic and information technologies 

that are accessible to people with disabilities—unless doing 

so would cause an “undue burden.”127 The record indicates 

that the government’s efforts with respect to procurement 

and website accessibility need improvement.128 Section 508 

requires the U.S. Office of the Attorney General to submit 

a biennial report to the President and Congress providing 

information on agency compliance and making recommendations.129 The Attorney General prepared an interim 

report in 2000; prospectively, the Attorney General should 

carry out his statutory duty of submitting a biennial report 

to the President and Congress providing information on 

agency compliance with Section 508 and making recommendations.130 The BAWG should work with the Executive 

Branch to conduct an ongoing and public assessment of the 

degree to which agencies are complying with Section 508. 

The BAWG should also survey federal agencies to determine how they could apply Section 508 requirements to 

grant recipients and licensees. 

➤ Coordinate policies and develop funding priorities across 

agencies. The BAWG should work to identify and modify 

program restrictions that prevent new and efficient technologies from being funded.131 It also should explore 

whether any public funding should be used for the development and operation of new software enhancements that 

could support a network-based delivery system for assistive 

technologies to allow users to “call up interface features or 

adaptations that they need anytime, anywhere and on any 

device that they encounter.”132

➤ Prepare a report on the state of broadband accessibility in 

the United States within a year after the BAWG is created 

and biennially thereafter. This report should consider 

broadband adoption, barriers and usage among people with 

disabilities and incorporate the results from questions 

included in FCC surveys conducted pursuant to the Broadband Data Improvement Act.133 It should also analyze the 

root causes of the relatively low broadband adoption rate 

by people with disabilities and make specific recommendations to address these problems.

Recommendation 9.9: The FCC should establish an Accessibility and Innovation Forum. 

The Accessibility and Innovation Forum could allow 

manufacturers, service providers, assistive technology companies, third-party application developers, government 

representatives and others to learn from consumers about 

their needs, to share best practices and to demonstrate new 

products, applications and assistive technologies. The forum 

could hold workshops to share and discuss breakthroughs by 

technologists, engineers, researchers and others that promote 

accessibility. The Chairman of the FCC, in conjunction with 

the forum, could also present an annual Accessibility and 

Innovation Award recognizing innovations by industry, small 

business, individuals and public-private partnerships that 

have made the greatest contribution to advancing broadband 

accessibility. The forum could have an ongoing web presence 

to allow participants to share information about public and 

private accessibility efforts and discuss accessibility barriers 

and inaccessible products.
1 8 2 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 9

Recommendation 9.10: Congress, the FCC and the U.S. 

Department of Justice (DOJ) should modernize accessibility laws, rules and related subsidy programs.

Accessibility laws, regulations and subsidy programs should 

be updated to cover Internet Protocol (IP)-based communications and video-programming technologies.134 To do so: 

➤ The FCC should ensure services and equipment are accessible to people with disabilities. The FCC should extend its 

Section 255 rules135 to require providers of advanced services136 and manufacturers of end-user equipment, network 

equipment and software used for advanced services to make 

their products accessible to people with disabilities.137 Further, the FCC should extend its Hearing Aid Compatibility 

rules to all devices that provide voice communications via 

a built-in speaker and are typically held to the ear, to the 

extent that it is technologically feasible.138 Finally, the FCC 

should open a proceeding to implement a standard for reliable and interoperable real-time text any time that Voice 

over Internet Protocol is available and supported.139

➤ The federal government should ensure the accessibility of 

digital content. The DOJ should amend its regulations to 

clarify the obligations of commercial establishments under 

Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act140 with 

respect to commercial websites. The FCC should open a 

proceeding on the accessibility of video programming distributed over the Internet, the devices used to display such 

programming and related user interfaces, video programming guides and menus.141 Congress should consider clarifying the FCC’s authority to adopt video description rules.142

➤ The FCC should materially support assistive technologies 

to make broadband more usable for people with disabilities. Congress should consider authorizing the FCC to use 

Universal Service Funds to provide assistive technologies 

that would enable individuals who are deaf or blind to 

access broadband services (up to $10 million per year)143

and to provide funding for competitive awards to be given 

to developers of innovative devices, components, software 

applications or other assistive technologies that promote 

access to broadband (up to $10 million per year). As part of 

its ongoing reform efforts,144 the FCC should issue a Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking on whether to establish separate 

subsidy programs to fund broadband services and assistive 

technologies under the Telecommunications Relay Services 

(TRS) program.145 The FCC should also determine whether 

additional Internet Protocol-enabled TRS services, such as 

Video Assisted Speech-to-Speech Service,146 could benefit 

people with disabilities. 

9.6 EXPANDING 

FEDERAL SUPPORT FOR

REGIONAL BROADBAND

CAPACITY-BUILDING, 

Program Evaluation 

and Sharing of Best 

Practices

Over the past decade several Tribal, state and local governments have developed broadband adoption and deployment 

strategies. The federal government has an important role in 

supporting these complementary state and local efforts and 

encouraging the “partnership of the public and private sectors 

in the continued growth of broadband services and information 

technology for residents and businesses.”147

Building sustainable efforts to support Tribal, state and local 

initiatives requires sufficient financial, technical and information resources. The federal government can bolster these 

efforts by providing additional funding for regional capacitybuilding and by investing in program evaluation, identification 

of best practices and facilitation of information sharing among 

stakeholders across the country.148

Recommendation 9.11: Federal support should be expanded for regional capacity-building efforts aimed at 

improving broadband deployment and adoption.

Many states have shown leadership by developing digital inclusion policies and programs. For example, California, Georgia, 

Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota and New 

York have created broadband offices. These offices are building 

state-level plans, supporting local programs and leading broadband initiatives aligned with the states’ economic development, 

education and health care goals. The federal government can 

use these strong state programs to achieve national broadband 

objectives by relying on states to be local advocates for national 

programs that boost awareness about broadband and ICT.

Some state programs have taken advantage of unique funding opportunities. California, for example, imposed merger 

conditions on telecommunications providers to establish the 

California Emerging Technology Fund, which helps fund local 

efforts to bring broadband to unserved and underserved communities within the state.149 However, not all states have been 

able to develop and consistently fund state-level programs. 
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 9

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 1 8 3

Additional federal support of state efforts can encourage state 

and local initiatives.

In 2008, the Broadband Data Improvement Act (BDIA) 

recognized this opportunity.150 BDIA established a state grant 

program, eventually funded by the Recovery Act, to begin to 

ensure all residents and businesses had affordable access to 

broadband and to promote state efforts to improve technology 

literacy, computer ownership and broadband use.151

Initial grants allocated a per-state maximum of $500,000 

over the course of five years for strategic planning; many states 

have used these grants to create state broadband task forces 

or hire dedicated broadband staff.152 States can use additional 

funding to continue the work begun under these initial planning grants and establish state and local adoption programs 

envisioned by the legislation.

NTIA should provide additional funding to support ongoing grants aligned with Section 106 of BDIA. The Recovery 

Act made $350 million available to NTIA to fund the state 

data-gathering and development goals set in BDIA. NTIA has 

currently assigned only a portion of these funds; the remainder 

should be obligated to state-level organizations in 2010. To 

ensure long-term sustainable efforts, states that have designated an outside entity should be encouraged to include state 

agency oversight of the planning. These state-level organizations should:*

➤ Complete strategic planning based on gap analysis of broadband availability, adoption and the existing capacity of local 

support organizations.153

➤ Establish programs to improve computer ownership and 

Internet access in unserved and underserved areas.154

➤ Provide technical expertise to local institutions, non-profits 

and governments to develop deployment and adoptionrelated initiatives.155

➤ Work with the private sector to create public-private 

partnerships to access infrastructure, technical expertise, 

training and program funding.

➤ Accelerate broadband application usage in key areas like 

government, education and health care.156

➤ Gather state and local benchmark data to determine program success over time.157

➤ Coordinate and enhance volunteer and non-profit programs that provide digital literacy and small business 

broadband training.158

If Congress makes additional funding available under 

BDIA, it should consider amending BDIA to make Tribes 

eligible to receive funding. In addition, if BDIA is amended, 

Congress should consider allowing NTIA to require that new 

state funding award recipients re-grant a portion of their total 

award to local and regional broadband programs. Congress also 

should consider allowing local, community and non-profit entities to apply independently for this new funding in the event 

that any state, territory or the District of Columbia fails to 

designate an eligible entity.

Recommendation 9.12: Congress and federal agencies 

should promote third-party evaluation of future broadband 

adoption programs.

Better measurement is widely recognized as necessary for understanding the costs, benefits and efficiency of different adoption 

programs. But little progress has been made.159 More systematic 

evaluation is required to make the most of the federal government’s broadband investment.160 Most adoption programs spend 

their money on program activities, rather than measuring results. 

This is an understandable choice in the short run. But in the long 

run it has left the country with a limited understanding of what 

works and what does not.161 The government needs to invest in 

detailed evaluations of how adoption programs actually influence 

broadband adoption and use. Such evaluations should also assess 

the impact of adoption programs on educational achievement and 

literacy as well as cost effectiveness. 

Future federal appropriations for broadband adoption should 

include specific requirements and funding for third-party 

evaluation and assessment. Each grant should include funding 

for program evaluation, with additional funding to conduct indepth assessments and longitudinal program assessment. 

Program evaluation should not use a single methodology 

or type of data collection; evaluations will differ depending 

on project type and intended outcomes. But evaluations must 

provide a clear framework against which programs can be measured. They should define what makes a person a broadband 

“adopter” and track costs per incremental adopter. Further, 

evaluation should be a basic part of planning a project and 

adjusting that project when necessary. Evaluations should be 

designed to track progress and results at the program level, the 

organizational level and the community level. Longitudinal assessments should sample outcomes across program types. 

Recommendation 9.13: NTIA should establish a National 

Broadband Clearinghouse to promote best practices and 

information sharing. 

In addition to detailed evaluation, practitioners, including 

the federal government, need better information sharing. A 

National Broadband Clearinghouse would promote best practices and collaboration among those involved in programs aimed at 

boosting broadband adoption and utilization. NTIA should work 

with the FCC, Tribal, state and local governments, regulators, 

CBOs and the private sector to create, maintain and market a *

Each of the following is consistent with the uses outlined by BDIA.
1 8 4 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 9

nationally recognized online clearinghouse for best practices. It 

should serve as a resource for all parties involved in establishing 

broadband services—providers, Tribal, state and local governments and non-profits. NTIA should establish standards for 

managing the clearinghouse’s online information. NTIA should 

also provide the clearinghouse with relevant content, including results and data collected during an evaluation of its own 

programs. States and other entities receiving federal broadband 

funding from NTIA would be expected to contribute content.

As part of the clearinghouse, NTIA should create a National 

Broadband Data Warehouse to serve as a central repository 

for broadband consumer data that exist across government 

agencies. NTIA’s BTOP program rightly places strict reporting 

requirements on grant recipients in order to gather important 

performance data. To make the most of these data, they should be 

included in the warehouse. To the extent possible, the warehouse 

should provide data in standard and interoperable formats. 

Those managing the clearinghouse should conduct outreach 

efforts and promote the online clearinghouse and its services. 

They also should encourage community members and broadband users to submit and update information that could be 

shared online and to develop a review system to ensure the 

content’s quality and usefulness. If necessary, Congress should 

consider providing additional public funds to support development and management of the clearinghouse and a program of 

regional outreach, events and field-based data collection.

9.7 COORDINATING 

WITH TRIBES ON

BROADBAND ISSUES

Developing and executing a plan to ensure that Tribal lands have 

broadband access and that Tribal communities utilize broadband services requires regular and meaningful consultation with 

Tribes on a government-to-government basis, as well as coordination across multiple federal departments and agencies. 

To facilitate effective Tribal consultation and streamline coordination across federal entities on broadband-related issues, 

the following changes are recommended:

Recommendation 9.14: The Executive Branch, the FCC

and Congress should consider making changes to ensure 

effective coordination and consultation with Tribes on 

broadband related issues.

➤ The Executive Branch should establish a Federal-Tribal 

Broadband Initiative through which the federal government can coordinate both internally and directly with 

Tribal governments on broadband-related policies, programs and initiatives.

➤ The FCC should increase its commitment to government-to-government coordination with Tribal leaders.

➤ Congress and the FCC should consider increasing 

Tribal representation in telecommunications planning. 

➤ Federal agencies should facilitate Tribal access to 

broadband funding opportunities.

➤ The FCC and Congress should support technical training and development on Tribal lands.

➤ The federal government should improve the quality of 

data on broadband in Tribal lands. 

Government-to-Government Coordination and Consultation 

Tribal governments must interact with multiple federal agencies and departments on a wide range of programs. Because 

broadband is a critical input to the achievement of goals in 

many areas, including education, health care, public safety and 

economic development, the federal government should establish a Federal-Tribal Broadband Initiative to coordinate both 

internally and directly with Tribal governments on broadbandrelated policies, programs and initiatives. The initiative will 

include elected Tribal leaders or their appointees and officials 

from relevant federal departments and agencies.

The FCC should create an FCC-Tribal Broadband Task Force 

consisting of senior FCC staff and elected Tribal leaders or their 

appointees to carry out its commitment to promoting government-to-government relations.162 The task force will assist in 

developing and executing an FCC consultation policy, ensure 

that Tribal concerns are considered in all proceedings related 

to broadband and develop additional recommendations for 

promoting broadband deployment and adoption on Tribal lands. 

The FCC should also create an FCC Office of Tribal Affairs to 

consult regularly with Tribal leaders, to develop and drive a 

Tribal agenda in coordination with other FCC bureaus and offices and to manage the FCC-Tribal Broadband Task Force. 

Further, the Secretary of Agriculture should complete the 

department’s ongoing consultation process with Tribes and implement provisions of the 2008 Farm Bill relating to substantially 

underserved trust areas for all broadband funding programs.163

In addition, Congress should consider amending the 

Communications Act to establish a Tribal seat on the USF 

Joint Board. The FCC should establish a Tribal seat on the 

USAC Board of Directors.

Technical Training for Tribes

Congress should consider additional annual funding for the 

FCC to expand the Indian Telecommunications Initiatives’ 

Tribal workshops and roundtables to include sessions on 

education, technical support and assistance with broadband 
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 9

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 1 8 5

initiatives.164 In order to help Tribes acquire technical knowledge and expertise, Congress should also consider additional 

annual funding to allow Tribal representatives to participate in 

FCC University training programs at no cost.

Improving Data on Tribal Lands

The FCC should identify methods for collecting and reporting broadband information that is specific to Tribal lands, 

working with Tribes to ensure that any information collected 

is accurate and useful. In the interim, the FCC should immediately coordinate discussions between broadband providers 

and Tribal governments to develop a process for Tribes to 

receive information about services on Tribal lands. In addition,

NTIA should provide BDIA planning and mapping grantees 

with guidance on how to work with Tribes to obtain data about 

Tribal lands, and ensure that Tribal governments have the 

opportunity to review mapping data about Tribal lands and 

offer supplemental data or corrections.165 Congress should also 

consider allowing NTIA to provide separate grants to Tribes or 

their designees for any purpose permitted under the BDIA, including future planning and mapping projects on Tribal lands.
1 8 6 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 9

c h a p t e r 9 E n d n o t e s 

1 John Horrigan, Broadband Adoption and Use in 

America 1 (OBI, Working Paper No. 1, 2010) (Horrigan, 

Broadband Adoption and Use in America); see also Nat’l

Telecomm. & Info. Admin., Digital Nation: 21st Century

America’s Progress Toward Universal Broadband

Internet Access 4 (2010) (estimating that 64% of U.S. 

households used a broadband Internet access service), 

available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/reports/2010/

NTIA_internet_use_report_Feb2010.pdf; Lee Rainie, 

Pew Internet & Am. Life, Internet, Broadband and

Cell phone Statistics 1 (2010) (finding that 60–63% 

of American adults used broadband at home in 2009), 

available at http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//

Files/Reports/2010/PIP_December09_update.pdf.

2 Horrigan, Broadband Adoption and Use in America at 

1, 13–14. The table does not report results for Asian 

Americans or American Indians/Alaska natives because 

the survey did not have enough respondents in each of 

these groups to draw statistically reliable inferences. 

3 See, e.g., Pew Research Ctr., Trend Data: Home 

Broadband Adoption Since 2000, http://www.

pewinternet.org/Trend-Data/Home-BroadbandAdoption.aspx (last visited Mar. 4, 2010).

4 John Horrigan, Pew Internet & Am. Life Project, Home

Broadband Adoption 2009, at 8–11 (2009), available 

at http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/

Reports/2009/Home-Broadband-Adoption-2009.pdf.

5 Indust. Analysis & Tech. Div., FCC, High-Speed Service

for Internet Access: Status as of December 31, 2008

(2010), available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_

public/attachmatch/DOC-296239A1.pdf.

6 In Fall 2009, the FCC fielded a national survey of 

Americans’ technology use under authority granted 

by the Broadband Data Improvement Act (BDIA). 

This survey included an oversample of respondents 

who do not have broadband at home; of 5,005 survey 

respondents, 2,334 reported not having or using 

broadband at home. See Horrigan, Broadband Adoption 

and Use in America at 11.

7 Horrigan, Broadband Adoption and Use in America

at 5. The remaining 2% cite a combination of costrelated issues. 

8 Horrigan, Broadband Adoption and Use in America at 5.

9 Horrigan, Broadband Adoption and Use in America at 5. 

10 Horrigan, Broadband Adoption and Use in America at 

24, 7. The FCC Survey defined disability in accordance with 

OMB guidance. Disability status is related to respondents’ 

answers to any of six questions and is aligned with the 

questions in upcoming American Community Surveys to 

be fielded by the Bureau of the Census. 

11 See, e.g., Horrigan, Broadband Adoption and Use in

America at 26 (“Some of the difference in adoption rates 

is due to individuals’ disabilities and some is due to 

lower incomes, advanced age or other factors associated 

with low adoption.”). FCC analysis of the data (a logit 

model) shows that having a disability is, independent 

of other factors, linked to lower broadband adoption. 

People with disabilities, for example, have employment 

rates that are less than half of those without disabilities 

(36.9% compared with 79.7%) and poverty rates that 

are nearly three times higher (24.7% compared with 

9.0%). People with lower incomes are less likely to have 

broadband at home (35% compared with 65%). Cornell

University Rehabilitation Research and Training

Center on Disability Demographics and Statistics,

2007 Disability Status Report 24, 34 (2008), available 

at http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/edi/disabilitystatistics/

StatusReports/2007-PDF.

12 See, e.g., Eric Bridges, American Council of the Blind, 

Statement, Remarks at the FCC Broadband Accessibility 

for People with Disabilities Workshop II, at 81–84 (Oct. 

20, 2009) (noting the first Smartphone that had features 

built in allowing it to be used by a person who was blind 

was introduced in July 2009), available at http://www.

broadband.gov/docs/ws_accessibility_disabilities/

ws_accessibility_disabilities_transcript.pdf.

13 See American Foundation for the Blind, Technology, 

Assistive Technology, Braille Technology, http://www.

afb.org/Section.asp?SectionID=4&TopicID=31&Docum

entID=1282 (last visited Jan. 9, 2010). 

14 For example, people with hearing and speech disabilities 

who have transitioned from using TTYs to text and 

video communications cannot call 911 directly. See

Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, 

Inc. Comments in re NBP PN #14 (Comment Sought on 

Public Safety Issues Related to Broadband Deployment in 

Rural and Tribal Areas and Communications to and from 

Persons with Disabilities—NBP PN #14, GN Docket Nos. 

09-47, 09-51, 09-137, Public Notice, 24 FCC Rcd 13512 

(WCB 2009) (NBP PN #14)), filed Dec. 1, 2009, at 2.

15 See, e.g., WebAIM, Screen Reader User Survey Results

23 (2009) (finding that only about 8% of the 665 screen 

reader users surveyed found that social media sites were 

“very accessible”), available at http://www.webaim.org/

projects/screenreadersurvey2/.

16 See Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center on 

Telecommunications Access Comments in re NBP PN #4 

(Comment Sought on Broadband Accessibility for People 

with Disabilities Workshop II: Barriers, Opportunities, 

and Policy Recommendations—NBP PN #4, GN Docket 

Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 09-137, Public Notice, 24 FCC Rcd 

11968 (CGB 2009) (NBP PN #4)), filed Oct. 6, 2009, at 3. 

Video description is “the insertion of verbal descriptions 

of on-screen visual elements during natural pauses in a 

program’s audio content.” Karen Peltz Strauss, Past and 

Present: Making the Case for a Regulatory Approach to 

Addressing Disability Discrimination in the Provision of 

Emerging Broadband and Cable Technologies,inBroadband

and Cable Television Law 2010 Developments in Cable

Technology 6 n.17 (2010).

17 Horrigan, Broadband Adoption and Use in America at 6. 

The FCC survey found 86% of Americans have premium 

television, 86% have a cell phone and 80% have a 

working computer at home. 

18 Horrigan, Broadband Adoption and Use in America at 6.

19 See Letter from William J. Cirone, Superintendent, Santa 

Barbara County Education Office, to Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 09-51 (June 30, 2009).

20 See Computers for Families, http://www.sbceo.

org/~sbceocff/ (last visited Feb. 22, 2010); Cox 

Comments in re National Broadband Plan NOI, filed 

June 8, 2009, Attach. at 5–6.

21 Carmen DeNavas-Walt et al., U.S. Census Bureau, 

Current Population Reports, Income, Poverty, and

Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 

2008, at 4 (2009), available at http://www.census.gov/

prod/2009pubs/p60-236.pdf.

22 United States Department of Labor, WB-Previous 

Projects, Strengthening the Family Initiatives 2008, 

http://www.dol.gov/wb/programs/family1.htm(last 

visited Mar. 4, 2010).

23 See Native Public Media (NPM) and the National 

Congress of American Indians (NCAI) Comments in re 

NBP PN #5 (Comment Sought on Broadband Deployment 

and Adoption on Tribal Lands—NBP Public Notice #5, 

GN Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 09-137, Public Notice, 

24 FCC Rcd 12010 (CGB 2009) (NBP PN #5)) filed 

Dec. 9, 2009 (NCAI-NPM Dec. 9, 2009, Comments), 

Attach. at 4–5; Tribes Take to Wireless Web, BBC News, 

Mar. 3, 2004, available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/

technology/3489932.stm.

24 See, e.g., Paul DiMaggio et al., From Unequal Access

to Differentiated Use: A Literature Review and

Agenda for Research on Digital Inequality (2001) 

(recommending research agendas focused on the extent 

and causes of different returns to Internet use for 

different kinds of uses), available at http://citeseerx.ist.

psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.85.6001&rep=

rep1&type=pdf; Eszter Hargittai & Amanda Hinnant, 

Digital Inequality: Differences in Young Adults’ Use 

of the Internet, 35 Comm. Res. 602 (2008)(discussing 

the impact of differentiated Internet use and capitalenhancing activities by young people). 

25 Horrigan, Broadband Adoption and Use in America at 33.

26 Horrigan, Broadband Adoption and Use in America at 

31–33.

27 See, e.g., Digital Impact Group Comment in re NBP PN 

#16, (Comment Sought on Broadband Adoption—NBP 

Public Notice #16, GN Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 09-137, 

Public Notice, 24 FCC Rcd 13692 (WCB 2009) (NBP 

PN #16)) filed Dec. 2, 2009, at 4–5 (noting that relevant 

uses of broadband technology provide both the initial 

motivation for broadband adoption and sustained 

use thereafter); Windstream Communications, Inc. 

Comments in re NBP PN #16, filed Dec. 2, 2009, at ii 

(“[W]hether and what amount a consumer is willing 

to pay for broadband service is largely a function of the 

value a consumer places on the service . . .”); National 

Black Caucus of State Legislators Comments in re 

National Broadband Plan NOI, filed Jan. 8, 2010, 

Attach. at 23.

28 Horrigan, Broadband Adoption and Use in America at 19.

29 See generally Everett Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations

(Free Press 4th ed. 1995) (Rogers, Diffusion of

Innovations).

30 See, e.g., National Black Caucus of State Legislators 

Comments in re National Broadband Plan NOI, filed 

Jan. 8, 2010, Attach. at 13.

31 Awardees must contribute support equal to 15% of the 

requested grant amount. Further information, including 

application materials and guidelines, is available at 

USDA, Rural Development, www.usda.gov/rus/telecom/

commconnect.htm (last visited Mar. 9, 2010).
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 9

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 1 8 7

c h a p t e r 9 E n d n o t e s 

32 See U.S. Dep’t Agric., Community Connect Broadband

Program, Grant Application Guide, Fiscal Year 2009, 

at 22 (2009), available at http://www.usda.gov/rus/

telecom/commconnect/2009/2009CommConnectApp

Guideb.pdf.

33 National Telecommunications and Information 

Administration, Technology Opportunities 

Program About TOP, http://www.ntia.doc.gov/top/

about.html (last visited Feb. 22, 2010); National 

Telecommunications and Information Administration, 

Technology Opportunities Program, Grants, http://

www.ntia.doc.gov/top/grants/grants.htm (last visited 

Feb. 22,2010).

34 See Austen Free-Net, About AFN, http://www.

austinfree.net/about/index.html (last visited Feb. 22, 

2010); Mountain Area Information Network, About 

Main, http://www.main.nc.us/about/. (last visited Feb. 

22, 2010).

35 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, 

Pub. L. No. 111-5, div. A, tit. II, 123 Stat. 115, 128 (2009) 

(Recovery Act). 

36 See Broadband Technology Opportunities 

Program, 75 Fed. Reg. 3,792 (Jan. 22, 2010); NTIA, 

Broadband Technology Opportunities Program, 

BTOP Project Information, http://www.ntia.doc.

gov/broadbandgrants/projects.html (last visited 

Feb. 20, 2010). See BroadbandUSA, Fast-Forward 

New Mexico—Project Description, http://www.

ntia.doc.gov/broadbandgrants/BTOPAward_

NewMexicoStateLibrary_121709.pdf. 

37 See National Telecommunications and Information 

Administration, BroadbandUSA, Fast-Forward New 

Mexico, http://www.ntia.doc.gov/broadbandgrants/

BTOPAward_NewMexicoStateLibrary_121709.pdf (last 

visited Feb. 23, 2010).

38 See National Telecommunications and Information 

Administration, Broadband USA, Spokane Broadband 

Technology Alliance, http://www.ntia.doc.gov/

broadbandgrants/BTOPAward_TINCANWA_121709.

pdf (last visited Feb. 23, 2010).

39 See National Telecommunications Information 

Administration, BroadbandUSA, Los Angeles 

Computer Access Network, http://www.ntia.doc.gov/

broadbandgrants/LA_BTOP_Factsheet_FINAL.pdf (last 

visited Feb. 23, 2010).

40 See Advanced Communications Law & Policy Institute 

Comments in re NBP PN #16, filed Dec. 2, 2009, at 6.

41 Ultra High-Speed Broadband Task Force, Minnesota

Ultra High-Speed Broadband Report 66 (2009) 

(Minnesota Ultra High-Speed Broadband Report), 

available at http://www.ultra-high-speed-mn.org/CM/

Custom/UHS%20Broadband%20Report_Full.pdf.

42 Minnesota Ultra High-Speed Broadband Report at 71.

43 See, e.g., Advanced Communications Law & Policy 

Institute Comments in re NBP PN #16, filed Dec. 2, 

2009, at 6–7.

44 City of Seattle, Community Technology Overview

available at http://seattle.gov/tech/overview/

45 Cmty. Tech. Program, Dep’t of Info. Tech., City

of Seattle, Information Technology Access and

Adoption in Seattle (2009), available at http://

www.cityofseattle.net/tech/indicators/docs/2009_

TechAccessAndAdoptionInSeattleReport.pdf.

46 Puget Sound Off, Empower, Encourage SOUNDING 

OFF in your community, http://pugetsoundoff.org/

47 City of Seattle, Community Technology Overview

available at http://seattle.gov/tech/overview/ of Chicago 

Comments in re NBP PN #16, filed Dec. 3, 2009, at 

15–16.

48 See, e.g., City of Chicago Comments in re NBP PN #16, 

filed Dec. 3, 2009, at 2; Connected Nation Comments in 

re NBP PN #16, filed Dec. 2, 2009, at 7.

49 See, e.g., City of Chicago Comments in re NBP PN #16, 

filed Dec. 3, 2009, at 4–5; Connected Nation Comments 

in re NBP PN #16, filed Dec. 2, 2009, at 7.

50 Letter from Rep. Calvin Smyre, George House of 

Representatives and President of the National Black 

Caucus of State Legislators (NBCSL), to Hon. Julius 

Genachowski Chairman, FCC, GN Docket No. 09–51 

(filed Jan. 8, 2010) (NBCSL Jan. 8, 2010 Letter) Attach. 

at 10 (“Broadband in the home can help minimize the 

socio-economic disparities that persist among low 

income, minority or socially disadvantaged populations, 

which tend to be disparately impacted by a lack of access 

to quality information or essential services.”).

51 Horrigan, Broadband Adoption and Use in America at 19.

52 See generally Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations.

53 NBCSL Jan. 8, 2010, Attach. at 7.

54 See Greenlining Institute Comments in re NBP PN #13 

(Comment Sought on Broadband Study Conducted by the 

Berkman Center for Internet and Society—NBP Public 

Notice #13, GN Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 09-137, Public 

Notice, 24 FCC Rcd 12609 (WCB 2009) (NBP PN 

#13)), filed Nov. 16, 2009, Attach. at 3, 6–12; Advanced 

Communications Law & Policy Institute Comments 

in re NBP PN #16, filed Dec. 2, 2009, at 6; Broadband 

Diversity Supporters Comments in re National 

Broadband Plan NOI (A National Broadband Plan for 

Our Future, GN Docket No. 09-51, Notice of Inquiry, 24 

FCC Rcd 4342 (2009)), filed Jun. 8, 2009, at 23.

55 See Janice Hauge & James Prieger, Demand-Side

Programs to Stimulate Adoption of Broadband: What

Works? 59 (2009) (Hauge & Prieger, Programs to

Stimulate Adoption of Broadband).

56 Horrigan, Broadband Adoption and Use in America at 13.

57 See Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service

Staff, 2009 Universal Service Monitoring Report, 

CC Docket Nos. 96-45, 98-62, at 2-2 (2009 Universal

Service Monitoring Report), available at http://

hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC295442A1.pdf.

58 See USAC, Federal Universal Service Support

Mechanisms Fund Size Projections for Second

Quarter 2010, at 2 (2010) (USAC, 2Q 2010 Fund Size

Projections), available at http://www.universalservice.

org/about/governance/fcc-filings/2010/

Q2/2Q2010%20Quarterly%20Demand%20Filing.pdf.

59 2009 Universal Service Monitoring Report at tbl. 2.1; 

see also USAC, 2008 Lifeline Participation Rate Data, 

http://www.usac.org/li/about/participation-rateinformation.aspx (last visited Feb. 19, 2010).

60 In 2008, five states—Alaska, California, Colorado, 

Montana and Oklahoma—has an estimated Lifeline 

participation rate in excess of 50%. See USAC, 2008 

Lifeline Participation Rates by State Map, http://www.

usac.org/li/about/participation-rate-information.aspx 

(last visited Feb. 19, 2010).

61 See, e.g., Mark Burton et al., Understanding Participation 

in Social Programs: Why Don’t Households Pick up the 

Lifeline?, 7 B.E. J. Econ. Anal & Pol’y, Art. 57 (2007), 

available at http:www.bepress.com/bejeap/vol7/iss1/

art57 (purchase required); Janice A. Hague et al., Whose 

Call Is It? Targeting Universal Service Programs to LowIncome Households’ Telecommunications Preferences,

33 Telecomm. Pol’y 129, 136–38 (2009), available at

http://warrington.ufl.edu/purc/purcdocs/papers/0805_

Hauge_Whose_Call_is.pdf (pages 8–10 in this version).

62 The FCC’s rules impose one limitation on eligibility 

criteria for states that have their own programs: 

the criteria must be linked to income. See 47 C.F.R. 

§ 54.409(a).

63 See, e.g., Cox Comments in re NBP PN #19, (Comment 

Sought on the Role of the Universal Service Fund and 

Intercarrier Compensation in the National Broadband 

Plan—NBP Public Notice #19, GN Docket Nos. 09-47, 

09-51, 09-137, Public Notice, 24 FCC Rcd 13757 (OSP 

2009) (NBP PN #19)) filed Dec. 7, 2009, at 12 (Lifeline 

customer should be able to use broadband virtual 

vouchers for fixed dollar amount of subsidy for any 

service tier that meets customer needs).

64 See, e.g., AT&T Comments in re NBP PN #19, filed Dec. 

7, 2009, at 31.

65 See, e.g., AT&T Comments in re NBP PN #19, filed Dec. 

7, 2009, at 31.

66 See, e.g., Letter from Jaime M. Tan, Director, Federal 

Regulatory, AT&T, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, 

FCC, WC Docket No. 03-109, GN Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-

51, 09-137 (Dec. 22, 2009); State of New York Comments 

in re NBP PN #19, filed Dec. 7, 2009, at 2 (filed by David 

B. Salway on behalf of Melodie Mayberry-Stewart).

67 Fl. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, Florida Lifeline & Link-Up

Assistance: Number of Customers Subscribing to

Lifeline Service and the Effectiveness of Procedures

to Promote Participation 1 (2009), available at http://

www.psc.state.fl.us/publications/pdf/telecomm/telelifelinereport2009.pdf.

68 See, e.g., Time Warner Cable Comments in re NBP 

PN #23 (Comments Sought on Network Deployment 

Study Conducted by The Columbia Institute for TeleInformation—NBP Public Notice #23, GN Docket Nos. 

09-47. 09-51, 09-137, Public Notice, 24 FCC Rcd 13890 

(WCB 2009) (NBP PN #23)), filed Dec. 4, 2009, at 3; 

Free Press Reply in re NBP PN #30 (Reply Comments 

Sought in Support of National Broadband Plan—NBP 

Public Notice #30, GN Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 09-137, 

Public Notice, DA 10-61 (WCB, rel. Jan. 13, 2010) (NBP 

PN #30), filed Jan. 27, 2010, at 12.

69 See, e.g., Tracfone Comments in re NBP PN #19, filed 

Dec. 7, 2009, at 7.

70 USAC, 2Q 2010 Fund Size Projections at 3, 15–17.

71 See, e.g., Cox Comments in re NBP PN #19, filed Dec. 

7, 2009 (urging the FCC to promote digital literacy 
1 8 8 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 9

c h a p t e r 9 E n d n o t e s 

in other ways, such as partnerships between service 

providers and community organizations, schools and 

community colleges).

72 See, e.g., RobertD. Atkinson, Info.Tech. & Innovation

Found., Policies to Increase Broadband Adoption At Home

3–4 (2009) (suggesting a market-based competition that 

would spur innovative adoption strategies by rewarding 

ISPs for attracting new subscribers in low-income 

communities), available at http://www.itif.org/files/2009-

demand-side-policies.pdf.

73 Annual Assessment of Status of Competition in the Market 

for the Delivery of Video Programming, MB Docket No. 

06-189, Thirteenth Annual Report, 24 FCC Rcd 542, 

546, para. 8 (2009).

74 The cost of providing this wireless broadband service is 

not reflected in the broadband availability gap discussed 

in Chapter 8.

75 Horrigan, Broadband Adoption and Use in America at 5.

76 Immigrant and minority communities were heavily 

represented in the study, as the sizes of these populations 

tend to be too small to survey accurate. In this study, for 

example, 5% of the sample were Hmong—a population of 

relatively recent immigrants from Laos and Cambodia. 

Researchers attempted to explore possible regional 

differences, conducting interviews across the country, in 

urban and rural areas.

77 Horrigan, Broadband Adoption and Use in America at 

24, 26 (“Among current ‘not-at-home’ Internet users, 

22% live with someone who uses the Internet at home. 

These nonusers often ask their online housemates to 

carry out tasks online for them”); Jon P. Gant et al., 

National Minority Broadband Adoption: Comparative

Trends in Adoption, Acceptance and Use, Jt. Ctr. for

Pol. & Econ. Stud. 3 (2010) (Gant et al., National

Minority Broadband Adoption), available at http://

www.jointcenter.org/publications1/publication-PDFs/

MTI_BROADBAND_REPORT_2.pdf.

78 Dharma Dailey et al., Broadband Adoption in LowIncome Communities 27 (2010), (Dharma Dailey et al., 

Broadband Adoption) available at http://www.ssrc.

org/programs/broadband-adoption-in-low-incomecommunities/.

79 Letter from Rey Ramsey, Chief Executive Officer, 

One Economy Corporation, to Julius Genachowski, 

Chairman, FCC, GN Docket No. 09-51 (Nov. 3, 2009).

80 For a sampling of digital literacy programs in the 

European Union that are offered in a variety of formats, 

including face-to-face training, see Knud Erik HildingHamann et al., Danish Tech. Inst., Supporting Digital

Literacy: Analysis of Good Practice Initiatives, Topic

1 Report Annexes (April 2008), available at http://

ec.europa.eu/information_society/eeurope/i2010/docs/

benchmarking/dl_topic_report_1.pdf.

81 See, e.g., Letter from Rey Ramsey, CEO, One Economy 

Corp., to Chmn. Julius Genachowski, FCC, GN Docket 

No. 09-51 (Nov. 3, 2009), Attach. (Comments of One 

Economy Corporation [on] National Digital Literacy 

Initiative) at 17; Senior Connects Corporation, Senior 

Connects, http://www.seniorconnects.org/index.html

(last visited Mar. 3, 2010), as referenced in Net Literacy 

Corporation Reply in re NBP PN #16, filed Dec. 6, 2009, 

at 25–29 (filed by Daniel Kent).

82 See, e.g., Senior Connects Corporation, Senior 

Connects, http://www.seniorconnects.org/index.

html (last visited March 3, 2010), as referenced in 

Net Literacy Corporation Reply in re NBP PN #16, 

filed Dec. 6, 2009, at 25–29 (filed by Daniel Kent); 

Net Literacy, Community Connects Program, http://

www.communityconnects.org/netliteracy.html (last 

visited March 3, 2010) (“Net Literacy’s programs are 

independently beginning to be developed by students 

from New York to California. The European Union’s 

Commission on Digital Inclusion has nominated Net 

Literacy to be one of their 85 “Best of Class” digital 

inclusion models, based upon the Senior Connects 

programs established in Germany.”).

83 See, e.g., Nat’l Telecomms. & Info. Admin., Tech. 

Opportunities Program, Grambling State University 

(Award Number 22-60-01064), available at http://

ntiaotiant2.ntia.doc.gov/top/details.cfm?oeam=

226001064 (last visited March 4, 2010); Nat’l Telecomms. 

& Info. Admin., Broadband Tech. Opportunities 

Program, Lowell Internet, Networking and Knowledge: 

Sustaining Broadband Access Across the Generations, 

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/broadbandgrants/factsheets/

UMassLowell_BTOP_Factsheet_LES_011910.pdf (last 

visited March 4, 2010).

84 NBCSL Jan. 8, 2010, Attach. at 12.

85 OBI, 2009 Broadband Adoption and Use Survey database 

(providing data of 5,005 respondents). 16% of Hispanic 

non-adopters who took the survey in Spanish cite relevance 

and 19% cite digital literacy as the main barriers to 

broadband adoption. Number of cases of Hispanic nonadopters who answered the survey in Spanish is 126.

86 Corp. for Nat’l and Cmty. Serv., AmeriCorps: Changing

Lives, Changing America 8 (2007), available at www.

serve.illinois.gov/national_service/pdfs/AmeriCorps_

Lives_America.pdf.

87 For more about the CyberNavigators, see Chicago 

Pub. Library Found., Programs, http://www.

chicagopubliclibraryfoundation.org/programs/ (last 

visited Mar. 4, 2010).

88 Gant et al., National Minority Broadband Adoption at 3.

89 See, e.g., American Library Association Comments in re 

NBP PN #16, filed Dec. 2, 2009, at 3.

90 Dharma Dailey et al., Broadband Adoption at 27–28.

91 See Dharma Dailey et al., Broadband Adoption at 4.

92 See generally Dharma Dailey et al., Broadband Adoption.

93 American Library Association Comments in re NBP PN 

#16, filed Dec. 2, 2009, at 9.

94 Am. Library Ass’n, Libraries Connect Communities

3: Public Library Funding & Technology Access

Study 45–46 (2009), available at http://ala.org/

ala/research/initiatives/plftas/2008_2009/

librariesconnectcommunities3.pdf.

95 Letter from Elvis Stumbergs, National Broadband 

Taskforce, FCC, on behalf of Learning Express: Top 25 

Products Usage, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, 

GN Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 09-137 (Jan. 14, 2010) 

Attach. at 1.

96 Dharma Dailey et al., Broadband Adoption at 28.

97 Letter from Elvis Stumbergs, National Broadband 

Taskforce, FCC, on behalf of Inst. for Museum & Libr. 

Serv., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket 

Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 09-137 (Jan. 13, 2010) (IMLS Nov. 3, 

2009 Ex Parte) Attach. at 1.

98 Inst. of Museum and Library Serv., A Catalyst for

Change: LSTA Grants to States Program Activities

and the Transformation of Library Services to the

Public (2009), available at http://www.imls.gov/pdf/

CatalystForChange.pdf.

99 Dharma Dailey et al., Broadband Adoption at 31.

100 IMLS Nov. 3, 2009 Ex Parte, Attach. at 132.

101 See OnGuard Online, About Us, http://www.

onguardonline.gov/about-us/overview.aspx (last visited 

Feb. 22, 2010).

102 U.S. Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev., Office of Policy Dev. 

and Research, Minority-Serving Institutions of Higher

Education: Developing Partnerships to Revitalize

Communities 7–9 (2003), available at http://www.oup.

org/files/pubs/minority-report.pdf. 

103 Horrigan, Broadband Adoption and Use in America at 30.

104 American Library Association Comments in re NBP PN 

#16, filed Dec. 2, 2009, at 7.

105 Horrigan, Broadband Adoption and Use in America at 30.

106 See Letter from David E. Chase, Dir., Program 

Monitoring and Res. Div., Off. of Pol’y Dev. & Res., U.S. 

Dep’t of Housing & Urban Dev., to Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 09-51 (Feb. 25, 2010).

107 See, e.g., Video: U.S. Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev., Choice 

Neighborhoods Stakeholder Meeting Presentation (Nov. 

10, 2009), available at http://link.onlinevideoservice.

com/hud/2009/1110/Archive_20091110_edited-1.wmv.

108 OBI, 2009 Broadband Adoption and Use Survey 

database (providing data of 5,005 respondents). Survey 

respondents who reported having a child (under 18) 

living at home and who make less than $20,000 per year 

have a broadband adoption rate of 50% compared to 

families earning between $50,000 and $75,000 per year 

(85%). A crosstab of variable RECINC7 and ADOPTERS 

yields these results.

109 AT&T, National Survey Finds Kids Give High Marks to 

High Speed (press release), Aug. 4, 2004, http://www.att.

com/gen/press-room?pid=4800&cdvn=news&newsarti

cleid=21284.

110 Social Sec. Admin., Annual Report of the Supplemental

Security Income Program Program 106–07 (2009), 

available at http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ssir/SSI09/

ssi2009.pdf.

111 Horrigan, Broadband Adoption and Use in America at 43.

112 Horrigan, Broadband Adoption and Use in America at 

35, 37. 

113 Older Adults Technology Services Comments in re NBP 

PN #16, filed Dec. 2, 2009, at 4.

114 For example, multiple projects have been proposed 

that would use remote monitoring to assess and assist 

Alzheimer’s patients and low-income, underserved 

elderly populations. See, e.g., Letter from Alice Borelli, 

Dir., Global Healthcare & Workforce Pol’y, Intel Corp., 

to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket Nos. 

09-47, 09-51, 09-137, WC Docket No. 02-60 (Jan. 15, 

2010) Attachs.; Letter from Alice Borelli, Dir., Global 
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 9

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 1 8 9

c h a p t e r 9 E n d n o t e s 

Healthcare & Workforce Pol’y, Intel Corp., to Marlene H. 

Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 

09-137, WC Docket No. 02-60 (Dec. 16, 2009) Attachs.; 

see also Oregon Health & Science University, Orcatech 

Research Studies, http://www.orcatech.org/research/

studies (last visited Jan. 19, 2010).

115 See, e.g., Advanced Communications Law & Policy 

Institute Reply in re National Broadband Plan NOI, 

filed July 21, 2009, at 4–5; Consumer Policy Solutions 

Comments in re National Broadband Plan NOI, filed 

June 8, 2009, at 3–4 (filed by Debra Berlyn).

116 BBC, Internet use ‘Good for The Brain’, BBC

News, Oct. 14, 2008, available at http://news.bbc.

co.uk/2/hi/health/7667610.stm; see also Advanced 

Communications Law & Policy Institute Reply in re 

National Broadband Plan NOI, filed July 21, 2009, at 

4–5; Benedict Carey, At the Bridge Table, Clues to a Lucid 

Old Age, N.Y. Times, May 22, 2009 (mental engagement 

may delay the onset of symptoms of dementia), available 

at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/22/health/

research/22brain.html.

117 See Joseph C. Kvedar, M.D., Is Facebook the Up and 

Coming Health IT Application?, Health IT News, Feb. 

3, 2009, http://www.healthcareitnews.com/blog/

facebook-and-coming-health-it-application; see also 

Shereene Z. Idress et al., The Role of Online Support 

Communities, Benefits of Expanded Social Networks 

to Patients with Psoriasis, 145 Arch. of Dermatol. 46 

(2009), available at http://archderm.ama-assn.org/cgi/

content/full/145/1/46.

118 Amanda Lenhart, Senior Citizens Not Flocking to 

Social Networking Sites: Just 7% Have Posted Profile, 

SeniorJournal.com, Jan. 22, 2009, http://seniorjournal.

com/NEWS/WebsWeLike/2009/20090122-

SenCitNotFlocking.htm.

119 Horrigan, Broadband Adoption and Use in America

at 35–36. Some 39% of African Americans have 

gone online with their cell or Smartphone (defined 

as e-mailing, accessing the web for information or 

downloading an application), 39% of Hispanics have 

done this, and 27% of whites have done this.

120 Horrigan, Broadband Adoption and Use in America

at 35–36. The 20% of African Americans without 

broadband at home have used the Internet on their 

handheld devices, and 25% of Hispanics without 

broadband at home have done this.

121 See, e.g., Robert C. Atkinson & Ivy E. Schultz, Columbia

Inst. for Tele-Information, Broadband In America: 

Where It Is And Where It Is Going (According To

Broadband Service Providers) 10 (2009).

122 Horrigan, Broadband Adoption and Use in America at 17.

123 NBCSL Jan. 8, 2010, Attach. at 13.

124 NBCSL Jan. 8, 2010, Attach. at 13.

125 Common Sense Media Nov. 23, 2009 Ex Parte at 2–3.

126 Workforce Investment Act of 1998, § 508, Pub. L. No. 

105-220, 112 Stat. 936 (1998) (codified as § 504 of 

the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794d) (Workforce 

Investment Act).

127 Workforce Investment Act § 508(a)(1)(A).

128 See, e.g., Eric Bridges, American Council of the Blind, 

Remarks at FCC Broadband Accessibility for People 

with Disabilities II: Barriers, Opportunities, and Policy 

Recommendations Workshop (Oct. 20, 2009), available 

at http://broadband.gov/docs/ws_accessibility_

disabilities/ws_accessibility_disabilities_transcript.

pdf; Karen Peltz Strauss, Co-Chair, Coalition of 

Organizations for Accessible Technologies, Remarks 

at FCC Broadband Accessibility for People with 

Disabilities II: Barriers, Opportunities, and Policy 

Recommendations Workshop (Oct. 20, 2009), available 

at http://broadband.gov/docs/ws_accessibility_

disabilities/ws_accessibility_disabilities_transcript.pdf.

129 Workforce Investment Act § 508(d)(2).

130 See Dep’t of Justice, Civil Rights Div., Section 508 

Homepage, http://www.justice.gov/crt/508/508home.

php (last visited Feb. 20, 2010).

131 Workforce Investment Act § 508(d)(2).

132 For example, under Medicare’s regulations, coverage 

of assistive technologies is limited to “durable medical 

equipment” that is “primarily and customarily used to 

serve a medical purpose” and “generally is not useful to 

a person in the absence of an illness or injury.” 42 C.F.R. 

§ 414.202.

133 Karen Peltz Strauss, Co-Chair, Coalition of 

Organizations for Accessible Technologies, Remarks 

at FCC Broadband Accessibility for People with 

Disabilities II: Barriers, Opportunities, and Policy 

Recommendations Workshop (Oct. 20, 2009), available 

at http://broadband.gov/docs/ws_accessibility_

disabilities/ws_accessibility_disabilities_transcript.

pdf; see also Letter from Gregg Vanderheiden, Dir., 

Rehabilitation Eng. Res. Ctr. on Universal Interface & 

Info. Tech. Access, Trace R&D Ctr., Univ. of Wisc. et al., 

to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket Nos. 

09-47, 09-51, 09-137 (Jan. 6, 2010) at 1.

134 Broadband Data Improvement Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 

110-385, 122 Stat. 4097 (2008) (codified at 47 U.S.C. 

§§ 1301–1304) (BDIA).

135 See, e.g., Twenty-First Century Communications and 

Video Accessibility Act of 2009, H.R. 3101, 111th Cong. 

§ 2 (2009).

136 47 C.F.R. § 6.1 et seq. The rules implementing Section 

255 require telecommunications and interconnected 

VoIP service providers and manufacturers to consider 

accessibility issues in the design and development phase 

and to include accessibility features in their products 

when it is readily achievable to do so.

137 Advanced services as defined in H.R. 3101 include noninterconnected VoIP, electronic messaging, and video 

conferencing (as well as interconnected VoIP, which is 

covered by Section 255). The FCC should assure itself of its 

jurisdiction to extend Section 255 to all advanced services 

or, if it cannot do so, seek authorization from Congress.

138 H.R. 3101 requires advanced services providers and 

equipment manufacturers to make their products 

accessible unless doing so would cause an undue burden. 

H.R. 3101 should be a starting point for discussion of 

both the scope of coverage and the legal standard of the 

accessibility obligation applied to service providers and 

manufacturers. We encourage stakeholders to work 

toward a long-term goal of having as much inclusion as 

possible for people with disabilities.

139 See, e.g., Twenty-first Century Communications and 

Video Accessibility Act of 2009, H.R. 3101, 111th Cong. 

§ 102 (2009).

140 This proceeding should be coordinated with the FCC 

proceeding, which addresses the future roles of 911 and 

NG911 as communications technologies, networks and 

architectures expand beyond traditional voice-centric 

devices. As part of the proceeding, the FCC should 

assess its jurisdiction to adopt rules with respect to 

(i) captioning and emergency information of video 

programming on the Internet and devices which display 

such programming; and (ii) related user interfaces, video 

programming guides and menus. 

141 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Pub. L. 

No. 101-336, 104 Stat. 327 (1990) (codified at 42 U.S.C. 

§12101) (ADA). 

142 This recommendation is similar to a provision in H.R. 

3101, § 201.

143 In Motion Picture Ass’n of America, Inc. v. FCC, 309 F.3d 

796 (D.C. Cir. 2002), the D.C. Circuit vacated the FCC’s 

video description rules, finding that the FCC lacked 

the authority to adopt such rules. H.R. 3121 should be a 

starting point for discussion with respect to the scope of 

the FCC’s authority to adopt video description rules.

144 See, e.g., Twenty-first Century Communications and 

Video Accessibility Act of 2009, H.R. 3101, 111th Cong. 

§ 105 (2009).

145 See FCC, FCC Announces Agenda and Panelists for 

Workshop on VRS Reform To Be Held on December 17, 

2009 (press release), Dec. 15, 2009, http://hraunfoss.fcc.

gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295208A1.doc.

146 See FCC, FCC Telecommunications Relay 

Services, Consumer Facts, http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/

consumerfacts/trs.html (last visited Jan. 6, 2010).

147 See Rebecca Ladew, East Coast Representative, Speech 

Communications Assistance by Telephone, Inc., 

Remarks at FCC Broadband Accessibility for People 

with Disabilities II: Barriers, Opportunities, and Policy 

Recommendations Workshop (Nov. 6, 2009), available 

at http://broadband.gov/docs/ws_accessibility_

disabilities/ws_accessibility_disabilities_transcript.pdf; 

Letter from Monica Martinez, Commissioner, Mich. 

Pub. Serv. Comm’n, to Julius Genachowski, Chairman, 

FCC, GN Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 09-137, CS Docket 

No. 97-80 (Dec. 23, 2009) at 1. 

148 BDIA § 106(i)(2) (codified at 47 U.S.C. § 1304(i)(2)); see 

also California Public Utilities Commission Comments 

(filed July 30, 2009) at 4.

149 California Emerging Technology Fund, History, http://

cetfund.org/aboutus/history (last visited Mar. 4, 2010).

150 BDIA § 102(4) (“The Federal Government should also 

recognize and encourage complementary State efforts 

to improve the quality and usefulness of broadband data 

and should encourage and support the partnership of 

the public and private sectors in the continued growth of 

broadband services and information technology for the 

residents and businesses of the Nation.”)

151 BDIA § 106(a)(1)–(2).

152 Esme Vos, Ten States Receive Broadband Mapping and 
1 9 0 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 9

c h a p t e r 9 E n d n o t e s 

Planning Grants from the NTIA, MuniWireless, Jan, 

12, 2010, http://www.muniwireless.com/2010/01/12/

ten-states-receive-broadband-mapping-and-planninggrants-from-the-ntia/.

153 See BDIA § 106(e)(5)(B)(iii) (codified at 47 U.S.C. 

§ 1304(e)(5)(B)(iii)).

154 BDIA § 106(e)(7) (codified at 47 U.S.C. § 1304(e)(7)).

155 See BDIA § 106(e)(6)–(7) (codified at 47 U.S.C. 

§ 1304(e)(6)–(7)). See also Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, 

Broadband Plan Must be Daring, Comprehensive, Hill, 

Jan. 5, 2010, available at http://thehill.com/specialreports/technology-january-2010/74481-broadbandplan-must-be-daring-comprehensive.

156 See BDIA § 106(e)(5)(B)(ii), (e)(7).

157 See BDIA § 106(e)(5)(B)(i), (e)(6)–(7).

158 See BDIA § 106(e)(5)–(7) (codified at 47 U.S.C. 

§1304(e)–(7)).

159 See generally Westat, Collected Case Study

Evaluations: Summary of Findings 20 (1999), 

available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/top/research/

EvaluationReport/case_studies/casestudysummary.pdf.

160 Hauge & Prieger, Programs to Stimulate Adoption of

Broadband at 59.

161 Hauge & Prieger, Programs to Stimulate Adoption of

Broadband at 62.

162 See Statement of Policy on Establishing a Governmentto-Government Relationship with Indian Tribes, Policy 

Statement, 16 FCC Rcd 4078 (2000).

163 See Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008, Pub. 

L. No. 110-246, § 6105, 122 Stat. 1651, 1957–58 (2008) 

(codified at 7 U.S.C. § 936f ).

164 See California Association of Tribal Governments Ex 

Parte in re NBP PN #5, filed Dec. 17, 2009, at 7; Letter 

from Loris Ann Taylor, Executive Director, Native Public 

Media et al., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN 

Docket Nos 09-47, 09-51, 09-137 (Dec. 24, 2009) (Native 

Public Media et al. Dec. 24, 2009 Ex Parte) at 24.

165 See California Association of Tribal Governments Ex 

Parte in re NBP PN #5, filed Dec. 17, 2009, at 12; Native 

Public Media et al. Dec. 24, 2009 Ex Parte at 5–6; Native 

Public Media & the National Congress of American 

Indians Comments in re NBP PN #5, filed Dec. 9, 2009, 

Attach. 1 at 4, 39, 44.
F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 1 9 1

PART III—

NATIONAL

PURPOSES

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n P ART III

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 1 9 3

Why is it that banks have moved their data and transactions 

online over the past decade, but hospitals collect and disseminate data just as they did 20 years ago? 

Why is it that printed newspapers are disappearing, but a 

high school student’s backpack contains the same 25 pounds of 

textbooks it did decades ago? 

Why is it that many jobs are posted online, but too many 

Americans—particularly in low-income and minority communities—lack the access or skills to see those postings?

Why is it that a football helmet allows a coach and his quarterback to communicate, but first responders from different 

jurisdictions still cannot communicate at the scene of a disaster?

The private sector offers some hints to the answers to these 

questions. In their book Wired for Innovation, Massachusetts 

Institute of Technology professors Erik Brynjolfsson and 

Adam Saunders1

 explore why certain companies benefit from 

the use of information technology while other similarly situated companies do not. They find that companies only realize 

the benefits of technology if they also change their fundamental processes and develop a “digital culture.”2

 Technology alone 

is not enough.

The 1990 paper “The Dynamo and the Computer”3

 reveals more 

clues. In the paper, Stanford professor Paul David tries to explain 

why major technological innovations in the 1980s had not yet 

shown up in productivity statistics by the start of the 1990s.

Part of the answer was a “diffusion lag.”4 It takes time for 

a new technical system to replace an existing technical system. For example, in the early 1900s “the transformation of 

industrial processes by the new electric power technology was 

a long-delayed and far from automatic business.”5

 Factories 

didn’t reach 50% electrification until four decades after the 

first central power station opened.6

This lag was due in part to the unprofitability of replacing 

“production technologies adapted to the old regime of mechanical power derived from water and steam.” 7

 In other words, 

the problem was not getting electricity—it was reengineering 

factories designed and optimized for the steam era to embrace 

the potential benefits of electric power.

Similarly, today some sectors suffer a diffusion lag. The 

world, the economy and our lifestyles are all moving from 

analog to digital. Yet some sectors—particularly health care, 

education, energy, public safety and government generally—

have not adapted their processes to take advantage of the 

modern communications era. Today’s diffusion lag precludes 

the country from realizing the improvements broadband can 

bring in key national priority areas. 

To help America realize world-leading high performance, 

Congress directed that the National Broadband Plan include 

a “plan for use of broadband infrastructure and services in 

advancing consumer welfare, civic participation, public safety 

and homeland security, community development, health care 

delivery, energy independence and efficiency, education, 

worker training, private sector investment, entrepreneurial 

activity, job creation and economic growth and other national 

purposes.”8

Each of these priorities is unique—each faces different challenges, offers different opportunities and demands a different 

response. As great as the differences are among these national 

purposes, certain themes are common. For example, there are 

connectivity requirements for institutions and for relevant 

functions. Yet in many cases today’s connectivity levels are 

insufficient for current use, let alone the needs of potential 

future applications. In addition, the right incentives to motivate the use of broadband are critical, yet incentive structures 

are often hampered by entrenched interests and even deeper 

entrenched ways of thought. 

Across all these priorities, broadband enables the free and 

efficient exchange of information. Doctors can understand the 

needs of their patients better and faster by exchanging electronic health records, which improves the quality of care and 

reduces costs. Smart meters for energy can arm consumers and 

businesses with information to reduce energy consumption 

and unlock new opportunities for energy entrepreneurship. 

Citizens can have better visibility into and involvement in 

policymaking. 

Broadband also removes barriers of time and space. A patient 

can be monitored at home 24 hours a day, seven days a week. 

The elderly and frail can avoid frequent trips to the doctor’s office that might expose them to illness. A brilliant physics teacher 

can engage students in classrooms across the country. A working 

mother can advance her career by taking a job training course at 

her convenience. A small business in rural America can transact 

efficiently with customers and suppliers worldwide at any time. 

Finally, broadband allows for aggregation of information. With 

sophisticated data storage, transfer and mining techniques, medical researchers can develop new treatments that improve medical 

practice. Similarly, teachers can analyze the impact of particular 

instructional strategies on student progress toward specific learning objectives. The chapters that follow include recommendations 

that aim to unlock the value of personal data for new applications 

and research, while taking into account privacy considerations.

In addition to these common themes, several common 

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n P ART III

Why is it that some parts of the U.S. economy have greatly improved their performance 

through the use of technology while others lag far behind?
1 9 4 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n P ART III

recommendations span these national priorities. 

The connectivity needs of institutions that may further 

national purposes are varied, and no single solution fits all. 

But collaboration and coordination between these institutions 

has significant potential to meet connectivity requirements. Government policy can promote and facilitate that 

collaboration.

In the past, many institutions have used a collaborative 

model to achieve connectivity. The Internet2 Project was 

established in 1996 by 34 university researchers to better 

support the unique needs of the research community like data 

mining, medical imaging and particle physics. This partnership 

and others like it (e.g., National LambdaRail) have emerged to 

provide the unique capabilities that our nation’s top institutions require. 

Unfortunately, the job of connecting all of our institutions 

is not complete. The proposed Unified Community Anchor 

Network (UCAN) (see Chapter 8) and other networks like it 

would extend the collaborative model favored by many of our 

research institutions for the benefit of our other community institutions such as rural health clinics and community colleges. 

UCAN would enable more demand aggregation and sharing, 

remove barriers to entry and support efforts to and empower 

all of our community institutions that need connectivity.9

Additionally, national priorities should not be restricted 

by caps on bandwidth. Broadband usage patterns and pricing 

models are evolving rapidly. In some cases, fixed and mobile 

broadband service providers have put in place volume caps 

that have differential impact on users; in other cases, they have 

offered specific plans that charge on a usage basis.  Such pricing 

schemes may raise policy issues, but it is premature for this 

plan to address them, as there are a wide variety of methods by 

which they can be implemented.

If ISPs adopt volume caps or usage-based pricing as the 

model for how broadband should be priced, the FCC should ensure that such decisions do not inhibit the use of broadband for 

public purposes such as education, health care, public safety, 

job training and general government uses.

It is critical that the country move now to enact the recommendations in this part of the plan in order to accelerate the 

transformation that broadband can bring in areas so vital to 

the nation’s prosperity. Diffusion of new technologies can take 

time, but the country does not have time to spare. There are 

students to inspire, lives to save, resources to conserve and 

people to put back to work. Integrating broadband into national priorities will not only change the way things are done, but 

also the results that can be achieved for Americans. 
F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 1 9 5

PART I I I E n d n o t e s 

1 Erik Brynjolfsson & Adam Saunders, Wired for

Innovation: How Information Technology is Reshaping

the Economy (2010) (Brynjolfsson & Saunders, Wired

for Innovation).

2 Brynjolfsson & Saunders, Wired for Innovation at xii–

xiii.

3 Paul A. David, The Dynamo and the Computer: An 

Historical Perspective on the Modern Productivity 

Paradox, 80 AEA Paper & Proceedings 355 (1990) 

(David, The Dynamo and the Computer).

4 David, The Dynamo and the Computer at 358–59.

5 David, The Dynamo and the Computer at 357.

6 David, The Dynamo and the Computer at 356–57.

7 David, The Dynamo and the Computer at 357.

8 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Pub. 

L. No. 111-5, § 6001(k)(2)(D), 123 Stat. 115, 516 (2009).

9 See generally U.S. R&E Networks and HIMSS Reply 

in re NBP PN #30 (Reply Comments Sought in Support 

of National Broadband Plan—NBP Public Notice #30, 

GN Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 09-137, Public Notice, 

25 FCC 241 (WCB 2010) (NBP PN #30)), filed Jan. 

27, 2010; Commenters Supporting Anchor Institution 

Networks Reply in re NBP PN #30, filed Jan. 27, 2010.

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n P ART III

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 0

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 1 9 7

HEALTH CARE

c h a p t e r 1 0

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 0

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 1 9 9

Improving Americans’ health is one of the most important tasks for the nation. Health 

care already accounts for 17% of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP); by 2020, it will top 

20%.1 America is aging—by 2040, there will be twice as many Americans older than 65 as 

there are today—and health care costs will likely increase as a consequence. 

Rising costs would be less concerning if there were results. 

But Americans are not healthy. Sixty-one percent of American 

adults are overweight or obese, which often leads to medical 

complications.2

 Chronic conditions, which already account for 

75%3

 of the nation’s health care costs, are increasing across 

all ages.4 The nation has 670,000 new cases of congestive 

heart failure every year, many of them fatal.5

 And too often the 

care itself causes harm. One and a half million Americans are 

injured every year because of prescription drug errors,6 while a 

person dies every six minutes from an infection developed after 

arriving at a hospital.7

In addition, the United States has a health care supply 

problem. The country is expected to have a shortage of tens of 

thousands of physicians by 2020.8 An aging physician workforce 

that is nearing retirement and working fewer hours exacerbates 

the situation.9 Supply will be further strained if previously uninsured Americans enter the care delivery system.

Another significant problem plaguing the nation’s health 

care system is the fact that there are health disparities across 

different ethnic groups. “African Americans, for example, experience the highest rates of mortality from heart disease, cancer, 

cerebrovascular disease, and HIV/AIDS than any other U.S. 

racial or ethnic group.  Hispanic Americans are almost twice 

as likely as non-Hispanic whites to die from diabetes.  Some 

Asian Americans experience rates of stomach, liver and cervical cancers that are well above national averages.”10 Further 

exacerbating this problem, members of ethnic groups are less 

likely than whites to have health insurance, have more difficulty getting health care and have fewer choices in where to 

receive care.11

Broadband is not a panacea. However, there is a developing 

set of broadband-enabled solutions that can play an important 

role in the transformation required to address these issues. 

These solutions, usually grouped under the name health 

information technology (IT), offer the potential to improve 

health care outcomes while simultaneously controlling costs 

and extending the reach of the limited pool of health care 

professionals. Furthermore, as a major area of innovation and 

entrepreneurial activity, the health IT industry can serve as an 

engine for job creation and global competitiveness.

This chapter’s recommendations aim to encourage maximum utilization of these solutions. In its traditional role, 

the FCC would evaluate this challenge primarily through a 

network connectivity perspective. However, it is the ecosystem of networks, applications, devices and individual actions 

that drives value, not just the network itself. It is imperative to 

focus on adoption challenges, and specifically the government 

decisions that influence the system in which private actors 

operate, if America is to realize the enormous potential of 

broadband-enabled health IT.

This chapter has five sections. Section 10.1 reviews the 

potential value that broadband-enabled health IT solutions 

can unlock. Section 10.2 offers an overview of current health 

IT utilization in America, reviews recent federal government 

actions to enhance utilization of health IT and highlights outstanding challenges.

Sections 10.3–10.5 provide recommendations concerning 

four critical areas in which the government should take action 

to help unlock the value of broadband and health IT: better 

reimbursement, modern regulation, increased data capture and 

utilization and sufficient connectivity.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Create appropriate incentives for e-care utilization

➤ Congress and the Secretary of Health and Human Services 

(HHS) should consider developing a strategy that documents 

the proven value of e-care technologies, proposes reimbursement reforms that incent their meaningful use and charts a 

path for their widespread adoption. 

Modernize regulation to enable health IT adoption

➤ Congress, states and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services (CMS) should consider reducing regulatory barriers that inhibit adoption of health IT solutions.

➤ The FCC and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 

should clarify regulatory requirements and the approval process for converged communications and health care devices. 

Unlock the value of data

➤ The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) should establish common standards 

and protocols for sharing administrative, research and 

clinical data, and provide incentives for their use. 
2 0 0 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 0

➤ Congress should consider providing consumers access to—

and control over—all their digital health care data in 

machine-readable formats in a timely manner and at a 

reasonable cost. 

Ensure sufficient connectivity for health care 

delivery locations

➤ The FCC should replace the existing Internet Access Fund 

with a Health Care Broadband Access Fund.

➤ The FCC should establish a Health Care Broadband Infrastructure Fund to subsidize network deployment to health 

care delivery locations where existing networks are insufficient.

➤ The FCC should authorize participation in the Health 

Care Broadband Funds by long-term care facilities, offsite administrative offices, data centers and other similar 

locations. Congress should consider providing support 

for for-profit institutions that serve particularly vulnerable populations.

➤ To protect against waste, fraud and abuse in the Rural 

Health Care Program, the FCC should require participating 

institutions to meet outcomes-based performance measures to qualify for Universal Service Fund (USF) subsidies, 

such as HHS’s meaningful use criteria.

➤ Congress should consider authorizing an incremental sum 

(up to $29 million per year) for the Indian Health Service 

(IHS) for the purpose of upgrading its broadband service to 

meet connectivity requirements.

➤ The FCC should periodically publish a Health Care Broadband Status Report.

10.1 THE PROMISE OF 

HEALTH IT AND THE

ROLE OF BROADBAND

Health IT plays a key role in advancing policy priorities that 

improve health and health care delivery. Priorities set forth by 

HHS include the following:12

➤ Improving care quality, safety, efficiency and 

reducing disparities

➤ Engaging patients and families in managing their health

➤ Enhancing care coordination

➤ Improving population and public health

➤ Ensuring adequate privacy and security of health 

information

Health IT supports these priorities by dramatically improving the collection, presentation and exchange of health care 

information, and by providing clinicians and consumers the 

tools to transform care. Technology alone cannot heal, but 

when appropriately incorporated into care, technology can 

help health care professionals and consumers make better 

decisions, become more efficient, engage in innovation, and understand both individual and public health more effectively. 

Analysis of information gathered through health IT can provide a basis for payment reform. Payors, providers and patients 

are focusing increasingly on value. However, data to measure 

the effectiveness of prevention and treatment on individual 

and population-wide bases are lacking. This hampers attempts 

BOX 10-1:

Health IT

E-Care

EHR

Telehealth

Mobile Health

Information-driven health practices and the technologies that enable them. Includes billing and scheduling 

systems, e-care, EHRs, telehealth and mobile health.

The electronic exchange of information—data, images and video—to aid in the practice of medicine and advanced 

analytics. Encompasses technologies that enable video consultation, remote monitoring and image transmission 

(“store-and-forward”) over fixed or mobile networks.

An electronic health record is a digital record of patient health information generated by one or more encounters 

in any care delivery setting. Included in this information are patient demographics, progress notes, diagnoses, 

medications, vital signs, medical history, immunizations, laboratory data and radiology reports.

Often used as a synonym for e-care, but includes non-clinical practices such as continuing medical education and 

nursing call centers.

The use of mobile networks and devices in supporting e-care. Emphasizes leveraging health-focused applications 

on general-purpose tools such as smartphones and Short Message Service (SMS) messaging to drive active 

health participation by consumers and clinicians.

Explanation of Referenced Terms13
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 0

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 2 0 1

to shift from a volume-focused system that pays for visits and 

procedures to a value-based regime that rewards cost-effective 

health improvements.14

Broadband is necessary for these transformations in three 

ways. First, it enables efficient exchange of patient and treatment information by allowing providers to access patients’ 

electronic health records (EHRs) from on-site or hosted locations. Second, it removes geography and time as barriers to 

care by enabling video consultation and remote patient monitoring. Third, broadband provides the foundation for the next 

generation of health innovation and connected-care solutions.

Broadband and Electronic Health Records

Physicians report that electronic health records improve 

patient care in many ways.15 The e-prescribing component of 

EHRs helps avert known drug allergic reactions and potentially 

dangerous drug interactions, while facilitating the ordering of 

laboratory tests and reducing redundancy and errors. EHRs 

also provide easier access to critical laboratory information and 

enhance preventive care.For example, influenza and pneumonia 

vaccination reminders displayed to clinicians during a patient 

visit could play a part in saving up to 39,000 lives a year.16

According to one study often cited, electronic health record 

systems have the potential to generate net savings of $371 billion 

for hospitals and $142 billion for physician practices from safety 

and efficiency gains over 15 years.17 Potential savings from preventing disease and better managing chronic conditions could 

double these estimates.18

Hosted EHR solutions tend to be more affordable and easierto-manage alternatives for small physician practices and clinics. 

In certain settings, they cost on average 20% less than on-site 

solutions, reduce the need for internal IT expertise and provide 

timely updates to clinical decision-support tools (e.g., drug interaction references and recommended care guidelines).19

Broadband and Video Consultation

Video consultation is especially beneficial for extending the 

reach of under-staffed specialties to patients residing in rural areas, Tribal lands and health professional shortage areas 

(HPSAs).20 For example, the American Heart Association and 

American Stroke Association recommend use of video consultation technology for stroke patients to help overcome the dearth 

of neurologists and to make decisions about whether to deliver 

the life-saving, clot-busting drug known as tPA (see Box 10-2).21

In addition to increasing access to otherwise unavailable 

care, video consultations combined with store-and-forward 

technologies (e.g., sending images to a specialist at night, as opposed to obtaining a diagnosis during a patient’s visit)23 could 

lead to significant cost savings from not having to transport 

patients. Avoiding costs from moving patients from correctional facilities and nursing homes to emergency departments 

and physician offices, or from one emergency department to 

another, could result in $1.2 billion in annual savings.24

Video consultation and remote access to patient data may also 

be critical during pandemic situations. If hospitals are at capacity or if isolation protocols are necessary to prevent the spread of 

infection, these technologies can help health care providers assist 

more patients and help patients avoid public areas. 

Broadband and Remote Patient Monitoring

Remote patient monitoring enables early detection of health 

problems, usually before the onset of noticeable symptoms. 

Earlier detection allows earlier treatment and, therefore, 

better outcomes. For example, after an initial hospitalization 

for heart failure, 60% of patients are readmitted at least once 

within six to nine months.25 If a congestive heart failure patient 

has a common problem indicator, such as increase in weight or 

a change in fluid status, a monitoring system instantly alerts 

“Stroke Victim Makes Full 

Recovery—Thanks to E-Care”22

At only 49 years of age, 

Beverly suffered a stroke. Her 

best friend drove her to St. 

Luke’s Hospital, which has a 

video link to the stroke center 

at Massachusetts General 

Hospital (“Mass General”), 75 

miles away. Minutes after her 

arrival, St. Luke’s emergency 

department staff assessed her 

symptoms, ordered a brain scan 

and called Mass General.

A Mass General stroke 

specialist activated a video link 

through which he could see 

Beverly on a gurney at St. Luke’s. 

He had to determine whether 

she was having a stroke and, if 

so, what caused it. A hemorrhage could require emergency 

brain surgery, whereas a clot 

could be treated with tPA, which 

must be administered within the 

first three hours of stroke onset. 

The wrong diagnosis could 

prove fatal.

The specialist conducted a 

neurologic exam over the video 

link while receiving critical 

vital signs and lab values. He 

determined a clot was the cause 

and figured out when the stroke 

started by asking her yes/no 

questions to which she could 

nod her responses. 

Beverly received tPA right 

at the three-hour deadline. An 

ambulance took her to Mass 

General and at the end of 

the hour-long ride, the nurse 

recalled being shocked at 

Beverly’s recovery—“We were 

literally pulling into Mass General, and I said, ‘Beverly, how are 

you?’ And she said, ‘I’m fine!’” 

It was as if all the symptoms 

were gone.

“Wow! I can talk!” the nurse 

remembers Beverly exclaiming. 

“‘Wow, if it’s that medicine, it 

really worked!”

BOX 10-2:
2 0 2 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 0

the clinician who can adjust medications, thereby averting a 

hospital readmission. Estimates indicate that remote monitoring could generate net savings of $197 billion over 25 years 

from just four chronic conditions.26

Mobile Broadband and the Future of Health

Mobile health is a new frontier in health innovation. This field 

encompasses applications, devices and communications networks that allow clinicians and patients to give and receive care 

anywhere at any time. Physicians download diagnostic data, lab 

results, images and drug information to handheld devices like 

PDAs and Smartphones; emergency medical responders use 

field laptops to keep track of patient information and records; 

and patients use health monitoring devices and sensors that 

accompany them everywhere.28 Through capabilities like these, 

mobile health offers convenience critical to improving consumer engagement and clinician responsiveness.

Innovations in mobile medicine include new modalities 

of non-invasive sensors and body sensor networks.29 Mobile 

sensors in the form of disposable bandages and ingestible pills 

relay real-time health data (e.g., vital signs, glucose levels and 

medication compliance) over wireless connections.30 Sensors 

that help older adults live independently at home detect motion, sense mood changes and help prevent falls.31 Wireless 

body sensor networks reduce infection risk and increase 

patient mobility by eliminating cables; they also improve caregiver effectiveness. Each of these solutions is available today, 

albeit with varying degrees of adoption. 

Mobile medicine takes remote monitoring to a new level. 

For example, today’s mobile cardiovascular solutions allow a 

patient’s heart rhythm to be monitored continuously regardless 

of the patient’s whereabouts.32 Diabetics can receive continuous, 

flexible insulin delivery through real-time glucose monitoring 

sensors that transmit data to wearable insulin pumps.33

Advances in networked implantable devices enable capabilities that did not seem possible a few years ago. For example, 

micropower medical network services support wideband 

medical implant devices designed to restore sensation, mobility and other functions to paralyzed limbs and organs.34 These 

solutions offer great promise in improving the quality of life for 

numerous populations including injured soldiers, stroke victims and those with spinal cord injuries. Human clinical trials 

of networked implantable devices targeting an array of conditions are expected to begin at the end of 2010.35

Mobile and networked health solutions are in their infancy. 

The applications and capabilities available even two years from 

now are expected to vary markedly from those available today. 

Some will be in specialized devices; others will be applications 

using capabilities already built into widely available mobile 

phones, such as global positioning systems and accelerometers. 

Networked implantable devices stand to grow in sophistication 

and broaden the realm of conditions they can address. These 

solutions represent a glimpse into the future of personal and 

public health—an expanded toolkit to achieve better health, 

quality of life and care delivery. 

10.2 THE NEED FOR

ACTION: MAXIMIZING 

HEALTH IT UTILIZATION

Limited Health IT Utilization

The United States is not taking full advantage of the opportunities that health IT provides. It lags other developed countries 

in health IT adoption among primary health care providers 

(see Exhibit 10-A).

The United States ranks in the bottom half (out of 11 countries) on every metric used to measure adoption, including 

use of electronic medical records (10th), electronic prescribing 

(10th), electronic clinical note entry (10th), electronic ordering 

of laboratory tests (8th), electronic alerts/prompts about potential drug dose/interaction problems (8th) and electronic access 

to patient test results (7th).

Adoption rates for e-care are similarly low. A Joint Advisory 

Committee to Congress found that less than 1% of total U.S. 

“How Health IT Saves 

Veterans Affairs Billions 

Each Year”27

The Veterans Health 

Administration (VHA) coordinates the care of 32,000 

veteran patients with chronic 

conditions through a national 

program called Care Coordination/Home Telehealth 

(CCHT). CCHT involves the 

systematic use of health informatics, e-care and disease 

management technologies 

to avoid unnecessary admission to long-term institutional 

care. Technologies include 

videophones, messaging 

devices, biometric devices, 

digital cameras and remote 

monitoring devices.

CCHT led to a 25% reduction in the number of bed days 

of care and a 19% drop in hospital admissions. At $1,600 per 

patient per year, it costs far less 

than the VHA’s home-based 

primary care services ($13,121 

per year) and nursing home 

care rates ($77,745 on average 

per patient per year).

Based on the VHA’s experience, e-care is an appropriate 

and cost-effective way to manage chronic care patients in 

urban and rural settings. Most 

importantly, it enables patients 

to live independently at home.

BOX 10-3:
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 0

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 2 0 3

provider locations use e-care. Approximately 200 e-care networks 

connect only 3,000 providers across the country; typically, the 

networks are used on a limited basis.37 A 2008 American Hospital 

Association survey found that for each of six conditions, only 

2–12% of hospitals use Internet-enabled monitoring devices 

(fixed and mobile), covering 4–8% of relevant patient populations 

for each condition.38 Only 17% of home-care agencies use remote 

monitoring solutions in their practices.39

Significant Government Action

The federal government has launched a set of major health IT 

initiatives to overcome some of the barriers preventing the use 

of technology, with the goal of transforming America’s health 

care. The largest step by far is a $19 billion net investment to 

incent the meaningful use of certified EHR technology.

This action is transformative for two reasons: the investment is substantial, and the funding mechanism is focused 

on measurable outcomes, not inputs. Physicians can earn up 

to $44,000 in extra Medicare payments from 2011 to 2015 if 

they become meaningful users of EHRs; hospitals can collect 

an initial bonus and an extra payment each time a Medicare 

patient is discharged.40 There is a similar scheme for Medicaid 

providers. Rather than provide physicians grants to purchase 

software, computers and broadband, a set of outcomes such as eprescribing, data exchange and capturing quality measurements 

defines “meaningful use.”41 Participants determine the best way 

to achieve those outcomes. To further adoption, incentives give 

way to penalties for those that fail to meaningfully use EHRs by 

2015.

It is important to recognize the radical change in this approach. The health care delivery system has been dogged for 

years by criticism that incentives are not aligned to outcomes. 

The meaningful use mechanism is an attempt, supported by an 

enormous federal investment and the threat of financial penalties, to develop a new incentive model.

In addition to these incentives, more than $2 billion has been 

allocated to help the EHR transition succeed. A nationwide 

network of Regional Extension Centers is being launched to 

support physician practices as they adopt EHRs; states are being supported to develop policies and technologies that facilitate 

trusted health information exchange among providers and institutions; and more than a dozen Beacon Communities are being 

funded to showcase the program’s potential, while providing 

important outcome data and implementation lessons.

All these actions were authorized by the Health Information 

Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act, 

which was part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

of 2009.42 The HITECH Act provisions were designed to improve 

individuals’ health and the performance of the health care system. 

They focus on four basic goals: define meaningful use, encourage 

and support the attainment of meaningful use through incentives 

and grant programs, bolster public trust in electronic information 

systems by ensuring their privacy and security and foster continued health IT innovation.43 The HITECH Act is implemented by 

two agencies within HHS: ONC and CMS.

Despite government actions, three gaps remain: adoption, 

information utilization and connectivity. These gaps must 

be filled to accelerate the benefits of broadband. Many fall 

outside the FCC’s traditional purview. For those areas—adoption and data utilization—this chapter highlights some of the 

most pressing issues and offers high-level recommendations 

for moving the country forward. Hopefully Congress and the 

federal agencies responsible for these issues can use these ideas 

as a starting point or to reinforce efforts underway.

New

Zealand

Australia United

Kingdom

Italy NetherlandsSweden Germany United

States

Norway France Canada

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent reporting at least 9 of 14 clinical IT functions

92 91 89

66

54

49

36

26

19

15 14

Exhibit 10-A: 

International 

Comparison of 

Electronic Health 

Adoption36
2 0 4 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 0

10.3 CLOSING THE

BROADBAND-ENABLED

HEALTH IT

ADOPTION GAP

Create Appropriate Incentives for Health IT Utilization

A key barrier to greater broadband-enabled health IT adoption 

is misaligned incentives.44 Those who benefit most from use of 

these technologies are often not the same as those who shoulder the implementation costs. Providers are expected to pay for 

equipment and training and adjust to altered workflows. These 

costs often outweigh the direct benefits they can reasonably expect to gain in terms of reimbursement for services facilitated 

by health IT.45 As a result, hospitals and physicians cite funding 

and unclear investment returns as major barriers to electronic 

health record adoption.46

Instead, it is payors and patients who reap most of the direct 

benefits of health IT.47 For example, the federal government—

as the payor for veterans’ health care—saves money by using a 

robust e-care program to avoid hospital admissions and expensive home-based care.48 If a private hospital had implemented 

a similar program, it might have lost money—forgoing revenue 

earned through admissions and home-based care services.49

The health IT industry has long looked to the country’s 

largest payor, CMS, to lead the way in correcting this incentive 

imbalance. If CMS were to pay providers more for using effective health IT solutions, all sides would benefit: providers could 

practice 21st century medicine without losing money; patients 

could receive 21st century care and achieve better health outcomes; and CMS could save money over time. 

Unfortunately, the fee-for-service reimbursement mechanism is not an effective means for realizing health IT’s benefits. 

Fee-for-service rewards providers for volume, and more 

reimbursement under such a model exposes CMS to the risk 

of higher costs absent demonstrated health improvements.50

Coupled with budget neutrality restrictions, it is difficult for 

CMS to incent broader health IT adoption under this scheme.

HHS’s meaningful use approach addresses the incentive 

misalignment problem for EHRs by moving to outcomes-based 

reimbursement. Outcomes-based reimbursement alleviates the 

incentive problem by tying payments to proven, measurable expenditure reductions and health improvements.51 However, no 

such systematic solution has been offered for e-care. Currently, 

CMS only reimburses about $2 million in telehealth services52

from a budget that exceeds $300 billion.53

Recommendation 10.1: Congress and the Secretary of 

Health and Human Services (HHS) should consider developeing a strategy that documents the proven value of e-care 

technologies, proposes reimbursement reforms that 

incent their meaningful use and charts a path for their 

widespread adoption. 

HHS is moving toward outcomes-based reimbursement to 

stimulate EHR adoption and is well positioned to do the same 

for e-care. A clearly articulated e-care strategy will accomplish 

two main purposes: 

➤ Marshal support from Congress, states and the health care 

community to drive e-care use

➤ Provide the health IT industry with a clear understanding 

of the federal government’s policies toward e-care

In crafting an e-care strategy, HHS should consider 

developing new payment platforms to drive adoption of 

applications proven to be effective. It should also support 

evaluation of nascent e-care technologies through pilots and 

demonstration projects. In the course of this effort, HHS 

should look for opportunities to broaden reimbursement 

of e-care under the current fee-for-service model. After a 

reasonable timeframe, Congress should consider convening 

a panel to review HHS’s recommendations and taking action 

to ensure these technologies’ wider adoption. The National 

Broadband Plan recommends including the following steps 

as part of this initiative:

1. HHS should identify e-care applications whose use 

could be immediately incented through outcomes-based 

reimbursement. In its recommendations to Congress, HHS 

should prioritize e-care applications that it believes are proven 

to warrant reimbursement incentives. Using the same rigor 

applied to meaningful use of EHRs, HHS should define these 

applications’ use cases, data requirements and associated 

outcomes (expenditure reductions and health improvements). 

Models such as the VHA’s e-care pilot, for instance, could 

be codified into concrete use cases and criteria for gauging 

outcomes. These could then be translated into CMS reimbursement incentives for demonstrating meaningful use of the 

technologies and achieving specified outcomes. 

Future iterations of the meaningful use program could offer 

one means for implementing these reimbursement changes. 

Draft 2013 and 2015 meaningful use standards require EHRs to 

be capable of leveraging certain e-care technologies. However, 

as currently worded, these requirements will not address modifying reimbursement to incent e-care utilization.54

2. When testing new payment models, HHS should explicitly include e-care applications and evaluate their impact on 

the models. Where proven and scalable, these alternative 
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 0

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 2 0 5

payment models would provide an additional solution for 

incenting e-care. Several alternative payment models have 

been proposed by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission 

and through the health care legislative process. Tests of these 

models, which are in various stages of implementation, offer an 

ideal venue for understanding the role e-care can play in outcomes-based reimbursement. Tests include Acute Care Episode 

Demonstration,55 Medicare Medical Home Demonstration,56

Independence at Home, Patient-Centered Medical Home, 

Accountable Care Organization pilots and Bundled Payment 

pilots.57 These pilots and demonstration projects could include 

an explicit objective to identify e-care use cases and evaluate 

their effect on health outcomes and expenditure reductions. For 

instance, in an Independence at Home pilot, remote monitoring 

could be evaluated as a tool at sample participant sites to understand its impact on quality, data capture and cost savings.

3. For nascent e-care applications, HHS should support further pilots and testing that review their suitability 

for reimbursement. HHS should champion e-care technology pilots where additional data are needed to evaluate their 

value. HHS has a number of testing mechanisms that it should 

use to prove the system-wide potential of e-care. Where possible, major pilots of e-care should be designed to adhere to 

HHS standards for program design, data capture and other 

requirements for reimbursement decisions and payment model 

reform. HHS should collaborate in design stages with parties 

conducting pilots and provide additional funding when its criteria create extra administrative cost. 

There are a number of opportunities for HHS to pursue 

further pilots:

➤ HHS should make e-care pilots and demonstration projects 

a top priority across the agency, including the Health Services Resources Administration, the Substance Abuse and 

Mental Health Services Administration, IHS,58 NIH and the 

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. HHS-funded 

projects should be designed with the objectives of understanding use cases, measuring outcomes and determining 

optimal payment methodologies to produce efficient, highquality care.

➤ HHS should collaborate with federally administered providers of care (e.g., VHA, IHS and the Bureau of Prisons) 

that can act as role models and testbeds for health IT use.

For future programs similar to VHA’s e-care program (see 

Box 10-3), HHS should become involved early on to ensure 

that programs are designed appropriately to inform reimbursement decisions and payment model reform. 

➤ Large-scale private pilots of e-care such as the Connected 

Care Telehealth Program in Colorado59 and the Community 

Partnerships and Mobile Telehealth to Transform Research 

in Elder Care60 should similarly consult with HHS and 

share valuable lessons learned. For pilots that meet HHS’s 

data collection standards, Congress should consider tax 

breaks or other incentives. For example, Medicare Advantage plan administrators could receive tax credits for testing e-care within their Medicare populations. 

The FCC should use data from e-care pilots to update its 

understanding of health care institutions’ broadband requirements. Pilots showcasing emerging technologies that will be 

used more widely in the subsequent 10 years will be good opportunities to test the network demands of those technologies. 

Updated use requirements should be coupled with periodically 

updated reviews of the country’s state of connectivity (both 

wired and wireless) to give the public and other government 

agencies a better understanding of potential health care broadband gaps. (See Section 10.5 for further recommendations on 

the FCC’s role in monitoring health care broadband.)

4. As outcomes-based payment reform is developed, CMS

should seek to proactively reimburse for e-care technologies under current payment models. While outcomes-based 

reimbursement is the optimal payment model for realizing 

the potential of e-care, it will be years before payment reform 

transforms the U.S. health care delivery system. In the meantime, CMS should proactively seek means for reimbursing e-care 

under the current fee-for-service model. This might include the 

following: 

➤ Collaborating with physicians, researchers, vendors and 

government stakeholders to design tests that will prove 

system-wide expenditure reduction under CMS’s fee-forservice model.

➤ Widening coverage for currently reimbursed use cases where 

they have been proven to reduce system-wide expenditures. 

➤ Providing feedback to the community of physicians, researchers and vendors who are trying to enact solutions. 

Through greater decision-making transparency, CMS could 

provide critical information that allows that community to 

target its efforts where they matter most. 

➤ Incenting Medicare Advantage plans to invest rebates (the 

difference between the established price of care for enrollees and the benchmark for care in that county, of which 75% 

must be invested as mandatory, health-related supplemental benefits) in the adoption of e-care technologies. Incentives should stipulate tracking health outcomes and expenditure reductions associated with use of these technologies 

(in compliance with HHS’s tracking guidelines).

➤ Incenting Home Health Agencies reimbursed through CMS 

to use e-care technologies where CMS believes the technologies will create better health outcomes and reduced 

expenditures, while requiring participants to track impact 

associated with the supported technologies. 
2 0 6 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 0

Physician associations and vendors have recommended 

areas where they believe expanded reimbursement of e-care, 

under the current fee-for-service model, will reduce overall 

CMS expenditures while expanding access to care.61 As long 

as the fee-for-service model is the standard, the onus remains 

on these stakeholders to meet CMS’s criteria to expand reimbursement. Examples such as the Veterans Affairs program are 

less relevant in this case because they operate under a closed 

payment system. However, CMS’s review board should ensure it 

fully analyzes the system-wide benefits of e-care when making 

reimbursement decisions.

Modernize Regulation to Enable Health IT Adoption

There is a wide range of problems around the legal and regulatory framework that underpins the use of health IT.62 Outdated 

laws and regulations inhibit adoption, and regulatory uncertainty deters investments in both innovation and utilization. 

Recommendation 10.2: Congress, states and the Centers 

for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) should consider 

reducing regulatory barriers that inhibit adoption of health 

IT solutions.

Several rules have not kept up with technology changes 

and inhibit adoption of e-care and other health IT solutions. 

They include the following: 

➤ Credentialing and privileging. CMS should revise standards 

that make credentialing and privileging overly burdensome 

for e-care; such standards conflict with the goal of expanding access to care. A hospital is not allowed to use the decisions of another hospital as the basis for credentialing and 

granting privileges; rather, hospitals must conduct their own 

assessments. For e-care, this means the site where a patient 

is located (the originating site) may not rely on the site where 

the physician is located (the distant site) for credentialing and 

privileging the doctor prescribing care and must instead follow 

the same process used to credential and privilege any other 

physician on staff.63 It can be expensive and time-consuming 

for originating sites to identify and grant privileges to all the 

physicians treating its patients via e-care, and they often lack 

the in-house expertise to privilege specialists. It also creates 

an undue burden on remote physicians to maintain privileges 

at numerous additional hospitals and limits the pool of experts 

a hospital may access. The additional complexity and expense 

from these standards inhibit e-care. CMS should engage 

the e-care community and other experts to explore national 

standards or processes that facilitate e-care while protecting 

patient safety and ensuring accountability for care.

➤ State licensing requirements. States should revise licensing requirements to enable e-care. State-by-state licensing 

requirements limit practitioners’ ability to treat patients 

across state lines. This hinders access to care, especially for 

residents of states that do not have needed expertise in-state. 

For example, the national ratio for developmental-behavioral pediatricians is 0.6 per 100,000 children; 27 states fall 

below that level.64 The increase in autism-spectrum condition diagnoses creates greater demand for this scarce subspecialty. The nation’s governors and state legislatures could 

collaborate through such groups as the National Governors 

Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures 

and the Federation of State Medical Boards to craft an interstate agreement.65 If states fail to develop reasonable e-care 

licensing policies over the next 18 months, Congress should 

consider intervening to ensure that Medicare and Medicaid 

beneficiaries are not denied the benefits of e-care. 

➤ E-prescribing. Congress and states should consider lifting restrictions that limit broader acceptance of electronic 

prescribing, a technology that could eliminate more than two 

million adverse drug events and 190,000 hospitalizations, as 

well as save the U.S. health care system $44 billion per year.66

One set of rules that needs to be addressed relates to the ban 

on e-prescribing of controlled substances such as certain 

pain medications and antidepressants. Drug Enforcement 

Administration rules require doctors to maintain two systems: a paper-and-fax-based system for auditing controlled 

substances and an electronic system for other drugs. The 

complexity of dual systems is at best an inconvenience and at 

worst an impediment to adoption.67 Although a pilot to test 

e-prescribing of controlled substances is pending, stricter security requirements may prove too burdensome and inhibit 

adoption. Furthermore, the solution for e-prescribing controlled substances must be compatible with EHRs certified 

to meet meaningful use criteria. Failure to resolve security 

protocols and interoperability issues for controlled substances may further delay widespread adoption of e-prescribing.

Recommendation 10.3: The FCC and the Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA) should clarify regulatory requirements and the approval process for converged communications and health care devices. 

The use of communications devices and networks in the provision of health care is increasing. Smartphones have become 

useful tools for many physicians managing patient care on the 

go. Medical devices68 increasingly rely on commercial wireless 

networks to relay information for patient health monitoring 

and decision support. Some examples of the convergence 

between communications and medicine include the following:

➤ Mobile applications that help individuals manage their 

asthma, obesity or diabetes

➤ A Smartphone application that displays real-time fetal 

heartbeat and maternal contraction data allowing 
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 0

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 2 0 7

obstetricians to track a mother’s labor

➤ An iPhone application that presents images for clinicians 

making appendicitis diagnoses

➤ Wearable wireless patch-like sensors that transmit health 

data over commercial wireless networks to practitioners, 

caregivers and patients

These and other products cover a broad range of health IT 

solutions. At one end, general-purpose communications devices 

such as smartphones, videoconferencing equipment and wireless routers are regulated solely by the FCC when not created 

or intended for medical purposes. At the other, medical devices 

including life-critical wireless devices such as remotely controlled 

drug-release mechanisms are regulated by the FDA. However, the 

growing variety of medical applications that leverage communications networks and devices to transmit information or to provide 

decision support to both clinicians and consumers presents challenges to the current federal regulatory regime. Potential lack of 

clarity about the appropriate regulatory approach to these convergent technologies threatens to stifle innovation, slow application 

approval processes and deter adoption.

The FCC and the FDA should collaborate to address and 

clarify the appropriate regulatory approach for these evolving technologies. As part of this process, the FCC and the FDA 

should seek formal public input within the next 120 days and 

hold a workshop with representatives from industry and other 

relevant stakeholders to examine real case studies. Through this 

joint, transparent process the agencies should seek to answer 

questions such as: “Which components of a health solution 

present risk that must be regulated?” “How can the process for 

introducing products to the market be improved?” and “What 

are the characteristics needed for ‘medical-grade’ wireless?” 

After public input is received, the agencies should offer joint 

guidance to address these and other relevant questions.

The FCC and the FDA are committed to working together to 

facilitate innovation and protect public health in the continued 

development of safe and effective convergent devices and systems.

10.4 UNLOCKING THE

VALUE OF DATA

Data are becoming the world’s most valuable commodity. In multiple sectors—including finance, retail and advertising—free-flowing 

and interoperable data have increased competition, improved 

customer understanding, driven innovation and improved decision-making. Fortune 500 companies such as Google and Amazon 

have based their business models on the importance of unlocking 

data and using them in ways that produce far-reaching changes.

In personal finance, for example, individuals can share their 

data from multiple bank accounts, credit cards and brokerage 

accounts with trusted third parties. These parties provide personalized services that benefit consumers, such as credit card 

recommendations that tailor reward programs to a customer’s 

spending patterns.

The advanced use of data in health care offers immense 

promise in many areas:

➤ Better treatment evaluations. Therapeutic drugs are not 

tested across all relevant populations. For example, pharmaceutical companies do not conduct widespread tests of 

new drugs on children for ethical and practical reasons. But 

increasingly, physicians are treating them with medications 

that were designed for adults. This may be the right treatment, but, too often, no one knows. The federal government, recognizing the need for better data in comparing 

treatment options, has recently allocated $1.1 billion toward 

comparative effectiveness research.69 Health IT can further 

this priority. By using applications to collect and analyze 

the existing data, which today are locked in paper charts, 

physicians and researchers can evaluate the efficacy and 

side effects of treatments from disparate groups of patients 

in order to develop best practices.

➤ Personalized medicine. Many therapeutic drugs are indiscriminately applied to vast populations without sufficient 

understanding of which treatments work better or worse on 

certain people. Genomic research produces huge amounts 

of data that, when combined with clinical data, could enable 

development of better targeted drugs. Such drugs could 

improve outcomes and reduce side effects.

➤ Enhanced public health. Accurately measuring health status, 

identifying trends and tracking outbreaks and the spread of 

infectious disease at a population level are extremely difficult. 

Health IT enables widespread data capture which in turn 

allows better real-time health surveillance and improved response time to update care recommendations, allocate health 

resources and contain population-wide health threats. 

➤ Empowered consumers. Consumers are too often passive recipients of care, not accessing, understanding or acting upon 

their own data. Health IT applications that provide easy access and simplify vast amounts of data empower consumers 

to proactively manage their health. Empowered consumers 

better grasp their health needs, demand high-quality services 

and make informed choices about treatment options.

➤ Improved policy decisions. Innovation in health care delivery 

systems and payment models is stifled by the lack of suitable interoperable data. The prevailing health care payment 

model mainly pays for volume of services rendered rather 

than quality of services provided. However, the right data 

will help make outcomes-based reimbursement possible by 
2 0 8 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 0

allowing consumers, payors and providers to understand the 

impact of various prevention and treatment options.

Digital health care in America is at an inflection point. 

The HITECH Act should vastly improve both the capture of 

interoperable clinical data and consumer access to such data. 

Nevertheless, a number of barriers prevent the advanced use of 

data to make Americans healthier for less money. First, not all 

types of health data are uniformly captured and interoperable. 

Second, government regulations continue to limit consumer 

access to personal health data.

Recommendation 10.4: The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) should 

establish common standards and protocols for sharing administrative, research and clinical data, and provide incentives for their use.

Digital health data are difficult to collect and aggregate. Such 

data generally are held in proprietary “siloed” systems that do not 

communicate with one another and therefore cannot be easily 

exchanged, aggregated or analyzed. The meaningful use incentives 

for electronic health records will greatly increase the capture of 

interoperable clinical health information. However, the inability 

of researchers to access clinical data in standard format and in a 

secure manner hinders clinical breakthroughs. Performing research across an amalgamation of all types of health care data will 

remain a challenge absent uniform data standards. 

Coordinated standards and protocols will likely increase 

innovation and discovery within basic science research, clinical 

research and public health research, helping alleviate many 

failings of the health care system. The analysis of combined 

genomic, clinical and real-time physiological data (often captured wirelessly) could help researchers better understand the 

interplay of genetics and the environment. This could result 

in personalized interventions based on associations between 

people and their surroundings, leading to better outcomes.

Combined administrative and clinical data could be an 

invaluable tool for shifting to an outcomes-based reimbursement system, as well as providing the ability to build statistical 

models outlining the economic and clinical effects of novel 

health policy prior to implementation.

The vision is to enable a continuously learning and adaptive 

health care system that ubiquitously collects information, 

aggregates it and allows real-time analysis and action. Extending 

data interoperability to administrative and research data is 

possible without creating a centralized database controlled by 

government or private sector actors. But significant administrative, privacy, technology and financial concerns must be 

resolved in order to empower decentralized solutions. ONC is 

best positioned to convene a group of experts across the public 

and private sectors to address these difficult issues and develop a 

path forward. While developing new versions of meaningful use, 

ONC should move to extend data interoperability standards.

Recommendation 10.5: Congress should consider providing 

consumers access to—and control over—all their digital health 

care data in machine-readable formats in a timely manner and 

at a reasonable cost. 

There are too many barriers between consumers and their 

health data, including administrative, diagnostic, lab and medication data. For example, in Alabama it can take up to 60 days 

to receive medical records and cost $1 per page for the first 25 

BOX 10-4:

Data Advance Medicine and 

Public Health70

The Framingham Heart 

Study (FHS), which focused on 

cardiovascular disease (CVD), 

illustrates how widespread data 

capture, aggregation, sharing and 

analysis can transform medicine. 

By 1948, when the study 

was initiated, cardiovascular disease had become an 

epidemic in the U.S. Death 

rates for CVD had been on 

the rise for half a century, but 

little was known about the 

causes of heart disease and 

strokes. The study began with 

a group of more than 5,200 

men and women who provided 

detailed medical histories and 

underwent physical exams, lab 

tests and lifestyle interviews 

every two years since joining the study. The data were 

initially painstakingly captured 

in written form. Today the 

study spans three generations 

of participants, totals nearly 

15,000 lives and the data are 

available online.

FHS is cited as the seminal 

study in understanding heart 

disease. The data collected 

made possible fundamental 

changes in its knowledge base 

and treatment. For example, 

FHS led to the identification and 

quantification of CVD risk factors—high blood pressure, high 

blood cholesterol, smoking, 

obesity, diabetes and physical 

inactivity. CVD risk factors are 

now an integral part of modern 

medical curricula and have 

facilitated the development of 

novel therapeutics and effective 

preventive and treatment strategies in clinical practice. FHS 

has led to the publication of 

approximately 1,200 research 

articles in leading journals.71

Broadband will enable the 

capture of digital health information for all diseases, from 

patients across the country. 

Wider availability and analysis 

of such rich data will allow 

similar studies for numerous 

other conditions and populations to be conducted easier 

and faster. This could broadly 

transform understanding of 

disease risk factors and treatment options.
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 0

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 2 0 9

pages of those records.72 The Health Insurance Portability and 

Accountability Act (HIPAA) gave individuals the right to access 

their protected health information, and the recent HITECH Act 

broadened this right by allowing individuals to obtain a copy of 

their records digitally within 96 hours of the provider obtaining 

the information. Both were important steps. However, depending 

on the nature of the data, there are barriers preventing consumer access. Lab results, for example, may only be released to 

“authorized persons,” which often excludes the patient, despite 

their requests. In contrast, consumers can access their prescription medication lists from their treating physicians or individual 

pharmacies that have patient portals, but not from e-prescribing 

intermediaries that aggregate much of this data. The latter is not 

a regulatory problem; rather, it is due to a lack of incentives for 

payors, pharmacy benefit managers and pharmacies to allow eprescribing intermediaries to disseminate the information.

But it is consumers’ data. A troubling statistic is that patients 

are not informed of approximately 7% of abnormal lab results.73

Consumers armed with the right information could do a better job 

managing their own health, demanding higher quality services from 

their providers and payors and making more informed choices about 

care.74 With seamless access to their raw health data including lab 

data and prescriptions, consumers could plug the information into 

specialized applications of their choice and get personalized solutions 

for an untold number of conditions (see Box 10-5).

Innovation within this space is occurring from the ground 

up and it is impossible to predict the potential of future applications. What is certain is that in order to maximize innovation and 

further personalization of health care, consumers must be able to 

have access to all their health care data and the right to provide it 

to third-party application developers or service providers of their 

choice.75 Congress should consider updating HIPAA, with suitable 

exceptions,76 to include consumers as “authorized persons” of their 

digital lab data. In a similar vein, barriers relevant to all other forms 

of health data should be examined and removed.

10.5 CLOSING THE

HEALTH IT BROADBAND

CONNECTIVITY GAP

Characterizing and Sizing the Gap

Research is scarce on health care providers’ broadband connectivity needs and the ability of the country’s infrastructure to 

meet those needs. This plan is one of the first attempts to quantify both. A number of challenges that prevented earlier study 

are relevant to this analysis. Pricing data, for instance, are 

proprietary and fluctuate widely according to a number of variables, making it difficult to quantify an aggregate price curve. 

Databases of practice locations bear inconsistent category 

classifications and often overlap (e.g., a small hospital may also 

be called a rural health clinic; a small health clinic may also be 

called a medium-sized physician office). Despite these shortcomings, this analysis is necessary to inform health care policy 

changes related to broadband, including the effort underway to 

reform the FCC’s Rural Health Care Program. 

Health Care Providers’ Broadband Needs

Health care providers’ broadband needs are largely driven by 

the rapidly increasing amount of digital health-related data 

that is collected and exchanged. A single video consultation 

session can require a symmetric 2 Mbps connection with a 

good quality of service.78 There is a wide range of requirements 

to support EHRs and medical imaging. Exhibit 10-B shows the 

variation in file sizes for common health care file types. Over 

the next decade, physicians will need to exchange increasingly 

large files as new technologies such as 3D imaging become 

more prevalent.

The connectivity needs of different health delivery settings 

will vary depending on their type (e.g., tertiary care center 

BOX 10-5:

AsthmaMD: A Case Study 

in the Power of Consumer 

Health Data

A newly released smartphone application offers 

a glimpse of the potential 

when consumers enter even 

a small amount of data.77

AsthmaMD helps patients 

manage their asthma by 

inputting a number of parameters, including current 

medications, and attack 

timing and severity. Users 

can opt to share their data 

anonymously with the service. The data are aggregated 

and analyzed with the aim 

of better understanding the 

disease, as well as providing 

specific personalized solutions for the consumer. For 

example, the application can 

help users better understand 

the effectiveness of different 

medications for asthma management and offer insights 

into specific triggers for that 

individual’s attacks (e.g., 

pollen, dust, exercise). The 

application also can track the 

consumer’s precise location and the timing of their 

asthma activity, which can be 

correlated with local pollutant count, adverse weather 

changes and different types 

of pollutants. In addition, it 

can alert users with higher 

risks of an attack in real time 

if it detects users with a similar asthma history reporting 

asthma issues. Ultimately 

it could send live Twitter 

streams showing geographic 

areas with asthma flare-ups 

in real time.
2 1 0 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 0

Exhibit 10-C: 

Required Broadband 

Connectivity 

and Quality Metrics 

(Actual) 80

Megabits per second

Recommended bandwidth speeds by location category (Mbps)

Single Physician Practice 4

Small Primary Care Practice

(2–4 physicians)

Nursing Home

Rural Health Center

(~5 physicians)

Clinic/Large Physician Practice

(5–25 physicians)

Hospital

Academic/Large Medical Center

0 20 40 60 80 100 1,000

10

10

10

25

100

1,000

Exhibit 10-B: 

Health Data File 

Sizes79

Megabytes (not to scale)

Example file sizes for dierent types of files (Megabytes)

0.025

0.050

0.200

5

Text of single clinical doc (PDF format)

Text of single clinical document

(HL7 CDA format)

Ultrasound

Standard chart (healthy patient)

X-ray

Chest radiograph

MRI

PET scan

Mammography study (4 images)

64-slice CT scan

Human genome

(sequence data only)

Cellular pathology study (6 slides)

10

16

45

100

160

3,000

3,000

25,000
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 0

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 2 1 1

versus primary care physician practice) and their size. In 

addition, applications that integrate real-time image manipulation and live video will stimulate demand for more and better 

broadband81 because these applications have specific requirements for network speeds, delay and jitter. Exhibit 10-C shows 

an estimate of the required minimum connectivity and quality 

metrics to support deployment of health IT applications today 

and in the near future at different types of health delivery settings. Although some delivery settings currently function at 

lower connectivity and quality, those levels are straining under 

increasing demand and are unable to support needs likely to 

emerge in the near future.82 

Most businesses in the United States, physician offices included, 

have two choices of broadband service categories: mass-market 

“small business” solutions83 or Dedicated Internet Access (DIA),84

such as T-1 or Gigabit Ethernet service. DIA solutions include 

broader and stricter Service Level Agreements (SLAs) by network 

operators. DIA services are substantially more expensive than 

mass-market packages. For example, in Los Angeles, 10 Mbps 

Ethernet service with an SLA averages $1,044/month,85 while 

Time Warner Cable’s similar mass-market package, Business 

Class Professional, which offers 10 Mbps download speeds 2 Mbps 

upload speeds, is approximately $400/month.86

Connectivity Gap: Small Providers 

(Four or Fewer Physicians) 

In general, smaller providers can achieve satisfactory health IT 

adoption with mass-market “small business” packages of at least 

4 Mbps for single physician practices and 10 Mbps for two-tofour physician practices, even though these solutions may not 

provide business-grade quality-of-service guarantees.87 Since 

most small physician offices do not provide acute care services, 

they do not require the same degree of instant and guaranteed 

responsiveness that large practices and hospitals require.

Based on the requirements listed above, an estimated 3,600 

out of approximately 307,000 small providers face a broadband 

connectivity gap. The gap is particularly wide among providers in 

rural areas (see Exhibit 10-D). In locations defined as rural by the 

FCC, approximately 7% of small physician offices are estimated 

to face a connectivity gap. In contrast, across all locations, only approximately 1% of physician offices face a connectivity gap.88 

Connectivity Gap: Medium & Large Providers 

(Five or More Physicians) 

Larger physician offices, clinics and hospitals face connectivity barriers of a different nature. Because of their size and 

service offerings, these providers often cannot rely on massmarket broadband and must usually purchase DIA solutions. 

DIA pricing is determined on a case-by-case basis depending 

on factors such as capacity, type and length of the connection; 

type of service provider; and type of facility used. It often varies 

significantly by geography. Exhibit 10-E illustrates how widely 

DIA prices fluctuate in urban areas.

For two large physician offices seeking to capitalize on 

meaningful use incentives, a disparity of more than $27,000 

per year90 in broadband costs puts one at a disadvantage to the 

other, negates a significant portion of the incentives and may 

prove an insurmountable obstacle to EHR adoption.

Rural and Tribal areas are likely to face even greater price inequities. There are more than 2,000 rural providers participating in 

Exhibit 10-D: 

Estimate of Small 

Physician Locations 

Without MassMarket Broadband 

Availability 89

Approximate number of locations

Small Physician Oces 

(rural)

70% of total

Small Physician Oces

 (non-rural)

All Small Physicians

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

2,500

1,100 3,600

30% of total
2 1 2 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 0

Wyoming Mississippi

DS3 (45 Mbps) - Benchmark Urban Rates

DS1 (1.5 Mbps) - Benchmark Urban Rates

Kansas Vermont

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

2,800

3,680

4,290

5,082

Wyoming Mississippi Kansas Vermont

225 336 390 586

2.6X

1.8 X

Exhibit 10-E: 

Wide Fluctuations 

in Dedicated 

Internet Access 

Prices91 (Monthly 

Service Cost in 

Dollars) 
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 0

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 2 1 3

the FCC’s Telecommunications Fund, and their broadband prices 

average three times the price of urban benchmarks.92

Connectivity Gap: Federally Funded Providers

Several federally funded providers93 have insufficient connectivity. For example, 92% of IHS sites purchase a DIA connection of 

1.5 Mbps or less.94 These bandwidth constraints prevent IHS providers from achieving full adoption of video consultation, remote 

image diagnostic and EHR technology. Similarly, federal subsidy 

recipients such as Federally Qualified Health Centers,95 Rural 

Health Clinics96 and Critical Access Hospitals97 face challenges 

in securing broadband solutions relative to the rest of the country. Exhibit 10-F shows the FCC’s estimate of these providers’ 

mass-market broadband gaps. It is important to note that these 

gaps in mass-market broadband do not preclude locations from 

purchasing DIA solutions. Nearly every IHS location purchases 

DIA broadband. However, the fact that such high percentages of 

federally funded providers are located outside the mass-market 

footprint means that they face significantly higher prices. 

Federally funded providers have a direct impact on the 

government’s costs and serve health care populations for 

whom the government assumes responsibility; the federal 

government should improve their connectivity and make them 

models of harnessing health IT to ensure better health (see 

Recommendation 10.10).

Connectivity Gap: Next Phase of Analysis

Understanding the state of broadband connectivity for health 

care providers is a new but important area of analysis. There 

is more to be done, especially as the need for better data 

continues to grow. As nascent health IT applications become 

more prevalent and the importance of wireless connectivity 

grows, an up-to-date understanding of broadband use cases and 

connectivity levels will be invaluable. Immediate efforts should 

be made to quantify the price disparity problem on a more 

granular level. Similarly, the levels—and costs—of broadband 

that providers purchase warrant further analysis.

The FCC should play an ongoing role in serving this knowledge 

base via the Health Care Broadband Status Report proposed in 

Recommendation 10.11. This information is important not only to 

policymakers and regulators, but to the health IT industry and the 

health care provider community. These groups are also invested 

in understanding the role broadband plays in health care delivery 

and should participate in shaping this body of research.

Reform the Rural Health Care Program

The recommendations throughout this plan will have a tremendous impact on health care institutions, particularly the 

consumers and small providers that will likely be using massmarket solutions. However, because of health care’s role in the 

lives of consumers and its importance to the national economy, 

it is critical to retain a dedicated set of programs within the 

Universal Service Fund (USF) to help spur broadband adoption by health care providers. The FCC’s Rural Health Care 

Program as currently structured, however, is not meeting the 

country’s needs.

In 1997, the FCC implemented the directives of the 

Telecommunications Act of 1996 by creating a Rural Health 

Care Program, funded through the USF.99 The program provides three types of subsidies to public and nonprofit health 

Exhibit 10-F: 

Estimated Health 

Care Locations 

Without 

Mass-Market 

Broadband 

Availability98

(Percent of 

locations for each 

delivery setting)

Percent of locations for each delivery setting

All Locations

with Physicians

FQHCs

0

20

40

60

80

100

1

346,000 7,800

Total number 

of locations

With Mass–

Market 

Broadband

(Estimated %)

Without

 Mass–Market 

Broadband

(Estimated %)

Federally Funded Providers

99

9

91

IHS Locations

670

33

67

Critical Access

Hospitals

1,300

26

74

Rural Health

Clinics

3,700

29

71
2 1 4 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 0

Exhibit 10-G: 

2009 Rural 

Health Care 

Program Spending 

Program Components What is Funded

• Telecommunications Services

• Rural only

• Internet Access

• Rural only

• One-time capital costs for

 network deployment

• Recurring costs for five years

• Urban and Rural

• Funds urban/rural price

 differential

• 25% of invoice

• 50% of invoice for states

 that are entirely rural

• 85% support

• $59.0 Million

• $1.7 Million

• $11.6 Million

Total • $72.3 Million

Mechanism 2009 Spending

Telecommunications

Fund

Internet Access

Fund

Pilot Program

care providers. First, the program subsidizes the rates paid by 

rural health care providers for telecommunications services 

to eliminate the rural/urban price difference within each state 

(via the Telecommunications Fund).100 Second, to support 

advanced telecommunications and information services the 

program provides a 25% flat discount on monthly Internet 

access for rural health care providers and a 50% discount for 

health care providers in states that are entirely rural (via the 

Internet Access Fund).101 Lastly, the FCC adopted a threeyear program that provides support for up to 85% of the costs 

associated with deploying broadband health care networks 

in a state or region (the Pilot Program).102 The Pilot Program 

funds one-time capital costs for network deployment, as well as 

recurring capital and operational costs over five years.

Problems with the Current Program

As previous sections demonstrate, many health care providers have difficulty accessing broadband services because they 

are located in areas that lack sufficient infrastructure or areas 

where broadband service is significantly more expensive. Less 

than 25% of the approximately 11,000 eligible institutions are 

participating in the program,103 and many are not acquiring 

connections capable of meeting their needs.104 In 2009, 82% of 

Telecommunications Fund spending supported connections 

of 4 Mbps or less,105 which is a minimum for single physician 

practices that are using a robust suite of broadband-enabled 

health IT. That speed is increasingly insufficient for the clinics 

and hospitals that are the major participants in the program. 

Thousands of eligible rural health care providers currently 

do not take advantage of this program. Some claim that this is 

because the subsidy is too low and the application process is 

too complex to justify participation.106 Large gaps in broadband 

access and price disparities for broadband services suggest that 

change is needed in the support program. Statutory restrictions that limit support to public and non-profit entities and 

program rules that limit support to rural entities should be reexamined. Many deserving health care providers, such as urban 

health clinics and for-profit physician offices that function as 

the safety net for the country’s care delivery system, should 

become eligible for funding under the program.107 In rural areas 

alone, for-profit eligibility restrictions exclude more than 70% 

of the 38,000 health care providers; many face the same disadvantages in securing broadband as the eligible providers.108

The Pilot Program represents an important first step in extending broadband infrastructure to unserved and underserved 

areas, and ensuring that health care providers in rural areas and 

Tribal lands are connected with sophisticated medical centers in 

urban areas. Over 35% of projects have received funding commitments to date. Much of this progress has come in the last 12 

months. Extensive outreach from the FCC and efforts of program 

participants have resulted in funding commitment letters for 22 

projects, for a total of $44.5 million.109 To ensure that each program participant has ample time to finalize its project, the FCC 

has extended the deadline for funding commitment submissions. 

It should continue to assist participants to ensure networks are 

built as quickly and effectively as possible. 

Despite the FCC’s efforts to date, many health care providers remain under-connected. The FCC’s programs are in need 
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 0

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 2 1 5

of improved performance measures to assess their impact on 

broadband services and, more importantly, patient care. The 

FCC should take a fresh look and evaluate how it can improve 

the Rural Health Care Program to ensure that funds are used 

efficiently and appropriately to address the adoption and 

deployment challenges outlined above. In doing so, lessons 

learned from the Rural Health Care Pilot Program should be 

incorporated into this examination. 

Recommendation 10.6: The FCC should replace the 

existing Internet Access Fund with a Health Care Broadband 

Access Fund.

The Health Care Broadband Access Fund should support 

bundles of services, including bundled telecommunications, 

broadband and broadband Internet access services for eligible 

health care providers. This program would replace the existing underutilized Internet Access Fund. Health care providers 

eligible to participate in the new program should include both 

rural and urban health care providers, based on need. The FCC 

should develop new discount levels based on criteria that address such factors as:

➤ Price discrepancies for similar broadband services between 

health care providers.

➤ Ability to pay for broadband services (i.e., affordability).

➤ Lack of broadband access, or affordable broadband, in the 

highest HPSAs of the country.

➤ Public or safety net institution status.110

To allow health care providers to afford higher bandwidth 

broadband services, the subsidy support amount under the Health 

Care Broadband Access Fund should be greater than the current 

25% subsidy support under the Internet Access Fund. In addition, 

support should better match the costs of services for disadvantaged health care providers. To better encourage participation, the 

FCC should also simplify the application process and provide clarity on the level of support that providers can reasonably expect, 

while protecting against potential waste, fraud and abuse.

After approximately three years of data collection for the 

new Health Care Broadband Access Fund, the FCC should 

examine, based on the success of that program, whether the 

Telecommunications Fund program needs to be adjusted.

Recommendation 10.7: The FCC should establish a 

Health Care Broadband Infrastructure Fund to subsidize 

network deployment to health care delivery locations 

where existing networks are insufficient. 

Many health care providers are located in areas that lack 

adequate physical broadband infrastructure. Specifically, as demonstrated by the overwhelming interest in the Pilot Program, the 

FCC was able to identify and begin addressing the lack of access to 

appropriate broadband infrastructure throughout the nation. The 

FCC should permanently continue this effort by creating a Health 

Care Broadband Infrastructure Fund, incorporating lessons 

learned from administering the Pilot Program. In particular, the 

Pilot Program has enabled the FCC to obtain valuable data on how 

to better target support to deploy health care networks where the 

need is most acute. The following recommendations are based on 

preliminary lessons from the Pilot Program.

The FCC should establish demonstrated-need criteria to 

ensure that deployment funding is focused in those areas of the 

country where the existing broadband infrastructure is insufficient. For example, demonstrated-need criteria could include 

any combination of the following:

➤ Demonstration that the health care provider is located in an 

area where sufficient broadband is unavailable or unaffordable. The forthcoming BDIA broadband map should be a 

factor in determining availability.

➤ A financial analysis that demonstrates that network deployment will be significantly less expensive over a specified 

time period (e.g., 15–20 years) than purchasing services 

from an existing network carrier.

➤ Certification that the health care provider has posted for 

services under the Telecommunications Funds and/or the 

Internet Access Fund (or the new Health Care Broadband 

Access Fund) for an extended period of time (for example, 

six to 12 months) and has not received any viable proposals 

from qualified network vendors for such services.

The FCC should also:

➤ Require that program participants pay no less than a 

minimum percentage of all eligible project costs, such as 

the 15% match requirement used in the Pilot Program. The 

match contribution requirement aligns incentives and helps 

ensure that the health care provider values the broadband 

services being developed and makes financially prudent 

decisions regarding the project.

➤ Facilitate efficient use of USF-funded infrastructure. For the 

Pilot Program, the FCC has required that any excess capacity (broadband capacity in excess of the amount required 

for the eligible health care providers) must be paid for by the 

health care provider or a third party, at fair share.111 Fair share 

has been defined as a proportionate share of all costs, including trenching and rights-of-way. In instances where excess 

capacity will be used by other USF-eligible institutions, the 

FCC should allow the excess capacity to be paid for by those 

institutions at incremental cost rather than fair share. The 

FCC should also explore ways to encourage joint applications 

between eligible health care providers and other USF-qualifying institutions, such as schools and libraries. 

➤ Simplify the community buildout fair share rules so nonUSF-eligible institutions can accurately and efficiently es-
2 1 6 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 0

timate their proper share of network deployment costs and 

join the infrastructure projects. It is in a community’s best 

interest when public, non-profit and private institutions 

share infrastructure costs and bring broadband to more 

of the community. The FCC should define, early in the 

process, permissible ways in which excess capacity can be 

deployed and allocated to non-USF-eligible institutions. 

➤ Maintain existing criteria utilized in the Pilot Program, 

including requirements that projects are sustainable, create statewide or regional networks and leverage existing 

network technology. Moreover, the FCC should continue 

to allow (but not require) the connection of networks to 

proprietary nationwide backbones that link government 

research institutions and academic, public and private health 

care providers that house significant medical expertise. 

➤ Simplify program application and administration. For example, the FCC should allow some limited funding of project 

administration costs for network design and project planning.

The FCC should set a target for how much yearly support 

should go to infrastructure versus ongoing support. Based on 

the benefits these programs can deliver to American health 

care, the FCC should plan to spend up to the current annual 

cap and then consider additional funding if the need exists and 

funds can be made available.

Recommendation 10.8: The FCC should authorize 

participation in the Health Care Broadband Funds by 

long-term care facilities, off-site administrative offices, 

data centers and other similar locations. Congress should 

consider providing support for for-profit institutions that 

serve particularly vulnerable populations. 

The term “health care provider” has been interpreted narrowly, excluding, for example, nursing homes, hospices, other 

long-term care facilities, off-site administrative offices and 

health information data centers.112 The FCC should re-examine 

that decision in light of trends in the health care landscape 

and expand the definition to include, where consistent with 

the statute, those institutions that have become integral in 

the delivery of care in the United States. The expanded definition of eligible health care providers should explicitly include 

off-site administrative offices of eligible health care providers, 

long-term care facilities, data centers used for health care purposes and owned (directly or indirectly) by eligible health care 

providers, dialysis centers and skilled nursing facilities.

The FCC should periodically look to the ONC (e.g., every 

two years) to determine whether the definition of institutions 

eligible for funding as an eligible health care provider should be 

changed while the health IT landscape evolves.

In addition, Congress should consider expanding the 

definition of health care providers eligible for USF funding to include certain for-profit entities.113 Under the 

Communications Act, eligibility for funding under the Rural 

Health Care Program is limited to public or nonprofit entities.114 Not supporting private and for-profit health care 

providers has a significant impact on some important components of the health delivery system that serve needy 

populations. In rural areas, for example, private physician clinics can be the most critical—and sometimes the only—health 

care delivery location in the community. The power of digitized 

patient records is most valuable when all providers, including 

private physicians, are connected.

Including for-profit locations will require appropriate limitations to ensure that money from USF is targeted to health 

care providers that serve particularly vulnerable populations. 

For instance, funding for health IT in the Recovery Act is 

available to private physicians that either bill Medicare or have 

patient volumes consisting of at least 30% Medicaid beneficiaries (20% for pediatricians).115 This methodology could provide 

Congress a template to consider for expanding USF eligibility.

Recommendation 10.9: To protect against waste, 

fraud and abuse in the Rural Health Care Program, the 

FCC should require participating institutions to meet 

outcomes-based performance measures to qualify for USF 

subsidies, such as HHS’s meaningful use criteria.

The FCC should align its health care program with other 

federal government criteria intended to measure the efficient 

use of health IT, such as the meaningful use criteria being 

developed by HHS.116 This will help ensure the FCC’s programs encourage physicians and hospitals to not only deploy 

networks or purchase broadband services, but to use them in a 

way that improves the country’s health delivery system. For example, participants in the FCC programs should be required to 

achieve meaningful use certification for EHRs, after a certain 

period of support (e.g., three years).

The FCC should work with HHS (and other relevant agencies) and seek comment from the public to determine which 

outcome metrics (e.g., coordination with Regional Extension 

Centers, remote monitoring of chronic patients) should be 

utilized to assess its programs’ impact on broadband usage and 

the delivery of medicine at participating locations. For metrics 

that are deemed particularly difficult to attain, the FCC should 

consider offering additional support to those health care providers that are most successful in utilizing broadband services 

to improve the lives of their patients. 

By following the path Congress laid out in the HITECH Act 

and re-focusing federal investments away from process and 

toward outcomes (specifically meaningful use of health IT), the 

FCC can contribute to an important transformation of federal 
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 0

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 2 1 7

spending. Most importantly, it can ensure that the program 

funds not just wires, but health. Also, it can allow the FCC to give 

program participants more authority over project administration 

as long as they are achieving well-defined objectives. The FCC 

should evaluate and improve upon its oversight (e.g., competitive bidding, audits and investigations) to ensure that funds are 

being used to further the statutory purposes of universal service 

and doing the most to impact broadband usage and the delivery of 

medicine while minimizing waste, fraud and abuse.

Recommendation 10.10: Congress should consider providing an incremental sum (up to $29 million per year) for 

the Indian Health Service for the purpose of upgrading its 

broadband service to meet connectivity requirements. 

The Indian Health Service offers a unique opportunity for 

Congress to consider taking action. There is a clear need for 

broadband—many IHS sites are extremely remote and Tribal 

lands generally have low broadband penetration rates (see 

Exhibit 10-F). Since IHS is an integrated system that directly 

impacts the federal government’s bottom line,117 taxpayers 

stand to realize the savings and efficiency improvements promised by best-practice health IT utilization across IHS. IHS can 

serve as a testbed for forward-looking health IT use, much as 

VHA does with its CCHT program.118

Congress should consider providing additional public funding 

for IHS locations that currently have insufficient levels of broadband connectivity. IHS estimates that the annual expenditure 

to upgrade its broadband service is $29 million.119 New funding 

should be contingent on a competitive process that ensures efficient use of funds and clear goals tied to the meaningful use of 

health IT, as outlined in the proposed reforms for the Health Care 

Broadband Access Fund. Where new infrastructure needs to be 

deployed, it should be deployed in a way that maximizes value for 

the surrounding communities, providing low-cost, high-speed 

infrastructure where it did not previously exist. 

After one year of administering the IHS funding, Congress 

should consider doing the same for other federally funded 

providers with a connectivity gap. Where Congress does not 

act directly, these networks of providers should remain a high 

priority for the FCC’s reformed Health Care Broadband Access 

and Infrastructure programs.

Recommendation 10.11: The FCC should periodically 

publish a Health Care Broadband Status Report.

Health IT is in its infancy. The private sector innovations 

and public programs described in this chapter are merely 

an overview of the explosion in activity. While the National 

Broadband Plan lays the path forward, it will be critical for the 

FCC to play a more prominent and sustained role in evaluating 

broadband infrastructure and in supporting the nation’s health 

transformation. The health care connectivity analysis should 

serve as a starting point for measuring the health care connectivity problem and assessing the effectiveness of potential 

solutions.

The FCC should publish a Health Care Broadband Status Report 

every two years. It should discuss the state of health care broadband 

connectivity, review health IT industry trends, describe government programs and make reform recommendations. For the FCC’s 

programs, these analyses should be coupled with a dedicated effort 

to assess their impact on broadband usage and health care delivery at participating locations. The Rural Health Care Program has 

improved access to quality medical services, but the FCC lacks comprehensive information to determine how funding actually changes 

behavior. In conjunction with HHS, which has experience evaluating 

the effectiveness of clinical programs, the FCC should look for better 

ways to test the impact of the Health Care Broadband Access and 

Health Care Broadband Infrastructure funds. For instance, the FCC 

could conduct the following tests:

➤ Determine how unsupported health care providers differ 

from supported providers in the utilization of e-care.

➤ Assess the impact of changing the level of broadband subsidies to a targeted community and determine if there is an 

increased use of broadband and health IT as a result of such 

subsidies.

➤ Explore whether including funding for training would lead 

to better broadband utilization and improved care.

➤ Evaluate the impact the program is having on vulnerable 

populations, such as the elderly, racial and ethnic minorities or low-income rural and urban communities, to understand whether targeted efforts would be more effective.

Through these mechanisms, the FCC should develop a 

culture of testing and learning. Working in conjunction with 

participants, policymakers and industry leaders, the FCC 

should seek to continuously evaluate the impact of its programs 

and change direction when they do not meet expectations. 

To ensure sufficient support for these tests, the FCC should 

allocate a portion of the existing funding cap (e.g., $5 million) 

for innovative ideas or programs that can evaluate existing efforts or improve upon them in the future. These actions could 

also help reduce waste, fraud and abuse, because program 

effectiveness could be continuously monitored, with rules and 

administration adjusted as necessary.

As technologies rapidly evolve, so too do expectations for 

health IT adoption in America. Supporting health IT requires 

further analysis of complex issues and the development of solutions to address them. The work ahead will be most successful 

if it combines the efforts of government, industry and the 

health care community.
2 1 8 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 0

c h a p t e r 1 0 E n d n o t e s 

1 Ctr. for Medicare & Medicaid Serv., National Health

Expenditure Projections 2008–2018, http://www.

cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/

proj2008.pdf (last visited Jan. 21, 2010).

2 Office of the Surgeon General, Overweight and Obesity: 

At a Glance, http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/topics/

obesity/calltoaction/fact_glance.htm (last visited 

Jan. 21, 2010). Obesity is a particular challenge for 

African Americans, as approximately four out of five 

African American women are overweight or obese.  See

Department of Health and Human Services, Office 

of Minority Health, http://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/

templates/content.aspx?ID=6456 (last visited Feb. 28, 

2010).  In addition, African American adults are twice 

as likely as non-Hispanic white adults to have been 

diagnosed with diabetes by a physician, and in 2005, 

African American men were 30% more likely to die 

from heart disease, as compared to non-Hispanic white 

men.  See Department of Health and Human Services, 

Office of Minority Health, http://minorityhealth.hhs.

gov/templates/browse.aspx?lvl=2&lvlID=51 (last visited 

Feb. 28, 2010).

3 Susan Dentzer, Reform Chronic Illness Care? Yes, We 

Can, 28 Health Aff. 12, 12 (Jan./Feb. 2009), available at

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/28/1/12.

4 Shin-Yi Wu & Anthony Green, RAND Corp., Projection

of Chronic Illness Prevalence and Cost Inflation

(2000).

5 Am. Heart Ass’n, Heart Failure, http://www.

americanheart.org/chf (last visited Jan. 21, 2010)

6 Inst. of Medicine, Preventing Medical Errors 5 (Philip 

Aspden et al. eds., 2007), available at http://books.nap.

edu/openbook.php?record_id=11623&page=5.

7 Robert A. Weinstein, Nosocomial Infection Update, 4 

Emerging Infectious Disease 416 (July–Sept. 1998), 

available at ftp://ftp.cdc.gov/pub/EID/vol4no3/adobe/

weinstein.pdf.

8 See Health Res. & Serv. Admin., U.S. Dep’t of Health & 

Human Serv., The Physician Workforce: Projections

and Research into Current Issues Affecting Supply and

Demand (2008), ftp://ftp.hrsa.gov/bhpr/workforce/

physicianworkforce.pdf (HRSA, Physician Workforce); 

Michael J. Dill & Edward S. Salsberg, Ass’n of Am. 

Med. Coll., The Complexities of Physician Supply

and Demand: Projections Through 2025, at 6 (2008) 

(estimating a shortage of 124,000 physicians by 

2025), https://services.aamc.org/publications/ index.

cfm?fuseaction=Product.displayForm&prd_id=244

(download report from this page).

9 HRSA, Physician Workforce at iv.

10 Institute of Medicine, Unequal Treatment: 

Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health

Care 29 (Brian Smedley et al. eds., 2003.) 

11 Id.

12 Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Electronic Health 

Record Incentive Program; Proposed Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. 

1851 (Jan. 13, 2010).

13 This is not a definitive taxonomy. Electronic health 

record definition used by Health Information and 

Management Systems Society (HIMSS). See HIMSS, 

Electronic Health Record, http://www.himss.org/ASP/

topics_ehr.asp (last visited Feb. 27, 2010). 

14 Todd Park & Peter Basch, Ctr. for Am. Progress, A

Historic Opportunity: Wedding Health Information

Technology to Care Delivery Innovation and Provider

Payment Reform 6 (2009), available at http://www.

americanprogress.org/issues/2009/05/pdf/

health_it.pdf (Park & Basch, Wedding Health

Information Technology).

15 See Catherine DesRoches et al., Electronic Health 

Records in Ambulatory Care—A National Survey of 

Physicians, 359 New Eng. J. Med. 50 (2008), available at

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/reprint/359/1/50.pdf.

16 James Bigelow et al., RAND Corp., Analysis of

Healthcare Interventions That Change Patient

Trajectories, at xxiv (2005), http://www.rand.org/

pubs/monographs/2005/RAND_MG408.pdf.

17 Richard Hillestad et al., Can Electronic Medical Record 

Systems Transform Healthcare? Potential Health 

Benefits, Savings, and Costs, 24 Health Aff. 1103, 

1103 (Sept./Oct. 2005), available at http://content.

healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/24/5/1103.

18 Hillestad et al., Can Electronic Medical Record Systems 

Transform Healthcare? at 1114.

19 American Academy of Pediatrics Comments in re NBP 

PN #17 (Comment Sought on the Health Care Delivery 

Elements of National Broadband Plan—NBP Public Notice 

#17, GN Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 09-137, Public Notice, 

24 FCC Red 137 28 (WCB 2009) (NBP PN #17)), filed 

Dec. 4, 2009, at 1; Rural Wisconsin Health Cooperative 

Information Technology Network (RWHC ITN) 

Comments in re NBP PN #17, filed Dec. 4, 2009, at 3.

20 Sixty-five million people reside in Primary Care Health 

Professional Shortage Areas (HPSAs). HHS designates 

HPSAs as having a shortage of primary medical care, 

dental, or mental health providers. They may be urban 

or rural areas, population groups, or medical or other 

public facilities. See HRSA, Shortage Designation: 

HPSAs, MUAs & MUPs, http://bhpr.hrsa.gov/shortage/

(last visited Jan. 29, 2010).

21 Lee Schwamm et al., Recommendations for the 

Implementation of Telemedicine within Stroke Systems 

of Care: A Policy Statement from the American Heart 

Association, 40 Stroke 2635 (2009), available at http://

stroke.ahajournals.org/cgi/reprint/40/7/2635. The 

United States has approximately 4.0 neurologists per 

100,000 persons, who ideally need to be caring for over 

780,000 acute strokes per year, and many parts of the 

country lack access to acute stroke services entirely. Id. 

at 2638. Tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) is a clotbusting drug that must be administered within three 

hours of ischemic stroke onset to be effective. Id. at 2641.

22 Richard Knox, Drug Can Stop Strokes, But 

Most Patients Don’t Get It, NPR, Dec. 14, 2009, 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.

php?storyId=121032269&sc=emaf.

23 Store-and-forward technologies represent the collection 

and storage of clinical data or images that are forwarded 

for interpretation at a time distant from an in-person 

clinical encounter. Ctr. for Info. Tech. Leadership,

Health Care Information and Management Systems

Society (HIMSS), The Value of Provider-to-Provider

Telehealth Technologies (2007) (CITL, The Value

of Provider-to-Provider Telehealth Technologies), 

available at http://www.citl.org/_pdf/CITL_Telehealth_

Report.pdf.

24 CITL, The Value of Provider-to-Provider Telehealth

Technologies. CITL modeled pre- and post-telehealth 

costs based on national baseline number of transports, 

transport cost, and number of avoided transports. 

Annual savings were calculated by subtracting posttelehealth costs from pre-telehealth costs for each 

provider-to-provider setting. These savings sum to $1.2 

billion.

25 Juan M. Aranda, Jr. et al., Current Trends in Heart 

Failure Readmission Rates: Analysis of Medicare 

Data, 32 Clinical Cardiology 47, 47 (2009), available 

at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/

fulltext/121637973/PDFSTART.

26 Robert Litan, Better Health Care Together Coalition, 

Vital Signs Via Broadband: Remote Health Monitoring

Transmits Savings, Enhances Lives (2008), available at

http://www.betterhealthcaretogether.org/Library/

Documents/VITAL%20SIGNS%20via%20BROADBAND

%20FINAL%20with%20FOREWORD%20and%20

TITLE%20pp%2010%2022.pdf

27 Adam Darkins et al., Care Coordination/Home 

Telehealth: The Systematic Implementation of Health 

Informatics, Home Telehealth, and Disease Management 

to Support the Care of Veteran Patients with Chronic 

Conditions, 10 Telemed. & e-Health 1118, 1118 (2008), 

available at http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/

pdf/10.1089/tmj.2008.0021?cookieSet=1.

28 Qualcomm Inc. Comments in re NBP PN #17, filed Dec. 

4, 2009, at 20.

29 Body sensor networks are very short-range networks 

consisting of multiple body-worn sensors and/or nodes 

and a nearby hub station. The sensors and/or nodes 

take readings of key patient-specific information, such 

as temperature, pulse, blood glucose level, the heart’s 

electrical activity, blood pressure, and respiratory function. 

Antenna components embedded in the sensors and/or 

nodes make it possible to wirelessly transmit data to bodyworn or closely-located hub devices. Hub devices may 

process the data locally and/or transmit it wirelessly for 

centralized processing, display, and storage. 

30 West Wireless Health Institute Comments in re NBP 

PN #17, filed Dec. 4, 2009, at 2.

31 West Wireless Health Institute Comments in re NBP 

PN #17, filed Dec. 4, 2009, at 5.

32 Wireless cardiovascular solutions are designed to 

enable early detection, prevention, and treatment of 

cardiovascular conditions. These solutions consist 

of wearable sensors, global wireless capabilities, and 

comprehensive web-based infrastructures. See, e.g., 

Corventis Home Page, http://www.corventis.com/US/

(last visited Jan. 30, 2009).

33 Medtronic, REAL-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring, 

http://www.minimed.com/products/insulinpumps/

components/cgm.html (last visited Feb. 1, 2010).

34 Amendment of Parts 2 and 95 of the Commission’s Rules 

to Establish the Medical Micropower Network Service 

in the 413–457 MHz Band, RM-11404, Petition for 

Rulemaking (filed Sept. 5, 2007).
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 0

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 2 1 9

c h a p t e r 1 0 E n d n o t e s 

35 Letter from Cheryl A. Tritt, Counsel to the Alfred Mann 

Foundation, Morrison & Foerster LLP, to Marlene H. 

Dortch, Secretary, FCC, ET Docket No. 09-36 (Feb. 2, 

2010) (Alfred Mann Feb. 2, 2010 Ex Parte) at 12.

36 Cathy Schoen & Robin Osborn, The Commonwealth

Fund, The Commonwealth Fund 2009 International

Health Policy Survey of Primary Care Physicians

in Eleven Countries 10 (2009), http://www.

commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/

In%20the%20Literature/2009/Nov/PDF_

Schoen_2009_Commonwealth_Fund_11country_intl_

survey_chartpack_white_bkgd_PF.pdf. Count of 14 

functions includes: (1) electronic medical record; (2, 

3) electronic prescribing and ordering of tests; (4–6) 

electronic access to test results, Rx alerts, and clinical 

notes; (7–10) computerized system for tracking lab 

tests, guidelines, alerts to provide patients with test 

results, and preventive/follow-up care reminders; and 

(11–14) computerized list of patients by diagnosis, by 

medications, and due for tests or preventive care.

37 Joint Advisory Committee on Communications

Capabilities of Emergency Medical and Public Health

Care Facilities, Report to Congress (2008), available 

at http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_110/JAC.

Report_FINAL%20Jan.3.2008.pdf.

38 Hospitals & Health Networks, Figure 10: Home 

Telemonitoring, http://www.hhnmag.com/hhnmag_

app/jsp/articledisplay.jsp?dcrpath=HHNMAG/Article/

data/07JUL2008/0807HHN_MW_MainArticle_

Fig10&domain=HHNMAG (last visited Jan. 30, 2010).

39 Phillips, National Study on the Future of Technology

and Telehealth in Home Care 105 (2008).

40 David Blumenthal, Launching HITECH, New Eng. 

J. Med., Dec. 30, 2009, at 3, (Blumenthal, Launching

HITECH) available at http://content.nejm.org/cgi/

reprint/NEJMp0912825v1.pdf.

41 HIT Policy Committee, Meaningful Use Objectives

and Measures: 2011-2013-2015 (early version) (2009),

http://healthit.hhs.gov/portal/server.pt/gateway/

PTARGS_0_10741_887553_0_0_18/Proposed_

Revisions_to_Meaningful_Use_post_7_16_2009_

FINAL_PT1_508.pdf.

42 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Pub. 

L. No. 111-5, § 13101, 123 Stat. 115, 231 (2009) (Recovery 

Act).

43 Blumenthal, Launching HITECH at 3.

44 Park & Basch, Wedding Health Information

Technology at 2, 5–7, 14; Medicare Payment Advisory

Comm’n (MedPAC), Report to the Congress: Promoting

Greater Efficiency in Medicare 17 (2007), available 

at http://www.medpac.gov/documents/jun07_

EntireReport.pdf; Great Call, Inc. Comments in re NBP 

PN #17, filed Dec. 4, 2009, at 7; Palmetto State Providers 

Network Comments in re PN #17, filed Nov. 24, 2009, at 

12 (filed by W. Roger Poston, II)

45 Cal. Telemed. and eHealth Ctr., Optimizing Telehealth

in California: An Agenda for Today and Tomorrow 4–7 

(2009) (CTEC, Optimizing Telehealth in California), 

available at http://www.cteconline.org/_pdf/FindingsReport.pdf.

46 Ashish K. Jha et al., Use of Electronic Health Records 

in U.S. Hospitals, 360 New Eng. J. Med. 1628 

(2009), available at http://content.nejm.org/cgi/

reprint/360/16/1628.pdf.

47 CTEC, Optimizing Telehealth in California at 4.

48 See Box 10.3, supra. 

49 Park & Basch, Wedding Health Information

Technology at 2, 5–7, 14. 

50 MedPAC, Report to the Congress: Medicare in Rural

America 36 (2001), available at http://www.medpac.

gov/documents/Jun01%20Entire%20report.pdf.

51 Park & Basch, Wedding Health Information

Technology at 2, 5–7, 14.

52 CMS uses the term telehealth, which is similar to the 

term e-care. See Box 10.1 for further explanation.

53 Payment Policies Under the Physician Fee Schedule 

and Other Revisions to Part B for CY 2010, 74 Fed. Reg. 

33519, 33663 (July 13, 2009) (codified at 42 C.F.R. pts. 

410, 411, 414, etc.), available at http://edocket.access.

gpo.gov/2009/E9-15835.htm; Office of theNat’l

Coordinator for Health Info. Tech., HHS, Justification

ofEstimates for AppropriationsCommittees: FiscalYear

2011 (2010), available at http://healthit.hhs.gov/portal/

server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_11673_910512_0_0_18/

ONC_FY2011_CJ.pdf.

54 For instance, the Health IT Policy Council cites 

“Incorporate data from home monitoring device” as one 

of the objectives for defining Meaningful Use in 2013. 

HIT Policy Committee, Meaningful Use Objectives

and Measures: 2011-2013-2015 (final version) 6 

(2009), available at http://healthit.hhs.gov/portal/

server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_10741_888532_0_0_18/

FINAL%20MU%20RECOMMENDATIONS%20

TABLE.pdf.

55 CMS, CMS Announces Demonstration to Encourage 

Greater Collaboration and Improve Quality Using 

Bundled Hospital Payments (press release), May 16, 

2008, available at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/apps/media/

press/release.asp?Counter=3109&intNumPerPage=10&

checkDate=&checkKey=&srchType=1&numDays=3500

&srchOpt=0&srchData=&keywordType=All&chkNews

Type=1%2C+2%2C+3%2C+4%2C+5&intPage=&showA

ll=&pYear=&year=&desc=&cboOrder=date.

56 CMS, Medical Home Demonstration Fact Sheet (2009), 

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/demoprojectsevalrpts/

downloads/medhome_factsheet.pdf.

57 See Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, H.R. 

3590, 111th Cong. §§ 2703, 3022–24 (2009), available 

at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.

cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3590eas.txt.pdf; 

Affordable Health Care for America Act, H.R. 3962, §§ 

1152, 1301–02, 1312 (2009), available at http://docs.

house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf.

58 IHS is an agency within the Department of Health and 

Human Services responsible for providing federal health 

services to 1.9 million American Indians and Alaska Natives 

in predominantly rural and remote areas. Indian Health 

Service, IHS Fact Sheets Year 2009 Profile, http://info.ihs.

gov/Profile09.asp (last visited Dec. 29, 2009).

59 The Connected Care Telehealth Program is a pilot of video 

consultation services—sponsored by UnitedHealth Group, 

Cisco, Centura Health, the Colorado Rural Health Center 

and the Colorado Community Health Network—that 

will make available 4,800 remote specialist visits per 

year in Colorado. UnitedHealthcare, UnitedHealthcare 

to Launch Connected Care Telehealth Program in Rural 

Colorado (press release), (Apr. 17, 2009), http://www.

connectedcareamerica.com/news-and-resources.php (link 

available to the article from this page).

60 The Community Partnerships and Mobile Telehealth 

to Transform Research in Elder Care is a National 

Institute of Health Challenge Grant awarded to the 

University of Virginia to test connecting seniors to 

health IT applications.

61 American Telemedicine Association Comments in re 

NBP PN #17, filed Dec. 3, 2009, at 14.

62 Letter from Alice Borrelli, Director, Global Healthcare 

and Workforce Policy, Intel Corporation, to Marlene H. 

Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket Nos. 09-57, 09-51, 

09-137 (Dec. 16, 2009) (Intel Dec. 16, 2009 Ex Parte) at 32.

63 The Joint Commission (TJC), which accredits roughly 

82% of the nation’s hospitals, is permitted by CMS to 

implement a proxy process for credentialing between 

TJC-accredited hospitals. This leaves the new privileging 

requirement for TJC-accredited hospitals, and both the 

credentialing and privileging requirements for non-TJC 

accredited hospitals. Telehealth Leadership Initiative, 

Question and Answer: Credentialing and Privileging of 

Telehealth Providers, http://www.telehealthleadership.

org/Credentialing%20Privileging%20Q&A%20.DOC (last 

visited Jan. 30, 2010).

64 Nat’l Ass’n of Children’s Hospitals & Related Inst., 

National Shortages of Pediatric Subspecialists Impede 

Children’s Access to Care (press release), Jan. 13, 2010, 

available at http://www.childrenshospitals.net/AM/

Template.cfm?Section=Home3&CONTENTID=49773

&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm.

65 American Telemedicine Association Comments in re 

NBP PN #17, filed Dec. 3, 2009, at 16.

66 Ctr. for Info. Tech. Leadership, The Value of

Computerized Provider Order Entry in Ambulatory

Settings: Executive Preview 6–7 (2009), http://www.

citl.org/research/ACPOE_Executive_Preview.pdf.

67 John Moore, Doctors and the DEA, Gov’t Health IT, 

Oct. 1, 2008, http://www.govhealthit.com/newsitem.

aspx?tid=77&nid=69394.

68 See FDA, Medical Devices, Is the Product a Medical 

Device?, http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/

DeviceRegulationandGuidance/Overview/Classify

YourDevice/ucm051512.htm (last visited Jan. 30, 2010) 

(providing the FDA definition of a medical device).

69 HHS, Comparative Effectiveness Research Funding, 

http://www.hhs.gov/recovery/programs/cer/index.

html (last visited Feb. 20, 2010).

70 See Framingham Heart Study, About the Framingham 

Heart Study, http://www.framinghamheartstudy.org/

about/index.html (last visited Feb. 19, 2010) (providing 

an overview of the Framingham Heart Study).

71 Am. Heart Ass’n, Framingham Heart Study, http://www.

americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4666

(last visited Feb. 20, 2010).

72 Joy Pritts & Nina L. Kudszus, Health Pol’y. Ins., 

Your Medical Record Rights in Alabama (A Guide to
2 2 0 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 0

c h a p t e r 1 0 E n d n o t e s 

Consumer Rights Under HIPAA), available at http://

medicalrecordrights.georgetown.edu/stateguides/al/

al.pdf.

73 Lawrence P. Casalino et al., Frequency of Failure to 

Inform Patients of Clinically Significant Outpatient 

Test Results, 169 Arch Intern Med. 1123, 1123 (2009), 

available at http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/

reprint/169/12/1123.

74 See Sharon B. Arnold, Acad. Health & Robert Wood

Johnson Found., Improving Quality Health Care: The

Role of Consumer Engagement (2007).

75 See supra Chapter 4.

76 There are sensible exemptions, which can be found 

at 45 C.F.R. § 164.524(a)(3). See citation for more 

circumstances whereby a covered entity can deny access 

but individuals also have a right to request a review of 

the denial.

77 See Michael Arrington, AsthmaMD Helps Asthma 

Sufferers, Gathers Aggregate Research Data, 

TechCrunch, Jan. 10, 2010, http://www.techcrunch.

com/2010/01/10/asthmamd-helps-asthma-sufferersgathers-aggregate-research-data/.

78 Letter from Chuck Parker, Executive Director, Continua 

Health Alliance, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, 

GN Docket Nos. 09-57, 09-51 (Nov. 16, 2009) (Continua 

Nov. 16, 2009 Ex Parte) Attach. at 13. Bandwidth 

thresholds are actual (i.e., not advertised) speeds.

79 GE Healthcare Comments in re NBP PN #17, filed Dec. 

4, 2009, at 8; Euclid Seeram, Digital Image Compression,

Radiologic Tech., July–Aug. 2005, http://www.

entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/134676840.

html; Human Genome Project Information, Frequently 

Asked Questions, http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/

Human_Genome/faq/faqs1.shtml (last visited Jan. 

31, 2010); Ichiro Mori et al., Issues for Application 

of Virtual Microscopy to Cytoscreening, Perspectives 

Based on Questionnaire to Japanese Cytotechnologists, 

Diagnostic Pathology, July 15, 2008, http://www.

diagnosticpathology.org/content/pdf/1746-1596-3-S1-S15.

pdf. See, e.g., DICOM sample image sets, http://pubimage.

hcuge.ch:8080/ (last visited Jan. 31, 2010).

80 Mbps recommendations reflect compilation of the 

record. Numbers are guidelines, not precise measures. 

See, e.g., Letter from Alice Borelli, Director, Global 

Healthcare and Workforce Policy Intel, to Marlene 

H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket Nos. 09–47, 

09–51, 09–137, WC Docket No 07–10 (Dec. 16, 2009). 

See also, e.g., Fiberutilities Group, A Practical Review

of Broadband Requirements For Healthcare Clinical

Applications 6–7 (2009), available at http://www.

fiberutilities.com/documents/FG_Press_Release_FCC_

Briefing_Healthcare_Application_Requirements_for_

Broadband_110609.pdf. 

81 GE Healthcare Comments in re NBP PN #17, filed Dec. 

4, 2009, at 2. 

82 Ascension Health Comments in re NBP PN #17, filed 

Dec. 4, 2009, at 5; RWHC ITN Comments in re NBP PN 

#17, filed Dec. 4, 2009, at 3.

83 AT&T and Verizon both call these offerings “Small 

Business” offerings. Comcast calls it their “Business 

Internet Service.” TimeWarner Cable calls it their 

“Business Class Wideband Internet” service.

84 DIA is used as an umbrella term for all components of 

monthly broadband service for DSL lines. This includes 

both circuit and access services. 

85 Telegeography, Enterprise Network Pricing Service

(Q3 2009). (Regarding methodology, “the Enterprise 

Network Pricing Service presents and analyzes 

responses to hypothetical bid scenarios for MPLS IP 

VPN WAN services. Carriers complete surveys on a 

bi-annual basis supplying prices for each component of 

a ten-city wide area network, breaking out core network, 

equipment and management fees from local access.”). 

Price cited here is an average of the five lowest bids for 

Los Angeles.

86 TimeWarner Business Class Professional 10 x 2, listed at 

$399.95 / month on TimeWarner Los Angeles website. 

Taxes and other surcharges not factored in. See Time 

Warner Cable Business Class, https://www.twcbc.com/

LA/buyflow/buyflow.ashx (last visited Feb. 27, 2010) 

(requires providing additional information to access). 

87 Statement reflects compilation of the record and is a 

guideline, not a comprehesive requirement. Record in 

response to NBP PN #17 and ex parte filings (see e.g., 

Letter from Winfred Y. Wu, Director, Public Health 

Informatics, New York City Department of Health and 

Mental Hygiene, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, 

GN Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 09-137 (Mar. 1, 2010). 

88 Access to mass-market broadband is used here to mean 

passed by terrestrial broadband access facilities such as 

those used to deliver DSL or cable modem service. This 

analysis does not predict how many of the 307,000 small 

providers purchase the appropriate level of broadband; 

only the mass-market broadband available to them. The 

analysis is a predictive estimate combining the FCC’s 

statistical network model and provider databases, as 

shown below. Gap is calculated based on connectivity 

requirement threshold of 4 Mbps for Single Physician 

Practices and 10 Mbps for all other practices. AMA 

small provider locations (four physicians or less) were 

assigned to an appropriate census block, based on their 

street address, and then reconciled with the model 

showing connectivity availability for that census block. 

About 24,000 (or 7%) of the health care locations in 

the AMA database had addresses that were impossible 

to convert accurately to census blocks; results for these 

locations were modeled to complete the analysis. A 

small percentage of the records (less than 1.5%) were 

geographically located outside of the Master Broadband 

Availability data (e.g., Puerto Rico), and therefore were 

dropped from consideration in the connectivity analysis. 

The analysis does not take into account other network 

quality requirements. Some of these locations may have 

alternative networks or commercial services, where 

residential broadband is unavailable. 

•	 Omnibus Broadband Initiative (OBI) The Broadband 

Gap (forthcoming) (OBI, The Broadband 

Availability Gap).

• 	 Database of all locations in the United States

with practicing physicians: Am. Med. Ass’n, AMA 

Physician Masterfile Database (2009) on file 

with the FCC, “The Physician Masterfile includes 

current and historical data for more than 940,000 

residents and physicians and approximately 77,000 

students in the United States.” Includes all active 

practicing physicians in the US (655,630) and the 

addresses where they practice. Sorting by address 

sorts 655,630 physicians into 351,172 locations, 

with a size metric for each one based on how many 

physician entries are associated with each location 

entry. Removed 5,077 locations in Puerto Rico 

and other locations that were not included in the 

Statistical Model, leaving 346,095 locations for our 

analysis. Detailed information on this database is 

available from the AMA. AMA Physician Masterfile, 

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/about-ama/

physician-data-resources/physician-masterfile.

shtml (last visited Feb. 27, 2010).

•	 FCC’s Rural definition, 47 CFR § 54.5: “For

purposes of the rural health care universal service 

support mechanism, a ‘rural area’ is an area that is 

entirely outside of a Core Based Statistical Area; is 

within a Core Based Statistical Area that does not 

have any Urban Area with a population of 25,000 

or greater; or is in a Core Based Statistical Area that 

contains an Urban Area with a population of 25,000 

or greater, but is within a specific census tract that 

itself does not contain any part of a Place or Urban 

Area with a population of greater than 25,000. 

‘Core Based Statistical Area’ and ‘Urban Area’ are 

as defined by the Census Bureau and ‘Place’ is as 

identified by the Census Bureau.”

89 See supra note 88.

90 Difference between DS3 purchased in Wyoming versus 

Vermont for one year of service, according to rates listed 

in Exhibit 10-E, infra, is $27,384. 

91 Wyoming, Mississippi, New York, and Vermont prices: 

USAC, Urban Rate Search Tool, http://www.usac.org/

rhc/tools/rhcdb/UrbanRates/search.asp (last visited 

Feb. 8, 2010) (use 2009 data).

92 Letter from William England, Vice President, Rural 

Health Care Division, Universal Service Administrative 

Company, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN 

Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 09-137 (Feb. 23, 2010) 

(USAC Feb. 23, 2010 Ex Parte) at 1. If locations in 

Alaska are excluded, the participants’ broadband price 

still averages 3x the price of their urban benchmarks. 

93 Federally funded providers include provider networks 

that are directly administered by the federal government 

(e.g., Veterans Health Administration, NASA, Bureau of 

Prisons, Indian Health Service), as well as recipients of 

federal subsidies.

94 See Letter from Theresa Cullen, RADM, U.S. Public 

Health Service, Chief Information Officer and Director, 

Indian Health Service, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, 

FCC, GN Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 09-137 (Feb. 23, 

2010) (IHS Feb. 23, 2010 Ex Parte), Attach.

95 “FQHCs are ‘safety net’ providers such as community 

health centers, public housing centers, and programs 

serving migrants and the homeless. The main purpose 

of the FQHC Program is to enhance the provision of 

primary care services in underserved urban and rural 

communities.” CMS, Federally Qualified Health

Center Fact Sheet 1 (2009), http://www.cms.hhs.gov/

MLNProducts/downloads/fqhcfactsheet.pdf. FQHCs 
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 0

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 2 2 1

c h a p t e r 1 0 E n d n o t e s 

qualify for cost-based CMS reimbursement and other 

benefits. 

96 “The Rural Health Clinic Program was established in 

1977 to address an inadequate supply of physicians who 

serve Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries in rural 

areas.” CMS, Rural Health Clinic Fact Sheet 1 (2007), 

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MLNProducts/Downloads/

rhcfactsheet.pdf. Clinics must meet criteria established 

by HHS, including being located in rural area and 

in a Health Provider Shortage Area or a Medically 

Underserved Area. RHC institutions qualify for costbased CMS reimbursement and other benefits. 

97 Critical Access Hospitals are hospitals qualified to 

receive cost-based reimbursement from Medicare 

and are important components of states’ rural 

health networks. See generally CMS, Critical Access

Hospitals Fact Sheet (2009) (discussing what 

qualifies as a Critical Access Hospital), available at

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MLNProducts/downloads/

CritAccessHospfctsht.pdf.

98 Access to mass-market broadband is used here to mean 

passed by terrestrial broadband access facilities such 

as those used to deliver DSL or cable modem service; 

business-class service, including business-grade service 

level agreements, is likely available currently but at 

much higher prices (potentially including large one 

time special-construction costs). This analysis does 

not predict how many of the providers purchase the 

appropriate level of broadband; only if mass-market 

broadband is available to them. The analysis is a 

predictive estimate combining the FCC’s statistical 

network model and provider databases as shown below.

Gap is calculated based on connectivity requirement 

threshold of 4 Mbps for Single Physician Practices (from 

either DSL/FTTN or Cable) and 10 Mbps for all other 

practices (from cable service only). Health care locations 

were assigned to an appropriate census block, based 

on their street address, and then reconciled with the 

model showing connectivity availability for that census 

block. For each database, a percentage of the health care 

locations had addresses that were impossible to convert 

accurately to census blocks; results for these locations 

were modeled to complete the analysis. For the AMA, 

this accounted for ~24,000 (or 7%) of total entries. 

For IHS, this accounted for ~350 (or 52%) of entries. 

Additionally, the FQHC database contained duplicate 

location records, which were excluded from the 

connectivity analysis. A small percentage of the records 

(less than 1.5%) were geographically located outside of 

the Master Broadband Availability data (e.g., Puerto 

Rico), and therefore were dropped from consideration 

in the connectivity analysis.The analysis does not take 

into account other network quality requirements. Some 

of these locations may have alternative networks or 

commercial services, where residential broadband is 

unavailable.

•	 OBI, The Broadband Availability Gap. The OBI 

deployment team created a nationwide model for 

broadband availability from wired and wireless 

technologies. Database of all locations in the United 

States with practicing physicians: AMA, AMA 

Physician Masterfile Database (2009) on file with 

the FCC, “The Physician Masterfile includes current 

and historical data for more than 940,000 residents 

and physicians and approximately 77,000 students 

in the United States.” Includes all active practicing 

physicians in the US and the addresses where 

they practice. Sorting by address sorts 655,630 

physicians into 346,095 locations, with a size metric 

for each one based on how many physician entries 

are associated with each location entry. Removed 

5,077 locations in Puerto Rico and other locations 

that were not included in the Statistical Model, 

leaving 346,095 locations for our analysis. Detailed 

information on this database is available from the 

AMA. AMA Physician Masterfile, http://www.

ama-assn.org/ama/pub/about-ama/physician-dataresources/physician-masterfile.shtml (last visited 

Feb. 27, 2010). 

•	 Federally Qualified Health Center Database: HRSA

Electronic Handbooks, Bureau of Primary Health 

Care Management Information System, Scope 

Repository retrieved via the HRSA Geospatial 

Data Warehouse’s Health Care Service Delivery 

Sites report at http://datawarehouse.hrsa.gov/

HGDWReports/RT_App.aspx?rpt=HS, retrieved on 

Oct. 24, 2009. 

•	 Rural Health Clinic Database: CMS, Name

and Address Listing For Rural Health Clinic 

Database (accessed Oct. 6, 2009). Updated 

versions are available at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/

MLNProducts/downloads/rhclistbyprovidername.

pdf. 

•	 Critical Access Hospitals Database: HHS, Health

Resources and Services Administration, HRSA 

Geospatial Data Warehouse—Report Tool, http://

datawarehouse.hrsa.gov/HGDWReports/RT_App.

aspx?rpt=P2 (providing data snapshot from Sept. 30, 

2009).

•	 IHS Database: IHS Feb. 23, 2010 Ex Parte, Attach. 

99 See 47 U.S.C. §§ 254(h)(1)(A), 254(h)(2)(A); 47 C.F.R. 

Part 54, Sbpt. G—Universal Service Support for Health 

Care Providers.

100 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.605–613.

101 47 C.F.R. § 54.621.

102 See Rural Health Care Support Mechanism, WC Docket 

No. 02-60, Order, 21 FCC Rcd 11111 (2006) (2006 Pilot 

Program Order); Rural Heath Care Support Mechanism, 

WC Docket No. 02-60, Order, 22 FCC Rcd 20360 

(2007) (2007 RHC PP Selection Order).

103 There were 2,570 locations that participated in the 

FCC’s Rural Health Care Program, excluding the 

Pilot Program, in 2009. Eligibility was determined 

by matching the locations of non-public and public 

institutions with the FCC’s geographic definition of 

rural. See 47 C.F.R. § 54.5. Estimate of 10,660 unique 

locations include 1,851 nonprofit hospitals, 2,612 

Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs), 3,349 

Rural Health Clinics (as defined by HHS), 358 Indian 

Health Service (by HHS rules, all IHS sites are also 

FQHCs), 607 Veterans Health Affairs, 106 Federal 

Prisons (BOP), and 3,219 public health departments. At 

the time of publication, we did not have addresses for 

individual BOP and VHA sites, so we assumed a rural/

urban split in the same proportions to IHS and hospitals, 

respectively. Public Health Departments were estimated 

as one location per county that was deemed totally 

rural by the FCC. All other locations were geo-coded by 

census block to determine eligibility. These categories 

may be inconsistent with FCC terminology, since it 

has traditionally used its own definition of “hospital” 

and “rural health clinic.” Also, 10,660 is likely an 

underestimate of eligible institutions because it does not 

count community mental health centers, postsecondary 

medical education, or state prisons.

104 See RWHC ITN Comments in re NBP PN #17, filed Dec. 

4, 2009, at 7; USF Consultants Comments in re NBP PN 

#17, filed Dec. 7, 2009, at 5.

105 USAC Feb. 23, 2010 Ex Parte at 1.

106 See PSPN Comments in re NBP PN #17, filed Dec. 4, 

2009, at 13; HNG Comments in re NBP PN #17, filed 

Dec. 4, 2009, at 5–6; MDH Comments in re NBP PN 

#17, filed Dec. 4, 2009, at 4; RWHC ITN Comments in 

re NBP PN #17, filed Dec. 4, 2009, at 7–8.

107 See IHS Comments in re NBP PN #17, filed Dec. 4, 2009, 

at 13; PSPN Comments in re NBP PN #17, filed Dec. 4, 

2009, at 15; PMHA et al. Comments in re NBP PN #17, 

filed Dec. 4, 2009, at 6; State of New York Comments in 

re NBP PN #17, filed Dec. 4, 2009, at 12.

108 Total rural health care providers determined by geocoding of the American Medical Association’s physician 

master-file (38,403), which includes every location 

where a licensed physician practices. Am. Med. Ass’n, 

AMA Physician Masterfile Database (2009). The 10,660 

locations that are eligible under the FCC’s Rural Health 

Program (see endnote 103, supra) only represent 28% of 

the total locations.

109 FCC, Rural Telemedicine Program Funds 16 More 

Broadband Telehealth Networks (press release), Feb. 

18, 2010, available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_

public/attachmatch/DOC-296348A1.pdf.

110 Safety net institutions are defined by the Health 

Resource and Services Administration (HRSA). 

HRSA, HRSA and the Safety-Net, http://answers.hrsa.

gov/cgi-bin/hrsa.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_

faqid=1702&p_created=1243947992&p_topview=1 (last 

visited Jan. 31, 2010). 

111 See 2007 RHC PP Selection Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 

20381–82, para. 47.

112 The Rural Health Care Program uses the statutory 

definition of “health care provider” established in 

section 254(h)(7)(b) of the 1996 Act, which defines 

health care providers as: (i) post-secondary educational 

institutions offering health care instruction, teaching 

hospitals, and medical schools; (ii) community health 

centers or health centers providing health care to 

migrants; (iii) local health departments or agencies; (iv) 

community mental health centers; (v) not-for-profit 

hospitals; (vi) rural health clinics; and (vii) consortia of 

health care providers consisting of one or more entities 

described in clauses (i) through (vi).

113 See for example, 47 U.S.C. § 254(h)(4), which allows 

E-rate support to private schools that have an annual 

endowment of less than $50,000,000. 

114 See 47 U.S.C. §§ 254(h)(1)(A), 254(h)(2)(A) (limiting 

support to public and nonprofit health care providers).
2 2 2 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 0

c h a p t e r 1 0 E n d n o t e s 

115 See also HHS stipulation that any physician (including 

private practice physicians) can qualify for meaningful 

use incentives, provided such physicians accepts 

Medicare or derives more than 20% of their billing from 

Medicaid patients.

116 The Recovery Act provides Medicare and Medicaid 

incentive payments to eligible providers, such as 

physicians and hospitals, in order to increase the 

adoption of electronic health records (EHRs). To 

receive the incentive payments, providers must 

demonstrate “meaningful use” of a certified EHR. 

Building upon the work done by the HIT Policy 

Committee, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services (CMS), along with the Office of the National 

Coordinator for Health Information Technology 

(ONC), are developing a proposed rule that provides 

greater detail on the incentive program and proposes a 

definition of meaningful use. See HHS, Important First 

Step to Expand the Use of Information Technology to 

Improve the Health and Care of Every American (press 

release), June 16, 2009, http://www.hhs.gov/news/

press/2009pres/06/20090616a.html.

117 As opposed to, for instance, a private hospital network, 

where the hospital shareholders directly realize 

financial gains from using such technologies. In such an 

example, the government only indirectly realizes the 

gains, where they result in reductions to overall CMS 

reimbursements. 

118 See Box 10-3, “How Health IT Saves Veterans Affairs 

Billions Each Year,” supra.

119 IHS Feb. 23, 2010 Ex Parte, Attach. Indian Health 

Service calculated the annual cost to upgrade its 

broadband networks to the minimum requirements in 

Exhibit 10.3, supra. Estimates were made using median 

prices paid across its 600+ location system. Competitive 

bidding and selective network deployment similar to 

the FCC’s universal service programs will likely reduce 

prices. Also, as ARRA funding through BIP and BTOP is 

spent on Tribal lands, the prices for service may decline. 
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 1

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 2 2 3

EDUCATION

c h a p t e r 1 1

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 1

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 2 2 5

PISA rankings show United States trailing other OECD countries

Mexico

Turkey

Greece

Italy

Portugal

25th United States

Spain

Norway

Luxembourg

Hungary

Slovak Republic

Poland

United Kingdom

France

Ireland

Sweden

Germany

Austria

Iceland

Czech Republic

Denmark

Australia

Belgium

New Zealand

Japan

Canada

Switzerland

Netherlands

Korea

Finland 548

547

531

530

527

523

522

520

520

513

510

506

505

504

502

501

496

495

495

492

491

490

490

474

466

462

459

424

406

Average=498 Average=494

480

Higher

quality

Lower

quality

Source: OECD

Mexico

Turkey

Greece

Italy

Portugal

Spain

United States

Slovak Republic

Luxembourg

Hungary

Norway

France

Iceland

United Kingdom

Czech Republic

Austria

Germany

Poland

Denmark

Sweden

Ireland

Japan

Belgium

Switzerland

Australia

Netherlands

New Zealand

Canada

Finland

Korea 552

548

527

522

519

516

514

511

511

509

505

504

502

499

498

496

495

495

492

487

487

485

479

474

470

469

465

459

436

408

24th

Average PISA mathematics score, 2006 Average PISA science score, 2006

The United States has some of the best schools and research universities in the world and 

produces top professionals in every industry. The public education system has effectively 

developed a workforce for the industrial age, and its graduates have helped the United States 

become the most prosperous nation in the world. 

However, the demands of the new information-based economy 

require substantial changes to the existing system. American 

businesses have pointed to a widening gap between the 

skills of graduates and modern workforce demands.1

 The 

U.S. Department of Labor predicts “occupations that usually require a postsecondary degree or award... to account for 

nearly half of all new jobs from 2008 to 2018.”2

 The 21st century 

workplace requires both a better-educated and a differently 

educated work force.3

While some U.S. students perform extremely well, the educational system as a whole faces huge challenges. Thirty-two 

percent of all public school students and nearly 50% of African 

American and Hispanic students fail to graduate from high 

school.4 A significant gap in achievement persists, with African 

American and Hispanic students trailing white students of the 

same age by two to three years.5

 Measured against international 

benchmarks, the United States lags significantly behind other 

advanced nations in preparing its students, particularly in math 

and science (see Exhibit 11-A).6

Researchers have been studying these outcomes for years 

and have identified several factors that need to be addressed. 

These include a scarcity of well-trained teachers in key areas 

such as science, technology, engineering and mathematics 

(STEM),7

 inequitable distribution of highly qualified teachers8

and a deficit of well-trained principals and administrators.9 In 

addition, there is widespread inability to engage students in 

learning,10 a lack of standards and assessments that measure 

learning effectively11 and insufficient access to timely, individualized content for students.12 Exacerbating these challenges are 

limited organizational transparency and accountability and 

the inability of teachers and principals to share best practices, 

content and strategies to improve achievement.13 The escalating cost of education, measured against overall results, is also a 

critical issue.14

Exhibit 11-A: 

Programme for 

International 

Student 

Assessment (PISA) 

Rankings Show 

the United States 

Trailing Other 

Organisation for 

Economic Cooperation and 

Development 

(OECD) 

Countries
2 2 6 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 1

Four core assurances drive the U.S. Department of 

Education’s strategy to address these challenges:

➤ Making progress toward rigorous college- and career-ready 

standards and high-quality assessments that are valid and 

reliable for all students, including English-language learners and students with disabilities.

➤ Establishing pre-kindergarten to college and career 

data systems that track progress and foster continuous 

improvement.

➤ Making improvements in teacher effectiveness and in the 

equitable distribution of qualified teachers for all students, 

particularly those most in need.

➤ Providing intensive support and effective interventions for 

the lowest-performing schools.15

Broadband can be an important tool to help educators, 

parents and students meet major challenges in education. The 

country’s economic welfare and long-term success depend on 

improving learning for all students,16 and broadband-enabled 

solutions hold tremendous promise to help reverse patterns of 

low achievement.

With broadband, students and teachers can expand instruction beyond the confines of the physical classroom and 

traditional school day. Broadband can also provide more 

customized learning opportunities for students to access 

high-quality, low-cost and personally relevant educational 

material.17 And broadband can improve the flow of educational 

information, allowing teachers, parents and organizations to 

make better decisions tied to each student’s needs and abilities. Improved information flow can also make educational 

product and service markets more competitive by allowing 

school districts and other organizations to develop or purchase 

higher-quality educational products and services.

This chapter is arranged in three sections. Section 11.1 

contains recommendations to help improve online learning 

opportunities, both inside and outside the classroom. Section 

11.2 recommends ways to gather and provide information that 

fosters innovation. Section 11.3 recommends changes to the 

E-rate program—which offers schools and libraries discounted 

telecommunications services, Internet access and internal 

connections to improve the broadband infrastructure available 

to schools.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Support and promote online learning

➤ The U.S. Department of Education, with support from the 

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and 

the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), should 

establish standards to be adopted by the federal government for locating, sharing and licensing digital educational 

content by March 2011.

➤ The federal government should increase the supply of digital 

educational content available online that is compatible with 

standards established by the U.S. Department of Education.

➤ The U.S. Department of Education should periodically reexamine the digital data and interoperability standards it 

adopts to ensure that they are consistent with the needs 

and practices of the educational community, including 

local, state and non-profit educational agencies and the 

private sector.

➤ Congress should consider taking legislative action to encourage copyright holders to grant educational digital rights of 

use, without prejudicing their other rights.

➤ State accreditation organizations should change kindergarten through twelfth grade (K–12) and post-secondary 

course accreditation and teacher certification requirements 

to allow students to take more courses for credit online and 

to permit more online instruction across state lines.

➤ The U.S. Department of Education and other federal agencies should provide support and funding for research and 

development of online learning systems.

➤ The U.S. Department of Education should consider investment in open licensed and public domain software alongside traditionally licensed solutions for online learning 

solutions, while taking into account the long-term effects 

on the marketplace.

➤ The U.S. Department of Education should establish a 

program to fund the development of innovative broadbandenabled online learning solutions.

➤ State education systems should include digital literacy 

standards, curricula and assessments in their English 

Language Arts and other programs, as well as adopt online 

digital literacy and programs targeting STEM.

➤ The U.S. Department of Education should provide additional grant funding to help schools train teachers in digital 

literacy and programs targeting STEM. States should 

expand digital literacy requirements and training programs 

for teachers.
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 1

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 2 2 7

Unlock the value of data and improve transparency

➤ The U.S. Department of Education should encourage the 

adoption of standards for electronic educational records.

➤ The U.S. Department of Education should develop digital 

financial data transparency standards for education. It 

should collaborate with state and local education agencies 

to encourage adoption and develop incentives for the use of 

these standards.

➤ The U.S. Department of Education should provide a simple 

Request for Proposal (RFP) online “broadcast” service 

where vendors can register to receive RFP notifications 

from local or state educational agencies within various 

product categories.

Modernize educational broadband infrastructure

➤ The FCC should adopt its pending Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) to remove barriers to off-hours community use of E-rate funded resources.

➤ The FCC should initiate a rulemaking to set goals for minimum broadband connectivity for schools and libraries and 

prioritize funds accordingly.

➤ The FCC should provide E-rate support for internal connections to more schools and libraries.

➤ The FCC should give schools and libraries more flexibility 

to purchase the lowest-cost broadband solutions.

➤ The FCC should initiate a rulemaking to raise the cap on 

funding for E-rate each year to account for inflation.

➤ The FCC should initiate a rulemaking to streamline the Erate application process.

➤ The FCC should collect and publish more specific, 

quantifiable and standardized data about applicants’ use 

of E-rate funds.

➤ The FCC should work to make overall broadband-related 

expenses more cost-efficient within the E-rate program.

➤ Congress should consider amending the Communications 

Act to help Tribal libraries overcome barriers to E-rate 

eligibility arising from state laws.

➤ The FCC should initiate a rulemaking to fund wireless connectivity to portable learning devices. Students and educators should be allowed to take these devices off campus so 

they can continue learning outside school hours.

➤ The FCC should award some E-rate funds competitively 

to programs that best incorporate broadband connectivity 

into the educational experience.

➤ Congress should consider providing additional public funds 

to connect all public community colleges with high-speed 

broadband and maintain that connectivity.

11.1 Supporting and 

promoting ONLINE

LEARNING

Broadband breaks down traditional barriers so that teaching 

and learning happen in new ways.

A student attending a rural school that does not offer an 

Advanced Placement (AP) calculus course can receive instruction online from a teacher in a different part of the state or 

even the country. That teacher, who is online because of her 

passion for the subject and because of her demonstrated ability 

to teach it, might not only provide lectures but may also use 

instant messaging and e-mail to communicate with the student. 

The teacher also might steer the student toward interactive 

tools that let students practice on their own. And the teacher 

might even pique the student’s curiosity by using video showing 

how calculus applies to real-world examples such as a major 

league baseball player hitting a home run or how Isaac Newton 

developed calculus to understand gravity and the motion of 

the planets.

A student with a strong interest in Roman history might take 

an online class that includes video of an archaeologist demonstrating Roman glassmaking techniques. Outside of school 

hours, the student might monitor a blog the archaeologist 

writes while working on a dig and might e-mail the archaeologist questions and comments.

As these examples illustrate, broadband offers tremendous 

potential to improve education. Thanks in large part to the 

$2.25 billion per year in support provided by the E-rate program, virtually every school in the country has Internet access. 

However, computer and Internet access alone do not produce 

greater student achievement.18Access needs to be combined 

with appropriate online learning content, systems and teacher 

training and support.19

Carnegie Mellon University’s Open Learning Initiative has 

shown that online learning, when “blended” with in-person 

instruction, can dramatically reduce the time required to learn 

a subject while greatly increasing course completion rates (see 

Exhibit 11-B).20

There is strong evidence that online learning classes do not 

sacrifice quality of instruction for convenience and efficiency. 

For example, students attending Florida Virtual Schools 

(FLVS) earned higher AP scores and outscored the state’s 

standardized assessment average by more than 15 percentage 

points in grades 6 through 10 (see Exhibit 11-C).2 1

 Students at Oregon Connections Academy met or exceeded 

state achievement averages,22 and students in the Florida 
2 2 8 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 1

Virtual Academy (unrelated to FLVS) have consistently 

outscored state test averages.23 In its first year, the Missouri 

Virtual Instruction Program showed significantly improved 

achievement for its students compared with the same students’ 

achievement in the same subject the previous year; greater 

percentages of these students scored 3 or higher on AP exams 

than their peers.24

Some school districts are finding that online systems can help 

with high dropout rates as well.25 Aldine Independent School 

District in Texas was able to reach at-risk students and get them 

to take classes online that earned school credit. Salem-Keizer 

School District in Oregon has re-enrolled more than 50% of 

dropouts and at-risk students through its online Bridge Program 

annually. At FLVS, 20% of the program’s students enrolled to 

earn remedial credit. The passing rate of students taking makeup courses was 90%.26 In addition to dropout prevention, online 

systems provide flexibility to students who cannot be in school 

for health, child care, work or other reasons.27

Teachers also benefit from online professional learning 

communities, lesson development websites and certified 

professional development opportunities. This allows them to 

fulfill their learning requirements in more flexible and diverse 

ways. A 2005 Texas study found the Online Post-Baccalaureate 

Program was just as successful as traditional teacher preparation programs and was more successful in attracting more 

diverse candidates in terms of race and gender. It also was more 

successful in recruiting science and math teachers.28

But there are still major barriers to realizing the full potential of online learning:

➤ There is a limited pool of high-quality digital content that 

is easily found, bought, accessed and combined with other 

content to allow teachers to customize classroom materials 

to their students’ needs.

➤ Students often have trouble obtaining course credit for 

online classes, and teachers licensed in one state may not be 

able to teach online courses in another.29

➤ Students and teachers may lack the digital literacy skills 

necessary to make use of broadband tools.30

The following recommendations, which expand digital content and online learning systems and promote digital literacy, 

will help address these barriers.

Expanding Digital Educational Content

The federal government can address the first barrier through 

three steps. First, it should define and adopt standards for finding and sharing digital educational content as well as licensing 

educational material for digital use. Teachers, students and 

other users should be able to easily find, purchase, access and 

combine any digital resources meeting the standards. Second, 

government should take steps to create a pool of digital educational resources meeting the U.S. Department of Education’s 

standards. Third, government should encourage authors and 

private sector organizations to contribute their material within 

these standards.

Recommendation 11.1: The U.S. Department of Education, with support from the National Institute of Standards 

and Technology (NIST) and the Federal Communications 

Commission (FCC), should establish standards to be adopted by the federal government for locating, sharing and 

licensing digital educational content by March 2011.

As with the music industry31 and, increasingly, with video32

and books,33 broadband can generate new models for creation, 

publication and distribution of educational resources. Greater 

flexibility in the way content can be accessed can have a direct 

Exhibit 11-B: 

Carnegie 

Mellon 

Online 

Learning 

Initiative

Student Outcomes Completion

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

84% 85%

100%

50%

41%

Traditional 99%

Hybrid
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 1

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 2 2 9

impact in the classroom. For example, it allows for differentiated instruction that can help students with variable levels 

of subject-area mastery by providing more tailored learning 

opportunities.34 A strong reader can be given more challenging 

material rather than wait while the rest of the class catches up. 

A weaker reader can be given material more appropriate to his 

level without holding back the rest of the class. Teachers can 

more easily select materials that fit the specific needs of different students. Digital content standards can help make that 

possible by offering a much wider choice of content than typically found in traditional printed curricular materials.

While digital content is available currently, there are 

significant challenges to finding, buying and integrating it 

into lessons. Content is not catalogued and indexed in a way 

that makes it easy for users to search. It is also hard for teachers to find content that is most relevant and suitable for their 

students. Even if one finds the right content, accessing it in a 

format that can be used with other digital resources is often 

difficult or impossible. And if the desired content is for sale, the 

problem is even harder because online payment and licensing 

systems often do not permit content to be combined. These 

three problems—finding, sharing and license compatibility—

are the major barriers to a more efficient and effective digital 

educational content marketplace. These barriers apply to 

organizations that want to assemble diverse digital content into 

materials for teachers to use, as well as to teachers who want to 

assemble digital content on their own.

Digital content standards will make it possible for teachers, students and other users to locate the content they need, 

access it under the appropriate licensing terms and conditions, combine it with other content and publish it. This way, a 

teacher preparing a presentation on greenhouse gas emissions 

could easily find and combine National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA) pictures and videos on the impact of 

global warming on the polar ice caps with U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) graphs on fossil fuel consumption and a textbook chapter on clean energy sources.

The U.S. Department of Education should select standards 

for digital educational content after consulting with other government agencies, the educational community and the private 

sector. Once the standards are selected, the federal government 

should ensure all educational content it develops or sponsors is 

compatible with those standards. The following recommendation lays out specific steps the U.S. Department of Education 

can take to achieve this.

Recommendation 11.2: The federal government should 

increase the supply of digital educational content available 

online that is compatible with standards established by the 

U.S. Department of Education.

➤ The Executive Branch should make digital educational resources they own available online in a format compatible 

with the standards defined in Recommendation 11.1.

➤ Whenever possible, federal investments in digital educational 

content should be made available under licenses that permit free access and derivative commercial use and should 

be compatible with the standards defined in Recommendation 11.1.

➤ The U.S. Department of Education should encourage vendors 

that sell paper-based educational materials to sell digital 

versions or provide digital rights independent of rights on 

printed materials; whenever possible this content should be 

aligned with the standards defined in Recommendation 11.1.

Exhibit 11-C: 

Florida Virtual 

Schools Students 

Taking DistanceLearning Courses 

Get Higher AP 

Scores

FLVS Students Public School Students State Average for All Students

0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Average AP Scores

3.05

2.49 2.56
2 3 0 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 1

Many federal agencies own and develop new educational 

content. Making this content available online—in accordance 

with standards that allow for discovery, sharing and license 

compatibility—has two effects. It benefits end-users as it makes 

it easier for them to use the content. And it may encourage 

third parties such as universities, publishers and individuals to 

ensure the digital resources they own and produce comply with 

the same standards.

Millions of digital learning resources already are available 

under open and commercial licenses. Publishers of digital 

content include NASA, DOE, the Corporation for Public 

Broadcasting, universities nationwide,35 large publishing 

houses and authors.36 By providing greater access to a broad 

set of educational content, the federal government can give 

teachers and schools more tools to address their instructional 

challenges. This also can create business opportunities for 

companies to develop new educational solutions without the 

costs of re-creating educational content that already exists.

In addition, the U.S. Department of Education should provide 

grants and other incentives to vendors to offer their materials 

in digital formats compatible with the standards it adopts. The 

ultimate goal of such incentives is to provide more choice for 

customers and a more competitive market. The Department 

could use incentives and other strategies to help identify and 

make available the highest-quality and most relevant digital content to educators so that teachers can find what they need with 

less effort and have a greater impact in the classroom.

Recommendation 11.3: The U.S. Department of Education should periodically reexamine the digital data and 

interoperability standards it adopts to ensure that they are 

consistent with the needs and practices of the educational 

community, including local, state, and non-profit educational agencies and the private sector.

Recommendation 11.2 above could lead to the creation of a 

large enough pool of digital educational content to catalyze the 

private sector to adopt the same set of standards or standards 

that are compatible with those chosen by the federal government. Whether or not this will in fact occur is not certain. 

Because of the quickly changing nature of this space, it is also 

possible that in the future the private sector will develop and 

adopt standards that are fundamentally different from those 

chosen by the U.S. Department of Education in the near term.

Therefore, in addition to evolving its standards definitions 

and implementations to take into account incremental market 

and technology changes, the U.S. Department of Education 

should set a specific timeline to re-examine its overall choice 

for digital educational content (e.g., every 5 years). This reexamination should take into account both the success and 

effectiveness of the chosen standards and the evolution of 

digital educational content in broader contexts such as local, 

state, non-profit and commercial content.

Recommendation 11.4: Congress should consider taking 

legislative action to encourage copyright holders to grant 

educational digital rights of use, without prejudicing their 

other rights.

New broadband-enabled solutions are transforming how 

teachers and students use content and media. But copyright 

law must keep pace as new technologies and media are developed. In part due to a lack of clarity regarding what uses of 

copyrighted works are permissible, current doctrine may have 

the effect of limiting beneficial uses of copyrighted material 

for educational purposes, particularly with respect to digital 

content and online learning. In addition, it is often difficult to 

identify rights holders and obtain necessary permissions. As a 

result, new works and great works alike may be inaccessible to 

teachers and students. For instance, a film containing archival 

and documentary footage of Martin Luther King, Jr. and the 

struggle to end segregation could no longer be shown or distributed because of the expense and legal complications of license 

renewals related to “orphan works” (copyrighted works whose 

owners are difficult or impossible to identify).37 Teachers seeking to use Beatles lyrics to promote literacy, employing music 

as a cultural bridge, could not afford the $3,000 licensing fee 

charged by the rights holders. 38 Text-to-speech features for 

the Amazon Kindle e-book reader were shut off because of a 

copyright dispute–While both parties to the dispute raised 

legitimate concerns, several universities chose not to provide 

the device to students. That, in turn, slowed the adoption of 

lower-cost e-textbooks and eliminated a useful tool for the 

visually impaired. 39 Penalties for copyright infringement can 

be substantial, 40 but the boundaries between permissible and 

impermissible uses of copyrighted works in educational contexts—particularly with respect to digital content and online 

learning—are not always clear. That produces a chilling effect 

on teachers, schools, and school districts, which limits the use 

of cultural works for educational purposes.

Increasing voluntary digital content contributions to education from all sectors can help advance online learning and 

provide new, more relevant information to students at virtually 

no cost to content providers. Congress should consider ways for 

Exhibit 11-D:

Proposed Copyright 

Notice Permitting Free 

Educational Use 
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 1

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 2 3 1

budgets and programming flexibility.47

Despite the benefits of distance learning, students often 

have trouble obtaining course credit for online classes. Also, 

teachers licensed in one state may not be able to teach online 

courses in another.48 Although many states and districts offer 

make-up courses online, very few virtual schools are able to 

grant high school diplomas.49

It is unusual for a teacher certified in one state to be allowed to teach in another without recertification. If a teacher 

experienced in a specific subject is available in one state but 

the student is enrolled in a different state, current regulations 

can make it difficult and sometimes impossible for the student 

to obtain course credit. Additionally, many states have course 

hour requirements that make it challenging to obtain course 

credit from online solutions that do not track “seat time” in the 

same way as traditional classes.

While states need to change their requirements, the U.S. 

Department of Education should help states work 

together to achieve the national goal of improving online 

education opportunities.

Recommendation 11.6: The U.S. Department of Education and other federal agencies should provide support and 

funding for research and development of online learning 

systems.

Online learning systems too often are deployed without effective research and development strategies. Moreover, designs 

are often not improved over time based on quantitative data.50

Because online learning can take place “anytime, anywhere,” 

research has proved to be more difficult than for in-class 

instruction.51 The federal government can help by supporting, 

requiring and publishing data on the effective—and ineffective—aspects of online learning systems.

As online learning systems are deployed, research must 

be designed to measure their effectiveness—including “realtime, interaction-level data on how [students] are learning to 

inform further course revisions and improvements.”52 The U.S. 

Department of Education and state governments can play a key 

role in this process by using field research and other data to 

highlight the most promising systems.

Recommendation 11.7: The U.S. Department of Education should consider investments in open licensed and 

public domain software alongside traditionally licensed 

solutions for online learning solutions, while taking into 

account the long-term effects on the marketplace.

Cost is a significant problem for online learning solutions: 

Utah’s state government said that it “lack[s] affordable digital asset management systems that will be able to take full 

advantage of public repositories of information such as that 

educators to interact with their students using new educational 

content contributed by the public in the following ways: 

➤ Update TEACH Act. Congress could consider updating the 

TEACH Act41 to better allow educators and students to use 

content for educational purposes in distance and online 

learning environments without prejudicing the other rights 

of copyright holders.

➤ New Copyright Notice. Congress could consider directing the 

Register of Copyrights to create additional copyright notices 

to allow copyright owners to authorize certain educational 

uses while reserving their other rights (see Exhibit 11-D).

➤ Facilitate Licensing. Congress could consider providing a 

statutory framework to facilitate identification of copyright 

holders and securing of permissions in an efficient and 

cost-effective way, while retaining existing protections for 

educational uses without exceeding permissible exceptions 

and limitations under copyright law.

Expanding Online Learning Systems

Effective broadband-based solutions exist. But they often 

are deployed only in limited ways for various reasons, including regulatory barriers, market forces, limited resources and 

capacity constraints. Many promising ideas and applications 

have been developed in ways that do not foster wide-scale use 

and adoption or integration into the classroom. The following 

recommendations propose steps to bring online learning opportunities to scale.

Recommendation 11.5: State accreditation organizations 

should change kindergarten through twelfth grade (K–12) 

and post-secondary course accreditation and teacher 

certification requirements to allow students to take more 

courses for credit online and permit more online instruction across state lines.

Educational opportunities in the United States are distributed inequitably, usually because of unequal access to 

high-quality teachers and curricula.42 Online learning can help 

reduce such disparities.

In a survey of more than 10,000 school districts, 70% of 

respondents saw distance learning43 as important for delivering courses not otherwise available in their schools; 60% cited 

AP courses. Forty percent cited distance learning as a way to 

provide certified teachers when not enough are available for 

face-to-face instruction.44 Rural and high-poverty schools often 

have difficulty placing highly qualified teachers in every classroom.45 Rural districts, in particular, strongly identify distance 

learning as important for meeting the needs of their students, 

who do not always have access to specialized teachers.46 These 

schools, as well as charter and small schools, have difficulty 

affording teachers for advanced classes because of limited 
2 3 2 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 1

made available from the PBS Digital Learning Library and the 

vast treasure trove of online content yet to be harvested from 

other public repositories like the National Archives and the 

Smithsonian Institution.”53 Traditionally, licensed commercial 

products can cost 10–13% more in total cost of ownership than 

open-source equivalents, while delivering equivalent capability.54 Although adopting open-source software has unique 

risks, it can also offer significant benefits when implemented 

appropriately.

Some federal and state agencies have already found opensource software to be cost-effective across a wide array of 

applications. The Department of Defense determined in 2006 

that it was inadvertently increasing its own software costs “by 

not enabling internal distribution” of open-source technologies.55 By funding development of innovative educational 

software applications under open-source licenses, the U.S. 

Department of Education may, in some cases, be able to accelerate the deployment of new technologies until they are mature 

enough to be resold by the educational vendor community.

Where suitable commercial online learning products are 

already available, it may be cheaper to buy product licenses 

rather than develop new open licensed solutions. However, 

open licensed investments can offer an additional strategy that 

can be pursued alongside licensing to strengthen the solutions 

available to the educational market. Ensuring that private 

capital continues to enter the educational online learning market needs to be an important consideration when the federal 

government considers open licensing strategies.

Recommendation 11.8: The U.S. Department of Education should establish a program to fund development of 

innovative broadband-enabled online learning solutions.

Currently, the educational technology market suffers from 

“a classic market failure . . . that discourages private industry 

from heavily investing in basic research to exploit emerging information technologies for learning . . . This situation 

requires a federal research investment to do for learning what 

the National Science Foundation does for science, the National 

Institutes of Health does for health and what the Defense 

Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) does for 

defense.”56 Education markets, however, are “notoriously difficult to enter [because] they are highly fragmented and often 

highly political.”57

Government investment in other sectors has helped fill 

gaps in private investment.58 For example, federal funding for 

research in broadband technologies has encouraged numerous 

innovations, creating billions of dollars of economic value.59

Several examples exist of government funding of innovation in education. The American Graduation Initiative bill 

proposes $50 million over 10 years to finance an Online Skills 

Laboratory (OSL) to develop innovative learning solutions for 

Community Colleges. OSL’s proposed focus on solutions that 

are free for use and resale will help ensure that the innovations that emerge can be used widely. The U.S. Department 

of Education’s Race to the Top and Investing in Innovation 

funds are also good examples. But these programs have limited 

funding cycles. Attention and funding must be given over an 

extended period to ensure that the best ideas, products and 

businesses survive to become marketable and sustainable.

Establishing such an “ARPA-ED”60 educational broadband investment fund with a longer lifetime—eight years, for example—to 

make seed loans and grants to early-stage education companies or 

nonprofits can help stimulate sector-wide progress.

Promoting Digital Literacy

In an increasingly digital world, literacy must be defined more 

broadly to include fluency in digital skills and information. 

Digital literacy is “the ability to find, evaluate, utilize, and create information using digital technology.”61 Additional skills 

include “the ability to read and interpret media (text, sound, 

images), to reproduce data and images through digital manipulation and to evaluate and apply new knowledge gained from 

digital environments.”62 It can include the ability to analyze 

and reflect critically on digital media.63 Digital citizenship and 

safety are often included in definitions of digital literacy as 

well. A detailed consideration of digital literacy can be found 

in Chapter 9 of this plan. The following recommendations 

address strategies to promote digital literacy for educators 

and students.

Recommendation 11.9: State education systems should 

include digital literacy standards, curricula and assessments 

in their English Language Arts and other programs, as well as 

adopt online digital literacy and programs targeting STEM.

Digital literacy skills are required to take full advantage of online learning systems64 and future job opportunities. But students 

and teachers often lack such skills.65 While today’s students may 

be competent with some technology, they are far from expert 

when it comes to locating and using information.66 Internet skill 

levels and usage rates among young people in the European Union 

now exceed those of their peers in the United States.67

Many U.S. students can handle computer keyboards and 

wireless devices, but digital literacy involves more than the 

ability to use a device. Students must be able to analyze problems so they can determine what information is needed to 

perform an academic or work task; access, assimilate, organize and analyze the information; interpret the information; 

conduct research; and effectively communicate their understanding and interpretation of the information to others.68

Integrating digital literacy into existing subject areas such as 
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 1

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 2 3 3

English Language Arts allows for these skills to be used and 

developed in a practical manner, without taking time away 

from other subjects by creating stand-alone courses. Students 

must also understand their ethical responsibilities online and 

know how to stay safe while using advanced broadband technologies.69 To succeed in the 21st century workplace, students 

must be digitally proficient at developing, advancing and applying their own knowledge and skills within virtually any field 

or profession.70

Recommendation 11.10: The U.S. Department of Education should provide additional grant funding to help 

schools train teachers in digital literacy and programs targeting STEM. States should expand digital literacy requirements and training programs for teachers.

Achieving digital literacy goals for students means teachers also must be digitally literate (see Box 11-1). While teacher 

use of technology continues to grow, most teachers still do not 

use technology in their classrooms for many key activities.75

Teachers without digital literacy skills find it difficult to incorporate online learning solutions into instruction. Similarly, 

it is hard for students who lack such skills to engage with the 

systems to learn.76

Teachers report that teaching online requires different skills 

than teaching in a bricks-and-mortar classroom.77 Students 

also need training in online learning methods. Consequently, 

teachers need training both as online instructors and in 

teaching methods that combine online and face-to-face 

learning.78 Online courses at the secondary level often serve 

younger-than-average students seeking access to accelerated 

courses in math or science that are not available in their regular 

schools. Online courses also serve older-than-average students 

needing a slower pace and more individualized attention.79 This 

variability in students’ skills, combined with the geographical 

distribution that occurs in an online environment, provides additional challenges for which teachers must prepare.

11.2 UNLOCKING THE

POWER OF DATA

AND Improving

TRANSPARENCY

Ideally, a teacher would have real-time access to accurate information about each student’s mastery of skills, course grades, 

test scores and progress over time. Other pertinent information 

would include the student’s behavior and learning style, his or 

her prior experiences in school and more. As students transfer 

among multiple classrooms during the year—something more 

likely to happen with at-risk children—the same information 

would be available as soon as the child walks through the door. 

In addition, if an issue arose that was outside a teacher’s experience—for instance, providing alternative teaching strategies for 

an individual student—the teacher would have instantaneous 

access to online information about the issue and, perhaps, to 

experts and colleagues who could offer advice.

In addition to benefiting individual students and teachers, 

the creation of a large-scale pool of electronic educational 

records could potentially transform education. Anonymized 

records with detailed data on schools, educators and students 

would allow educators to determine in a fact-based fashion 

what works and when, and what the actual costs and benefits 

are of different practices. It would allow researchers to learn 

from the best practices and brightest ideas of every great 

teacher and principal in America. It would help educators 

determine when improved educational outcomes are a consequence of practices and techniques that are transferable to 

different contexts or due to factors not directly associated with 

educational practices.

At the moment, however, schools run on a patchwork 

of proprietary data systems that make sharing meaningful 

information about students slow and difficult. Disjointed 

administrative systems and processes currently keep schools, 

school systems, colleges and universities from conducting fast, 

Online Learning Can Support 

Investment in STEM

Expertise in STEM will be 

critical to maintaining the 

United States’ competitive 

edge in the 21st century.71

A critical shortage of highly 

qualified math and science 

teachers, particularly in lowincome urban school districts 

and rural districts, threatens 

this competitive edge.72 Providing access to more online 

learning systems, coursework 

and materials in STEM can 

improve opportunities for 

students who are interested 

in working in these areas 

but lack local, high-quality 

learning opportunities.73

The Executive Office of the 

President recently announced 

a $250 million public-private 

investment for STEM teacher 

recruitment, professional 

development and the use of 

innovative teaching methods 

such as online learning. This 

is an excellent example of 

the kind of investment that 

should be made in this area.74

In addition, improved online 

solutions for professional 

development of teachers can 

help train new teachers and 

give existing teachers new 

techniques and resources for 

instruction in these fields.

BOX 11-1:
2 3 4 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 1

records (see Chapter 10).84 The federal government should also 

encourage development of electronic educational records to 

allow schools to support each student with a more complete 

digital picture.

Information in an electronic educational record could include 

student demographic and academic information as well as course 

history, student work, attendance and health data. Electronic 

educational records also could include information about teachers, schools, curriculum and other administrative data. Currently, 

these data often are stored in a variety of systems across a school 

or district and sometimes are available only on paper.

Data stored in these systems typically cannot be transferred from one system to another. This means it is expensive 

and time-consuming to look at all the different data together. 

Consequently, it can be difficult or impossible to analyze data 

for trends about what kind of instruction seems to be producing 

the best results. The inability to share data in a standardized 

form also makes it hard to identify students requiring special 

attention, especially those who change schools frequently.

Complete pictures of student performance need to be 

available to teachers, principals, districts, states, the federal 

government, research communities and colleges and universities.85 More effective tools and standards are needed to create a 

national network of data systems to manage and transfer data 

between organizations while maintaining student privacy.

The U.S. Department of Education, along with a number 

of states, independent standards groups and other organizations, have been working toward developing educational 

data-sharing solutions for more than a decade.86 The U.S. 

Department of Education is currently working on a National 

Educational Data Model, which is a critical step toward data 

sharing and interoperability. The Schools Interoperability 

Framework Association, IMS Global Learning Consortium 

and others continue to advance important technical standards. 

Numerous components remain undeveloped. And many of the 

existing incentives for local education agencies and states to 

adopt electronic educational records are insufficient to justify 

the cost and risk associated with implementation. A more 

comprehensive solution is required. The U.S. Department 

of Education is positioned to convene the necessary stakeholders to develop an effective national solution that 

accommodates the different needs of the educational agencies 

across the country.

The federal government needs to:

➤ Develop standards for electronic educational records and the 

ability to share this information through interoperability.

➤ Encourage state and local adoption of electronic education 

records consistent with these standards.

➤ Integrate digital authentication.

➤ Strengthen and modernize privacy and protection laws.

efficient transfers of student data and related information.80

Consequently, teachers often have only bare-bones information about their students. “Only 37 percent of all teachers 

reported having electronic access to achievement data for the 

students in their classrooms in 2007.”81 This results in a situation where “a significant proportion of teachers still do not 

have access to the data necessary for making instructional decisions.”82 Any design of electronic educational records should 

account for parent and student privacy and rights to control 

their information, as well as the need for schools and researchers to share data.

Schools suffer from other data issues, too. They lack adequate market data about vendors, products and services, 

making purchases of technology and resources inefficient.83

The difficulty in obtaining overall market data means federal and state policies are not always informed by up-to-date 

information about what products and services are in use, which 

product categories are growing quickly and where rapid turnover in product choices might indicate underlying problems 

that policy could address.

The recommendations that follow address a number of the 

barriers preventing the free and efficient flow of information 

in education.

Recommendation 11.11: The U.S. Department of Education should encourage the adoption of standards for electronic educational records.

➤ The U.S. Department of Education should support 

and accelerate the adoption of electronic educational 

records capability among states and local education 

agencies. It should also set standards for sharing this 

information so data can be transferred across states.

➤ The U.S. Department of Education should support any 

secure authentication strategy developed by the Federal 

Chief Information Officer that permits private, decentralized identification of educational agencies, students 

and their data records.

➤ The U.S. Department of Education should recommend to 

Congress updates to student data privacy and protection 

laws that would improve online educational services.

The health care and education sectors face similar problems: 

Just as educators lack important information about students’ 

histories, doctors and nurses are often in the dark about the 

needs of new patients who arrive for treatment for the first 

time. These patients may have long, complicated histories of 

symptoms and treatments, many of which may not be readily 

apparent without careful interview and diagnosis. And the risks 

of missing an important issue are severe. The federal government is making significant investments in electronic health 
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 1

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 2 3 5

Working toward the goal of national educational data 

sharing, the U.S. Department of Education should convene 

stakeholders to adopt the standards by implementing them in 

ways that make it easier for schools to satisfy reporting requirements or by funding projects that help vendors test and 

implement the standards in their products.

Privacy and data protection laws for students and their 

families need to be modernized to reap the full benefit of improved information flow about student performance while still 

fully protecting student data. For example, organizations offer 

tutoring and supplemental services to students, but the legal 

status of the data they collect is unclear. Issues include whether 

parents and regulators have the same rights to the data as they 

have with school records. A relatively small change in the law to 

allow parents to combine data from outside sources with school 

data would provide a richer picture of students’ learning needs 

so all providers can support them effectively. There may also be 

cases in which fine-grained levels of privacy control are appropriate. For example, students should be able to select and share 

their best work with other educational institutions, the military 

or future employers from within their digital portfolios or other 

materials linked to electronic educational records.

Recommendation 11.12: The U.S. Department of Education should develop digital financial data transparency 

standards for education. It should collaborate with state 

and local education agencies to encourage adoption and 

develop incentives for the use of these standards.

The public education system is highly decentralized, with 

total annual spending of hundreds of billions of dollars.87

Escalating expenditures in education have not resulted in 

improvement in student gains.88 Public education finances 

are a matter of public record. But it is difficult—if not impossible—to aggregate this information because it is stored in a 

distributed manner across thousands of county, district and 

regional administrative agencies. As a result, decisions about 

how to invest resources in education are often made without 

the benefit of understanding what investments have the greatest impact.

The benefits of improving access to these financial data over 

the Internet could be significant. State and local education 

agencies, academic researchers and others could more easily 

gather and analyze financial data to inform resource allocation decisions at the school, district, state and national levels, 

as well as research and policy questions about the educational 

impact of financial decisions. In addition, the availability of 

school expenditure data in machine-readable format may motivate the development of new applications and tools for school 

communities, districts and other support organizations to help 

them manage finances more effectively.

In some circumstances, making financial information—

including product pricing—easier to access, compare and 

analyze can lead to tacit price collusion among competing 

providers and to overall higher prices.89 Delaying publication of 

these data, or aggregating them in ways that still allow meaningful and actionable tracking and comparison, could help 

reduce the chances that collusion will occur while still providing the benefits of making financial data more accessible. In 

developing standards and procedures for collecting and sharing 

educational financial data in digital form, the U.S. Department 

of Education should determine the appropriate level of aggregation for financial data collection90 and amount of time that 

should elapse between expenditure and publication, based on 

trends in market pricing.

Recommendation 11.13: The U.S. Department of Education should provide a simple Request for Proposal (RFP) 

online “broadcast” service where vendors can register to 

receive RFP notifications from local or state educational 

agencies within various product categories.

In addition to financial data transparency standards for education, the federal government can provide RFP notification 

services—similar to RSS feeds on the traditional Internet—

where vendors could register to receive notifications of new 

RFPs and where local educational agencies (LEAs) could transmit their RFPs when they want to receive maximum exposure 

and bidding for a purchasing contract.91 This would make it 

easier for LEAs to find vendors with products or services they 

want to purchase. Past RFPs could be stored in a central repository as they are posted, providing useful historical data.

This product pricing information database and RFP broadcast service could together give many LEAs the opportunity 

to improve their ability to find and acquire the best product or 

service at the best price.

11.3 MODERNIZing

EDUCATIONAL 

BROADBAND

INFRASTRUCTURE

Congress directed the FCC in 1996 to provide discounts on 

telecommunications and other services “to elementary schools, 

secondary schools and libraries for educational purposes”92

and authorized the FCC to support broadband services as part 

of that program.93 In response, the FCC developed the Schools 

and Libraries universal service support mechanism (also 
2 3 6 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 1

known as E-rate), which offers schools and libraries the chance 

to receive telecommunications services, Internet access and internal connections at a discounted rate. Thousands of schools 

and libraries have received billions of dollars since the E-rate 

program began 12 years ago. 

As a result, Internet access is nearly universal in the nation’s 

schools and libraries. Today, about 97% of public schools have 

access to the Internet.94 In classrooms, more and more students 

have access to Internet-connected computers, and 94% of 

instructional rooms have at least some Internet access.95 In addition, in-school use of the Internet and technology by students 

and teachers is growing rapidly.96 Public schools are connected 

to a district network 92% of the time. Types of connections 

from schools to districts include direct fiber (55%), T-1 or DS1 

lines (26%) and wireless connections (16%).97

Eighty-four percent of districts have district-wide networks. These districts have connections to Internet service 

provider(s) via T-1 or DS1 lines (42%), direct fiber (37%), 

wireless connections (18%), broadband cable (13%) and T-3 or 

DS3 lines (12%). Direct fiber connections are found in a larger 

percentage of city districts than in suburban, town or rural 

districts (62% versus 49%, 46% and 24%, respectively). More 

rural districts than city districts report T-1 or DS1 connections 

(51% versus 18%).98

However, inadequate connectivity speeds and infrastructure 

issues are frequently reported,99 and bandwidth demands are 

projected to rise dramatically over the next few years.100 Moreover, 

there is pent-up demand in schools and communities for access to 

more broadband content and tools. This demand has not been met 

in part because applicants require greater bandwidth to use these 

tools; E-rate provisions do not always support the latest strategies 

for deploying broadband networks (which have evolved significantly since 1996); the application process is cumbersome; and 

the E-rate program is oversubscribed.101

Additionally, many schools will need significant upgrades to 

meet projected broadband bandwidth demands in the future.102

Online educational systems are rapidly taking learning outside 

the classroom, creating a potential situation where students 

with access to broadband at home will have an even greater 

advantage over those students who can only access these 

resources at their public schools and libraries. The E-rate program needs to be updated and strengthened to ensure the rapid 

growth of online learning and data sharing in education are not 

limited by insufficient bandwidth.

This section recommends a number of changes to the E-rate 

program to address these challenges and the opportunities 

presented by new broadband-enabled technologies.

Three key goals should drive modernization of the E-rate 

program:

➤ Improve flexibility, deployment and use of infrastructure

➤ Improve program efficiency

➤ Foster innovation

Improve Flexibility, Deployment and Use of Infrastructure

Recommendation 11.14: The FCC should adopt its pending 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to remove barriers 

to off-hours community use of E-rate funded resources.

Currently, FCC rules require schools seeking support under 

the E-rate program to certify that services funded by E-rate 

“will be used solely for educational purposes.”103 Schools are 

the site of many community activities. Use of school networks 

should be permitted when such activities do not interfere with 

the educational use of the network. Moreover, such access 

should be available free of charge because the school’s excess 

capacity is otherwise unused. For example, adult job-training 

programs by community nonprofits are currently discouraged from using school network facilities because of network 

cost-sharing requirements—even though night-time programs 

would have no impact on students’ network use. Schools should 

have the option to use their broadband resources in this way. 

Numerous organizations have cited the benefits these changes 

would bring to schools and communities.104

The FCC recently approved an order to temporarily waive 

the rules dealing with these barriers, and it should adopt its 

pending NPRM to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation 11.15: The FCC should initiate a rulemaking to set goals for minimum broadband connectivity 

for schools and libraries and prioritize funds accordingly.

All schools and libraries should provide sufficient broadband 

Internet access to their students and patrons. Setting minimum 

service goals for schools and libraries can help ensure adequate 

services to all communities. Minimum service goals for schools 

and libraries should not be set based on speed and quality of 

service alone. Factors including the number of peak active users 

as well as the type and quantity of broadband services consumed 

should be factored into defining these minimum service goals. 

The minimum service goals for schools and libraries should be 

adjusted regularly (every three to five years) because broadband 

bandwidth requirements change frequently.105

Some schools and libraries need help making the transition 

to broadband. Data from the Universal Service Administrative 

Company (USAC) for FY2009 show the E-rate program 

received at least 200 requests for funding for dial-up access to 

the Internet. The FCC should investigate the reasons behind 

those funding requests. For example, the FCC should explore 

whether those schools and libraries lack access to the physical 

infrastructure necessary for broadband, whether it is simply an 

issue of funding and/or whether they lack the other resources, 
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 1

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 2 3 7

such as hardware, to make the best use of faster connectivity 

speeds. The FCC should also examine whether there are economic and social characteristics of the communities relevant to 

those 200 requests that are common. For example, do they tend 

to be communities with a large percentage of residents that are 

lower-income? The FCC should determine if there are other 

communities that may have similar characteristics and may 

need this funding.

Once the barriers to access and adoption have been identified, the FCC should develop strategies to address those 

barriers. For example, the FCC could give additional funding to 

or place a higher priority on schools and libraries using dial-up 

so that they could transition to broadband services. Such a plan 

could also be used to upgrade schools and libraries with lowtier broadband services.

Recommendation 11.16: The FCC should provide E-rate 

support for internal connections to more schools and 

libraries.

The E-rate program provides two “priorities” for discounting telecommunications services. Priority 1 is for external 

telecommunications connections and Priority 2 is for internal 

connections and wiring. While the E-rate program has always 

been able to fund all Priority 1 requests, Priority 2 funding 

requests have exceeded the E-rate program’s cap in every year 

but one during the program’s existence. In the past 10 years, 

only the neediest schools and libraries have received funding 

for the internal connections necessary to utilize increased 

broadband capacity, and the vast majority of requests for 

internal connections have gone unfunded. For example, in 

funding year 2007, applicants requested more than $2 billion 

for internal connections and internal connections maintenance but only $600 million was authorized for funding. 

Only schools or libraries at a discount level of 81% or higher 

received funding.

The result is that the vast majority of schools and libraries, 

while receiving discounts to help pay for broadband services, 

do not receive funds for the internal infrastructure necessary 

to utilize increased broadband capacity. In order to ensure 

that schools and libraries have robust broadband connections 

and the capability to deliver that capacity to classrooms and 

computer rooms, the FCC should develop ways that Priority 2 

funding can be made available to more E-rate applicants.

Recommendation 11.17: The FCC should give schools 

and libraries more flexibility to purchase the lowest-cost 

broadband solutions.

Numerous E-rate applicants have provided input in the 

National Broadband Plan record, asserting that current E-rate 

rules do not always make it possible for them to acquire the 

lowest-cost, highest-value broadband available to them. 

Applicants should be able to acquire the lowest-cost broadband service, whether it is a fully leased or a mixed lease/own 

solution. For instance, the current ineligibility of dark fiber 

prevents applicants from pursuing lower-cost mixed lease/

own strategies for broadband infrastructure. Allowing funding 

for ownership or leasing of dark fiber and associated communications equipment could allow recipients to use locally 

underutilized commercial or governmental capacity to provide 

lower-cost, high-value broadband instead of leased services 

currently eligible for E-rate discounts. The FCC should reexamine specific E-rate rules that appear to limit the flexibility 

of applicants to craft the most cost-effective broadband solutions based on the types of broadband infrastructure, services 

and providers available in their geographic areas.

For example, the Mukilteo School District in the state of 

Washington reports that it currently uses dark fiber (without 

support from E-rate) at a cost of $0.0009/student/Mbps/

month, which is 1/300th of the cost charged by a telecommunications carrier for a similar E-rate-approved service (costing 

$0.27/student/Mbps/month).106 The district indicates its costs 

include maintenance and service level agreements providing 

equivalent service to an E-rate-eligible service. Similarly, the 

Council of Great City Schools noted the flexibility to lease dark 

fiber from providers and own the related equipment would 

permit “the most cost-effective pricing” for schools and libraries.107 The state of Wisconsin said E-rate should prefer the most 

cost-effective solution.108 Other commenters expressed support 

for giving recipients more flexibility to use dark fiber as part 

of their broadband solutions. These organizations also said 

participants need more flexibility to reduce the overall cost of 

broadband, increase bandwidth and participate in local and 

regional networks using dark fiber.109

The E-rate program already has a three-year amortization 

rule for “special construction” fees that E-rate applicants pay 

carriers that construct infrastructure to serve them. This is done 

to avoid front-loading the E-rate fund with expenses tied to such 

long-lasting projects. Extending this rule to situations where 

recipients receive funding for broadband solutions that may 

involve ownership or mixed lease/ownership of network components—such as the need to purchase equipment to light leased 

dark fiber—could reduce the short-term impact on the fund.
2 3 8 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 1

Improve Program Efficiency

Recommendation 11.18: The FCC should initiate a rulemaking to raise the cap on funding for E-rate each year to 

account for inflation.

The current program’s annual spending has fallen by about 

$650 million in inflation-adjusted dollars since the program 

began.110 It also is significantly oversubscribed, leaving most 

internal wiring requests unmet each year. Annual funding 

applications consistently have exceeded the cap by nearly a 

two-to-one margin. Some applicants do not apply for internal 

wiring (Priority 2) funding because they know from experience 

the cap is reached before many Priority 2 requests are funded.111

The E-rate program should be indexed to the inflation rate to 

prevent continued depreciation.112

Recommendation 11.19: The FCC should initiate a rulemaking to streamline the E-rate application process.

The FCC has reduced administrative burdens on applicants 

over the past several years. However, procedural complexities 

still exist, sometimes resulting in applicant mistakes and the 

imposition of unnecessary administrative costs. These complexities also may deter eligible entities from even applying for 

funds in the first place. The FCC should continue to protect 

the E-rate program from waste, fraud and abuse. However, 

straightforward modifications to the program can improve the 

administration, allocation and disbursement of funds while 

still ensuring that funding is used for its intended purpose.

Some existing application requirements may be unduly 

burdensome and also may result in applicants duplicating their 

efforts in order to meet other federal or state requirements. 

The FCC can ease burdens on applicants for Priority 1 services 

that enter into multiyear contracts. Applications for small 

amounts could be streamlined with a simplified application 

similar to the “1040EZ” form the Internal Revenue Service 

makes available for some taxpayers. The FCC should also 

work with other relevant federal agencies, including the U.S. 

Department of Education and the Department of Agriculture, 

to streamline requirements between agencies and ensure that 

schools and libraries do not have to duplicate work because 

of uncoordinated deadlines or other requirements that differ 

only slightly.113

Recommendation 11.20: The FCC should collect and 

publish more specific, quantifiable and standardized data 

about applicants’ use of E-rate funds.

Currently, USAC obtains from applicants applying for 

E-rate funding certain basic information about their Internet 

connectivity but does not analyze the responses in the aggregate.114 As a result, the FCC lacks comprehensive knowledge of 

the different types or capacities of broadband services that are 

supported through the E-rate program. The collection of this 

type of information from E-rate program participants will enable the FCC to determine how the E-rate program can better 

meet applicants’ needs. Therefore, the FCC should modify the 

relevant FCC forms to determine more accurately how schools 

and libraries connect to the Internet, their precise levels of 

connectivity and how they use broadband. The collection of 

this additional information will enable the FCC to continue to 

improve the management and design of the program as network 

technologies and uses change in the future.

Recommendation 11.21: The FCC should work to make 

overall broadband-related expenses more cost-efficient 

within the E-rate program.

The FCC should encourage schools and libraries to use state, 

regional, Tribal and local networks to increase school and library 

purchasing power.115 It should support the establishment of state, 

regional, Tribal and local networks through the E-rate program. In 

addition, better collaboration among state and federal programs, 

including the FCC’s Rural Health Care Program, could reduce 

the potential waste of federal resources and maximize available 

federal funding for broadband-related projects.116 The FCC should 

explore creative solutions to aid schools and libraries in reducing 

their broadband-related costs so that they can purchase the maximum amount of broadband for their limited dollars. For example, 

the FCC could establish a website that facilitates an exchange of 

information among federal agencies, state networks and schools 

and libraries so that the state networks can provide consulting 

support and share best practices for efficient technological solutions for broadband needs. The same website could also allow 

state networks to collaborate and share information with federal 

agencies so that federal funding for broadband projects can be 

better utilized.117

Recommendation 11.22: Congress should consider amending the Communications Act to help Tribal libraries overcome 

barriers to E-rate eligibility arising from state laws.

Current eligibility requirements for the E-rate program 

prevent Tribal libraries in some states from qualifying for 

E-rate funding.118 Under the Communications Act, a library can 

be eligible for E-rate funding only if it is eligible for assistance 

from a state library administrative agency under the Library 

Services and Technology Act (LSTA). LSTA has two types of 

library grants that primarily relate to governmental entities: 

one for states and one for federally recognized Tribes and organizations that primarily serve and represent Native Hawaiians. 

To be eligible for E-rate funds, a Tribal library must be eligible 

for state LSTA funds and not just Tribal LSTA funds. However, 

some states preclude Tribal libraries from being eligible to 
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 1

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 2 3 9

receive state LSTA funds, thus making Tribal libraries in those 

states ineligible for E-rate funding. Congress should consider 

amending the Act to allow Tribal libraries to become eligible 

for E-rate funding if they are eligible to receive funding from 

either a state library administrative agency or a Tribal government under the LSTA.119 The FCC should also explore ways to 

remove technical barriers that may prevent some Tribal libraries from receiving E-rate support.

Foster Innovation

Recommendation 11.23: The FCC should initiate a rulemaking to fund wireless connectivity to portable learning 

devices. Students and educators should be allowed to take 

these devices off campus so they can continue learning 

outside school hours.

Online learning can occur anytime, anywhere. Research 

shows that home use of computers and broadband technologies 

for learning can be a significant factor in boosting math and 

reading achievement.120 Use of computers and broadband at 

home for educational purposes has also been shown to motivate students and to increase the relevance of content during 

school hours—ultimately improving student achievement.121

E-rate should support online learning by providing wireless connectivity to portable learning devices so students122

can engage in learning while not at school. Restricting student 

access to network services while on school grounds is becoming 

increasingly indefensible given the new educational opportunities presented by cloud-based desktops, smartphones, tablet 

PCs, netbooks and other highly portable solutions. Demand for 

wireless services in education is rapidly growing, and students 

without off-campus access to online educational services will 

be increasingly left behind in terms of skills, experience and 

confidence in their online capabilities.

Where applicant-managed hardware can use wireless services off campus, E-rate should provide appropriate Priority 

1 discounts for those services. Potentially high demand for 

this service should be accounted for in the program design to 

ensure equitable overall distribution of E-rate funds. For example, providing a limited amount of funding for wireless services 

within a pilot program could help determine demand levels and 

cost-effectiveness.123

Recommendation 11.24: The FCC should award some Erate funds competitively to programs that best incorporate 

broadband connectivity into the educational experience.

Competitive programs are an effective strategy in government and philanthropy to stimulate new ideas, reward the best 

applicants, spread new ideas and make efficient use of scarce 

resources. E-rate is designed to provide telecommunications 

services to all schools and libraries. It is also intended to ensure 

that advanced services are deployed and improved over time. 

By rewarding innovative ideas, the E-rate program can encourage more strategic integration of broadband into education 

by applicants as well as recognize and potentially spread best 

practices among applicants. Broadband-enabled solutions are 

demonstrating new pathways for innovation and research in 

education.124 According to Philip R. Regier, Dean of Arizona 

State University’s Online and Extended Campus program, the 

education system is “at an inflection point in online education”125 with large increases in use and improvements in quality 

expected in the near future.

The U.S. Department of Education is encouraging similar 

innovation in education with its Race to the Top and Investing 

in Innovation programs. A competitive component to E-rate 

could foster similar innovative applications for use of broadband networks nationwide. Importantly, competitions should 

be designed to offer funding opportunities both to smaller 

institutions with fewer resources to develop competitive applications and larger institutions with the ability to undertake 

larger programs.

Providing Connectivity to Community Colleges

Recommendation 11.25: Congress should consider providing additional public funds to connect all public community 

colleges with high-speed broadband and maintain that connectivity.

Community colleges are anchor institutions for training 

a highly skilled 21st century workforce. Providing broadband 

connectivity to these institutions will help provide better 

services to students.126 As of 2007, according to the Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System, there were 1,138 public 

two-year institutions in the United States.127 These institutions 

operated an estimated 3,439 distinct campuses. Only 16% of 

these public community college campuses currently have highspeed broadband connections comparable to those of American 

research universities.128

Access to high-quality broadband connectivity and innovative online technologies will allow community colleges to 

extend their reach even further. They can offer powerful learning opportunities to even broader audiences. With adequate 

funding and innovative technology development, community 

colleges can offer college credit for online courses for advanced 

high school students; offer specialized science and technology 

online learning experiences in subjects where there are too 

few specialized K–12 teachers; support adult students through 

personalized career and technical programs while working 
2 4 0 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 1

around the needs of their jobs and families; and extend continuing education programs by offering diverse, quality content 

to the public to foster job skills, community development and 

personal growth.

Community colleges with broadband connectivity and quality online instructional programs serve as learning and career 

development centers for the K-12 community and for local citizens. Community colleges also play integral roles in educating 

Americans about math and science and preparing students for 

their future careers as teachers. Forty percent of teachers have 

taken a math or science course at a community college, and 

44% of science and engineering graduates attended a community college as part of their postsecondary education. Twenty 

percent of teachers begin their postsecondary education at 

community colleges.129

The most recent Notice of Funding Availability from 

the Department of Commerce related to the Broadband 

Technology Opportunities Program created an opportunity for 

community colleges to obtain funding to upgrade their levels 

of connectivity. After such funding is determined, Congress 

should evaluate whether additional action is warranted for 

community colleges.
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 1

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 2 4 1

c h a p t e r 1 1 E n d n o t e s 

1 Am. society for Training & Development, Bridging

the Skills Gap 5 (2006), http://www.astd.org/

NR/rdonlyres/FB4AF179-B0C4-4764-9271-

17FAF86A8E23/0/BridgingtheSkillsGap.pdf. 

2 Bureau of Labor Stat., Employment 

Projections—2008–18 (press release), Dec. 10, 2009, at 3, 

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecopro.pdf; Inst. 

for a Competitive Workforce, U.S. Chamber of Com., 

The Skills Imperative 4 (2008), available at http://www.

uschamber.com/NR/rdonlyres/eciaj45n6o5jxdngkik

p6zgphwy4gqbkt3vyv7q4eu5xlcpms7escmdu5koxwfy

vrgdpxukqamx35ljclqfydbuob2g/CTEPaperFINAL.pdf.

3 Nat’l Ctr. on Educ. And The Econ., Tough Choices

or Tough Times 7–9 (2007), available at http://www.

skillscommission.org/pdf/exec_sum/ToughChoices_

EXECSUM.pdf; Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 

Results that Matter 2–6 (2006), available at http://

www.21stcenturyskills.org/documents/RTM2006.pdf.

4 Gary Orfield et al., Civil Rights Project at Harvard

Univ. et al., Losing Our Future: How Minority Youth

are Being Left Behind by the Graduation Rate

Crisis 2 (2004), available at http://www.urban.org/

UploadedPDF/410936_LosingOurFuture.pdf.

5 McKinsey & Co., The Economic Impact of the

Achievement Gap in America’s Schools 9 (2009) 

(McKinsey & Co., The Economic Impact of the

Achievement Gap), available at http://www.mckinsey.

com/App_Media/Images/Page_Images/Offices/

SocialSector/PDF/achievement_gap_report.pdf.

6 McKinsey & Co., The Economic Impact of the

Achievement Gap at 7.

7 Johnny J. Moye, Technology Education Teacher Supply 

and Demand—A Critical Situation, 69 Tech. Tchr. 30 

(2009); Business-Higher Education Forum (BHEF), 

The American Competitiveness Initiative: Addressing

the STEM Teacher Shortage and Improving Student

Academic Readiness 1 (2006), available at http://www.

eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_

storage_01/0000019b/80/42/e8/38.pdf.

8 Anthony Picciano & Jeff Seaman, Sloan Consortium, 

K–12 Online Learning: A 2008 Follow-up of the Survey

of U.S. School District Administrators 5 (2009) 

(Picciano & Seaman, K–12 Online Learning), available 

at http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/k12online2008.

9 Rebeca Gajda & Matthew Militello, Recruiting and 

Retaining School Principals: What We Can Learn from 

Practicing Administrators, 5 AASA J. Scholarship

& Prac. 14 (2008); Rebecca H. Goodwin et al., The 

Changing Role of the Secondary Principal, 87 NASSP

Bulletin 26 (2003), available at http://bul.sagepub.

com/cgi/content/abstract/87/634/26.

10 Stephanie Moller & Elizabeth Stearns, Retention and 

School Dropout: Examining Connectivity Between 

Children and Schools 2 (Aug. 14, 2004) (paper presented 

at Am. Sociological Association Meeting), available 

at http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_

research_citation/1/0/8/7/6/pages108764/p108764-1.

php.

11 Regional Education Laboratory for the central

Region, Research in Brief: High School Standards & 

Expectations for College & the High-Skills Workplace

1–3 (2009), available at http://www.mcrel.org/topics/

Standards/products/321/; ACT, Do Current State

Standards and Assessments Reflect College Readiness?: 

A Case Study 5–6 (2005) (ACT, State Standards

Case Study), available at www.act.org/research/

policymakers/pdf/current_standards.pdf. 

12 Wee Chuen Tan et al., GLOOTT Model: A PedagogicallyEnriched Design Framework of Learning Environment 

to Improve Higher Order Thinking Skills, 14 AACE J. 

139, 141, 143 (2006), available at http://www.editlib.

org/?fuseaction=Reader.ViewFullText&paper_id=6198.

13 Annenberg Inst. Sch. Reform, Professional

Development Strategies that Improve Instruction: 

Professional Learning Communities 4 (2004), available 

at http://www.annenberginstitute.org/Products/

PDStrategies.php; Kenneth Tye & Barbara Benham 

Tye, Teacher Isolation and School Reform, 65 Phi Beta

Kappan 319 (1984), available at http://www.jstor.org/

pss/20387022 (requires purchase).

14 McKinsey & Co., The Economic Impact of the

Achievement Gap at 9.

15 U.S. Dep’t of Educ., The American Recovery and

Reinvestment Act of 2009: Saving and Creating Jobs

and Reforming Education (2009), available at http://

www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/presentation/

arra.pdf.

16 Natl’l Ctr. on Educ & the Econ, New Commission on the

Skills of the American Workforce, Tough Choice or

Tough Times 6–9 (2006).

17 Catherine A. Little et al., Constructing Complexity for 

Differentiated Learning, 15 Mathematics Teaching in the

Middle Sch. 34, 34–42 (2009).

18 Nancy Protheroe, Technology and Student Achievement, 

Principal, Nov.–Dec. 2005, at 46, available at http://

www.naesp.org/resources/2/Principal/2005/N-Dp46.

pdf; Clayton Christensen et al., Disrupting Class: How

Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World

Learns (2008).

19 Laura D’Amico, Ctr. for Learning Tech. in Urban

Schools, A Case of Design-Based Research in Education

32 (2005), http://www.sfu.ca/~ldamico/LeTUS_

FullCase_Final.pdf; Robert Geier et al., Standardized 

Test Outcomes of Urban Students Participating in 

Standards and Project Based Science Curricula 206–13 

(June 25, 2004) (paper presented at the 6th Int’l Conf. 

on Learning Sciences); Ctr. for ICT, Pedagogy, and

Learning, Manchester Metropolitan Univ., Evaluation

of the ECT Test Bed Project Final Report 19–20 

(2007); Byron Review, Safer Children in a Digital

World 8–9, 126–32 (2008), available at http://www.

dcsf.gov.uk/byronreview/pdfs/Final%20Report%20

Bookmarked.pdf.

20 Marsha Lovett et al., The Open Learning Initiative: 

Measuring the Effectiveness of the OLI Statistics Course 

in Accelerating Student Learning, J. Interact. Media

in Educ., May 2008 (Lovett et al., The Open Learning 

Initiative), available at http://jime.open.ac.uk/2008/14/

jime-2008-14.pdf; Joel Smith, Vice Provost and CIO, 

Carnegie Mellon Univ., Remarks at FCC Education 

Workshop (Aug. 20, 2009), available at http://www.

broadband.gov/docs/ws_education/ws_education_

smith.pdf.

21 Ctr. for Educ. Performance & Accountability, 

Florida TaxWatch, Final Report: A Comprehensive

Assessment of Florida Virtual School 17 (2007), 

available at http://www.floridataxwatch.org/resources/

pdf/110507FinalReportFLVS.pdf.

22 Oregon Connections Academy, Oregon Connections 

Academy Earns “Outstanding” Grade (press 

release), PR Newswire, Nov. 13, 2009, http://www.

connectionsacademy.com/news/orca-state-report-card.

aspx.

23 Reuters, K12’s Florida Virtual Academy Posts High 

Scores on 2009 State Tests (press release), June 1, 

2009, http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/

idUS117026+01-Jun-2009+PRN20090601

24 Missouri Virtual Instruction Program (MOVIP), 

Annual Evaluation Report 2007–2008, at 39 (2008), 

http://www.movip.org/about/evalreport2007-2008.pdf. 

25 Michigan Department of Education Comments in re 

NBP PN #15 (Comment Sought on Broadband Needs 

in Education, Including Changes to E-Rate Program to 

Improve Broadband Deployment—NBP Public Notice 

#15, GN Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 09-137, Public Notice 

24 FCC Rcd 13560 (WCB 2009) (NBP PN #15)), filed 

Nov. 20, 2009, at 4 (filed by Jeannene Hurley).

26 John Watson & Butch Gemin, N. American Council

for Online Learning, Promising Practices in Online

Learning: Using Online Learning for At-Risk Students

and Credit Recovery 8–9 (2008), http://www.

inacol.org/research/promisingpractices/NACOL_

CreditRecovery_PromisingPractices.pdf.

27 See Lower Kuskokwin School District Comments in re 

NBP PN #15, filed Nov. 20, 2009, at 2. Or in some models 

of learning, the teacher and student need to spend much 

less time face-to-face, and states such New Mexico are 

also experimenting with remote high quality real-time 

video conferencing as a solution.

28 Pamela E. Harrell & Mary Harris, Teacher Preparation 

Without Boundaries: A Two-Year Study of an Online 

Teacher Certification Program, 14 J. Technology & 

Teacher Education. 755 (2006), available at http://

www.thefreelibrary.com/Teacher+preparation+with

out+boundaries:+a+two-year+study+of+an+online...

-a0151387501.

29 Gordon Freedman, The Blackboard Inst., Is the Tipping

Point for Education in Sight?, at 4 (2009) (Freedman, 

Is the Tipping Point for Education in Sight?), http://

www.inacol.org/research/docs/Blackboard%20

K20%20CouncilSummaryReport.pdf; Patricia 

Deubel, K–12 Online Teaching Endorsements: Are They 

Needed?, The Journal, Jan. 10, 2008 (Deubel, K–12 

Online Teaching Endorsements), http://thejournal.

com/Articles/2008/01/10/K12-Online-TeachingEndorsements-Are-They-Needed.aspx?; Lorraine 

Sherry, Issues in Distance Learning, 1 Int’l J. Educ. 

Telecom. 337 (1996) (Sherry, Issues in Distance 

Learning), available at http://carbon.cudenver.

edu/~lsherry/pubs/issues.html.

30 Verizon and Verizon Wireless Comments in re NBP 

PN #15, filed Nov. 20, 2009, at 5; American Association 
2 4 2 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 1

c h a p t e r 1 1 E n d n o t e s 

of School Administrators and the Association of 

Educational Service Agencies Comments in re NBP PN 

#15, filed Nov. 20, 2009, at 3 (filed by Noelle Ellerson).

31 See, e.g., Apple, iTunes, http://www.apple.com/itunes

(last visited Dec. 22, 2009).

32 See, e.g., Netflix Home Page, http://www.netflix.com

(last visited Dec. 22, 2009); YouTube Home Page, http://

www.youtube.com (last visited Dec. 22, 2009); Hulu 

Home Page, http://www.hulu.com (last visited Dec. 22, 

2009).

33 See, e.g., Wikipedia, Amazon Kindle, http://en.wikipedia.

org/wiki/Amazon_Kindle (last visited Dec. 22, 2009); 

Wikipedia, Sony Reader, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

Sony_Reader (last visited Dec. 22, 2009); Wikipedia, 

Barnes & Noble nook, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

Barnes_and_Noble_nook (last visited Dec. 22, 2009).

34 Doug McKessock et al., Dynamic Online Homework 

System: An Enabler of Learning 399 (Dec. 4–7, 2005) 

(paper presented at the Ascilite Conference), available 

at http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/brisbane05/

blogs/proceedings/47_McKessock.pdf; Deborah 

Hellman, Implementing Differentiated Instruction 

in Urban, Title I Schools (2007) (unpublished Ph.D. 

dissertation, U. So. Fla.), http://kong.lib.usf.edu:8881/

usfldc/71/170176.html.

35 MIT, Tufts, Yale, Utah State, Stanford, UC Berkeley and 

Carnegie Mellon are all current examples of open course 

publishers.

36 H. Jerome Keisler, Elementary Calculus (2d ed. 2000), 

http://www.math.wisc.edu/~keisler/calc.html.

37 Katie Dean, Bleary Days for Eyes on the Prize, Wired,

Dec. 22, 2004, available at http://www.wired.com/

culture/lifestyle/news/2004/12/66106.

38 Renee Hobbs et al., Ctr. for Soc. Media, The Cost of

Copyright Confusion for Media Literacy 16–17 (2007), 

available at http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/files/

pdf/Final_CSM_copyright_report.pdf.

39 Geoffrey Fowler, New Kindle Audio Feature Causes a 

Stir, Wall St. J., Feb. 10, 2009, available at http://online.

wsj.com/article/SB123419309890963869.html; Don 

Reisinger, Universities Reject Kindle Over Inaccessibility 

for the Blind, CNET, Nov. 12, 2009, http://news.cnet.

com/8301-13506_3-10396177-17.html.

40 17 U.S.C. § 504.

41 17 U.S.C. §§ 110(2), 112(f ).

42 Cathy Cavanaugh, Ctr. for Am. Progress, Getting

Students More Learning Time Online: Distance

Education in Support of Expanded Learning Time

in K–12 Schools 4 (2009), available at http://

www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/05/pdf/

distancelearning.pdf. 

43 Long distance learning is a form of online learning where 

teachers and students frequently interact live over an 

audio/video link.

44 Picciano & Seaman, K–12 Online Learning at 5.

45 U.S. Dep’t of Educ., Fact Sheet: New No Child Left

Behind Flexibility: Highly Qualified Teachers (Mar. 

2004), available at http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/methods/

teachers/hqtflexibility.pdf; U.S. Dep’t of Educ., A

Summary of Highly Qualified Teacher Data 3–5 (2009), 

46 Picciano & Seaman, K–12 Online Learning at 5.

47 U.S. Dep’t of Educ., Connecting Students to Advanced

Courses Online 4–8 (2007) (Dep’t of Educ., Connecting

Students), available at http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/

academic/advanced/coursesonline.pdf. 

48 Freedman, Is the Tipping Point for Education in Sight?

at 4; Deubel, K–12 Online Teaching Endorsements; 

Sherry, Issues in Distance Learning; John Watson et al.,

Evergreen EducationGroup, Keeping Pace with K–12 

Online Learning 11 (Nov. 2008) (Watson et al., Keeping

Pace with K–12 Online Learning), available at http://

www.kpk12.com/downloads/KeepingPace_2008.pdf.

49 Watson et al., Keeping Pace with K–12 Online Learning, 

at 49. 

50 Joel Smith, Vice Provost and CIO, Carnegie Mellon 

Univ., Remarks at FCC Education Workshop (Aug. 20, 

2009), available at http://www.broadband.gov/docs/

ws_education/ws_education_smith.pdf.

51 Department of Education., Connecting Students at 4–8.

52 Lovett et al., The Open Learning Initiative at 2.

53 Utah Education Network Comments in re NBP PN #15, 

filed Nov. 20, 2009, at 4.

54 Rich Kaestner, Consortium on School Networking, The

Real Cost of Open Source Software 1 (2006), available 

at http://www.cosn.org/Portals/7/docs/The%20

Real%20Cost%20of%20Open%20Source%20Software.

pdf.

55 Ryan Paul, Department of Defense Study Urges Open 

Source Adoption, Ars Technica, Aug. 20, 2006, http://

arstechnica.com/old/content/2006/08/7545.ars

(citing J.C. Herz et al., Department of Defense, Open

Technology Development, Roadmap Plan (2006), http://

www.acq.osd.mil/actd/articles/OTDRoadmapFinal.

pdf).

56 Federation American Scientists, The FAS Learning 

Technologies Program Policy Initiative, http://www.fas.

org/programs/ltp/policy_and_publications/index.html

(last visited Feb. 15, 2010).

57 Henry Kelly, Games, Cookies and the Future of 

Education, Issues in Sci. and Tech., Summer 2005, at 33, 

available at http://www.fas.org/programs/ltp/policy_

and_publications/publications/games_cookies1.pdf.

58 Antonio Cordella & Kai A. Simon, The Impact 

of Information Technology on Transaction and 

Coordination Cost (Aug. 9–12, 1997) (paper presented 

at the Conference on Information Systems Research in 

Scandinavia, Oslo), available at http://www.instantscience.net/pub/tracost.pdf.

59 Sean M. Kerner, IDC: Linux-Related Spending Could Top 

$49B by 2011, InternetNews.com, Apr. 8, 2008, http://

www.internetnews.com/software/article.php/3739491.

60 Similar in purpose to Advanced Research Projects 

Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) and DARPA.

61 Cornell Univ., Digital Literacy Resource, http://

digitalliteracy.cornell.edu/ (last visited Feb. 15, 2009).

62 Barbara R. Jones-Kavalier & Suzanne L. Flannigan, 

Connecting the Digital Dots: Literacy of the 21st 

Century, 29 Educause Q. 8 (2006), available at

http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Quarterly/

EDUCAUSEQuarterlyMagazineVolum/

ConnectingtheDigitalDotsLitera/157395.

63 David Buckingham, Digital Media Literacies: Rethinking 

Media Education in the Age of the Internet, 2 Res. in

Comp. & Int’l Educ. 43–44 (2007), available at http://

www.wwwords.co.uk/pdf/validate.asp?j=rcie&vol=2&is

sue=1&year=2007&article=4_Buckingham_RCIE_2_1_

web (requires entering text); City of Chicago Comments 

in re NBP PN #15, filed Nov. 20, 2009, at 7; Albuquerque 

Public Schools Comments in re NBP PN #15, filed Nov. 

20, 2009, at 3.

64 Verizon and Verizon Wireless Comments in re NBP PN 

#15, filed Nov. 20, 2009, at 5.

65 Verizon and Verizon Wireless Comments in re NBP 

PN #15, filed Nov. 20, 2009, at 5; American Association 

of School Administrators and the Association of 

Educational Service Agencies Comments in re NBP PN 

#15, filed Nov. 20, 2009, at 3 (filed by Noelle Ellerson).

66 Univ. College London, Information Behaviour of

the Researcher of the Future 20 (2008), available at

http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/

reppres/gg_final_keynote_11012008.pdf.

67 European Comm’n, Digital Literacy Report: A Review

for the i2010 eInclusion Initiative 3 (2008), http://

www.digital-literacy.eu/_root/media/36395_digital_

literacy_review.pdf.

68 Rodney K. Marshall, Review, 8 J. Literacy & Tech. 49 

(2007) (reviewing Mark Warschauer, Laptops and

Literacy: Learning in the Wireless Classroom (2006)), 

available at http://www.literacyandtechnology.org/

volume8/no1/JLTv8bookrev.pdf.

69 The Commission has an open proceeding wherein it is 

considering the issue of media literacy for both parents 

and children and what actions it should take concerning 

this issue. See Empowering Parents and Protecting 

Children in an Evolving Media Landscape, MB Docket 

No.09-194, Notice of Inquiry, 24 FCC Rcd 13171 (2009).

70 Partnership for 21st Century Skills, Results that

Matter 2–6 (2006), http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/

documents/RTM2006.pdf.

71 BHEF, An American Imperative: Transforming the

Recruitment, Retention and Renewal of Our Nation’s

Mathematics and Science Teaching Workforce 2 

(2007), available at http://www.bhef.com/solutions/

stem/americanimperative.asp.

72 BHEF, The American Competitiveness Initiative: 

Addressing the STEM Teacher Shortage and Improving

Student Academic Readiness 1–2 (2006), available at 

http://www.bhef.com/publications/documents/brief3_

s06.pdf.

73 Anthony G. Picciano & Jeff Seaman, Sloan Consortium, 

K–12 Online Learning: A 2008 Follow-up of the

Survey of U.S. School District Administrators 5–6 

(2009), http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/k12online2008.

74 Nick Anderson, White House Announces $250M Effort 

for Science and Math Teachers, The Washington Post, 

Jan. 6, 2010, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2010/01/06/AR2010010602063.

html?hpid=moreheadlines.

75 U.S. Dep’t of Educ., Evaluation of the Enhancing

Education Through Tech. Program: Final Report

33 (2009), www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/netts/

finalreport.pdf.
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 1

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 2 4 3

c h a p t e r 1 1 E n d n o t e s 

76 Kathleen Kennedy Manzo, Whiteboards Impact on 

Teaching Seen as Uneven, Digital Directions, Jan. 8, 

2010, http://www.edweek.org/dd/articles/2010/01/08/0

2whiteboards.h03.html.

77 John Watson & Butch Gemin, INACOL, Promising

Practices in Online Learning: Funding and Policy

Frameworks for Online Learning 14 (2009), http://

www.inacol.org/research/bookstore/detail.php?id=13.

78 Meris Stansbury, Panelists: Online Learning Can Help 

Minority Students, eSchoolNews, Apr. 11, 2008, at 1, 

http://www.eschoolnews.com/2008/04/11/panelistsonline-learning-can-help-minority-students/.

79 Cathy Cavanaugh et al., Effectiveness of Online Algebra 

Learning: Implications for Teacher Preparation, 38 J. 

Educ. Computing Research 70, 70–71 (2008), available 

at http://www.flvs.net/areas/aboutus/Documents/

Research/OnlineAlgebraTeacherPrep05.pdf.

80 Margaret Hilton, Nat’l Academics Es Press, Protecting

Student Records and Facilitating Education Research: 

A Workshop Summary 75 (2008), http://www.nap.

edu/catalog.php?record_id=12514; Charles A. Walls, 

Providing Highly Mobile Students with an Effective 

Education, ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Educ., Nov. 

2003, available at http://www.ericdigests.org/2004-3/

mobile.html.

81 Lawrence Gallagher et al., Teachers’ Use of Student

Data Systems To Improve Instruction 2005–2007, at 26 

(2008), http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/teachersdata-use-2005-2007/teachers-data-use-2005-2007.pdf.

82 Lawrence Gallagher et al., Teachers’ Use of Student

Data Systems To Improve Instruction 2005–2007, at 26 

(2008), http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/teachersdata-use-2005-2007/teachers-data-use-2005-2007.pdf.

83 ECONorthwest, Issue Paper: Improving K–12 Business

Practices and Maximizing Available Revenues 3 (2005), 

available at http://www.chalkboardproject.org/images/

PDF/K12BusinessPractices.pdf; Elizabeth Millard, 

E-Procurement, District Administrator, Feb. 2008, 

http://www.districtadministration.com/viewarticle.

aspx?articleid=1470; Mike Kennedy, Getting More for 

Less, Am. Sch. & Univ., Jan. 1, 2004, http://asumag.com/

mag/university_getting_less/.

84 Debra Sherman, U.S. grants $1.2 billion for 

electronic health records, Reuters, Aug. 20, 2009, 

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/

idUSTRE57J21J20090820.

85 Integrity Tech. Solutions, McLean County Community

Unit School District No. 5 Uses SIF to Streamline

District Information Exchange 1 http://www.sifinfo.

org/upload/story/76CF27_Unit5SIFCaseStudy.pdf.

86 See, e.g., Schools Interoperability Framework, SIF 

Association, http://www.sifinfo.org (last visited Feb. 15, 

2010).

87 See Nat’l Ctr. for Educ. Stat., Digest of Education 

Statistics, http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d08/

tables/dt08_363.asp (last visited Feb. 15, 2010).

88 McKinsey & Co., The Economic Impact of the

Achievement Gap in America’s Schools 9 (2009), http://

www.mckinsey.com/App_Media/Images/Page_Images/

Offices/SocialSector/PDF/achievement_gap_report.pdf.

89 Svend Albaek et al., Government–Assisted Oligopoly 

Coordination? A Concrete Case, 45 J. Indus. Econ. 429 

(1997), available at http://ideas.repec.org/p/kud/

kuieci/1997-03.html.

90 Specifically, the Department of Education should 

ensure that it is not making it easier for its suppliers to 

artificially adjust prices using the collection, aggregation 

and analysis of transaction specific information that 

includes pricing information.

91 There might be circumstances where local bidding only 

is important for any number of reasons.

92 47 U.S.C. § 254(h)(1)(B).

93 47 U.S.C. § 254(c)(3), 254(h)(2)(A).

94 Nat’l Ctr. for Educ. Stat., Internet Access in U.S. 

Public Schools and Classrooms: 1994–2005, at 4 (2006), 

available at http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2007/2007020.pdf.

95 Nat’l Ctr. for Educ. Stat., Internet Access in U.S. 

Public Schools and Classrooms: 1994–2005, at 4 (2006), 

available at http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2007/2007020.pdf.

96 Amanda Lenhart et al., The Internet and Education: 

Findings of the Pew Internet & American Life Project

3 (2001), available at http://wwww.pewinternet.org/~/

media//Files/Reports/2001/PIP_Schools_Report.pdf.

pdf; Marianne Bakia et al., Evaluation of the Enhancing

Education Through Technology Program: Final Report

33, exh. 18 (2009), available at http://www.ed.gov/

rschstat/eval/tech/netts/finalreport.html.

97 Lucinda Gray & Laurie Lewis, Educational Technology

in Public School Districts: Fall 2008, at 3 (2009) (Gray

& Lewis, Educational Technology), http://nces.ed.gov/

pubs2010/2010003.pdf. Schools may have more than 

one type of connection.

98 Gray & Lewis, Educational Technology, at 3 (2009), 

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010003.pdf.

99 See Alaska Department of Education Comments in 

re NBP PN #15, filed Nov. 20, 2009, at 6–7; American 

Association of School Administrators and the 

Association of Educational Service Agencies Comments 

in re NBP PN #15, filed Nov. 20, 2009, at 2 (filed by 

Noelle Ellerson); Iowa Department of Education 

Comments in re NBP PN #15, filed Nov. 20, 2009, at 2–3; 

Oregon Department of Education Comments in re NBP 

PN #15, filed Nov. 20, 2009, at 2–3.

100 Tom Greaves, Chairman, The Greaves Group, Remarks 

at FCC Education Workshop 2 (Aug. 20, 2009) (Greaves 

Aug. 20, 2009 Remarks), available at http://www.

broadband.gov/docs/ws_education/ws_education_

greaves.pdf.

101 Greaves Aug. 20, 2009 Remarks at 2, available at http://

www.broadband.gov/docs/ws_education/ws_education_

greaves.pdf.

102 Greaves Aug. 20, 2009 Remarks at 2, available at http://

www.broadband.gov/docs/ws_education/ws_education_

greaves.pdf.

103 47 C.F.R. § 54.504(b)(2)(v), (c)(1)(vii); see also 47 C.F.R. 

§ 54.500(b) (defining “educational purposes”).

104 Alaska Department of Education and Early 

Development Comments in re NBP PN #15, filed 

Nov. 20, 2009, at 72; American Association of School 

Administrators and the Association of Educational 

Service Agencies Comments in re NBP PN #15, filed 

Nov. 20, 2009 (filed by Noelle Ellerson), at 5; Anchorage 

School District Comments in re NBP PN #15, filed 

Nov. 20, 2009, at 18; AT&T Comments in re NBP PN 

#15, filed Nov. 20, 2009, at 5; California K–12 High 

Speed Network Comments in re NBP PN #15, filed 

Nov. 20, 2009, at 9 (filed by Imperial County Office of 

Education); CenturyLink Reply in re NBP PN #15, filed 

Dec. 11, 2009, at 6; City of Chicago Comments in re NBP 

PN #15, filed Nov. 20, 2009, at 24; Council of the Great 

City Schools Comments in re NBP PN #15, filed Nov. 20, 

2009, at 3; Dell, Inc. Comments in re NBP PN #15, filed 

Nov. 20, 2009, at 4; Education and Libraries Networks 

Coalition Comments in re NBP PN #15, filed Nov. 20, 

2009, at 5; ENA Comments in re NBP PN #15, Nov. 20, 

2009, at 6; Funds for Learning Comments in re NBP PN 

#15, filed Nov. 20, 2009, at 3; International Association 

for K–12 Online Learning Reply in re NBP PN #15, filed 

Dec. 11, 2009, at 16; Iowa Department of Education 

Comments in re NBP PN #15, filed Nov. 20, 2009, at 4; 

Kellogg & Sovereign Consulting Comments in re NBP 

PN #15, filed Nov. 20, 2009, at 8; Miami-Dade County 

Public School Comments in re NBP PN #15, filed Nov. 

17, 2009, at 1; Microsoft Corp. Reply in re NBP PN #15, 

filed Dec. 11, 2009, at 7–8; The National Internet2 K–20 

Initiative Comments in re NBP PN #15, filed Nov. 20, 

2009, at 1 (filed by Louis Fox); Software & Information 

Industry Association Reply in re NBP PN #15, filed 

Dec. 11, 2009, at 12; State E–rate Coordinators Alliance 

Comments in re NBP PN #15, filed Nov. 20, 2009, at 11; 

University of Alaska Comments in re NBP PN #15, filed 

Nov. 19, 2009, at 2.

105 AT&T Comments in re NBP PN #15, filed Nov. 20, 2009, 

at 9; International Association for K–12 Online Learning 

Reply in re NBP PN #15, filed Dec. 11, 2009, at 18; 

Kellogg & Sovereign Consulting Comments in re NBP 

PN #15, filed Nov. 20, 2009, at 11; Northeastern Regional 

Information Center Comments in re NBP PN #15, filed 

Dec. 10, 2009, at 12; State E–rate Coordinators Alliance 

Comments in re NBP PN #15, filed Nov. 20, 2009, at 

19; West Virginia Department of Education Comments 

in re NBP PN #15, filed Nov. 20, 2009, at 15 (filed by 

Julia Benincosa); Wisconsin Department of Public 

Instruction Comments in re NBP PN #15, filed Nov. 20, 

2009, at 5.

106 See Letter from Jeff Donley, Director of Information 

Systems, Mukilteo School District, Washington, GN 

Docket No. 09-51 (filed Jan. 29, 2010) (comparing 100 

Mbps service connecting 6 schools for $180,000 per year 

plus T-1 service connecting 14 additional schools for 

$114,000 per year (all eligible for a 65% E-rate discount) 

with a 1 Gbps fiber offering connecting all 20 schools for 

$65,000 (and yet not eligible for the E-rate discount)).

107 Council of the Great City Schools Comments in re NBP 

PN #15, filed Nov. 20, 2009, at 5.

108 Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction Comments 

in re NBP PN #15, filed Nov. 20, 2009, at 3.

109 American Association of School Administrators and the 

Association of Educational Service Agencies Comments 

in re NBP PN #15, filed Nov. 20, 2009, at 7, 9 (filed by 

Noelle Ellerson); City of Chicago Comments in re NBP 

PN #15, filed Nov. 20, 2009, at 27–28; South Kitsap 

School District Comments in re NBP PN #15, filed 
2 4 4 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 1

c h a p t e r 1 1 E n d n o t e s 

Nov. 19, 2009, at 1; Oregon Department of Education 

Comments in re NBP PN #15, filed Nov. 20, 2009, at 

3; National Internet2 K–20 Initiative Comments in re 

NBP PN #15, filed Nov. 20, 2009, at 1; Texas Education 

Telecommunications Network Ex Parte in re NBP PN 

#15, filed Feb. 19, 2010, at 1; School District of Palm 

Beach County Comments in re NBP PN #15, filed Nov. 

20, 2009, at 4, 7–8.

110 This figure was calculated using publicly available GDP 

deflators from 1997 to 2009, yielding total monetary 

deflation of $676 million.

111 State E-rate Coordinators Alliance Comments in re NBP 

PN #15, filed Nov. 20, 2009, at 29.

112 American Association of School Administrators and 

the Association of Educational Service Agencies 

Comments in re NBP PN #15, filed Nov. 20, 2009, at 8 

(filed by Noelle Ellerson); American Library Association 

Comments in re NBP PN #15, filed Nov. 20, 2009, at 4; 

Berkeley County School District Comments in re NBP 

PN #15, filed Nov. 19, 2009, at 1; Bill and Melinda Gates 

Foundation Reply in re NBP PN #15, filed Dec. 9, 2009, 

at 4; California K–12 High Speed Network Comments 

in re NBP PN #15, filed Nov. 20, 2009, at 13 (filed by 

Imperial County Office of Education); Dell Comments 

in re NBP PN #15, filed Nov. 20, 2009, at 4; EdLinc 

Comments in re NBP PN #15, filed Nov. 20, 2009, at 

4; Education Networks of America Comments in re 

NBP PN #15, filed Nov. 20, 2009, at 10 (filed as ENA); 

Funds for Learning Comments in re NBP PN #15, filed 

Nov. 20, 2009, at 10; International Association for K12 

Online Learning Reply in re NBP PN #15, filed Dec 11., 

2009, at 20; Iowa Department of Education Comments 

in re NBP PN #15, filed Nov. 20, 2009, at 10; MiamiDade County Public Schools Comments in re NBP PN 

#15, filed Nov. 17, 2009, at 1; National Association of 

Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Comments 

in re NBP PN #15, filed Nov. 20, 2009, at 10; New York 

Office of Children and Family Services Reply in re NBP 

PN #15, Dec. 10, 2009, at 4; Northeastern Regional 

Information Center Reply in re NBP PN #15, filed Dec. 

10, 2009, at 13; Oneida-Herkimer-Madison Board of 

Cooperative Educ. Services Comments in re NBP PN 

#15, filed Nov. 19, 2009, at 2; Oregon Department of 

Education Comments in re NBP PN #15, filed Nov. 

20, 2009, at 10; School District of Palm Beach County 

Comments in re NBP PN #15, filed Nov. 20, 2009, at 

3; Schools, Health and Libraries Broadband Coalition 

Comments in re NBP PN #15, filed Nov. 20, 2009, at 4; 

Software & Information Industry Association Reply in 

re NBP PN #15, filed Dec. 11, 2009, at 13; State E-rate 

Coordinators Alliance Comments in re NBP PN #15, 

filed Nov. 20, 2009, at 29; Quilt and StateNets Reply in re 

NBP PN #15, filed Dec. 11, 2009, at 2; Washington State 

Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction Reply in 

re NBP PN #15, filed Dec. 10, 2009, at 1 (filed by Dennis 

Small).

113 American Association of School Administrators and 

the Association of Educational Service Agencies 

Comments in re NBP PN #15, filed Nov. 20, 2009, at 6 

(filed by Noelle Ellerson); American Library Association 

Comments in re NBP PN #15, filed Nov. 20, 2009, at 

16; Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Reply in re NBP 

PN #15, filed Dec. 9, 2009, at 4; California K–12 High 

Speed Network Comments in re NBP PN #15, filed 

Nov. 20, 2009, at 11 (filed by Imperial County Office of 

Education); CenturyLink Comments in re NBP PN #15, 

filed Nov. 20, 2009, at 11; City of Chicago Comments 

in re NBP PN #15, filed Nov. 20, 2009, at 22; Dell 

Comments in re NBP PN #15, filed Nov. 20, 2009, at 5; 

Iowa Department of Education Comments in re NBP 

PN #15, filed Nov. 20, 2009, at 8; Michigan Department 

of Education Comments in re NBP PN #15, filed Nov. 

20, 2009, at 7 (filed by Jeannene Hurley); Microsoft 

Reply in re NBP PN #15, filed Dec. 4, 2009, at 9; Oregon 

Department of Education Comments in re NBP PN #15, 

filed Nov. 20, 2009, at 9; Pelican City School District 

Comments in re NBP PN #15, filed Nov. 20, 2009; 

Schools, Health and Libraries Broadband Coalition 

Comments in re NBP PN #15, filed Nov. 20, 2009, at 5; 

State Educational Technology Directors Association 

Reply in re NBP PN #15, filed Dec. 11, 2009, at 2; State 

E-rate Coordinators Alliance Comments in re NBP PN 

#15, filed Nov. 20, 2009, at 26; Washington State Office 

of Superintendent of Public Instruction Comments in 

re NBP PN #15, filed Nov. 20, 2009, at 1 (filed by Dennis 

Small).

114 See Schools and Libraries Universal Service Description 

of Services Ordered and Certification Form 471, OMB 

3060–0806 (Nov. 2004) (FCC Form 471) at 2, blocks 2, 

3 (November 2004), available at http://www.usac.org/_

res/documents/sl/pdf/471_fy05.pdf (requesting filers 

to explain the impact of E-rate funds on the number of 

buildings connected to the Internet at up to 10 Mbps, up 

to 200 Mbps, and over 200 Mbps).

115 Oregon Department of Education Comments in re 

NBP PN #15, filed Nov. 20, 2009, at 8; State E-rate 

Coordinators Association Comments in re NBP PN #15, 

filed Nov. 20, 2009, at 33; South Kitsap School District 

Comments in re NBP PN #15, filed Nov. 20, 2009, at 2–3.

116 Oregon Department of Education Comments in re NBP 

PN #15, Nov. 20, 2009, at 11; State E-rate Coordinators 

Association Comments in re NBP PN #15, Nov. 20, 2009, 

at 19–20, 22; Iowa Department of Education Comments 

in re NBP PN #15, filed Nov. 20, 2009, at 11–12.

117 Pelican City School District Comments in re NBP PN 

#15, filed Nov. 20 2009, at 9.

118 See Letter from Loris Ann Taylor, Executive Director, 

Native Public Media et al., to Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary, FCC, GN Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 09-137 

(Dec. 24, 2009) (Joint Native Filers Dec. 24, 2009 Ex 

Parte) at 13–16.

119 See GAO, Challenges to Assessing and Improving

Telecommunications for Native Americans on Tribal

Lands 30–32, GAO-06-189 (Jan. 2006) (January 2006 

GAO Report).

120 Texas Center for Education Research, Evaluation of

the Texas Technology Immersion Pilot: Final Outcomes

for a Four–Year Study (2004–05 to 2007–08), at vi–vii 

(2009), http://www.etxtip.info/y4_etxtip_final.pdf.

121 Gill Valentine et al., Children and Young People’s

Home Use of ICT for Educ. Purposes: The Impact on

Attainment at Key Stages 1–4, at 8–9 (2005), available 

at http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/

RR672.pdf; Mizuko Ito et al., Living and Learning with

New Media Summary of Findings from the Digital Youth

Project 1–3 (2008), available at http://digitalyouth.

ischool.berkeley.edu/files/report/digitalyouthWhitePaper.pdf; Don Passey et al., The Motivational

Effect of ICT on Pupils 3 (2004), available at http://

www.dcsf.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RR523new.

pdf; Becta, Minister’s Taskforce on Home Access to

Tech., Extending Opportunity 4 (2008), available at 

http://partners.becta.org.uk/upload-dir/downloads/

page_documents/partners/home_access_report.pdf.

122 E-rate currently supports wireless data services to 

mobile devices for educators. That support should be 

harmonized with this support for student devices during 

any rulemaking.

123 Albuquerque Public Schools Comments in re NBP PN 

#15, filed Nov. 20, 2009, at 6; City of Chicago Comments 

in re NBP PN #15, filed Nov. 20, 2009, at 28; Michigan 

Department of Education Comments in re NBP PN 

#15, filed Nov. 20, 2009, at 4; National Internet2 K–20 

Alliance Comments in re NBP PN #15, filed Nov. 20, 

2009, at 1; Oregon Department of Education Comments 

in re NBP PN #15, filed Nov. 20, 2009, at 3; San Diego 

Unified School District Comments in re NBP PN #15, 

filed Nov. 20, 2009, at 2; Sprint Nextel Comments in re 

NBP PN #15, filed Nov. 20, 2009, at 5.

124 See, e.g., Open Learning Initiative, Open Courses 

Backed by Learning Research, http://oli.web.cmu.edu/

openlearning (last visited Feb. 28, 2010).

125 Steve Lohr, Study finds that online education beats the 

classroom, N.Y. Times, Aug. 19, 2009, http://bits.blogs.

nytimes.com/2009/08/19/study-finds-that-onlineeducation-beats-the-classroom.

126 American Association of Community Colleges and 

Educause Comments in re NBP PN #15, filed Nov. 

20, 2009, at 4; California Public Utilities Commission 

Comments in re NBP PN #15, filed Nov. 20, 2009, at 

3; City of Chicago Comments in re NBP PN #15, filed 

Nov. 20, 2009, at 25; National Internet2 K–20 Initiative 

Comments in re NBP PN #15, filed Nov. 20, 2009, at 

1; New York Education Department Comments in re 

NBP PN #15, filed Nov. 20, 2009, at 2; Texas Education 

Telecommunications Network Ex Parte in re NBP PN 

#15, filed Feb. 19, 2010, at 1; Texas State Library and 

Archives Comments in re NBP PN #15, filed Nov. 20, 

2009, at 1; Quilt and StateNets Reply in re NBP PN #15, 

filed Dec. 11, 2009, at 2.

127 See National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated 

Postsecondary Data System, http://nces.ed.gov/IPEDS/

(last visited Feb. 28, 2010).

128 Educause Core Data Service, Fiscal Year 2007 Summary

Report 35 (2007) (reporting that only 16.1% of colleges 

offering an associate’s degree have more than 45 Mbps 

in bandwidth, whereas 90.4% of institutions offering a 

doctorate have that level of connectivity), available at

http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/PUB8005.pdf.

129 Madeline Patton, Community Colleges Impact K–12 

STEM Teaching 4 (2008), available at http://www.

aacc.nche.edu/Resources/aaccprograms/Documents/

impactk12_2008.pdf.
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 2

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 2 4 5

ENERGY AND THE

ENVIRONMENT

c h a p t e r 1 2

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 2

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 2 4 7

America depends on reliable and affordable access to diverse sources of energy. The $1.2 

trillion U.S. energy industry powers the rest of the economy, making possible a good quality of 

life and strong economic productivity.1

U.S. prosperity and national security, as well as the health 

of the planet, require a national transition to a low-carbon 

economy and reduced dependence on foreign oil. Congress has 

demonstrated significant resolve in jump-starting this transition, devoting more than $80 billion in the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) to clean energy 

and efficiency investments.2

 Americans have mounted solar 

panels on their roofs, weatherized their homes, installed efficient light bulbs and traded their “clunkers” for vehicles that 

get higher gas mileage. But the U.S. economy still runs mostly 

on domestic fossil fuels and imported oil. 

Broadband and advanced communications infrastructure 

will play an important role in achieving national goals of energy 

independence and efficiency. Broadband-connected smart 

homes and businesses will be able to automatically manage 

lights, thermostats and appliances to simultaneously maximize 

comfort and minimize customer bills. New companies will 

emerge to help manage energy use and environmental impact 

over the Internet, creating industries and jobs. Televisions, 

computers and other devices in the home will consume just 

a fraction of the power they use today, drawing energy only 

when needed. Large data centers, built and managed to leading energy efficiency standards, will be located near affordable 

and clean energy sources. Finally, broadband connectivity in 

vehicles will power the next generation of navigation, safety, 

information and efficiency applications while minimizing 

driver distraction. Next-generation safety systems will alert 

drivers to hazards, helping to avoid accidents and saving lives. 

In the process, broadband and information and communication 

technologies (ICT) can collectively prevent more than a billion 

metric tons of carbon emissions per year by 2020.3

The path to reliable, affordable and clean energy will require 

ingenuity and hard work from legions of scientists, entrepreneurs and green-collar workers, as well as the participation of 

every American. Consumers and businesses will need easy access to information about the type, amount and price of energy 

to make informed decisions about their consumption. The 

price of electricity will also have to better reflect the cost of 

providing power, which can skyrocket during critically hot days. 

Broadband alone cannot solve the country’s energy and 

environmental challenges, but it will be an important part of 

the solution. 

This chapter is divided into four sections. The first two 

focus on how broadband and advanced communications can 

make the greatest impact on energy and the environment: as 

the foundation of a smarter electric grid and as a platform for 

innovation in smart homes and buildings, especially if utilities 

unlock energy data. The third section highlights how industry 

and the federal government can improve the energy efficiency 

and environmental impact of ICT usage. The fourth explores 

how broadband and advanced communications can make transportation safer, cleaner and more efficient.

Recommendations 

Integrate broadband into the Smart Grid

➤ As outlined in Chapter 16, the Federal Communications 

Commission (FCC) should start a proceeding to explore the 

reliability and resiliency of commercial broadband communications networks.

➤ States should reduce impediments and financial disincentives 

to using commercial service providers for Smart Grid communications.

➤ The North American Electric Reliability Corporation 

(NERC) should clarify its Critical Infrastructure Protection 

(CIP) security requirements.

➤ Congress should consider amending the Communications 

Act to enable utilities to use the proposed public safety 700 

MHz wireless broadband network. 

➤ The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the FCC should continue their 

joint efforts to identify new uses for federal spectrum and 

should consider the requirements of the Smart Grid.

➤ The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), in collaboration with 

the FCC, should study the communications requirements of 

electric utilities to inform federal Smart Grid policy. 

Unleash innovation in smart homes and smart buildings

➤ States should require electric utilities to provide consumers 

access to, and control of, their own digital energy information, including real-time information from smart meters 

and historical consumption, price and bill data over the 

Internet. If states fail to develop reasonable policies over 
2 4 8 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 2

the next 18 months, Congress should consider national 

legislation to cover consumer privacy and the accessibility 

of energy data.

➤ The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) 

should adopt consumer digital data accessibility and control standards as a model for states.

➤ DOE should consider consumer data accessibility policies 

when evaluating Smart Grid grant applications, report on 

the states’ progress toward enacting consumer data accessibility and develop best practices guidance for states.

➤ The Rural Utilities Services (RUS) should make Smart Grid 

United States Energy Flow 

(Petajoules, 2007)9

The national energy balance 

sheet reveals a number of 

pertinent facts. First, coal-fired 

power plants generate almost 

half of our electricity and are 

responsible for nearly two billion 

metric tons of greenhouse gas 

emissions per year—equivalent 

to the emissions of the entire 

transportation industry.10

Greenhouse gas emissions 

from coal, and to a lesser extent 

natural gas and oil, explain why 

the electric power industry is 

the single largest contributor to 

U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.11

Second, although there has been 

explosive growth in solar, wind 

and biomass power in recent 

years, renewable generation 

still provides a small amount of 

our generating capacity. Third, 

the current electricity system, 

from generation to end-user, 

wastes vast sums of energy; for 

example, a light bulb receives 

less than half of the energy 

contained in a piece of coal. 

Finally, the U.S. transportation 

sector is almost wholly reliant 

on oil, more than half of which 

is imported.

BOX 12-1:

loans to rural electric cooperatives a priority, including integrated Smart Grid-broadband projects. RUS should favor 

Smart Grid projects from states and utilities with strong 

consumer data accessibility policies.

Accelerate sustainable ICT

➤ The FCC should start a proceeding to improve the energy 

efficiency and environmental impact of the communications industry.

➤ The federal government should take a leadership role in 

improving the energy efficiency of its data centers.
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 2

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 2 4 9

12.1 BROADBAND AND

THE SMART GRID

The United States is undertaking a massive communications 

and information technology buildout to produce the Smart 

Grid, which the National Institute of Standards and Technology 

(NIST) defines as the “two-way flow of electricity and information to create an automated, widely distributed energy delivery 

network.”4

The vision is to build a modern grid that enables energy efficiency and the widespread use of both renewable power and 

plug-in electric vehicles, reducing the country’s dependence 

on fossil fuels and foreign oil. This grid will intelligently detect 

problems and automatically route power around localized 

outages, making the energy system more resilient to natural disasters and terrorist attacks. It will keep bills low and minimize 

greenhouse gas emissions.

Realizing the promise of the Smart Grid will require the addition 

of two-way communications, sensors and software to the electrical system, both in the grid and in the home. Communications are 

fundamental to all aspects of the Smart Grid, including generation, 

transmission, distribution and consumption.

BOX 12-2:

The 2003 Northeast Blackout 

and Synchrophasors

On Aug. 14, 2003, a highvoltage power line in Ohio 

failed after contact with an 

overgrown tree. When a grid 

alarm system also failed, a 

cascading set of faults traveled 

throughout eight northeastern 

states and southeastern 

Canada over the next two 

hours, as transmission system 

operators tried to determine 

the cause and full extent of the 

problem. In total, more than 

50 million people lost power, 

trapping some in elevators 

and leaving vulnerable 

populations at home without 

air conditioning.

According to Secretary of 

Energy Steven Chu, a smarter 

grid could have prevented the 

blackout, which cost the nation 

an estimated $6-10 billion.18

A key finding of the U.S.-

Canada Power System Outage 

Task Force was that network 

operators did not have the right 

data and tools in place to view, 

analyze and control grid events 

as they quickly deteriorated. 

First, each operator only had 

visibility in his or her own 

control area. The grid, however, 

is heavily interconnected 

across regions and so operators 

must be able to see the status 

of the grid beyond their area to 

make appropriate adjustments 

in response to grid events. 

Second, only limited real-time, 

time-coded, synchronized 

energy data was available in 

2003, preventing operators 

from quickly seeing the 

cascading events even within 

their own areas.

Advanced grid sensors, 

called synchrophasors, would 

have given those grid operators 

sufficient visibility to prevent 

the spread of the blackout. 

Synchrophasors measure 

voltage, current and frequency 

30 times or more per second, 

compared with once every four 

seconds for legacy systems. 

Given higher bandwidth and 

low latency requirements, 

these advanced sensors are 

often connected with utility 

fiber networks. Synchrophasors 

improve wide-area visibility and 

control, allowing grid operators 

to track real-time grid 

conditions, observe emerging 

problems and take actions to 

protect system reliability. The 

high granularity of the data 

can also facilitate: 1) better 

post-disturbance analysis, 2) 

improved system utilization, 

and 3) better analysis of the 

integration of renewable power 

into the grid. 

Along with industry, the 

Recovery Act is funding the 

deployment of synchrophasors 

across the country’s electric 

transmission system. The funds 

will help pay for the installation 

of nearly 900 synchrophasors, 

improving reliability, security 

and visibility of the entire 

electric transmission system.19

In the future, synchrophasors 

will extend throughout the 

distribution grid, transmitting 

data over wide-area broadband 

networks.20

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) 

made modernizing the grid national policy, and the Recovery 

Act devoted $4.5 billion to accelerating standardization and 

deployment of the Smart Grid. The Electric Power Research 

Institute estimates that the U.S. will spend $165 billion over the 

next 20 years building the Smart Grid.5

The Smart Grid is a national priority for several reasons. It 

will increase the reliability of the electric grid, more efficiently 

integrate renewable generation, reduce peak demand and support the widespread adoption of electric vehicles.

First, as the current patchwork grid has become more interconnected and complex, reliability has become more critical. 

Power blackouts cost the nation as much as $164 billion per 

year.6 The Smart Grid could prevent many blackouts by sensing 

problems and routing power around them (see the story of the 

2003 blackout in Box 12-2).

Second, to combat climate change, national and state energy 

policies increasingly encourage the development of generation 

assets—such as solar, wind and nuclear—that emit fewer greenhouse gases. But renewable power can be intermittent; clouds 

can mask the sun and wind can stop blowing without warning. 

The country will need greater intelligence in the grid and viable 

energy-storage solutions in order to meaningfully displace 

fossil fuel generation. Renewable power and distributed 
2 5 0 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 2

generation will also drive the need for greater communication 

because they will transform the one-way power system into 

a sophisticated two-way system, where homes, vehicles and 

buildings sometimes draw power from the grid and sometimes 

contribute power to it.7

 A recent study by the Pacific Northwest 

National Laboratory estimates the Smart Grid can reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation by as 

much as 12% by 2030, which is equivalent to taking 65 million 

of today’s cars off the road.8

Third, it is important to shift energy usage away from the 

cripplingly expensive times of peak demand. To meet those 

peaks, utilities build and maintain power plants that only run 

for hours per year. In New England, for example, 15% of the 

total generating capacity is needed less than 1% of the time—

fewer than 90 hours per year.12 As a result, state regulators are 

increasingly looking to change the structure of retail rates—

which are mostly flat today—to time-varying or dynamic rates 

that better reflect the cost of supplying power. A smarter grid is 

necessary to communicate those prices to consumers and help 

them manage their energy use. According to a recent FERC 

report, dynamic pricing and better demand-side engagement 

can reduce peak demand by as much as 20% by 2019, limiting 

the need to build expensive new power plants.13

Fourth, a smarter grid is necessary if America wants to lead 

in the shift toward vehicle electrification. Almost all of the 

global automakers are developing plug-in hybrid electric or full 

electric vehicles, and, if successful in the market, these vehicles 

have the potential to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil 

by half and decrease greenhouse gas emissions of the lightduty vehicle fleet by 27%.14 Without a Smart Grid, widespread 

Exhibit 12-A :

California Independent 

System Operator (ISO) 

System Load Profiles in 

Various Plug-in Hybrid 

Electric Vehicle (PHEV) 

Deployment Scenarios16

45,000

(a) Optimal Charging

40,000

35,000

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0

System Load (megawatts)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Hour

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

5 million PHEVs 

1 million PHEVs 

Actual 

10 million PHEVs 

No additional capacity needed to charge

10 million vehicles from 11 p.m. to 8 a.m.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Hour

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

45,000

(b) Evening Charging

40,000

35,000

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0

0

0

System Load (megawatts)

5 million PHEVs 

1 million PHEVs 

Actual 

10 million PHEVs 

Charging 10 million vehicles from 5 p.m. to 

12 a.m. requires about 30% more capacity
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 2

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 2 5 1

adoption of electric vehicles would require the construction of 

many more power plants. A 2008 study illustrates the challenge: California’s grid has enough spare capacity to charge a 

fleet of more than 10 million plug-in electric hybrids at night 

without requiring new plants. But if drivers plugged in the 

same 10 million vehicles at the end of the workday, California 

would require 10 gigawatts of new capacity (see Exhibit 12-A). 

According to a DOE study, the U.S. has enough existing capacity 

to power 73% of its light-duty vehicle fleet once a smarter grid 

is in place that can charge vehicles entirely at off-peak times.15

Smart meters, which are located at customers’ homes and 

provide two-way communications with their utility, will play a 

major role in the Smart Grid. FERC estimates that the number 

of smart meters deployed will rise from eight million today to 

80 million in 2019.17 

Smart meters, however, are just one part of the effort to 

modernize the electric system. The Smart Grid also includes 

new and legacy applications in the generation, transmission 

and distribution systems, including Supervisory Control and 

Data Acquisition systems, outage management systems, energy 

management systems and a host of new sensing technologies, 

such as synchrophasors (see Box 12-2). These systems allow 

utilities to operate the grid more efficiently, safely and reliably. They also allow grid operators to detect, prevent and 

recover from faults, helping avoid blackouts. But they require 

communications networks capable of operation during and immediately following disasters. 

Today, the more than 3,000 electric utilities in the United 

States use a variety of networks, including wired and wireless, 

licensed and unlicensed, private and commercial, fixed and 

mobile, broadband and narrowband. Traditionally, electric 

utilities build private networks to support applications with 

a high level of reliability, such as those for grid control and 

protection. These systems have operated separately from commercial networks, often utilizing privately owned, proprietary 

narrowband solutions. 

However, current narrowband solutions are not able to support the growing number of endpoints requiring connectivity 

in the modern electric grid,21 and many utilities believe that 

solutions using unlicensed spectrum will be suboptimal for 

mission-critical control applications.22

The amount of data moving across Smart Grid networks is 

modest today but is expected to grow significantly because the 

number of devices, frequency of communications and complexity 

of data transferred are all expected to increase. 23 Various parties 

have attempted to estimate bandwidth requirements; none expect 

existing narrowband communications will be sufficient. Sempra 

Energy has found that it will require “pervasive mobile coverage 

of at least 100 kbps to all utility assets and customer locations.”24

Similarly, DTE Energy believes it will require connectivity of 

200-500 kbps to support pole-mounted distribution devices.25

And, as Southern California Edison points out, “the history of new 

technology deployments shows that performance and bandwidth 

needs were underestimated at early stages.”26

Commercial networks are not available in all areas where 

utilities have assets and provide service.27 Commercial data 

networks are less commonly used for mission-critical control applications, in part because they have historically been 

unable to ensure service continuity during emergency situations, which is a fundamental requirement for utility control 

networks. The record indicates that commercial wireless data 

networks can become congested or may fail completely because 

of a lack of power backup or path redundancy.28

In summary, the lack of a mission-critical wide-area broadband network capable of meeting the requirements of the 

Smart Grid threatens to delay its implementation.29

The country should pursue three parallel paths. First, 

existing commercial mobile networks should be hardened to 

support mission-critical Smart Grid applications. Second, 

utilities should be able to share the public safety mobile broadband network for mission-critical communications. Third, 

utilities should be empowered to construct and operate their 

own mission-critical broadband networks. Each approach 

has significant benefits and tradeoffs, and what works in one 

geographic area or regulatory regime may not work as well in 

another. Rather than force a single solution, these recommendations will accelerate all three approaches.

Recommendation 12.1: As outlined in Chapter 16, the 

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) should start a 

proceeding to explore the reliability and resiliency of commercial broadband communications networks.

Commercial broadband networks, and wireless broadband 

networks in particular, can serve more mission-critical and 

wide-area utility communications needs as service providers 

adopt measures to improve the reliability and resiliency of 

these networks during emergency scenarios. Because 97.8% of 

Americans are already covered by at least one 3G network,30 a 

hardened commercial wireless data network could serve as a 

core part of the Smart Grid.

The benefits of a more reliable commercial broadband 

network are much broader than enabling the Smart Grid alone. 

A more reliable network would also benefit homeland security, 

public safety, businesses and consumers, who are increasingly 

dependent on their broadband communications, including 

their mobile phones. Today, more than 22% of households in 

America do not subscribe to fixed-line telephone service.31
2 5 2 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 2

Recommendation 12.2: States should reduce impediments and financial disincentives to using commercial 

service providers for Smart Grid communications.

Commercial wireless networks are often suitable and 

widely used for many Smart Grid applications, particularly 

metering and routine sensing systems. In certain situations, 

compared with private networks, commercial networks may 

provide substantially similar network performance at an equal 

or lower total cost of ownership.32 A commercial network that 

can ensure service continuity would be capable of supporting additional mission-critical applications. However, many 

large utilities have economic disincentives to use commercial 

networks and may be making suboptimal choices. As rate-ofreturn regulated utilities, they typically earn guaranteed profits 

on the assets they deploy—including private communications 

networks—but only receive cost recovery if they use commercial networks. 

Public utility commissions (PUCs) must ensure that utilities’ 

incentives do not lead them to make suboptimal communications and technology decisions. State regulators should carefully 

evaluate a utility’s network requirements and commercial network alternatives before authorizing a rate of return on private 

communications systems. Consistent with EISA,33 PUCs should 

also consider letting recurring network operating costs qualify 

for a rate of return similar to capitalized utility-built networks. 

California is currently considering this question.34

In many states, electric utility incentives are still oriented 

toward deploying assets and selling more power, not selling less 

or cleaner power.35 This thorny structural problem is outside 

the scope of the National Broadband Plan, despite its explicit 

Congressional mandate to address energy efficiency. However, 

a national strategy to support the growth of the Smart Grid 

must recognize that many large electric utilities have inherent 

financial incentives to deploy regulator-approved communications systems but have mixed-to-poor incentives to use these 

systems to deliver energy more efficiently. There are meaningful exceptions: Box 12-3 illustrates an example of a U.S. utility 

working collaboratively with customers to reduce peak load 

and to encourage energy efficiency.

Recommendation 12.3: The North American Electric 

Reliability Corporation (NERC) should clarify its Critical 

Infrastructure Protection (CIP) security requirements.

NERC, the organization under FERC’s authority responsible 

for the reliability of the bulk power system, should revise its 

security requirements to provide utilities more explicit guidance about the use of commercial and other shared networks for 

critical communications. In future versions of the CIP standard, 

NERC should clarify whether such networks are suitable for 

grid control communications. NERC should also clarify how its 

CIP requirements will coexist with NIST’s cybersecurity standards. The perceived ambiguity on CIP requirements appears to 

be slowing utility decision-making and stifling the deployment 

of some Smart Grid applications on commercial networks.37

Recommendation 12.4: Congress should consider amending 

the Communications Act to enable utilities to use the proposed public safety 700MHz wireless broadband network. 

The wide-area network requirements of utilities are very 

similar to those of public safety agencies. Both require nearuniversal coverage and a resilient and redundant network, 

especially during emergencies. In a natural disaster or terrorist attack, clearing downed power lines, fixing natural gas 

leaks and getting power back to hospitals, transportation hubs, 

BOX 12-3:

The Idaho Power Company: 

A Case Study36

The Idaho Power Company, 

which serves more than 

485,000 customers in the 

state, has had some of the 

lowest electricity prices in the 

nation due to its heavy reliance 

upon cheap hydroelectric 

power. The impact of a 

statewide drought and the 

2000-01 Western energy crisis 

led prices to spike tenfold, 

and the Idaho Public Utilities 

Commission put in place 

an aggressive set of energy 

efficiency programs to reduce 

price volatility and help lower 

customer bills.

The utility instituted 

a demand response and 

direct load control program, 

supported by broadband 

and other communications 

technologies, that compensates 

homeowners, farmers and 

businesses for reducing their 

electricity use during periods 

of peak demand. Homeowners 

receive a $7 credit if the utility 

can automatically cycle their 

air conditioners. Farmers, who 

require a significant amount 

of electricity to pump water 

to irrigate their fields, can 

earn rewards if they cut their 

irrigation time by up to 15 hours 

a week.

In addition, Idaho Power 

offers rebates for attic 

insulation, advertises to 

promote consumer-oriented 

energy efficiency products and 

runs energy-saving classes 

for customers. Since state 

regulators have decoupled the 

company’s profits from how 

much energy it sells, the utility 

has new incentives to get its 

customers to reduce their 

energy use.

These measures have led to 

a 5.6% drop in the state’s peak 

power demand and have saved 

more than 500,000 MWh of 

energy since 2002, equivalent 

to eliminating the energy 

used by 5,000 homes over 

the intervening eight years. In 

addition, some customers have 

seen reductions of as much as 

30% in their electricity bills.
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 2

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 2 5 3

and interoperable broadband Smart Grid.44 Establishing a 

nationwide band would also promote vendor competition and 

lower equipment costs.45

NTIA and the FCC should specifically explore possibilities for coordination of Smart Grid use in appropriate federal 

bands. Any new broadband network built in the identified spectrum should be required to meet standards of interoperability, 

customer data accessibility, privacy and security. Use of this 

spectrum should not be mandated, so that legacy systems are 

not stranded and that commercial, other shared networks and 

unlicensed wireless networks can be used where appropriate. 

Recommendation 12.6: The U.S. Department of Energy 

(DOE), in collaboration with the FCC, should study the 

communications requirements of electric utilities to inform Federal Smart Grid policy.

Understanding the evolving communications requirements 

of electric utilities will help DOE develop informed Smart Grid 

policies for the nation. As an input to this plan, the FCC solicited public comment on Smart Grid technologies, and a number 

of utilities filed detailed responses. However, many utilities 

declined to comment, and others understandably declined to 

reveal confidential or sensitive information in public filings. 

DOE, in collaboration with the FCC, should conduct a 

thorough study of the communications requirements of electric 

utilities, including, but not limited to, the requirements of 

the Smart Grid. Building upon the FCC’s recent efforts, DOE 

should collect data about utilities’ current and projected communications requirements, as well as the types of networks and 

communications services they use. 

12.2 UnleasHing

innovation in smart 

homes and buildings

One of the most important and cost-effective ways to meet national energy goals is to encourage energy efficiency in homes 

and businesses—but end-users need better information in 

order to maximize energy and cost savings.

Today, most Americans receive an electricity bill—via paper or 

an electronically delivered PDF—12 times a year after the energy 

use occurs. They do not know the price of electricity, the source of 

the power or the amount of power needed to run each of their appliances. Most Americans know how much gasoline they need for 

a week’s worth of commuting, yet almost no one knows how much 

electricity it takes to run a load of laundry, turn on an additional 

flat-screen television or cool a home an extra two degrees. 

water treatment plants and homes are fundamental to protecting lives and property. Once deployed, a smarter grid and 

broadband-connected utility crews will greatly enhance the 

effectiveness of these activities. 

Congress should consider amending the Communications 

Act to enable utilities to use the public safety wireless broadband 

network in the 700MHz band, subordinated to the communications of Section 337-defined public safety services. Jurisdictions 

that are licensees or lessees of the public safety 700MHz broadband spectrum should be allowed to enter into agreements with 

utilities on uses and priorities. At the sole discretion of the public 

safety licensee, utilities should also be able to purchase services on 

a public safety network, contribute capital funds and infrastructure or even be the operator of a joint network. These statutory 

changes should create more options for the construction and 

operation of a public safety wireless broadband network. Although 

the network will take years to build, carrying critical traffic from 

multiple users can help lower costs for all.

Several examples already exist of networks that are being shared successfully by public safety entities and utilities. 

SouthernLINC, a subsidiary of the Southern Company, provides commercial wireless service in the Southeast and voice 

communications for Southern Company itself. Because the 

network was built to very high reliability standards, almost a 

quarter of SouthernLINC’s customers are public safety and 

other public agencies. Another example is the Nevada Shared 

Radio System, which is jointly operated by two Nevada utilities 

and the Nevada Department of Transportation (the Nevada 

State Patrol is also a customer).38

Recommendation 12.5: The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the FCC

should continue their joint efforts to identify new uses for 

federal spectrum and should consider the requirements of 

the Smart Grid.

Many large utilities plan to build their own private wireless 

broadband networks to support their mission-critical Smart 

Grid applications.39 Traditionally, utilities have not participated in broadband spectrum auctions because the geographic 

boundaries and regulatory requirements of these licenses have 

been incompatible with utility business models and service 

territories.40 Utilities report they are limited by their lack of 

access to suitable wireless broadband spectrum41 and that lack 

of a nationwide band to build an interoperable Smart Grid will 

slow the nation’s progress toward greater energy independence 

and energy efficiency.42 Several vendors do provide private 

wireless solutions in licensed spectrum, but in various bands, 

protocols and speeds.43

Identifying a nationwide band in which Smart Grid networks could operate would speed deployment of a standardized 
2 5 4 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 2

Smart meters help change this equation because they 

generate real-time data. In addition to their other operational 

capabilities such as automated meter reading and remote 

power monitoring, smart meters can record or transmit three 

types of information:

➤ Historical energy consumption data (e.g., “How much power 

did I use yesterday, last month and last winter?”) 

➤ Real-time data (e.g., “How much power am I using right 

now?”) 

➤ Price and demand response data (e.g., “What is the price of 

electricity right now?”) 

In dozens of consumer trials, Advanced Metering 

Infrastructure (AMI) technologies combined with time-based 

pricing tariffs have led to reductions of both peak demand and total energy consumption. A recent study of 15 utility pilots by the 

Brattle Group found that time-based or dynamic pricing of electricity resulted in a drop of peak demand between 3% and 20%, 

depending on how the pricing was set up. Adding technologies 

such as two-way programmable communicating thermostats, 

in-home energy displays and two-way load control systems drove 

the drop in peak demand to between 27% and 44%.46 When 

people see just how expensive electricity is when demand peaks 

on a hot summer day, they find ways to conserve energy or defer 

their usage. This not only saves consumers money, but also 

greatly cuts costs for the utilities, given that the plants brought 

on line to meet peak demand are easily the highest-cost producers. A drop in peak demand also helps the environment because 

it helps prevent the need for new fossil-fueled power plants. 

Even without price incentives, simply providing consumers better information about their energy use has been shown to reduce 

total consumption by 5–15%,47 equating to savings of $60–180 

per year for the average American household.48 Making better 

information widely available would result in billions of dollars in 

savings per year by consumers and businesses. 

Real-time energy consumption and price data also create 

an opportunity for consumers to select from a growing number 

of products and services that can help save energy. General 

Electric, for example, is developing refrigerators that automatically wait until power is less expensive before they run a 

defrost cycle or make ice.49 Whirlpool plans to have one million 

Smart Grid-compatible clothes dryers available by 2011 and 

has announced that by 2015 all of its appliances will be able 

to connect to a Smart Grid.50 Programmable communicating 

thermostats and energy displays like those made by Tendril, 

EnergyHub and others can show consumers how much they 

have spent to date and can automatically adjust the temperature based on a customer’s desired energy spending amount 

and level of comfort.51 Google and Microsoft, among others, 

have released Internet-based visualization tools that help consumers get a better handle on their energy use.52

For commercial and industrial customers, innovative 

software companies are already finding ways to deliver real 

value from energy data. Minnesota-based Verisae, for example, 

remotely monitors and manages its customers’ assets, such as 

a grocery chain’s freezers, over the Internet. Analyzing detailed 

data, Verisae can identify opportunities for its customers to 

invest in energy-efficiency improvements that maximize return 

on investment. Verisae can even identify when assets require 

maintenance, preventing costly failures and extending equipment life.53 And as explained in Box 12-4, Massachusetts-based 

BOX 12-4:

A Virtual Power Plant

Downtown Boston is home 

to one of the country’s largest 

power plants. But instead of 

nuclear fuel rods or massive 

piles of coal, this plant is 

powered only by sophisticated 

software, broadband Internet 

and companies that are willing 

to reduce their energy use on 

demand.

The idea behind this 

“virtual power plant,” run 

by Massachusetts-based 

EnerNOC, is simple. Typically, 

when electricity demand 

rises above supply, utilities 

must either generate more 

electricity or buy additional 

power from other suppliers on 

the grid. Financially, EnerNOC 

functions like an extra power 

plant during these peaks. But 

instead of generating additional 

electricity, EnerNOC provides 

the grid a temporary reduction 

in demand (the service is 

called demand response in 

industry parlance). EnerNOC 

partners with more than 3,000 

commercial and industrial 

customers who are willing 

to temporarily reduce their 

power consumption. These 

businesses, from grocery stores 

to factories, reduce energy 

demand by dimming noncritical lights in a warehouse 

or by temporarily suspending 

an energy-intensive industrial 

process. 

EnerNOC needs two things 

to make this virtual power 

plant work: broadband Internet 

and access to its customers’ 

real-time energy consumption 

data to verify they are really 

curtailing load when called 

upon. Many customers already 

have Internet connections 

and where they lack 

connectivity, EnerNOC can 

install commercial wireless 

data modems. But getting a 

customer’s real-time energy 

information can be an onerous 

process, often involving a 

meter upgrade. As more 

residential, commercial and 

industrial customers upgrade 

to smart meters, the number of 

customers that can participate 

in such virtual power plants 

will expand, but only if these 

customers and their vendors 

have access to real-time digital 

energy information.
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 2

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 2 5 5

EnerNOC uses real-time energy data and secure communications over the Internet to create a virtual power plant made up 

of commercial and industrial customers who earn money by 

temporarily reducing their loads during critical peaks.54

Broadband is essential to realizing the full potential of smart 

homes and buildings.55 Pervasive Internet connectivity brings 

innovative competitors, technologies and business models 

to energy management systems, from sophisticated building 

management systems to simple home thermostats. Internet 

connectivity to stand-alone energy displays, multipurpose 

security and home automation systems, televisions, computers 

and smartphones enables consumers to see more information 

(e.g. weather conditions, energy prices, bills-to-date) and make 

smarter decisions about energy use. Broadband allows consumers to monitor and control their home energy use from the 

convenience of a mobile phone. 

However, broadband by itself is not sufficient to unleash the 

full innovation potential of smart homes and buildings. The 

country also needs open standards and customer data accessibility policies.

Standards are critical to the Smart Grid. For example, the 

faster NIST can accelerate market convergence toward a small 

number of appliance communications standards, the sooner 

manufacturers can offer smart appliances that communicate 

with the rest of the smart home. Standards will help ensure 

that the Smart Grid is “plug-and-play,” encouraging innovation 

by giving companies a large potential market for devices and 

applications and providing customers with the ability to use 

any of them to take advantage of the grid. The NIST standards 

development process should continue to draw on lessons from 

the Internet. Open standards are critically important—Internet 

Protocol being a prime example. In addition, security and privacy should be fundamental to both network architectures and 

everyday business processes. 

Despite the wide variety of potential uses for the energy 

information created by smart meters, these data are not yet 

available to customers. One study of a number of large utilities 

found that of the almost 17 million meters being planned or 

deployed by the respondents, there were clear plans to provide 

customer access to the data only 35% of the time. Furthermore, 

less than 1% of the respondents’ customers have real-time access to their energy data today.56

A national Smart Grid policy should encourage tens of 

thousands of entrepreneurs to innovate—using new technologies and business models—to create a wide variety 

of in-building energy management and information services. Making energy data available to customers and their 

authorized third parties, while employing open and nonproprietary standards, is the best way to unleash this vast 

potential for innovation.57 The history of the Internet 

illustrates how entrepreneurs can develop disruptive applications, attract investment capital and compete to deliver 

value to customers—thereby driving innovation, economic 

growth and job creation (see Box 12-5).

BOX 12-5:

Energy Management 

Applications58

It is a blistering hot summer 

day. You have just arrived 

at work and realize that you 

forgot to turn off your home air 

conditioning, which is blowing 

full blast. In the past there was 

nothing you could do until you 

returned home. But today there 

are new mobile applications 

(“apps”) that allow you to take 

action anytime, anywhere.

There are already dozens 

of apps on smartphones, 

computers and other devices 

dedicated to home energy 

measurement and management. 

Companies such as Visible 

Energy, Control4 and many 

others offer apps that let 

you monitor your energy 

consumption and control 

your lights, security system, 

entertainment system and 

thermostat from the comfort 

of your living room couch or a 

remote location. 

These applications are not 

just for early adopters with 

high-end home automation 

systems. Socially minded or 

cost-conscious consumers who 

want to better track their energy 

use can use online sites like 

Microsoft’s Hohm and Google’s 

PowerMeter. 
2 5 6 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 2

securely access and exchange digital energy information over 

the Internet.

States and utilities should not wait for full smart meter 

deployments to take these steps. Though smart meters will 

provide increased data resolution, digital access to simple 

monthly consumption data has many benefits. Historical usage 

and bill information lets consumers analyze their energy usage 

over time, evaluate prospective energy-efficiency measures and 

even compare their consumption against similarly sized houses. 

Better access to utility bill data also lets new buyers of homes 

or buildings factor energy efficiency information into their 

purchase decisions. 

With reasonable privacy protections, the federal government 

should be granted limited access to utility bills from homes 

receiving federal energy efficiency funds to better evaluate 

the government’s energy efficiency programs, such as weatherization. Energy consumption data, when aggregated, can be 

very useful to a wide variety of public policy and economics 

researchers. States should consider how third parties might get 

access to anonymized datasets for research purposes, with strict 

privacy protections. 

By the end of 2010, every state PUC should require its regulated investor-owned utilities to provide historical consumption, 

price and bill data over the Internet, in machine-readable, 

standardized formats. By the end of 2011, every investor-owned 

utility should develop and implement this capability. 

While a handful of states are moving quickly to develop proinnovation energy data policies, a number of states are moving 

too slowly, or not at all. Congress should monitor the issue 

and should consider national legislation if states fail to act. 

America’s energy and environmental challenges are too important to wait.

Recommendation 12.8: The Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission (FERC) should adopt consumer digital data 

accessibility and control standards as a model for the states.

Recommendation 12.9: DOE should consider consumer 

data accessibility policies when evaluating Smart Grid grant 

applications, report on states’ progress toward enacting 

consumer data accessibility, and develop best practices 

guidance for states.

The federal government should promote consumer accessibility to digital energy information. Although retail energy 

services are regulated at a state level, FERC and DOE should 

encourage consumer data accessibility and control. As FERC 

begins its rulemaking to adopt NIST standards, it should also 

include NIST standards focused on consumer data access to 

provide states a model on which to base their own Smart Grid 

rulemakings. FERC should also encourage wholesale market 

A national broadband plan in 2010 cannot fully anticipate 

how Americans will use energy in 2050. Perhaps energy generation (and storage) will be much more distributed by then, with 

the grid functioning mostly as an intelligent broker between 

net-zero buildings exchanging power. Maybe energy transactions, not just energy management and efficiency, will be the 

next killer application of the Internet. The federal government 

need not know the answer in 2010; rather, it should use a combination of incentives, rules and standards to foster an open 

marketplace where the best ideas, technologies and entrepreneurs can compete for investment capital and customers. 

Recommendation 12.7: States should require electric 

utilities to provide consumers access to, and control of, 

their own digital energy information, including real-time 

information from smart meters and historical consumption, price and bill data over the Internet. If states fail to 

develop reasonable policies over the next 18 months, 

Congress should consider national legislation to cover consumer privacy and the accessibility of energy data. 

Consumers, and their authorized third parties, must be 

able to get secure, non-discriminatory access to energy data in 

standardized, machine-readable formats. Customers should 

have access to their data in the same granular form in which it 

is collected, and in as close to real-time as possible. Innovative 

companies—from large service providers to small startups—and 

utilities should be able to compete on a level playing field to 

provide a wide variety of home and building energy information 

and management services. 

PUCs should mandate data accessibility as a part of 

Smart Grid rate cases, especially smart meter deployments. 

Consistent with EISA, these policies should mandate secure 

consumer accessibility to real-time energy consumption data, 

time-series consumption and billing data and dynamic price 

data.59 Regulators should also require regulated utilities to 

adopt business processes that clearly articulate the methods by 

which consumers can authorize and de-authorize third-party 

access. Regulators should also strongly consider requiring 

distribution utilities to provide consumers’ generation mix and 

emissions data in as close to real time as possible.60

Several state PUCs and legislatures have already started 

to require customer access to energy data. The California 

PUC has recently ruled that its major investor-owned utilities must provide customers access to their usage and price 

data by the end of 2010 and must provide real-time access by 

the end of 2011.61 The Pennsylvania legislature has required 

all large utilities to create a plan for deploying AMI systems 

with customer data access capabilities. In Texas, the PUC 

has established a common data portal in which customers, 

utilities, electricity retailers and third parties will be able to 
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 2

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 2 5 7

entities—independent system operators/regional transmission 

network organizations—to provide information on generation mix and emissions data as close to real time as possible 

at a system level. In future versions of its Smart Grid Systems 

Report,62 DOE should specifically provide updates on the 

progress of each state in enacting strong consumer data accessibility policies. DOE should also develop a set of best practices 

for states by publishing a set of model energy data policies. 

Recommendation 12.10: The Rural Utilities Service 

(RUS) should make Smart Grid loans to rural electric 

cooperatives a priority, including integrated Smart Gridbroadband projects. RUS should favor Smart Grid projects 

from states and utilities with strong consumer data accessibility policies. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service 

can play an important role in modernizing the operations of 

the rural electric cooperatives that own and operate 42% of 

the nation’s distribution infrastructure.63 In FY2009, RUS 

disbursed 209 electric loans and loan guarantees totaling $6.6 

billion, giving it a total loan portfolio of $40 billion.64 Similar to 

the directive in EISA, RUS should ensure that electric cooperatives have considered investment in qualified Smart Grid 

systems before undertaking investment in less sophisticated 

grid technologies. 

12.3 Sustainable 

information and 

communications 

technology

ICT industries account for 120 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh) of 

electricity use annually—approximately 3% of all U.S. electricity.65 They are responsible for 2.5% of the national greenhouse 

gas emissions, and their emissions share is forecast to grow 

three times faster than those from other sectors of the economy.66 The growth in energy usage and resulting emissions can be 

divided into three components: increased penetration and usage 

of personal computers (PCs) and peripherals, growing demand 

for communications services and rapid growth of data centers. 

PCs and peripherals made up approximately 3.3% of residential and commercial electricity use in the U.S. in 2005,67 a share 

that is expected to grow to approximately 4.7% by 2011.68 This 

growth will be driven by the increased penetration and usage of 

devices such as mobile phones, netbooks and video-game consoles. Simple behavioral changes can lessen the impact of these 

devices. For example, one study found that 60% of all desktop 

PCs remain fully powered during nights and weekends.69

A new standard for a universal charging solution for 

mobile phones, recently approved by the International 

Telecommunication Union, will cut standby power consumption in half. The drop will occur because the same highly 

energy-efficient charger will be used for all future handsets, 

regardless of their make or model. The change will eliminate 

up to 21.8 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions a year and 

reduce by up to 82,000 tons annually the chargers that need to 

be produced, shipped and subsequently discarded.70

Communications networks also can be made more efficient. 

Approximately 0.8% of U.S. electricity is consumed by the 

telecommunications industry.71 Emissions related to mobile 

networks, in particular, are expected to increase from 10.5 

million metric tons of greenhouse gases in 2008 to 11.2 million 

metric tons in 2013 under a business-as-usual scenario.72 But 

the large service providers are not sitting still. They recognize 

that reducing the energy intensity of their operations will not 

only help the planet but also reduce costs and maximize their 

profits. To take one example, Sprint has audited all of its facilities and installed building automation systems and Web-based 

meter-information systems, leading to a 9% annual energy 

savings (~23 million kWh) and preventing 21,400 tons of CO2

emissions per year.73 The company has also installed hydrogen 

fuel cells and solar power at a number of its cell tower sites.74

Data centers accounted for 1.5% of U.S. electricity consumption in 2006, and demand is expected to double by 2011.75

Demand will rise in large part because of the rapid increase in 

the need for data processing and storage of electronic information, compounded by data center servers’ very low utilization 

rates and inefficient cooling systems.76

The largest efficiency opportunities for data centers can be 

achieved through virtualization, a technique that lets a single 

server be treated as though it is multiple machines. This means 

that servers do not need to be dedicated to specific purposes 

and can be used wherever processing power is needed. At the 

moment, only 5-15% of server capacity in a typical data center 

is being used at any one time, but virtualization can significantly increase that figure.77 Such increased efficiency can reduce a 

data center’s greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 27%.78

Better temperature monitoring and control devices, as well as 

reducing a data center’s reliance on air conditioning, can cut 

emissions by 18%.79 Lastly, locating data centers in areas where 

a high proportion of baseload power is generated from lowcarbon sources can lead to significant emissions reductions.80
2 5 8 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 2

Recommendation 12.11: The FCC should start a proceeding to improve the energy efficiency and environmental 

impact of the communications industry. 

The FCC should start a Notice of Inquiry to study how the 

communications industry could improve its energy efficiency 

and environmental impact. This proceeding should examine 

such topics as data center energy efficiency, the use of renewable power for communications networks and the steps that 

communications companies can take to reduce their carbon 

emissions. The proceeding should also study how service providers can impact the energy usage of peripherals in the home, 

including mobile phone chargers. 

Recommendation 12.12: The federal government should 

take a leadership role in improving the energy efficiency of 

its data centers. 

The federal government owns and operates approximately 

10% of the nation’s data centers and servers.81 Research suggests that data centers can cut their electricity use by up to 

45% by adopting best practices in energy efficiency.82 Federal 

agencies should take measures to improve the energy efficiency 

of their data centers in accordance with President Obama’s Oct. 

5, 2009, Executive Order 13514 that promotes environmental 

stewardship (including “implementing best management practices for energy-efficient management of servers and Federal 

data centers”) and the announced 28% greenhouse gas emissions reduction target set for the federal government by 2020. 

Specifically, the federal government should set a goal of 

earning the government’s ENERGY STAR for all eligible 

data centers it operates. A first step toward this goal should 

be metering the energy use in all federal data centers as soon 

as practicable. This will enable data centers to receive an 

ENERGY STAR rating upon the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency’s release of the data center Portfolio Manager in June 

2010. By metering their data centers and using the rating tool, 

departments and agencies will be able to measure their progress toward earning the ENERGY STAR, which will be given to 

the top 25% of energy-efficient facilities. With limited national 

security exceptions, agencies should post their data center efficiency ratings online so the public can track the government’s 

progress. In addition, all new federal data centers should be 

designed to earn the ENERGY STAR. Finally, DOE should 

consider and report on whether the government can go beyond 

ENERGY STAR savings, and if so, how.

12.4 Smart 

transportation

The transportation industry is the second-largest consumer of 

energy, a primary reason for the country’s reliance on oil and 

the sector that is the second-highest emitter of greenhouse 

gases.83 Broadband and advanced communications infrastructure will play an important role in modernizing various 

transportation systems by making them safer, cleaner and 

more efficient.

Broadband and other information and communications 

technologies can reduce emissions by enabling more efficient 

driving. Adding communications technologies to vehicles and 

to key infrastructure, such as traffic signals, can help reduce the 

amount of time spent on the road. Drivers can optimize routes 

based on real-time traffic conditions, and commercial operators can plan more efficient routes and supply chain logistics. 

Communications can also enable potential future transportation policies such as congestion pricing and performance-based 

mileage standards, which would cut traffic and encourage drivers to be as efficient as possible. Collectively, information and 

communications technologies can eliminate as much as 440 

million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions from transportation by 2020.84

Automakers are increasingly building wireless communications into vehicles, for safety, navigation, entertainment and 

productivity. OnStar, a service offered by General Motors, uses 

an embedded cellular connection to provide emergency alert 

services and diagnostics that can improve a vehicle’s performance and gas mileage. Vehicle communications can also come 

from a driver’s personal mobile phone; Ford’s SYNC service, for 

example, allows drivers to use their wireless phones to provide 

in-vehicle connectivity for a variety of entertainment, communications and safety applications. 

While the number of vehicles with broadband is small today, 

all U.S. automakers have begun offering integrated or aftermarket-compatible solutions that presage eventual mass-market, 

in-vehicle broadband adoption. Whatever its form factor or 

application, in-vehicle broadband is likely to contribute to the 

growing need for commercial broadband spectrum. 

The benefits of broadband-connected vehicles will be great, 

but the risks of increased driver distraction must be proactively 

addressed. The addition of new technologies in the vehicle 

must be coupled with a commitment by individuals, families 

and automakers to use and deploy these technologies responsibly, in a manner that minimizes driver distraction. Solving 

these challenges will require coordinated leadership from 

industry, government and consumer groups. Solutions must be 
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 2

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 2 5 9

pursued before these applications are widely deployed, rather 

than as an afterthought.

The federal government has already swung into action. The 

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) held a distracted 

driving summit and launched Distraction.gov, the federal 

government’s official website for distracted driving—currently 

featuring Oprah Winfrey’s campaign against distracted driving. 

The FCC held a workshop exploring technologies that could 

play a role in reducing the risk of distracted driving. DOT and 

the FCC have also launched an interagency collaboration on 

distracted driving, focused on consumer outreach and on technological approaches to the problem. The federal government 

should continue to work with industry to safely incorporate the 

next generation of in-vehicle communications technology.

Broadband can also encourage the use of alternatives to 

automobile transportation. Route-planning applications make 

public transportation easier to use, and in-vehicle broadband 

can make mass transit more attractive. For example, intercity 

bus companies cite broadband as one factor increasing ridership 

since 2006.85 Several companies offer free Wi-Fi to passengers, a 

feature Megabus credits with attracting new riders to its BostonNew York City service, which saw ticket sales rise 67% in 2009.86

As discussed in Chapter 13, broadband itself provides an 

alternative to transportation and travel, through Web conferencing, telecommuting and videoconferencing. Already, many 

companies are minimizing emissions and saving costs by avoiding air travel, and telecommuters are saving time and gas by 

working from home. 

Advanced communications systems also have the potential 

to help reduce the nation’s tens of thousands of automobile 

fatalities each year.87 For example, imagine a driver needs to 

suddenly brake while traveling on a busy highway. An ad hoc 

vehicle-to-vehicle communications system could allow cars 

following several vehicles to be alerted of the danger almost 

as soon as the first car’s driver pushed the brake pedal. This 

would give more drivers a critical opportunity to prevent a 

high-speed, rear-end collision—a common cause of highway 

fatalities. In 1999, the FCC allocated 75 MHz of spectrum 

in the 5.850–5.925 GHz band for these types of specialized 

Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) applications. The 

transportation industry envisioned using dedicated shortrange communication (DSRC) protocols to communicate 

between vehicles (vehicle-to-vehicle) and roadway infrastructure (vehicle-to-infrastructure). Despite promising tests, these 

networks have not been deployed.

For some ITS applications, such as vehicle-to-vehicle collision avoidance, DSRC technology may be required because 

it provides extremely low latency communication between 

vehicles. However, these applications require a critical mass of 

vehicles with the technology to deliver real benefits. Practically 

speaking, this means DOT would need to mandate the technology in new vehicles or otherwise encourage adoption, possibly 

by implementing a consumer information program through the 

New Car Assessment Program. DOT has committed to making 

a decision on its approach by 2013. 

Whatever the ultimate decision, the country need not wait 

for deployment of DSRC technology to begin aggressively 

developing and deploying smart transportation applications. 

In the 10 years since the FCC allocated spectrum for ITS applications, commercial wireless data networks have been built 

to cover much of the country’s roadways. These networks and 

Internet-hosted applications are capable of delivering many of 

the efficiency, mobility and sustainability applications envisioned in ITS. DOT should explore ways to leverage commercial 

wireless data networks and the Internet to achieve its goals.
2 6 0 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 2

c h a p t e r 1 2 E n d n o t e s 

1 See U.S. Energy Info. Admin. (EIA), DOE, Annual

Energy Review 2008, at 13 (2009) (providing energy 

expenditures and consumption), available at http://

www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/aer.pdf.

2 Steven Chu, Secretary, DOE, Presentation at Copenhagen: 

Meeting the Energy and Climate Challenge (Dec. 14, 2009), 

available at http://www.energy.gov/news/documents/

Chu_Climate_Challenge_12-14-09.pdf.

3 Boston Consulting Group (BCG), Global

e-Sustainability Initiative, Smart 2020: Enabling the

Low Carbon Economy in the Information Age, United

states report addendum (2008) (BCG, Smart 2020), 

available at http://www.smart2020.org/_assets/files/

Smart2020UnitedStatesReportAddendum.pdf. For 

comparison, note that all the coal fired power plants in 

the United States generate about 2 billion metric tons of 

greenhouse gas emissions per year. EPA, Inventory of

U.S. Greenhouse GasEmissions and Sinks: 1990–2007

(2009) (EPA, Inventory ofEmissions and Sinks), available 

at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/

downloads09/GHG2007entire_report-508.pdf. 

4 Elec. Power Res. Inst. (EPRI), Report to NIST on

the Smart Grid Interoperability Standards Roadmap

(2009), available at http://www.nist.gov/smartgrid/

InterimSmartGridRoadmapNISTRestructure.pdf.

5 EPRI, Power Delivery System of the Future: 

A Preliminary Estimate of Costs and Benefits

(2004), available at http://mydocs.epri.com/docs/

public/000000000001011001.pdf.

6 Consortium for Elec. Infrastructure to Support a

Digital Soc’y, The Cost of Power Disturbances to

Industrial & Digital Economy Companies (2001), 

available at http://www.epri-intelligrid.com/intelligrid/

docs/Cost_of_Power_Disturbances_to_Industrial_and_

Digital_Technology_Companies.pdf.

7 Edison Electric Institute Comments in re NBP PN #2

(Comment Sought on the Implementation of Smart Grid 

Technology—NBP Public Notice #2, GN Docket Nos. 

09-47, 09-51, 09-137, Public Notice, 24 FCC Red 11747 

(WCB 2009) (NBP PN #2)), filed Oct. 2, 2009.

8 Pacific Northwest Nat’l Lab. (PNNL), DOE, Smart

Grid: An Estimation of the Energy and CO2 Benefits

(2009), available at http://www.pnl.gov/main/

publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-19112.

pdf; EPA, Emission Facts: Greenhouse Gas Emissions

from a Typical Passenger Vehicle (2005) (providing 

EPA auto emission facts), available at http://www.epa.

gov/OMS/climate/420f05004.pdf.

9 Lawrence Livermore Nat’l Lab., United States

Energy Flow in 2007 (chart) (2009), available at

https://publicaffairs.llnl.gov/news/energy/content/

international/United_States_Energy_2007.png.

10 EPA, Inventory of Emissions and Sinks.

11 Electric power generation is responsible for 34 percent 

of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. EPA, Inventory of

Emissions and Sinks at ES-16, tbl. ES-7. 

12 Philip Giudice, Commissioner, Mass. Dep’t of Energy 

Res., Presentation at FCC Energy Field Hearing: Our 

Energy Future and Smart Grid Communication (Nov. 

30, 2009), available at http://www.broadband.gov/

fieldevents/fh_energy_environment/giudice.pdf.

13 FERC, National Assessment of Demand Response

Potential (2009) (FERC, Demand Response Potential), 

available at http://www.ferc.gov/legal/staff-reports/06-

09-demand-response.pdf.

14 PNNL, Impacts and Assessment of Plug-in Hybrid

Vehicles on Electric Utilities and Regional U.S. Power

Grids: Part 1: Technical Analysis 12 (2006) (PNNL, 

Assessment of Plug-in Hybrid Vehicles on Electric

Utilities), available at http://www.ferc.gov/about/commem/wellinghoff/5-24-07-technical-analy-wellinghoff.

pdf.

15 PNNL, Assessment of Plug-in Hybrid Vehicles on

Electric Utilities at 13.

16 D. M. Lemoine et al., An Innovation and Policy Agenda 

for Commercially Competitive Plug-in Hybrid Electric 

Vehicles, Envtl. Res. Letters, Jan.–Mar. 2008, at 6 

(“No additional capacity needed to charge 10 million 

vehicles from 11p.m.–8a.m.” and “Charging 10 million 

vehicles from 6p.m.–12a.m. requires approximately 30 

percent more capacity” superimposed on the graphs 

by the Commission), available at http://www.iop.org/

EJ/article/1748-9326/3/1/014003/erl8_1_014003.

pdf ?request-id=ebf87cfb-96ec-4f5b-bccbea307197f80d.

17 FERC, Demand Response Potential.

18 Steven Chu, Secretary, DOE, Presentation to the GW 

Solar Institute: Investing in Our Energy Future (Sept. 

21, 2009), available at http://solar.gwu.edu/index_files/

Variability/chu%20presentation%20at%20gridweek.

pdf.

19 Memorandum from Vice Pres. Joseph Biden, Jr., to Pres. 

Barack Obama on the Transformation to a Clean Energy 

Economy 5 (Dec. 15, 2009) (stating that there will be 

877 sensors installed by 2013), available at http://www.

whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/administrationofficial/vice_president_memo_on_clean_energy_

economy.pdf.

20 Tropos Networks Comments in re NBP PN #2, filed Oct. 

2, 2009, at 2.

21 Sempra Energy Utilities (Sempra) Comments in re 

PN #2, filed Oct. 2, 2009, at 15; Southern Company 

Comments in re NBP PN #2, filed Oct. 2, 2009, at 13.

22 DTE Energy (DTE) Comments in re NBP PN #2, filed 

Oct. 2, 2009, at 7; American Electric Power (AEP) 

Comments in re NBP PN #2, filed Oct. 2, 2009, at 25.

23 See AEP Comments in re NBP PN #2, filed Oct. 2, 2009; 

Centerpoint Comments in re NBP PN #2, filed Oct. 2, 

2009; Cleco Comments in re NBP PN #2, filed Oct. 5, 

2009; DTE Comments in re NBP PN #2, filed Oct. 2, 

2009; Florida Power and Light Comments in re NBP PN 

#2, filed Oct. 2, 2009; Sempra Comments in re NBP PN 

#2, filed Oct. 2, 2009; Southern Company Comments in 

re NBP PN #2, filed Oct. 2, 2009; See also Letter from 

Andres E. Carvallo, CIO, Austin Energy et al., to Pres. 

Barack Obama (June 29, 2009), available at http://

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020356770; 

Alcatel Lucent Comments in re NBP PN #2, filed Oct. 2, 

2009; Aclara Comments in re NBP PN #2, filed Oct. 2, 

2009; GE Energy Comments in re NBP PN #2, filed Oct. 

2, 2009; Gridnet Comments in re NBP PN #2, filed Oct. 

2, 2009; Hewlett-Packard Comments in re NBP PN #2, 

filed Oct. 2, 2009, attached to Letter from Tony Erickson, 

Industry Leader, Utilities, to Chmn. Julius Genachowski, 

FCC, GN Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 09-137 (Oct. 2, 

2009); Motorola Comments in re NBP PN #2, filed Oct. 

2, 2009; On-Ramp Wireless Comments in re NBP PN 

#2, filed Oct. 2, 2009; Tropos Networks Comments in re 

NBP PN #2, filed Oct. 2, 2009. 

24 Sempra Comments in re NBP PN #2, filed Oct. 2, 2009, 

at 11.

25 DTE Comments in re NBP PN #2, filed Oct. 2, 2009, 

at 14.

26 Southern California Edison (SCE) Comments in re NBP 

PN #2, filed Oct. 2, 2009, at 14.

27 AEP—a major investor-owned utility—estimates that 59 

percent of its substations do not have 3G wireless access. 

AEP Comments in re NBP PN #2, filed Oct. 2, 2009, at 

16.

28 FCC fact findings and the record provide examples 

of incidents when commercial networks were unable 

to provide communications during and immediately 

following emergencies. When remnants of Hurricane 

Ike struck Ohio, congestion rendered commercial 

networks “nearly useless” in large parts of Columbus. 

AEP Comments in re NBP PN #2, filed Oct. 2, 2009, 

at 14. During Hurricane Katrina, the communications 

systems operated by utility subsidiaries were for a 

time the sole source of wireless communications in 

Gulfport, Miss. Southern Company Comments in re 

PN #2, filed Oct. 2, 2009, at 10. Cleco has experienced 

similar problems with commercial network connectivity 

during hurricanes. Cleco Comments in re NBP PN 

#2, filed Oct. 2, 2009, at 2. The FCC has previously 

found that commercial networks are often disrupted 

in emergencies and that hardened networks (including 

many utility networks) are less susceptible to failure 

due to their site hardening, onsite backup power, 

redundant backhaul, and staff dedicated to maintenance 

of backup capabilities. Independent Panel Reviewing

the Impact of Hurricane Katrina on Communications

Networks, Report and Recommendations to the Federal

Communications Commission (2006), attached to Letter 

from Nancy J. Victory, Chair, Indep. Panel Reviewing 

the Impact of Hurricane Katrina on Communications 

Networks, to Chmn. Kevin J. Martin, FCC, EB Docket 

No. 06-119 (June 12, 2006), available at www.fcc.gov/

pshs/docs/advisory/hkip/karrp.pdf. 

29 See Alcatel Lucent Comments in re NBP PN #2, filed 

Oct. 2, 2009; Sempra Comments in re NBP PN #2, 

filed Oct. 2, 2009; Utilities Telecom Council (UTC) 

Comments in re NBP PN #2, filed Oct. 2, 2009.

30 See Rob Curtis et al., Omnibus Broadband Initiative,

(OBI) The Broadband Availability Gap 3G coverage 

figures rely on American Roamer data for HSPA and 

EV-DO coverage and Geolytics data for population; 

covered population for partially covered census blocks 

is calculated based on the fraction of area covered by 

the American Roamer 3G coverage shapefiles American 

Roamer Advanced Services database (accessed Aug. 

2009) (aggregating service coverage boundaries 

provided by mobile network operators) (on file with the 

Commission) (American Roamer database). For detail 
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 2

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 2 6 1

c h a p t e r 1 2 E n d n o t e s 

on American Roamer methodology, see Chapter 4.

31 Stephen J. Blumberg & Julian V. Luke, Nat’l Ctr for

Health Stat., Wireless Substitution: Early Release of

Estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, 

January–June 2009 (2009), http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/

data/nhis/earlyrelease/wireless200912.pdf.

32 T-Mobile Comments in re NBP PN #2, filed Oct. 2, 

2009, at 5–6.

33 EISA requires that each state consider authorizing rate 

recovery for “capital, operating expenditure, or other 

costs . . . for the deployment of the qualified smart grid 

system.” 16 U.S.C. § 2621(d)(18)(B).

34 California Public Utility Commission Comments in re 

NBP PN #2, filed Oct. 2, 2009, at 9.

35 There are notable exceptions to this, principally in states 

where the regulators have implemented decoupling. 

Publicly and cooperatively owned utilities, which deliver 

roughly 30 percent of the nation’s electricity, are another 

exception. 

36 Kate Galbraith, Why is a Utility Paying Customers?, 

N.Y. Times, Jan. 23, 2010, available at http://www.

nytimes.com/2010/01/24/business/energyenvironment/24idaho.html?pagewanted=2&emc=eta1.

37 For example, Centerpoint cites NERC CIP as a reason it 

did not select commercial networks to provide wide area 

connectivity. Centerpoint Comments in re NBP PN #2, 

filed Oct. 2, 2009, at 10. On the other hand, AT&T touts 

its NERC CIP-compliant network security capabilities 

as a benefit for utilities that choose its networking 

services. Letter from Joseph P. Marx, Assistant to the 

President, Federal Regulatory, AT&T Inc., to Marlene 

H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GM Dockets Nos. 09–47, 

09–51, 09–137 (Dec. 18, 2009) AT&T Dec. 18, 2009 Ex 

Parte at 3. Sempra believes commercial networks can 

meet NERC CIP requirements if the operators have 

“the ability to prove that each communications device 

and link in the path is properly managed, configured 

and secure under the terms of national standards and 

regulations related to critical infrastructure” (e.g., FERC 

and NERC standards). Sempra Comments in re NBP PN 

#2, filed Oct. 2, 2009, at 9. DTE Comments in re NBP PN 

#2, filed Oct. 2, 2009, (expresses a similar sentiment). 

Alcatel Lucent believes it may not be possible to use 

Internet Protocol for some applications due to NERC 

CIP requirements. Alcatel Lucent Comments in re NBP 

PN #2, filed Oct. 2, 2009, at 12. CTIA points out that 

irrespective of NERC CIP requirements, commercial 

networks can be made very secure and are commonly 

used for very sensitive communications, including the 

communications of the U.S. Department of Treasury, 

the U.S. Secret Service, and the U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security. CTIA Comments in re NBP PN#2, 

filed Oct. 2, 2009, at 9. 

38 Marc Pallans, Public Safety and Private Utility . . . a 

Unique Partnership, Law & Order, July 2009, available at

http://www.pspc.harris.com/news/published_articles/

Law%20Jul09%20pg42%20w%20ad.pdf.

39 See Centerpoint Comments in re NBP PN #2, filed Oct. 

2, 2009; Sempra Comments in re NBP PN #2, filed Oct. 

2, 2009.

40 AEP Comments in re NBP PN #2, filed Oct. 2, 2009, at 

23; UTC Comments in re NBP PN #2, filed Oct. 2, 2009, 

at 21. 

41 See AEP Comments in re NBP PN #2, filed Oct. 2, 2009; 

Centerpoint Comments in re NBP PN #2, filed Oct. 2, 

2009; UTC Comments in re NBP PN #2, filed Oct. 2, 

2009; Edison Electric Institute in re NBP PN #2, filed 

Oct. 2, 2009.

42 Sempra Comments in re NBP PN #2, filed Oct. 2, 2009, 

at 15.

43 Examples include Arcadian Networks, Gridnet, and 

Sensus.

44 Sempra Comments in re NBP PN #2, filed Oct. 2, 2009, 

at 15.

45 See AEP Comments in re NBP PN #2, filed Oct. 2, 2009; 

Centerpoint Comments in re NBP PN #2, filed Oct. 2, 

2009; UTC Comments in re NBP PN #2, filed Oct. 2, 

2009.

46 Ahmad Faruqui & Sanem Sergici, Household Response

of Dynamic Pricing to Electricity—A Survey of the

Experimental Evidence (2009), available at http://

www.loadeconomics.com/files/The_Power_of_

Experimentation.pdf.

47 Google Comments in re NBP PN #2, filed Oct. 2, 2009, 

at 4.

48 Table 5. Average Monthly Bill Data by Census Division, 

and State 2008, attached to EIA, Electric Sales, 

Revenue, and Average Price 2008 (2010), http://eia.doe.

gov/cneaf/electricity/esr/table5.html.

49 See GE Energy Comments in re NBP PN #2, filed 

Oct. 2, 2009, at 23 (discussing the appliances they are 

developing that will “change their operating model” 

based on real-time price and consumption information).

50 Candace Lombardi, Whirlpool Wants to Pull the Plug on 

‘Dumb’ Appliances, CNET, Oct. 29, 2009, http://news.

cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10386123-54.html.

51 Tendril Comments in re NBP PN #2, filed Oct. 2, 2009.

52 See Google Comments in re NBP PN #2, filed Oct. 2, 

2009; Letter from Paula Boyd, Regulatory Counsel for 

Microsoft, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN 

Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 09-137 (Nov. 9, 2009). 

53 Dan Johnson, Founder & CEO, Verisae, Remarks at FCC 

Energy Field Hearing (Nov. 30, 2009), available at http://

www.fcc.gov/live/archive/2009_11_30-workshop.html.

54 Rick Counihan, Vice President Regulatory Affairs, 

EnerNOC, Remarks at the FCC Energy Field 

Hearing (Nov. 30, 2009) (Counihan Energy Hearing 

Remarks), available at http://www.fcc.gov/live/

archive/2009_11_30-workshop.html.

55 Counihan Energy Hearing Remarks; Adrian Tuck, 

CEO, Tendril Networks, Remarks at FCC Energy Field 

Hearing (Nov. 30, 2009), available at http://www.fcc.

gov/live/archive/2009_11_30-workshop.html.

56 eMeter survey of 25 utilities with plans to deploy 16.7 

million AMI meters in the next four years (does not 

include California utilities) eMeter Comments in re 

NBP PN #2, filed Oct. 2, 2009, at 3. This finding is 

supported by GE Energy. GE Energy Comments in re 

NBP PN #2, filed Oct. 2, 2009, at 22.

57 See AT&T Comments in re NBP PN #2, filed Oct. 2, 

2009; Letter from David M. Don, Senior Director Public 

Policy, Comcast, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, 

GN Docket No. 09-51 (Oct. 19, 2009); Google Comments 

in re NBP PN #2, filed Oct. 2, 2009; Honeywell 

Comments in re NBP PN #2, filed Oct. 2, 2009; Qwest 

Comments in re NBP PN #2, filed Oct. 2, 2009; Tendril 

Networks Comments in re NBP PN #2, filed Oct. 2, 

2009; Verizon & Verizon Wireless Comments in re NBP 

PN #2, filed Oct. 2, 2009.

58 Images from left to right: Visible Energy, Inc., Control4, 

Tendril, ecobee.

59 EISA requires consumers be given “direct access” to 

their energy price, consumption, and generation mix 

data “through the Internet.” 16 U.S.C. § 2621(d)(17).

60 There are a number of possible applications from this 

data, including empowering customers to use energy 

when renewable power sources are plentiful and helping 

businesses track their own greenhouse gas emissions 

impact.

61 Decision Adopting Policies and Findings Pursuant 

to the Smart Grid Policies Established by the Energy 

Information and Security Act of 2007, Rulemaking 

08-12-009, Decision 09-12-046 (Cal. PUC Dec. 17, 

2009), available at http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/word_pdf/

FINAL_DECISION/111856.pdf.

62 As directed by Congress in the Energy Security and 

Independence Act of 2007, DOE must submit a 

report to Congress “concerning the status of Smart 

Grid deployments nationwide and any regulatory or 

government barriers to continued deployment.” Pub. L. 

No. 110-140, § 1302, 121 Stat. 1492, 1784 (2007).

63 National Rural Electric Cooperative Association 

Comments in re NBP PN #2, filed Oct. 2, 2009, at 2.

64 Joseph Badin, Representative of RUS for the Federal 

Smart Grid Task Force, Remarks at Smart Grid Task 

Force Meeting (Dec. 16, 2009).

65 DOE, Secretary Chu Announces $47 Million to 

Improve Efficiency in Information Technology and 

Communications Sectors (press release), Jan. 6, 2010, 

http://www.energy.gov/news2009/8491.htm.

66 BCG, Smart 2020.

67 EIA, 2005 Energy Data (unpublished, on file at EIA). 

For each year, the “Residential Electricity Use: PCs, 

Laptops and Peripherals” plus “Commercial Electricity 

Use: Office Equipment (PC)” the divided by the sum of 

“Residential: Grand Total” and “Commercial: Delivered 

Energy” equals the approximate amount of residential 

and commercial electricity use consumed by PCs and 

Peripherals.

68 EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2010 Early Release, at 

tbls. 4 (Residential Sector), 5 (Commercial Sector) (Dec. 

14, 2009), available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/

aeo/aeoref_tab.html. For each year, the “Residential 

Electricity Use: PCs, Laptops and Peripherals” plus 

the “Commercial Electricity Use: Office Equipment 

(PC)” divided by the sum of “Residential: Grand Total” 

and “Commercial: Delivered Energy” equals the 

approximate amount of residential and commercial 

electricity use consumed by PCs and Peripherals.

69 Judy Roberson et al., After-hours Power Status of

Office Equipment and Inventory of Miscellaneous

Plug-Load Equipment (2004), available at http://dx.doi.

org/10.2172/821675.
2 6 2 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 2

c h a p t e r 1 2 E n d n o t e s 

70 GSM World, Mobile Industry Unites to Drive Universal 

Charging Solution for Mobile Phones (press release), Feb. 

17, 2009, http://www.gsmworld.com/newsroom/pressreleases/2009/2548.htm.

71 H. Scott Matthews et al., Electricity Use of Wired and 

Wireless Telecommunications Networks in the United 

States, IEEE Symposium on Elec. & Env’t 131 (2003), 

available at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?

tp=&isnumber=27162&arnumber=1208061.

72 Chris Carruth & Clint Wheelock, Green Telecom

Networks: Energy Efficiency, Renewable Power, and

Carbon Emissions Reductions for Fixed and Mobile

Telecommunication Networks (2009).

73 Sprint, Company Info, Corporate Responsibility, 

Sustainable Operations, Energy, http://www.sprint.

com/responsibility/environment/energy.html/ (last 

visited Feb. 2, 2010).

74 Sprint, Company Info, Corporate Responsibility, 

Sustainable Operations, Energy, http://www.sprint.

com/responsibility/environment/energy.html/ (last 

visited Feb. 2, 2010).

75 EPA, Report to Congress on Server and DataCenter

EnergyEfficiency, Public Law 109-431 (2007) (EPA, 

DataCenter EnergyEfficiency), available at http://

www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/prod_development/

downloads/EPA_Datacenter_Report_Congress_Final1.pdf.

76 EPA, Data Center Energy Efficiency; John Laitner

& Karen Ehrhardt-Martinez, Information and

Communication Technologies: The Power of

Productivity (2008), http://www.aceee.org/pubs/e081.

htm (requires purchase).

77 EPA, Data Center Energy Effiency Report to Congress

on Server and Data Center Energy Efficiency

(2007), available at http://www.energystar.gov/index.

cfm?c=prod_development.server_efficiency_study. 

78 BCG, Smart 2020. As a case in point, the U.S. Postal 

Service eliminated 791 of its 895 physical servers by 

using virtualization, reducing its electricity consumption 

by 3.5 GWh per year. Tim Kauffman, Obama Targets 

Data Centers for Energy Cuts, Fed. Times, Nov. 15, 

2009, http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20091115/

FACILITIES04/911150311/1031/FACILITIES04

(Kauffman, Data Center Energy Cuts).

79 BCG, Smart 2020. Microsoft’s Dublin data center uses 

many other best practices, including 24/7 temperature 

monitoring and outside air for cooling, which has led 

the facility to use 50 percent less energy than traditional 

data centers. Microsoft, Greening the Dublin Data 

Center, 2009, http://www.microsoft.eu/Stories/Viewer/

tabid/77/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/329/

Menu/8/Greening-the-Dublin-data-center.aspx.

80 Yahoo!, Serving Up Greener Data Centers (press release), 

June 30, 2009, http://ycorpblog.com/2009/06/30/

serving-up-greener-data-centers/2009/. 

81 Kauffman, Data Center Energy Cuts.

82 EPA, Data Center Energy Efficiency.

83 Lawrence Livermore Nat’l Lab., Energy, Carbon

Emissions, and Water Flow Charts (2008), https://

publicaffairs.llnl.gov/news/energy/energy.html; EPA, 

Inventory of Emissions and Sinks.

84 BCG, Smart 2020.

85 Joseph Schwieterman et al., Chaddick Inst. Pol. Study, 

2008 Update on Intercity Bus Service: Summary of

Annual Change (2009), available at http://las.depaul.

edu/chaddick/docs/Docs/2008_Update_on_Intercity_

Bus_Service.pdf.

86 Katie Johnston-Chase, All’s Fare in Travel by Bus, 

Boston Globe, Nov. 17, 2009, available at http://www.

boston.com/business/articles/2009/11/17/cheaper_

fares_web_access_draw_many_to_bus_travel/.

87 More than 37,000 Americans were killed in traffic 

accidents in 2008. Fatality Analysis Reporting System, 

National Statistics, http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/

Main/index.aspx (last visited Feb. 2, 2010).
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 3

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 2 6 3

ECONOMIC 

OPPORTUNITY

c h a p t e r 1 3

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 3

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 2 6 5

Broadband is becoming a prerequisite to economic opportunity for individuals, small businesses and communities. Those without broadband and the skills to use broadband-enabled 

technologies are becoming more isolated from the modern American economy.

This is due in part to the rapidly changing nature of work in the 

digital age. Sixty-two percent of American workers rely on the 

Internet to perform their jobs.1

 The Bureau of Labor Statistics 

forecasts that jobs depending on broadband and information and 

communication technologies (ICT)—such as computer systems 

analysts, database administrators and media and communications workers—will grow by 25% from 2008–2018, 2.5 times 

faster than the average across all occupations and industries.2

The benefits that flow to the regions, workers and businesses that adopt and use broadband can be seen across the 

country. Diller, Neb., population 287,3

 is home to Blue Valley 

Meats, which has seen its business grow more than 30% and its 

employee ranks double over the last five years, thanks in large 

part to the creation of a website to extend its product reach.4 In 

Youngstown, Ohio, located in the country’s hard-hit “rust belt,” 

the Youngstown Business Incubator is fostering companies 

such as Turning Technologies, recognized by Inc. magazine 

as one of America’s fastest-growing software firms.5

 In postKatrina New Orleans, entrepreneurs are using the Web to serve 

other small businesses with online marketplaces and customized reservations systems. These new firms are contributing to 

a flourishing tech community in the Crescent City.6

Braodband and the Internet make it possible for small 

businesses to reach new markets and improve their business processes. They have also become a critical pathway for 

individuals to gain skills and access careers. And it is a core 

infrastructure component for local communities seeking to 

attract new industries and skilled work forces. As a result, 

small businesses, workers, and communities must have the 

broadband infrastructure, training and tools to participate 

and compete in a changing economy. Broadband can help 

every community. Unfortunately, certain communities such 

as African Americans, Hispanics and rural Americans face low 

adoption rates, further limiting the potential benefits of broadband (see Chapter 9).

This chapter contains recommendations to extend the benefits of broadband, and the economic opportunities broadband 

creates, to more communities. Section 13.1 discusses the impact of broadband on small businesses and entrepreneurship. 

The section recommends ways to accelerate small business 

adoption and use of broadband applications by expanding application training and entrepreneurship mentoring programs, 

while giving businesses access to improved broadband network 

performance information.

Section 13.2 reviews how broadband connectivity and Webbased applications can help the American workforce build 

skills and find jobs in more effective ways. This section also 

recommends the virtual delivery of job training and employment assistance programs. 

Section 13.3 explores ways to promote telework among 

American employees.

Section 13.4 focuses on community development, where 

broadband availability can be a key element of an integrated 

approach to regional economic development. This section 

recommends online tools for regional development managers, 

more efficient and effective uses of federal resources for regional growth, and expanded technology transfer efforts within 

local universities.

Additionally, Chapters 8 and 9 of the plan explore how broadband access and adoption by minority populations can further 

economic opportunities for all, particularly through initiatives such 

as expanding Universal Service Fund support for low-income and 

rural communities, and launching a Digital Literacy Corps.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Support entrepreneurship and America’s small and 

medium-sized businesses

➤ Small Business Administration (SBA) resource partner 

programs should provide enhanced information technology 

(IT) applications training.

➤ Current federal small and medium enterprise (SME) support programs should use broadband and online applications to scale their services and give small businesses access 

to a virtual nationwide network of experts.

➤ The government should develop a public-private partnership 

to provide technology training and tools for small disadvantaged businesses (SDBs) and SMEs in low-income areas.

➤ Congress should consider additional funds for the Economic 

Development Administration (EDA) to bolster entrepreneurial development programs with broadband tools and training.

Deliver high quality federally-supported job training and 

placement services virtually

➤ The Department of Labor (DOL) should accelerate and 

expand efforts to create a robust online platform that delivers virtual employment assistance programs and facilitates 

individualized job training.
2 6 6 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 3

Remove barriers and promote telework within the federal 

government

➤ Congress should consider eliminating tax and regulatory 

barriers to telework.

➤ The federal government should promote telework internally.

Enable local and regional economic development

➤ The federal government should develop regional and community broadband benchmarks for use as a central component within economic development planning and programs. 

➤ EDA should create an easy-to-use, dynamic online information center that gives regional development managers 

access to integrated federal, state, local and Tribal data.

➤ The National Science Foundation (NSF) should use its technology transfer grants to spur regional innovation and development as well as greater collaboration across universities.

13.1 SUPPORTING 

ENTREPRENEURSHIP

AND AMERICA’S SMALL 

BUSINESSES

Broadband can provide significant benefits to the next generation of American entrepreneurs and small businesses—the 

engines of job creation and economic growth for the country. 

Small and medium enterprises (SMEs)—businesses with fewer 

than 500 employees—employ more than half of America’s 

private sector workers and create roughly 64% of net new 

private sector jobs each year.7

 As of 2006, there were almost 

5.4 million firms employing less than 20 people in the U.S. and 

an additional 20.8 million nonemployer firms.8

 Of that total, 

approximately 7.6 million firms were owned by women and 4.6 

million firms were owned by minorities.9 In the last 10 years, 

minority-owned businesses have accounted for more than 

half of the two million new businesses started in the United 

States, and created 4.7 million jobs.10 Home-based businesses 

and entrepreneurs also have a profound effect on the economy, 

employing more than 13 million people in the United States 

in 2008.11

Small businesses have been particularly important in 

high-tech industries. They currently hire roughly 40% of all 

high-tech workers,12 and account for a majority of the more 

than 1.2 million new jobs generated by the growth of the 

Internet during the last 10–15 years.13 Moreover, telecommunications has proven to be a particularly successful sector for 

women- and minority-owned businesses. For instance, in 2002, 

the more than 6,000 women-owned businesses in the telecom sector generated revenues of more than $7 billion. That 

works out to $1.1 million in revenues per business, far more 

than $145,000 in revenues per women-owned business in the 

economy overall.14

Broadband and broadband-dependent applications allow 

small businesses to increase efficiency, improve market access, reduce costs and increase the speed of both transactions 

and interactions. By using Web-based technology tools, 68% 

of businesses surveyed boosted the speed of their access to 

knowledge, 54% saw reduced communications costs and 52% 

saw increased marketing effectiveness.15 However, many small 

businesses have a knowledge gap about how best to utilize 

broadband tools, leaving potential productivity gains unrealized. Though private sector options exist for training and 

educating small businesses, those options are currently insufficient. Targeted government support can help small businesses 

achieve an optimum level of broadband use.

The Benefits of Broadband for SMEs

The conduct of key business activities such as communication, 

collaboration, process enhancements and transactions is made 

easier by use of broadband applications such as online conferencing, social networking, cloud-based business software 

and e-commerce. Perhaps chief among the benefits of broadband for business is that it allows small businesses to achieve 

operational scale more quickly. Broadband and associated ICTs 

can help lower company start-up costs through faster business 

registration and improved access to customers and suppliers. 

Broadband also gives SMEs access to new markets and opportunities by lowering the barriers of physical scale and allowing 

them to compete for customers who previously turned exclusively to larger suppliers.16 E-commerce solutions eliminate 

geographic barriers to getting a business’s message and product 

out to a broad audience. However, small businesses are not fully capitalizing on these opportunities. An estimated 60 million 

Americans go online every day to find a product or service;17

but only 24% of small businesses use e-commerce applications to sell online.18 The large majority of small businesses are 

missing an opportunity to level the playing field versus their 

larger rivals.19

Supporting IT and Application Adoption Among SMEs

The benefits described above are most compelling when broadband is supported with significant investment in IT hardware, 

software and services and material improvement in business 

processes.20 Even technologically lagging firms in the small and 

midsize space recognize that broadband is a key part of a firm’s 

basic IT infrastructure. Yet IDC, a research firm, indicates 

that roughly half of small and midsize firms say that they are 
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 3

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 2 6 7

cautious when it comes to investing in new IT.21 Other small 

businesses voice skepticism about select broadband applications either because of a perceived lack of applicability or 

uncertain profitability.22 In addition, small businesses often 

identify important problems that IT applications can help 

address but do not link those problems to available solutions. 

For example, IDC Research shows that approximately 33% of 

SMEs identify “strengthening customer service and support” 

as a key spending priority, but only about 10% cite as a priority 

“improving customer relationship management tools” which 

are specifically designed to help in this area.23

To address these challenges, many small businesses rely on 

outsourced support when selecting and implementing broadband applications. Applications training and online tutorials 

are widely available from private application providers such as 

salesforce.com, Google and Amazon. However, despite these 

resources, private sector support mechanisms are not sufficient 

to address the full range of SME training and education needs 

for a number of reasons: 

➤ Particularly in economically disadvantaged, rural or remote 

areas, direct application training and integration services 

are often too expensive or unavailable for many small businesses. 

➤ Small businesses already pay significantly more per 

employee for broadband and communications services,24

making it difficult to afford additional training and support 

services within a limited IT budget.

➤ Existing support and training initiatives typically target IT 

staff, omitting the broad range of other employees who can 

benefit from broadband applications.

➤ Many service providers and vendors do not provide direct 

support for SMEs.

➤ Service providers and vendors that do target SMEs (such 

as value-added resellers) are often small themselves and 

have limited capabilities to support SME broadband and 

IT needs. 

While private sector options exist—particularly as suppliers 

place emphasis on the SME market—public programs may in 

certain cases be valuable for addressing these gaps, particularly 

for rural businesses and those in economically disadvantaged 

areas. There are some select programs that offer dedicated 

training to these areas, such as the Louisiana Business & 

Technology Center Mobile Classroom, which provides seminars, workshops and training programs for small businesses 

and entrepreneurs in rural communities.25 However, these 

programs are uncommon and should be augmented by other 

dedicated public efforts.

Recommendation 13.1: Small Business Administration 

(SBA) resource partner programs should provide enhanced 

information technology (IT) applications training. 

Many businesses currently receive a range of assistance 

from federally sponsored small business support programs, including help with business planning, application usage, finance 

and marketing. These training efforts, often initiated by the 

SBA and administered through Small Business Development 

Centers (SBDCs)27 and Women’s Business Centers (WBCs),28

may or may not include broadband or IT content, depending on 

both the goals of the program and the entity in charge. 

The SBDCs can be an effective conduit for serving small 

business needs, reaching more than 600,000 business clients 

annually and helping create more than 12,000 new small businesses in 2009.30 Congress should consider ways to leverage 

BOX 13-1:

United Kingdom Transformational ICT Program

The United Kingdom is one of the few nations emphasizing 

assisting SMEs in the adoption and use of ICTs. In the 2009 Digital 

Britain report, the Department for Business, Innovation & Skills 

(BIS) announced £23 million for a three-year pilot program of 

business support interventions for SMEs to assist them to exploit 

advanced ICT to transform their business processes. This focus 

on business support recognizes that the key obstacle to ICT use 

is SME understanding of the benefits of broadband applications, 

rather than connecting these businesses to broadband. As a 

result, BIS has made ICT education and training key priorities 

to help SME growth. To support this effort, BIS has created the 

Transformational ICT program. The program has six components 

that address supply and demand of ICTs for business:

1. Seminars for business owners that demonstrate benefits 

of ICTs.

2 . Assessment of IT challenges for businesses that go through 

the seminars.

3. Training assistance for employers to increase skills in key 

areas related to ICT, through the “Train to Gain” program.

4. Assistance for implementing key technology purchases, as 

well as funding for specialist support.

5. Certification of business service and equipment suppliers to 

provide guidance on business purchasing decisions.

6. Collaboration with third parties such as financial institutions and insurers to address business needs in a coordinated fashion.26
2 6 8 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 3

existing assistance provided through those programs to focus 

training on advanced IT and broadband applications. The 

budget for upgrading existing SBDC lead centers to receive 

technology accreditation as Small Business Technology 

Development Centers (SBTDCs) is estimated at $1 million annually, including costs for supporting 10–12 sub-centers each. 

This pilot program would create as many as 12 new SBTDCs 

and 180 sub-centers. This budget reflects the typical scope of 

technology training initiatives within the SBDCs. 

Congress could also consider ways to support technology 

training among women entrepreneurs through the WBCs. The 

110 WBCs currently reach a broad client base that typically 

includes low-income women, first generation immigrant populations, Native Americans and veterans. These funds will be 

used to develop a curriculum tailored to women entrepreneurs 

on the value of broadband-based programs and applications, 

such as online marketing, financial management, Web 2.0 tools 

and other online based services. SBA would design this training 

curriculum to be scalable in addressing the needs of entrepreneurs at all stages of development. 

The training programs should include an entry-level 

“Broadband 101” course to give small businesses an introduction to how to capitalize on broadband connectivity, as well 

as more advanced applications for IT staff. In addition, SME 

IT training should include resources for non-IT staff, such as 

how to use e-commerce tools for sales, streamline finance with 

online records or leverage knowledge management across an 

organization. The Manufacturing Extension Program, which 

provides manufacturing companies with services focused on 

business and process improvements, is one example of a government initiative external to the SBA that has incorporated 

IT and technology training effectively. In scaling the training 

program, SBA should also identify outside consultants and 

private vendors from a variety of communities to help develop 

curricula and support the creation of a shared online directory 

to leverage these experts and training courses across locations.

Given that 19% of Americans speak a language other than 

English at home,30 SBA should also encourage its SBDCs and 

WBCs to support more staff and volunteer trainers who can 

speak a language other than English to ensure that small business digital skills are made available to all Americans. 

Recommendation 13.2: Current federal small and medium enterprise (SME) support programs should use broadband and online applications to scale their services and give 

small businesses access to a virtual network of experts.

In addition to the SBDC and WBC networks, the SBA’s portfolio of tools to help entrepreneurs includes programs such as 

the Veterans Business Outreach Centers and the Service Corps 

of Retired Executives (SCORE). Collectively, these programs 

help thousands of entrepreneurs and small businesses by delivering free and low-cost training and one-on-one mentoring and 

counseling support.31 Broadband tools and connectivity can 

further boost the effectiveness of these programs. The Small 

Business Committees in the House of Representatives and the 

Senate have already turned their attention to this issue, recommending areas where broadband and the Internet can help the 

SBA’s resource partners.

All of these programs, with the backing of the SBA, should 

undergo a two-step assessment to identify how broadband can 

make them more effective: 

➤ Identify locations and mentors with sufficient broadband 

connectivity and collaboration tools to enable them to participate in an online network.

➤ Identify counselor strengths and availability for distance 

mentoring. SCORE is already prepared to deploy this system; its current online system for pairing individuals with 

e-mail mentors tracks individual mentor competencies.32

The SBDC network, WBCs and the Veterans Business 

Outreach Centers would need to undergo similar assessments.

Some of these programs have significant scale already. 

Today, more than 10,500 SCORE volunteers provide counseling to small businesses at more than 800 locations.33 Nearly 

1,000 SBDCs nationwide offer training and one-on-one 

mentoring for small businesses.34 Yet many of the SBA partner 

programs remain constrained by a shortage of brick-and-mortar resource centers, as well as mentors, particularly in rural 

areas. Moreover, these partner programs must serve a growing and diverse range of businesses. Nationwide, there is an 

average of 6,500 SMEs per SBDC, with nine states having more 

than 10,000 SMEs per SBDC.35

Tools such as webinars and online training courses, provided by the SBA’s existing Small Business Training Network, 

can potentially provide an effective platform for these efforts. 

Similarly, adoption of videoconferencing and distance mentoring practices can allow these programs to move beyond 

networks defined by the location of the mentors to networks defined by the expertise of the mentors. One private sector model 

is Cisco’s internal Specialist Optimization Access and Results 

(SOAR) program. SOAR allows Cisco employees to leverage 

experts from different locations through tools such as unified 

communications and collaboration (including Web conferencing and videoconferencing), customer reference databases, 

expertise locators, virtual demos and online communities for 

specialists.36 The effectiveness of the SBA partner programs can 

be similarly improved through the use of these tools.

To fully implement next-generation technology within 

its operations, the SBA should also appoint a broadband and 

emerging IT coordinator. This individual would ensure that 
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 3

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 2 6 9

SBA programs maintain the requisite broadband expertise, 

tools and training courses to serve small businesses. 

Recommendation 13.3: The government should develop a 

public-private partnership to provide technology training 

and tools for small disadvantaged businesses (SDBs) and 

SMEs in low-income areas.

Small businesses represent a crucial source of economic 

development and growth in low-income areas. They comprise 

99% of establishments and 80% of total employment in inner 

cities and economically challenged areas.37 They also account 

for roughly 5.6 million self-employed workers in rural areas.38

Broadband can serve as a transformational force not just for 

these businesses, but also for their surrounding communities.39

Too often, however, businesses in low-income areas—even 

when they have broadband—lack the necessary tools, expertise 

and resources to take full advantage of the technology. These 

businesses can benefit from digital literacy and assistance in 

fundamental online business activities such as website construction, URL registration and use of social media.40

Existing support programs within the SBA, such as SCORE, 

already help businesses address general training needs, including business planning, identifying sources of capital and 

improving business efficiency. Assistance with broadband and 

emerging technologies should be added to the list. Although 

SCORE is currently positioned to offer a minimum level of technology tools and training to small businesses, these needs are 

not currently part of the program’s core focus. However, SCORE 

is attempting to increase its support of small businesses in lowincome areas and small disadvantaged businesses41 by expanding 

its technology expertise and coordinating with local partners.

The SBA and SCORE should enter into a public-private partnership with private communications and technology firms to 

better address the broadband and technology needs of the small 

businesses that they serve, with a particular focus on SDBs and 

small businesses in low-income areas. The partner firms should 

provide applications, training materials, support services and 

skills expertise. In addition, SCORE and SBA should work to 

include SDBs as partners in this effort, to provide both technical 

expertise and insight on training small businesses across a wide 

range of rural and urban communities. Contributions by private 

firms to the partnership should include:

➤ “How to” training for key activities such as digital literacy, 

e-commerce, online collaboration, search optimization, 

cybersecurity, equipment use and Web 2.0 tools.

➤ Technical and professional support for hardware, software 

and business operations.

➤ Licenses for business applications such as document 

creation, antivirus and security software, and online audioand videoconferencing.

➤ Website development and registration.

➤ Basic communications equipment, such as low-cost personal computers and wireless routers.

➤ “Train the trainer” assistance to prepare SCORE volunteers.

➤ Funding contributions.

SCORE should provide program coordination while disseminating these new resources through its nationwide network of 

business counselors and mentors. In doing so, SCORE should 

coordinate with local community organizations through its 

chapters in low-income areas to assist with small business implementation and use.42 This effort ties into SCORE’s existing 

plans to double its volunteer base over the next seven years and 

reorient its volunteer corps to include more full-time trainers 

who have the technology expertise that small businesses require.43 As SCORE expands its volunteer base, it should partner 

with local educational institutions and graduate programs to 

recruit young students with business and technology expertise 

as volunteer trainers. This would create a high-impact service 

opportunity for young Americans and enable SCORE to cultivate new volunteers who can mentor local businesses over the 

long term. 

The majority of the resources for this program will come as 

donations of time, money, materials and intellectual property 

from the collection of private partners and participating foundations. The SBA and SCORE should also coordinate with the 

Minority Business Development Agency at the U.S. Department 

of Commerce and the FCC’s Office of Communications Business 

Opportunities to help reach the target small business populations. 

Congress could consider leveraging the federal investment in 

SCORE through the SBA’s Office of Entrepreneurship Education 

to integrate content and support rollout of this effort.

Recommendation 13.4: Congress should consider additional funds for the Economic Development Administration (EDA) to bolster entrepreneurial development programs with broadband tools and training.

Existing entrepreneurial development efforts focus on providing assistance in the following areas: funding, business plans, 

market testing, mentoring, connections with peer entrepreneurs 

and training courses.44 Broadband applications increasingly are 

becoming necessary components of this curriculum, as e-commerce, online marketing and website design skills are critical to 

business success. Yet too often they are not part of the core mandate of these efforts. Moreover, broadband is allowing individuals 

in dispersed or rural areas (where high-growth entrepreneurs 

may be an untapped resource)45 to access these entrepreneurial 

development resources through tools such as online collaboration software, knowledge sharing, online mentoring communities, 

webinar platforms and videoconferencing.
2 7 0 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 3

Successful entrepreneurial development programs have 

been built around a small group of high-growth entrepreneurs, with an emphasis on hands-on mentorship and 

strong community support. Today, a few such examples of 

micro-focused programs exist at the state level, including 

JumpStart in Ohio, KTEC PIPELINE in Kansas, Innovation 

Works in Pennsylvania and Innovate Illinois. Based on initial evidence showing the effectiveness of these programs, 

they should be considered models for new entrepreneurial 

development programs.

In areas with existing state-level entrepreneurial development programs, the federal government can augment state 

and non-profit funding to help increase the scale and reach of 

these programs. This can be done through grants earmarked for 

broadband communications tools. Additionally, EDA should 

encourage these existing programs to add broadband-centered 

training courses focused on online marketing and sales, website 

design and business process applications. 

Congress should consider funding to create parallel entrepreneurial development programs that include broadband tools 

and training in areas not covered by existing programs. Each 

pilot would have a $3 million annual budget—reflective of the 

annual budget for those programs currently in place—funded 

roughly one-third each from federal sources, state and local 

economic development agencies, and private entrepreneurial 

support organizations. Ten million dollars in federal funding 

for this effort, with equal matching funds from state/local and 

private entities would create 10 new support organizations in 

areas where EDA identifies the greatest needs. These new programs should have an emphasis on broadband communications 

tools and training. Federal funds for the pilot program should 

be granted through a competitive process similar to the U.S. 

Department of Education’s Race to the Top Fund, which will 

ensure that communities with innovative approaches, strong 

community support for entrepreneurial development and the 

appropriate tools to achieve success will receive adequate funding for their programs.

13.2 JOB TRAINING 

AND WORKFORCE

DEVELOPMENT

Jobs increasingly require new skills. Today, the average worker 

will hold more than 10 different jobs during their prime working years, and the duration of the average job often remains 

short even as workers approach middle age.46 Most new jobs 

today require some level of post-secondary education or 

professional credentials, but 88 million working adults either 

have low literacy skills, limited English proficiency or no postsecondary educational credential.47

A changing economy, supported by workers taking on jobs 

that require more skills, demands better training—training 

that evolves in real time to meet shifting workforce needs. 

Broadband-enabled job training and search platforms can scale 

training to reach the greatest possible number of people and 

do so at a lower cost and in a more flexible manner. Decades 

of research have found that using technology-based instruction for vocational training reduces the cost of that training by 

about a third, while increasing the effectiveness of instruction 

by a third and using a third less time.48

Numerous employment assistance solutions targeting various 

demographic groups exist in the public and private sectors. DOL 

delivers services through the federally supported workforce development system that help low-income, low-skilled Americans 

find jobs. These Americans face unique barriers—including low 

literacy, an absence of digital skills, lack of social networks to 

connect to opportunities and difficulty accessing traditional 

training resources due to geography, disability, family responsibilities and other constraints. These groups traditionally depend 

almost entirely on government assistance to obtain career guidance, employment information and job training funding. 

However, the current workforce development system is 

fragmented49 and relies heavily on bricks-and-mortar facilities 

to deliver services.50 This physical infrastructure makes it difficult to adjust to changes in demand, resulting in inconsistent 

supply, quality and information distribution. DOL-operated 

One-Stop Career Centers faced heavy demand in the wake of 

the 2008–2009 recession, but served only a fraction of the 

unemployed due to a lack of capacity—in some cases serving 

10% or less of a region’s unemployed.51 The challenge of scaling 

the physical infrastructure of the workforce system is particularly critical during a recession with widespread impact. For 

instance, in New York City, according to a July 2009 study, 

26% of low-income Latinos and 18% of low-income African 

Americans reported losing their jobs due to the recession, 

meaning this problem is more acute in certain communities.52

In addition, skills of One-Stop personnel differ from center 

to center, creating inequity in the types of information and 

services customers receive. Delivering services online through 

a scalable platform would expand the reach of One-Stops to 

everyone who has access to the Internet. Additionally, adopting 

content and service standards would ensure every participant 

receives consistent high-quality service. 

Broadband-enabled solutions also address time, information and technology barriers faced by disadvantaged Americans 

seeking jobs and training. The “anytime, anywhere” nature 

of an online environment allows people who have daytime 
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 3

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 2 7 1

offering dynamic features that allow users to discover careers 

with growth potential in their region. Ultimately, those careers 

could be mapped to the training required to qualify. 

The recommended platform would help unemployed individuals who are motivated to search and train for jobs but who 

do not know about the existing universe of federally supported 

employment assistance programs. It would tell them how 

to access state, local and Tribal programs, which careers are 

within their reach, which careers have high chances of upward 

mobility, whether their credentials are competitive with other 

applicants for the same jobs, where to find job training and how 

to pay for job training. 

The platform’s version 1.0 should deliver many of the programs that One-Stops currently deliver. One-Stops operate 

under a sequential delivery model in which customers must 

participate in Core Services to be considered eligible to receive 

Intensive and Training Services. The end-users of the platform 

would qualify for different levels of service and advance automatically from one level of service to the next until services or 

eligibility have been exhausted. Encouraging customers with 

basic levels of digital literacy to use the platform would allow 

One-Stop counselors to provide more in-person assistance to 

people who will benefit from additional attention. 

Version 2.0 of the platform should offer basic skills training, 

intermediate digital literacy training and English as a second 

language coursework. The Council of Economic Advisors has 

found that “employers currently bemoan the lack of basic skills 

in the U.S. workforce, and individuals without such skills have 

a hard time adapting to the ever-changing U.S. workplace.”58

Mechanisms should be put in place for private employers to offer real-time input on tailoring basic skills training to meet the 

needs of available jobs in the future. Over time, this platform 

would allow collaboration with community colleges to deliver 

interactive certificate-bearing online training modules as envisioned for the Online Skills Laboratory.59

In version 3.0 of the platform, DOL would transform the 

way One-Stops deliver job training services by launching an 

algorithmic, long-term career planning and job training tool. 

Through the platform, users should be able to:

➤ Assess levels of digital literacy, basic literacy and English 

proficiency, then review recommended training opportunities to address any basic skills deficiencies.

➤ Evaluate job skills and work experience. 

➤ Learn about growth industries and other labor 

market trends by region.

➤ Access detailed information about professions. 

➤ Chart pathways to advance within professions of interest, 

including understanding specific professional certifications 

required to pursue and advance within each career path.

➤ Search for jobs on a national level rather than at the state or 

responsibilities to participate in programs during evenings and 

off-hours. For those without home access to a computer, the 

16,000 libraries across the country along with other community access points will help ensure increased access to career 

tools. Minority groups are often particularly reliant on public 

Internet access points; a 2002 study found that 13% of African 

American and 12% of Hispanic households used the Internet in 

a public library in a single month, compared with 8% of white 

households.53 Moreover, 83% of African-Americans and 68% of 

Hispanics have used their broadband connection to search or 

apply for a job online, compared to a national average of 57%.54

Recommendations in Chapter 9 to expand free Internet access 

at community anchor institutions will help bolster the effectiveness of online workforce development tools. 

Innovative online career tools make available a wealth of 

information and technology to which low-income Americans 

may not otherwise have had access. Encouraging workforce participation in online job training could also yield long-term cost 

savings and better outcomes.55 The National Skills Coalition estimates that an increase in any level of post-secondary education 

could increase output per capita, increase annual federal tax 

revenues and reduce use of public programs such as food stamps, 

Medicaid and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.56

Building a workforce system that allows individuals to seek 

training more easily and effectively is a significant step in 

preparing the workforce for future jobs. DOL’s Employment 

and Training Administration is spearheading several efforts to 

introduce new technology solutions to the workforce development community, including development of a virtual One-Stop. 

In December 2009, DOL launched the Tools for America’s Job 

Seekers Challenge, in which the country’s workforce community sampled and ranked numerous companies’ online job search 

and career advancement tools.57

Recommendation 13.5: The Department of Labor (DOL) 

should accelerate and expand efforts to create a robust online platform that delivers virtual employment assistance 

programs and facilitates individualized job training.

Creating a broadband-enabled job training and search 

tool for disadvantaged Americans is of paramount importance to keeping the workforce competitive and ensuring 

that Americans can earn family-supporting wages. This tool 

could help participation in job search and training programs 

among low-income, low-skilled Americans for whom private 

sector options may not be sufficiently accessible or comprehensive. Developing this online One-Stop platform effectively 

would involve several steps—termed versions 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0. 

Each successive iteration of the tool would feature increased 

functionality, starting with making resources currently available through off-line One-Stops available online and later 
2 7 2 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 3

community level.

➤ Build a resume, write a cover letter and obtain interview 

preparation assistance. 

➤ Apply for jobs, store pertinent application documents 

and track progress of job applications through a personal dashboard.

➤ Obtain detailed information on necessary job training opportunities, providers and costs, then use the information to apply 

for federal and state funding for these opportunities.

Research shows that unemployed workers who receive 

re-employment services land a job and exit unemployment 

insurance approximately one week sooner than those who do 

not receive such services. This results in cost savings for DOL, 

the federal government and society.60

In this third phase of development, the platform should 

serve as a medium through which the workforce development 

community—non-profit, public and private players—can share 

best practices, initiate sector partnerships and track long-term 

program participant outcomes through a high-level dashboard. State-to-state collaboration might generate programs 

that multiple states could offer together. With better tracking 

capabilities, the federal government could adjust funding for 

programs more easily by investing in proven successes while 

pulling funds from programs producing poor results.

To develop the various versions of this tool, DOL should 

award “prize” funding to private sector firms that compete to 

build this employment assistance and job training platform. 

DOL should work to promote these funding opportunities 

among SDBs to ensure that there is strong participation across 

a wide range of eligible firms. DOL should also oversee product 

development and set relevant data, content and formatting 

standards. DOL should consider any cost savings that might 

come from collaborating with the U.S. Department of Energy, 

which is creating a virtual training software platform focused 

initially on training materials for weatherization jobs, but 

that may include advanced functionality that could be used to 

enhance other training content. DOL has allocated $20 million 

for its virtual One-Stop project. Additional funding for the 

platform should be considered in discussions related to reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act. The platform’s 

ongoing annual maintenance costs should be budgeted to provide quality control, customer service and academic support, 

on top of technology development costs. 

13.3 PROMOTING 

TELEWORK 

Soon after the September 11 attacks, letters containing anthrax 

spores were sent to Congress, forcing members of Congress 

and their staffs to work from the Government Accountability 

Office (GAO) building. This displaced GAO analysts from their 

offices. But thanks to their government-issued laptop computers, more than 1,000 analysts were able to continue working 

remotely, maintaining the continuity of operations.61

Telework has broader implications than mere continuity 

of operations. Jeffrey Taggart, a resident of Des Moines, Iowa, 

has multiple mental and physical disabilities that make working in an office difficult, if not impossible. However, thanks to 

the Internet, Taggart makes a living from home as a customer 

service professional.62

Such stories are increasingly common as home broadband 

access has become more widespread. From 2003 to 2008, the 

number of teleworkers in America increased by 43% to 33.7 

million people.63 One survey estimates that 14% of retirees, 

31% of homemakers and 29% of adults with disabilities would 

be willing to join the workforce if given the option to telework. 

Making telework a more widespread option would potentially 

open up opportunities for 17.5 million individuals.64 Moreover, 

the average American spends more than 100 hours per year 

commuting; 3.5 million people spend more than 90 minutes 

commuting to work each way every workday. Telework allows 

workers to be more productive by eliminating their daily commuting time. And it gives workers greater flexibility to handle 

family responsibilities, attend school full time and perform 

more community service.65 This is particularly important for 

those living in rural areas as it can enable these workers to 

more effectively compete for jobs located elsewhere and perform those jobs via telework.66

Telework solutions also help the environment. Every 

additional teleworker reduces annual CO2

 emissions by an 

estimated 2.6–3.6 metric tons per year.67 Replacing 10% of 

business air travel with videoconferencing would reduce carbon emissions by an estimated 36.3 million tons annually.68
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 3

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 2 7 3

Recommendation 13.6: Congress should consider eliminating tax and regulatory barriers to telework.

Tax and regulatory policy may prevent some employees from 

teleworking more regularly. Many teleworkers live in a different state from where their firm is located. This can sometimes 

result in double taxation issues that end up discouraging telework. Most states tax telecommuters based on the percentage 

of time worked within that state. However, some states tax the 

full income of nonresident teleworking employees of companies based in their state unless they are working at home “for 

the convenience of the employer,” a category that telework advocates claim is nearly impossible to prove.69 Since teleworkers 

are technically working in their home state as well, this opens 

them up to potential double taxation. There is pending federal 

legislation to ban states from taxing nonresidents on work done 

outside the state.70 Congress should consider addressing this 

double taxation issue that is preventing telework from becoming more widespread.

Recommendation 13.7: The federal government should 

promote telework internally. 

The federal government employs more than 2.6 million civilians and more than one million uniformed military 

personnel.71 As of 2008, 102,900 federal employees actively 

teleworked, a 9% increase from 2007.72 Key institutions are 

beginning to support telework within the government. The U.S. 

Office of Personnel Management announced a new telework 

plan for federal employees in April 2009, including a Telework 

Managers Council that would develop standards and review 

agency telework policies.73 However, more can be done to increase the use of telework within the government.

Agencies must develop guidelines for managers of teleworking employees. According to the American Electronics 

Association, “The most daunting challenges to widespread 

adoption [of telework] are cultural, not technical.”74 Giving 

managers guidelines on best practices for managing teleworking employees will help overcome manager resistance and 

alleviate any stigma associated with telework as a viable alternative work arrangement. The Telework Managers Council 

should review agency-developed guidelines in the course of 

reviewing telework plans and should promulgate best practices 

to the wider federal, state and local government communities. 

Agencies should also evaluate and deploy, where economically attractive, a unified communications platform, including

instant messaging, Web conferencing, videoconferencing, voice 

and a unified message center for all methods of communication. 

In addition, the federal government should evaluate the impact 

of videoconferencing to replace travel and improve government 

efficiency. The General Services Administration should oversee 

the initial deployment of advanced videoconferencing technologies to overcome cultural resistance to telework and determine 

whether it should be implemented more broadly.

13.4 Local and 

regional economic 

development

The benefits of broadband and its centrality to economic life 

make it an essential element of local and regional economic 

development in the 21st century. Broadband enables regions 

and industries to compete globally, from rural farmers marketing their products nationwide to start-up companies along 

Massachusetts’s Route 128 corridor achieving dramatic breakthroughs in biotechnology that are attracting global attention. 

Looking ahead, communities without broadband infrastructure 

will find it more difficult to attract investment and IT-intensive 

jobs, particularly because they face growing national and international competition. The story of one community in rural 

Georgia proves to be today’s norm rather than the exception. 

After losing its local textile manufacturing base, the community 

tried to attract once-outsourced customer services jobs for those 

left jobless. A major airline expressed interest in developing a 

customer call center but ultimately passed for one basic reason: 

The community lacked adequate broadband infrastructure.75

Local economic developers should view broadband as a 

part of local infrastructure development and should incorporate it into local economic development strategies. The 

federal government can also leverage broadband to facilitate 

Virtual English Teachers in 

Powell, Wyoming 

In late January 2009, the 

city of Powell, Wyo. (population 

5,524),71 finished an ambitious 

municipal fiber network, which 

provides fiber-to-the-premises 

to 95% of households in the 

community.72 The project 

spurred the growth of new 

business opportunities in 

Powell, including the hiring of 

more than 100 certified English 

teachers by Wyoming-based 

Eleutian to teach conversational English to South Korean 

students using videoconferencing.73 Eleutian was able to 

attract $1.5 million in venture 

funding from Skylake Incuvest, 

a South Korean venture capital 

fund. Eleutian’s CEO said that 

Powell’s fiber project was 

“critical” to hiring the teachers, noting: “Without fiber-tothe-home like Powell [has], 

we would not be able to offer 

home-based jobs in Powell.”74

BOX 13-2:
2 7 4 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 3

benchmarking program would serve the needs of regional or 

local policymakers. This effort would also help to coordinate 

federal support for technology planning and economic development, which would lead to more focused investments, as well as 

cost savings as projects are implemented. 

Under the Recovery Act, both the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and USDA’s 

Rural Utilities Service (RUS) were given the responsibility to 

disburse $7.2 billion for broadband adoption and deployment.77

In making future disbursements beyond Recovery Act funding, 

both NTIA and RUS should review how broadband projects 

integrate into local economic strategies. NTIA and RUS should 

partner with EDA to develop both broadband and economic 

development benchmarking metrics that can be integrated into 

regional development strategies. These efforts could include 

existing federally supported economic development planning 

efforts developed by local groups, such as workforce development boards, community colleges and other institutions. 

Strategies could include a combination of plans for attracting 

new businesses and industries, plans for local workforce training and development, and measures for improving local digital 

literacy 

One way to implement regional broadband benchmarking is 

by expanding EDA’s Comprehensive Economic Development 

Strategy (CEDS) process to include a technology assessment. A 

CEDS is developed by a local strategy committee that includes 

public officials, community leaders and local business leaders, among others.78 The CEDS process requires local input 

concerning strengths and weaknesses of the region and requires a plan of action to address issues such as transportation 

infrastructure, environmental impact and workforce development. Currently, each economic development district or region 

eligible for EDA grant funding must complete a CEDS plan 

at least once every five years to remain eligible for program 

grants.79 Moving forward, the CEDS process should require a 

plan for promoting the use of technology regionally along with 

an assessment and benchmarking of local broadband resources. 

Such measurements would help regions determine how attractive their technology infrastructure is for businesses and how 

equipped their local workforce is to fill new jobs. 

HUD and USDA’s Empowerment Zone, Enterprise 

Community and Renewal Community programs encourage 

the revitalization of impoverished urban and rural communities through economic, physical and social investments.80

As part of their administration of Enterprise Communities, 

Empowerment Zones, Renewal Communities and HOPE VI developments, HUD and USDA should incorporate technology as 

a critical input into the communities that they support. These 

programs should include a community technology assessment 

that measures availability, price and adoption of broadband 

better integration of its diverse investments in localities. The 

Brookings Institution estimates that $76 billion in federal 

funding for local and regional economic development was scattered across 14 agencies comprising 250 separate programs.76

This fragmentation makes the need for regional integration 

of broadband investments into local economic development 

investments even more critical. Broadband-enabled tools can 

help federal and local policymakers and citizens get a clearer, 

more transparent view of these disparate funding streams. 

Recommendation 13.8: The federal government should 

develop regional and community broadband benchmarks 

for use as a central component within economic development planning and programs.

➤ The U.S. Department of Commerce and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) should ensure that regions 

integrate broadband infrastructure into local economic 

development.

➤ To support local community benchmarking, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and 

USDA should integrate technology assessments into the 

Empowerment Zone (EZ), Enterprise Community (EC) 

and Renewal Community (RC) programs. 

Broadband infrastructure and a digitally skilled workforce are 

essential for a region to attract new jobs and investment. One way 

for communities to determine the level of broadband utilization in 

their local economy is to develop a set of broadband metrics that 

can be used to benchmark their performance against communities nationally. For communities with high levels of broadband 

use, this will help demonstrate the integration of broadband into 

the local economy, while attracting new private-sector investments. For communities with below-average use, community 

benchmarking can be an important tool for local planners to set 

broadband policy goals while ensuring that broadband programs 

effectively target gaps left by the private sector.

These benchmarks should include the following metrics:

➤ Access. The share of community or region with access to 

broadband services

➤ Adoption. Broadband adoption rates by local residents, 

businesses and institutions 

➤ Usage. Applications used by local residents, businesses and 

institutions 

These benchmarking efforts should be divided between 

larger regions that are served by a common network—focusing 

on broadband access and adoption—and smaller neighborhoods and communities, where benchmarking would focus on 

usage by local residents, businesses and institutions. Focus at 

the regional and community level would help ensure that the 
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 3

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 2 7 5

services. HUD and USDA should also require community plans 

to set goals for increasing adoption and use of broadband for 

local development. 

Residents of areas currently receiving, or eligible to receive, 

federal redevelopment assistance pay more for broadband and 

have lower maximum speeds available to them. There is some 

evidence broadband prices tend to be higher in low-income 

rural areas than similarly populated areas with higher median 

incomes.81 Enterprise Zones, Empowerment Zones, Enterprise 

Communities and Renewal Communities have broadband 

penetration rates of 56%, below the national average of 61% 

across all Census tracts according to FCC’s 2009 Form 477 

data.82 Thirty-four percent of these areas have average penetration rates below 30%.83 (Penetration rates in Enterprise Zones, 

which tend to be in more densely populated areas, only match 

the national average.)

Though geographic characteristics limit deployment of 

some higher-speed technologies, fewer businesses in EZ/EC/

RC areas and census tracts with HOPE VI developments have 

access to the highest cable and DSL speeds, even when controlling for population density.84 Opportunities for growth in 

community broadband connectivity exist in these zones, and 

communities should leverage existing support for broadband 

infrastructure deployment, last-mile connectivity and sustainable Internet adoption efforts. Including ICT in strategic plans 

will enable EZs/ECs/RCs to use grant funds for community 

technology initiatives in support of economic development.85

Recommendation 13.9: EDA should create an easy-touse, dynamic online information center that gives regional 

development managers access to integrated federal, state 

local Tribal data. 

To help local economic developers in regions and localities 

support more competitive clusters, the EDA should build an 

online information center for regional economic development 

data.86 This information center would have three components:

➤ It would continuously update a distributed database containing key economic development indicators87 at the local, 

regional and state level, and it would allow users to customdefine regions (comprised of multiple localities or counties) 

for analysis.

➤ It would offer a searchable online database of federal 

funding programs that can be used by local developers and 

matched to their local conditions and industries. This tool 

would help address the fragmentation and complexities of 

the grant process. 

➤ It would provide an interactive map of current and previous 

grantees across programs, which would include all completed impact assessments and grantee contact information.

An easy-to-use online resource could help regions identify 

central “clusters” of industries that provide a competitive 

advantage, attract skilled labor and reduce company operating 

costs. These clusters could create spillover effects of formal and 

informal networks of information sharing as firms participate 

in what one paper called the “social structure of innovation.”88

Collectively, federal agencies have data on employment, education, traded goods, patents and more. The national information 

center could bring together these data sources to present a 

broader picture of how individual communities are performing 

economically. 

The information center would also include an algorithmic 

tool to match federal grant programs to local conditions and 

industries. This capability should start with EDA’s funding 

streams and expand over time to include 26 federal grant-making agencies.89 Further, the center would have information to 

help grantees understand what projects others in their region 

Connecting Broadband With 

Other Infrastructure to Create 

Jobs and Opportunity in 

Rural Virginia

Planning commissions in rural 

southwest Virginia accelerated job growth by combining 

broadband deployment with 

new economic development 

projects to take full advantage 

of broadband’s benefits. These 

commissions deployed fiber 

efficiently by coordinating its 

deployment with trenching for 

water or sewer lines, forming the 

groundwork for a regional broadband network in an area previously unserved due to the high 

cost of deployment. In addition, 

localities supported broadband 

infrastructure by upgrading other 

key economic development infrastructure assets. For example, 

the town of Lebanon converted 

an old strip mall to serve as a 

job-training center to deliver 

high school equivalency courses 

and train workers for IT-related 

jobs. These efforts helped the 

community attract new employers and create new jobs. The 

Lenowisco Planning District 

Commission reported 1,200 new 

jobs, $55 million in new private 

investments and $35 million in 

new payroll as a result of the 

region’s broadband network. Its 

sister planning organization, the 

Cumberland Plateau Planning 

District Commission, reported 

1,100 new jobs, $60 million in 

private investments and $40 million in new payrolls. The regional 

networks, which were designed 

to serve schools, incubators and 

health care providers, helped 

attract new employers, such as 

Northrop Grumman and CGI, to 

rural southern Virginia, enabling 

job opportunities that did not 

exist in the area before.84

BOX 13-3:
2 7 6 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 3

are pursuing. And it would have impact assessments from prior 

federal grants, to help regions learn from past projects and 

make the development process more sustainable. 

Congress should consider providing public funding for the 

creation and operation of a Regional Information Center, 

as part of EDA’s Regional Innovation Cluster Initiative. The 

information center will gather, analyze and distribute regional 

economic data, as well as promote best practices in economic 

development. 

Recommendation 13.10: The National Science Foundation (NSF) should use its technology transfer grants to spur 

regional innovation and development as well as greater 

collaboration across universities.

Technology transfer grants can accelerate regional innovation by supporting existing research facilities and improving 

coordination among local universities, development managers 

and the business community. NSF is launching a university 

innovation grant program to support the technology commercialization process through several pilot university programs. 

Each grant would support the creation of an innovation center 

that provides proof-of-concept funding and mentoring to accelerate the creation of spin-off companies.90

However, smaller colleges and universities may find it 

difficult to apply for innovation grants because of limited 

connectivity, exacerbating the divide between large and small 

institutions. In 2007, the 50 research universities that spent 

the most on R&D each had an average annual research budget 

of nearly $550 million, representing (in total) more than 55% 

of all university research and development (R&D) spending.91 In contrast, the next 613 universities averaged just $36 

million each, accounting for the remaining 45% of university 

R&D spending.92

To assist smaller universities in applying for these grants, 

NSF should encourage consortia of these universities to 

pool their R&D resources, technology transfer staff and 

mentoring and research networks into a single innovation 

center. Supporting these university consortia could catalyze 

technology commercialization and drive regional economic 

development. It could also provide benefits to a wider range 

of higher education institutions, including Historically Black 

Colleges and Universities, regional campuses, and liberal 

arts colleges.

In addition, NSF should offer support for broadband networks between consortium partners and other institutions 

that receive the innovation grants. This approach would allow 

smaller universities to create a critical mass of researchers and 

technologies, helping attract private-sector support. In addition, it would create an online network of expertise from the 

participating universities, helping academic institutions adopt 

best practices for technology transfer management while allowing local businesses to tap into a larger pool of resources to 

address their innovation challenges. NSF is already supporting 

these universities with the Experimental Program to Stimulate 

Competitive Research (EPSCoR), which provides up to $6 

million in grants for broadband infrastructure for universities. 

By starting a new effort coordinating its EPSCoR broadband 

infrastructure grants and its university innovation grants, NSF 

can allow consortia to access funds not just for connectivity but 

also for technology transfer and innovation. 

By creating a shared communications network, these 

consortia would also give researchers and university spin-offs 

access to resources like grid computing, cloud-based applications, telepresence networks and connections to academic 

research networks such as the Internet2 Network. In a recent survey of Internet2 universities, all members reported 

research networks with connections of 100 Mbps or higher, 

with 76% planning on expanding their connections to 10 Gbps 

or higher over the next five years.93 By contrast, universities 

that conduct research but lack doctoral programs were twice 

as likely as universities with doctoral programs to have connection speeds below 100 Mbps.94 To help address this issue, 

groups of universities that are not connected to an academic 

network should be given funding priority to expand their 

connectivity infrastructure.
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 3

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 2 7 7

c h a p t e r 1 3 E n d n o t e s 

1 Mary Madden & Sidney Jones, Pew Internet & Am. Life

Project, Networked Workers 3 (2008).

2 Bureau of Labor Stat., Occupational Projections and

Training Data, 2009–2010 Edition (2009), available at

http://www.bls.gov/emp/optd/ (available for download 

in various parts). Based on these data, jobs that were 

broadband related were identified, and a growth rate was 

calculated for that subset of jobs compared to national 

projected employment growth. 

3 U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder (enter 

“Diller,” “Nebraska” in “Fast Access to Information”), 

http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_

lang=en (last visited Feb. 13, 2010)

4 Letter from Dave Vorhaus, National Broadband 

Taskforce, FCC, on behalf of Blue Valley Brand Meats, to 

Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC (Jan. 13, 2010) at 1 

(filed as Federal Communications Commission).

5 WCPN.org, Upside/Downside: Youngstown Business 

Incubator a Bright Spot in Region, http://www.wcpn.

org/index.php/WCPN/news/24955/ (last visited Jan. 

12, 2010).

6 John Tozzi, New Orleans: A Startup Laboratory, Bus. 

Wk., Aug. 27, 2007, http://www.businessweek.com/

print/smallbiz/content/aug2007/sb20070823_490984.

htm; Abby Ellin, Entrepreneurs Leverage New Orleans’s 

Charm to Lure Small Businesses, N.Y. Times, Jul. 29, 

2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/30/business/

smallbusiness/30sbiz.html?pagewanted=all.

7 Office of Advocacy, SBA, Advocacy: The Voice of Small

Business in Government, Frequently Asked Questions

1 (2009), (SBA, Small Business Economy) available at

http://www.sba.gov/advo/stats/sbfaq.pdf.

8 SBA, Small Business Economy at 99.

9 Applied percentages of minority- and women-owned 

businesses from the Small Business Administration for 

2002 Census Bureau data to totals of non-employer and 

employer businesses from 2006 to create estimates for 

2006 totals of minority- and women-owned businesses. 

See Minorities in Business at 5, 28. See also SBA, Small

Business Economy at 99.

10 U.S. Senate Comm. on Small Bus. & Entrepreneurship, 

Democratic Page, Minority Entrepreneurs, http://sbc.

senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=MinorityEntrepreneurs

(last visited Mar. 3, 2010).

11 John Tozzi, The Rise of the ‘Homepreneur,’ Bus. Wk., 

Oct. 23, 2009, http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/

content/oct2009/sb20091023_263258.htm.

12 Verizon and Verizon Wireless Comments in re NBP 

PN #18 (Comment Sought on Relationship Between 

Broadband and Economic Opportunity—NBP Public 

Notice #18, GN Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 09-137, Public 

Notice, 24 FCC Rcd 13736 (WCB 2009) (NBP PN #18)), 

filed Dec. 14, 2009, at 95.

13 Maija Renko & Paul Reynolds, Profiling the Growth

Oriented Nascent Entrepreneur in the US—Evidence

from Representative Samples 12 (2006) (Renko & 

Reynolds, Profiling the Growth Oriented).

14 U.S. Census Bureau, Dep’t of Com., Women-Owned

Firms: 2002, at 1–2 (2006), available at http://www2.

census.gov/econ/sbo/02/sb0200cswmn.pdf.

15 How Companies Are Benefiting From Web 2.0: McKinsey 

Global Survey Results, McKinsey Q., Sept. 2009.

16 Org. for Econ. Co-Operation and Dev. [OECD], 

Broadband and the Economy: Ministerial Background 

Report, at 15, DSTI/ICCP/IE(2007)3/FINAL (2008) 

(OECD, Broadband and the Economy), available at

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/62/7/40781696.pdf.

17 See Margot Dorfman, CEO, US Women’s Chamber of 

Commerce, Remarks at FCC Opportunities for Small 

and Disadvantaged Business Workshop 15 (Aug. 18, 

2009) (“On any given day, 20 percent of all Americans go 

online to look for a service or product they are thinking 

of buying.”), available at http://www.broadband.gov/

docs/ws_08_op_small_dis_biz.pdf.

18 FCC, National Broadband Plan Survey of Businesses, 

Dec. 9, 2009–Jan. 31, 2010 (2010) (FCC, NBP Survey of

Businesses) (on file with the Commission).

19 To illustrate this point, ThomasNet conducted a case study 

of Orr & Orr, Inc., a 14-person business that distributes 

hardware and accessories to the automotive industry. 

Due to the introduction of an online product catalog, 

the company can now serve much larger businesses and 

generate additional revenue. President of Orr & Orr, Hank 

Hines, describes the benefits as follows: “The online catalog 

levels the playing field for a small company like ours. The 

customer on the ‘other end’ of the Internet doesn’t know 

how big we are—just the products that we have to offer. We 

can now attract them to our business and let our expertise 

take over.” Orr & Orr, Inc., A ThomasNet Case Study, 

http://promoteyourbusiness.thomasnet.com/case_studies/

orr-and-orr.html (last visited Feb. 14, 2010).

20 OECD, Broadband and the Economy at 24.

21 Justin Jaffe, Int’l Data Corp. (IDC), SMB Cluster

Analysis: SMB 2.0s Lead the Way Toward NextGeneration Technology, Doc # 219830 (2009) (Jaffe, 

SMB Cluster Analysis).

22 OECD, Broadband and the Economy at 47.

23 Jaffe, SMB Cluster Analysis.

24 FCC, NBP Survey of Businesses.

25 E.J. Ourso College of Business, LBTC Mobile 

Classroom, http://www.bus.lsu.edu/centers/lbtc/

mobileclassroom.asp (last visited Feb. 14, 2010).

26 Dep’t ofBus. Innovation & Skills, DigitalBritain 185–86 

(2009), available at http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/

publications/digitalbritain-finalreport-jun09.pdf.

27 The SBA partners with states and educational 

institutions to operate nearly 1,000 SBDCs across the 

country. These SBDCs offer counseling, mentoring, 

support, and training for small business owners and 

entrepreneurs. 

28 The SBA’s Office of Women’s Business Ownership 

(OWBO) exists to establish and oversee a network of 

WBCs throughout the United States and its territories, 

which provide comprehensive training and counseling 

on a vast array of topics in many languages to help 

entrepreneurs, especially women, start and grow their 

own businesses.

29 SBA, FY 2011 Congressional Budget Justification

and FY 2009 Annual Performance Report 53 (2010), 

available at http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/

documents/sba_homepage/fy_2011_cbj_09_apr.pdf.

30 U.S. Census Bureau, 2006–2008 American Community 

Survey, S1603. Characteristics of People by Language 

Spoken at Home, http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/

STTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-qr_name=ACS_

2008_3YR_G00_S1603&-ds_name=ACS_2008_3YR_

G00_&-_lang=en&-redoLog=false&-format=&-

CONTEXT=st (last visited Feb. 9, 2009). According to 

these data, 55 million people over the age of 5 speak a 

language other than English at home. The total population 

estimate of those 5 years and over is 280.5 million.

31 ASBDC, America’s Small Business Development Center 

Network, About Us, http://www.asbdc-us.org/About_

Us/aboutus.html (last visited Feb. 14, 2010).

32 SCORE: Counselors to America’s Small Businesses, Ask 

SCORE, http://www.score.org/ask_score1.html (last 

visited Feb. 14, 2010).

33 SBA, Counseling & Assistance, http://www.sba.gov/

services/counseling/index.html (last visited Feb. 14, 

2010).

34 ASBDC, About Us, http://www.asbdc-us.org/About_Us/

aboutus.html (last visited Feb. 14, 2010)

35 Letter from Sridhar Prasad, National Broadband 

Taskforce, FCC, on behalf of SBA, to Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary, FCC GN Docket 09–47, 09–51, 09–137, 

(Jan. 14, 2010) at 1 (filed as Federal Communications 

Commission).

36 Cisco, Virtual Sales Expertise Case Study: How Cisco

Supports Virtual Access to Technical Experts (2009).

37 Initiative for a Competitive Inner City, State of the

Inner City Economies: Small Businesses in the Inner

City 1 (2005), available at http://www.sba.gov/advo/

research/rs260tot.pdf.

38 Stephan J. Goetz, Self-Employment in Rural America: 

The New Economic Reality, Rural Realities, 2008, 

iss. 3 at 1, available at http://ruralsociology.org/

StaticContent/Publications/Ruralrealities/pubs/

RuralRealities2-3.pdf. 

39 Rural Broadband Policy Group Comments in re NBP PN 

#18, filed Dec. 4, 2009, at 11.

40 Asian American Justice Center et al. Comments in re 

NBP PN #18, filed Dec. 4, 2009, at 5.

41 The SBA defines a small disadvantaged business as 

a business that is at least 51% owned by one or more 

individuals from groups that have been in a socially 

disadvantaged position, including the following: 

African Americans, Asian Pacific Americans, Hispanic 

Americans, Native Americans, and Subcontinent Asian 

Americans.

42 David Ferreira, Vice Pres. of Gov’t Aff., US Hispanic 

Chamber of Commerce, Remarks at FCC Opportunities 

for Small and Disadvantaged Businesses Workshop 37 

(Aug. 18, 2009), available at http://www.broadband.gov/

docs/ws_08_op_small_dis_biz.pdf. 

43 Letter from Dave Vorhaus, National Broadband 

Taskforce, FCC, on behalf of Service Corps of Retired 

Executives (SCORE), to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, 

FCC GN Docket 09–47, 09–51, 09–137, (Jan. 25, 2010) at 

1 (filed as Federal Communications Commission).

44 Renko & Reynolds, Profiling the Growth Oriented at 6.

45 Jason Henderson, Building the Rural Economy with 

High-Growth Entrepreneurs, Econ. Rev.—Fed. Reserve
2 7 8 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 3

c h a p t e r 1 3 E n d n o t e s 

Bank of K.C., July 1, 2002, available at http://www.

kc.frb.org/PUBLICAT/ECONREV/PDF/3q02hend.pdf.

46 Dep’t of Labor, Number of Jobs Held, Labor Market 

Activity, and Earnings Growth Among the Youngest Baby 

Boomers: Results From a Longitudinal Survey (press 

release), June 27, 2008, available at http://www.bls.gov/

news.release/nlsoy.nr0.htm.

47 Nat’l Skills Coal (formerly Workforce Alliance), 

Toward Ensuring America’s Workers and Industries the

Skills to Compete 6 (2007), available at http://www.

nationalskillscoalition.org/assets/reports-/towardensuring-americas.pdf.

48 J.D. Fletcher, Why Technology? Why ADL? Report

from a 30-year (so far) Campaign 16 (2009) (Fletcher, 

Why Technology?).

49 Council ofEcon. Advisors, Executive Office of the

President, Preparing the Workers ofToday for the Jobs

ofTomorrow 19 (July 2009) (Council ofEcon. Advisors, 

Preparing the Workers) (describing the workforce 

development system as an “often conflicting and confusing, 

maze of job training programs spread across several 

Federal agencies.”), available at http://www.whitehouse.

gov/assets/documents/Jobs_of_the_Future.pdf.

50 Participants in most government-funded employment 

assistance services are serviced through the OneStop Delivery System, a set of 2,995 physical centers 

across the country operated by DOL. CareerOneStop, 

America’s Service Locator, http://www.servicelocator.

org/ (last visited Feb. 14, 2010).

51 Analysis using U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data 

and annual reports from states submitted to the 

U.S. Department of Labor Employment Training 

Administration show that One-Stop centers in cities 

that suffered job losses greater than 100,000 between 

July 2008 and July 2009 served an average of only 

3,379 people in each One-Stop in 2008. Based on OBI 

team analysis of locations of One-Stop centers from the 

Department of Labor, compared to geographic areas of 

job losses exceeding 100,000 between July 2008 and 

July 2009. See U.S. Bureau of Labor Stat., Metropolitan

Area Employment and Unemployment, tbl. 1 (July 2009). 

See also U.S. Dep’t of Labor, PY 2008 WIA Annual 

Reports, Employment & Training Administration, 

http://www.doleta.gov/performance/results/

AnnualReports/annual-report-08.cfm(last visited Feb. 

20, 2010) (click on map for respective state report).

52 Community Service Society, The Unheard Third 2009: 

Job Loss, Economic Insecurity, and a Decline in Job

Quality 41 (2009), available at http://www.cssny.

org/userimages/downloads/Unheard%20Third%20

2009%20Report%2010-7-09.pdf.

53 American Library Association, Public Library Use, 

http://www.ala.org/ala/professionalresources/

libfactsheets/alalibraryfactsheet06.cfm (last visited 

Mar. 3, 2010).

54 John Horrigan, Broadband Adoption and Use in America

36-37 (OBI Working Paper No. 1, 2010)

55 Joseph Cohen’s Education Dominance program at the 

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), 

where new naval recruits were inducted into an online 

IT training program, found that online trained cadets 

who completed a 14 week program tested at a 7-year IT 

Navy technician level. The Institute of Defense Analysis 

has found that using technology-based instruction 

reduces cost of instruction by about a third, and either 

reduces time of instruction by about a third or increases 

effectiveness of instruction by about a third. Fletcher, 

Why Technology? at 16.

56 Skills2Compete, Middle-skill jobs demand 7 (2009). 

57 U. S. Dep’t of Labor, Tools for America’s Job Seekers 

Challenge, http://dolchallenge.ideascale.com/a/panel.

do?id=5847 (last visited Dec. 14, 2009).

58 Council of Econ. Advisors, Preparing the Workers

at 14.

59 White House, Fact Sheet on American Graduation 

Initiative (press release), July 14, 2009 (discussing 

Online Skills Laboratory, consisting of new open online 

courses to be developed by the U.S. Departments of 

Defense, Education, and Labor), available at http://

www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Excerpts-ofthe-Presidents-remarks-in-Warren-Michigan-and-factsheet-on-the-American-Graduation-Initiative/.

60 Stephen A. Wandner, Employment Programs for 

Recipients of Unemployment Insurance, Monthly Labor

Rev., Oct. 2008, at 17, 18, http://www.bls.gov/opub/

mlr/2008/10/art2full.pdf.

61 GAO, Human Capital: Opportunities to Improve Federal

Continuity Planning Guidance 12–13, GAO-04-384 

(2004), available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/

d04384.pdf.

62 Reid Forgrave, Living on the Edge: Disabled Become 

Able to Work, DesMoinesRegister.com, Mar. 20, 2008, 

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/

article?AID=/20080320/NEWS/803200376/-1/

SPORTS09.

63 Ryan Wallace Comments in re NBP PN #3 (Comment 

Sought on Telework—NBP Public Notice #3, GN Docket 

Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 09-137, Public Notice, 24 FCC Rcd 

11752 (WCB 2009) (NBP PN #3)), on behalf of Citrix 

Online (Citrix Comments in re NBP PN #3), filed Sept. 

30, 2009, Attach. at 4.

64 See Connected Nation Comments in re NBP PN #3, filed 

Sept. 22, 2009, at 16–17.

65 Sue Shellenbarger, The Five Second Commute, WSJ.

com, Nov. 25, 2009, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB

10001424052748703819904574555710881471416.

html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_careerjournal.

66 Washington State University, Rural Telework Project, 

http://cbdd.wsu.edu/telework/overview.html (last 

visited Mar. 3, 2010).

67 Global e-Sustainability Initiative, SMART 2020, 

United States Report Addendum 49 (2008), available at 

http://www.gesi.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=cOArprY

nXWY%3D&tabid=60.

68 AT&T Comments in re NBP PN #3, filed Sept. 22, 2009, 

at 25.

69 Toni Kistner, Fighting for Fair Telework Tax, Network

World, June 7, 2004, http://www.networkworld.com/

net.worker/news/2004/0607netlead.html.

70 Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act, H.R. 2600, 111th 

Cong. 2009. 

71 Office of Personnel Management (OPM), Federal 

Employment Statistics: Total Government 

Employment Since 1962, http://www.opm.gov/feddata/

HistoricalTables/TotalGovernmentSince1962.asp (last 

visited Feb. 14, 2010).

72 OPM, Status of Telework in the Federal Government 3

(2009), available at http://www.telework.gov/Reports_

and_Studies/Annual_Reports/2009teleworkreport.pdf. 

73 OPM, OPM Director Berry Drives Plan to Increase 

Telework among Federal Employees (press release), 

Apr. 29, 2009, available at http://www1.opm.gov/news/

opm-director-berry-drives-plan-to-increase-teleworkamong-federal-employees,1460.aspx.

74 Am. Elec. Ass’n, Telework in the Information

Age (2008), available at http://www.aeanet.org/

Publications/AeA_CS_Telework.asp.

75 Timothy McNeil, Director of Development, National 

Conference of Black Mayors, Remarks at FCC 

Opportunities for Small and Disadvantaged Businesses 

Workshop 26–27 (Sept. 2, 2009), available at http://

www.broadband.gov/docs/ws_08_op_small_dis_biz.pdf. 

76 Karen Mills et al., Brookings Inst., Clusters and

Competitiveness: A New Federal Role for Stimulating

Regional Economies 24 (2008) (Mills et al., Clusters

and Competitiveness).

77 BroadbandUSA, http://www.broadbandusa.gov/ (last 

visited Feb. 15, 2010).

78 13 C.F.R. § 303.6(a).

79 Econ. Dev. Admin., U.S. Dep’t of Com., Comprehensive 

Economic Development Strategies: Summary 

of Requirements, http://www.eda.gov/PDF/

CEDSFlyer081706.pdf (last visited Nov. 24, 2009).

80 The U.S. Department of Agriculture designates and 

oversees rural EZs and ECs while U.S. Department 

of Housing and Urban Development designates and 

oversees RCs and urban EZs. To qualify, communities 

must demonstrate economic distress, including poverty 

rates and unemployment rates higher than the national 

average. Designation as an EZ/RC/EC confers a range 

of tax incentives and block grants over an initial 10-year 

period. See IRS, Tax Incentives forDistressed Communities, 

Pub. 954, Cat. No. 20086A (2004), available at http://

www.irs.treas.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p954.pdf.

81 FCC, 2008 Form 477 database (accessed Nov. 2009) 

(on file with the Commission). The Commission 

used the Form 477 data to estimate, for individual 

census tracts, the share of households with highspeed connections over fixed-location technologies. 

Combining reported numbers of total lines in a Census 

Tract with GeoLytics, Inc census block-level estimates 

of households in 2009, the Commission determined the 

number of lines per 1,000 households—or, broadband 

penetration rates. We filtered the data by census tract, 

and we flagged census tracts for Empowerment Zones, 

Enterprise Communities, Renewal Communities, and 

Hope VI Communities. Filtering by EZ/EC/RC’s and 

Hope IV census tracts, the Commission was able to 

determine the average broadband penetration rate for 

each classification. Housing and Urban Development 

provided the appropriate census tracts. For more detail 

on the Form 477 results and Commission analysis, 
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 3

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 2 7 9

c h a p t e r 1 3 E n d n o t e s 

please see Indus. Analysis & Tech. Div., FCC, High-Speed

Services for Internet Access: Status as of December

31, 2008, at 1 (2010), available at http://hraunfoss.

fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296239A1.

pdf. For more information on Empowerment Zones, 

Enterprise Communities, Renewal Communities, 

including maps and locations, please see HUD, Tour 

EZ/RC/ECs by State, http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/

economicdevelopment/programs/rc/tour/index.cfm 

(last visited Feb. 20, 2010).

82 See note 81, supra.

83 See note 81, supra.

84 See note 81, supra.

85 Empowerment Zones: Performance Standards for 

Utilization of Grant Funds, 72 Fed. Reg. 71 008–018 

(Dec. 13, 2007).

86 Mills et al., Clusters and Competitiveness at 33.

87 Data would come from multiple agency databases, 

including the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Census 

Bureau, the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the US 

Department of Education, the Employment and 

Training Administration, and the U.S. Patent Office, 

among others.

88 Mills et al., Clusters and Competitiveness at 9.

89 Grants.gov, Agencies that Provide Grants, http://grants.

gov/aboutgrants/agencies_that_provide_grants.jsp (last 

visited Feb. 15, 2010).

90 Krisztina Holly, IMPACT: Innovation Model Program for 

Accelerating the Commercialization of Technologies—A 

Proposal for Realizing the Economic Potential of 

University Research, SSRN, Aug. 3, 2009, http://ssrn.

com/abstract=1480449.

91 NSF, Academic Research and Development

Expenditures: Fiscal Year 2007, NSF 09-303 (Mar. 

2009) (NSF, Academic Research and Development

Expenditures: Fiscal Year 2007), available at http://

www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf09303/pdf/nsf09303.pdf.

92 NSF, Academic Research and Development

Expenditures: Fiscal Year 2007.

93 Internet2, Research and Commercial Network: 

Capacity at U.S. Research Universities (2009), available 

at http://www.internet2.edu/government/files/200911-

IS-NSF-survey3.pdf.

94 Div. of Sci. Resources Stat., NSF, Survey of Science and

Engineering Research Facilities, Fiscal Year 2006, tbl. 

78, available at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf07325/

pdf/tab78.pdf.

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 4

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 2 8 1

GOVERNMENT

PERFORMANCE

c h a p t e r 1 4

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 4

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 2 8 3

Americans can check their bank accounts, communicate with customer service representatives and do their shopping anytime, anywhere by using applications enabled by broadband. 

Americans now expect this level of service from their government and are often disappointed with 

what they find. While some bright spots exist around filing taxes and paying parking tickets, these 

are the exception, not the rule. Government has fallen behind the private sector in using broadband to deliver services, and it is time to catch up.1

From city hall to the U.S. Capitol, government can better serve 

the American people by relying more on broadband. The implications are enormous. 

The federal government can use broadband to increase the 

efficiency of its own internal operations. And it can use its size 

and purchasing power to help state and local governments and 

communities deploy more broadband capability. 

Consider also the impact on low-income families. At the moment, many Americans do not receive all the benefits for which 

they are eligible. The reasons are many, including the complexity of determining eligibility, as well as lengthy and repetitive 

applications. Integrating and streamlining processes can help 

low-income Americans receive all the safety-net benefits for 

which they qualify, and that has had a demonstrable effect on 

bettering their chances of getting out of poverty.2

 Meanwhile, 

government services will operate more efficiently with the 

paperwork reduction that broadband technology allows. And 

when caseworkers assigned to these families spend fewer 

hours filling out paperwork, they can become more personally 

involved in helping their clients.

Broadband, in short, can change the way government serves 

the public. This chapter makes recommendations to accelerate 

this change. Section 14.1 focuses on how the government can take 

action to improve deployment of broadband in local communities. Section 14.2 proposes ways that broadband can improve 

government performance and service delivery. It also makes 

recommendations related to strengthening cybersecurity.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Improve connectivity through government action

➤ Federal government agencies and departments should serve 

as broadband anchor tenants for unserved and underserved 

communities.

➤ When feasible, Congress should consider allowing state and 

local governments to get lower service prices by participating 

in federal contracts for communications services.

➤ The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) should 

review and coordinate federal grants that have a broadband connectivity requirement. Federal government grant 

funding should not limit or permit limitations on the use of 

federally funded facilities or services for broadband deployment, except when technology solutions cannot ensure 

privacy or security of data.

➤ The Executive Branch and Congress should consider using 

federal funding to encourage cities and counties to gather 

information on initiatives enabled by broadband in ways 

that allow for rigorous evaluation and lead to an understanding of best practices.

Enhance internal government efficiency

➤ OMB should develop a vision and strategy to guide agencies 

on cloud computing.

➤ OMB and the Federal Chief Information Officers (CIO) 

Council should develop a competition to annually recognize 

internal efforts to transform government using broadbandenabled technologies.

➤ The Executive Branch should create an interagency 

working group, comprised of the senior grants officials 

from each agency, to implement guidelines and requirements for interagency coordination of grants and to 

improve Grants.gov to make it easier for applicants to use.

➤ The Federal CIO Council should accelerate agency adoption of social media technologies for internal use.

Strengthen cybersecurity

➤ The Executive Branch, in collaboration with relevant 

regulatory authorities, should develop machine-readable 

repositories of actionable real-time information concerning 

cybersecurity threats in a process led by the White House 

Cybersecurity Coordinator.

➤ The federal government should take an active role in developing public-private cybersecurity partnerships.

➤ The Executive Branch should expand existing and develop 

additional educational programs, scholarship funding, 

training programs and career paths to build workforce 

capability in cybersecurity.

➤ The Executive Branch should develop a coordinated foreign 

cybersecurity assistance program to assist foreign countries 
2 8 4 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 4

in the development of legal and technical expertise to 

address cybersecurity.

➤ The FCC should work with Internet service providers (ISPs) to build robust cybersecurity protection and 

defenses into networks offered to businesses and individuals without access to cybersecurity resources. ISPs 

that participate in this program should receive technical 

assistance from the federal government in securing 

their networks.

➤ OMB should accelerate technical actions to secure federal 

government networks. 

Improve service delivery

➤ OMB and the Federal CIO Council should develop a 

single, secure enterprise-wide authentication protocol 

that enables online service delivery.

➤ The Executive Branch should establish MyPersonalData.gov 

as a mechanism that allows citizens to request their personal data held by government agencies.

➤ Congress should consider re-examining the Privacy Act to 

facilitate the delivery of online government services and to 

account for changes in technology.

➤ The federal government should undertake a series of efforts 

to improve the delivery of government services online.

➤ The Executive Branch’s review of the Paperwork Reduction Act should aim to enable government to solicit input to 

improve government services.

➤ The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy 

(OSTP) should develop a five-year strategic plan for online 

service delivery.

➤ The federal government should improve the delivery of 

means-tested benefits to low-income Americans.

14.1 IMPROVing

CONNECTIVITY 

THROUGH

GOVERNMENT ACTION

The federal government spends billions of dollars annually on 

broadband connections for its office buildings and facilities 

throughout the United States and provides billions more in 

funding for programs that have a broadband communications 

component. The government does not, however, leverage that 

spending in a coordinated way to improve broadband connectivity and access within local communities. In many cases, 

doing so would have a nominal incremental cost, but the impact 

on communities, especially those that are unserved or underserved, could be transformative. 

Government can help in the deployment of broadband by 

serving as an anchor tenant in unserved and underserved communities, by leveraging the purchasing power of the federal 

government to provide lower prices for broadband communications services for state and local governments and by coordinating 

federal grants with a broadband connectivity requirement.

Recommendation 14.1: Federal government agencies and 

departments should serve as broadband anchor tenants for 

unserved and underserved communities.

State and local governments have expressed a strong 

desire to share broadband communications infrastructure 

deployed by the federal government to extend broadband 

connectivity to state and local agencies as well as unserved 

and underserved communities.3

 In response to Section 414 

of the Transportation, Treasury, Independent Agencies, 

and General Government Appropriations Act of 2005,4 the 

President directed federal departments and agencies to 

deploy redundant communications links for all facilities.5

Implementation efforts did not account for the potential 

spillover benefits to people and businesses in unserved or 

underserved communities that are allowed to tap into the 

high-speed connection to the Internet that the government 

secured for its facilities. In the future, when deploying redundant links, the federal government should consult with local 

communities and use those links to extend broadband access 

to the unserved and underserved. 

Recommendation 14.2: When feasible, Congress should 

consider allowing state and local governments to get lower 

service prices by participating in federal contracts for communications services.

The federal government is one of the largest buyers of 

products and services in the country, especially when it 

comes to information technology (IT). Since passage of the 

E-Government Act of 2002,6 state and local government 

entities have been authorized to leverage the bulk purchasing 

power of the federal government to purchase a wide variety 

of information technology hardware, software and services. 

Use of that authority has increased every year, and state and 

local governments have saved millions of dollars. Purchasing 

authority is, however, restricted to items found on the General 

Services Administration (GSA)’s IT Schedule 70. 

In 2007, GSA negotiated a 10-year, $68 billion telecommunications and network services contract to provide voice, IP, wireless, 

satellite and IP-centric services to 135 federal agencies operating 

out of 191 countries, at rates that are 10-40% lower than in previous contracts. This contract, called Networx, includes a provision 
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 4

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 2 8 5

that allows state and local governments to utilize the contract if 

federal law is changed to allow the practice. 

Congress should consider allowing state and local governments to 

take advantage of Networx and other communications contracts to 

enable cost savings and encourage broadband deployment.

Recommendation 14.3: The Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) should review and coordinate federal grants 

that have a broadband connectivity requirement. Federal 

government grant funding should not limit or permit limitations on the use of federally funded facilities or services 

for broadband deployment, except when technology solutions cannot ensure privacy or security of data.

In certain cases, well-intentioned grant programs require that 

money be spent on broadband connections even though a review 

of other projects would show that spending to be redundant.7

Sometimes, a broadband connection already exists. In other cases, 

multiple grants may be used to build multiple connections. For 

example, grants for primary and secondary education networks 

and grants for rural health care networks often call for the development of independent networks, even though one would suffice.8

Coordination at the OMB level would greatly reduce inefficiencies 

in federally-financed broadband rollouts.

Recommendation 14.4: The Executive Branch and Congress should consider using federal funding to encourage 

cities and counties to gather information on initiatives enabled by broadband in ways that allow for rigorous evaluation and lead to an understanding of best practices.

Examples abound of potentially powerful initiatives including IBM’s Smart Cities,9 Cisco’s Connected Communities10 and 

Google’s proposed 1 Gbps fiber-to-the-home “broadband 

testbed.”11 These initiatives use broadband connections to 

try to solve some of today’s most challenging public policy 

problems in areas such as transportation, health care, education, public safety and government services. Dubuque, Iowa, 

is reducing water and electricity use by deploying sensors 

connected via broadband. Alameda County, California, has 

implemented an integrated data warehouse for social services 

that saves $11 million a year by reducing duplicative work and 

improving detection of fraud. Unfortunately, information on 

projects like these is not collected systematically. 

Federal broadband grant programs can fill the gap by 

including reporting requirements for recipients.12 Gathering 

the information will not only help the federal government set 

priorities when issuing grants but also will assist local governments in identifying best practices across the nation. 

Executive Branch agencies should run these initiatives like pilot programs and evaluate their success against 

pre-established benchmarks. This would help inform the next 

set of Congressional actions to promote widespread adoption 

of the techniques that prove successful with the pilots.

14.2 Improving

Government 

Performance

Innovative applications of broadband have transformed the 

private sector, creating countless new ways of collaborating 

with partners and interacting with customers. Government, 

however, has not kept pace.

A poll of U.S. citizens by the Pew Research Center for the 

People & the Press found that in 2007, 62% agreed that government is usually inefficient and wasteful, up from 53% in 2002.13

This gap may be widening in part because the private sector 

has raised expectations that government has not met. While 

customers increasingly can go online to interact with private 

companies, the public still mostly deal with government via 

mail or in person, standing in line. While companies have made 

it easy for customers to find what they want, the government 

has been slow to adopt technological efficiencies to speed citizen service and eliminate its siloed structure.14

Smarter use of broadband can facilitate a vast change in 

government. Like private companies, government can make 

its services available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 

days a year. Broadband-enabled online services can create 

paths across government’s bureaucratic silos so that someone 

wanting to access unemployment benefits can deal with the 

local government and the federal government at the same time. 

Broadband holds the potential to move all government forms 

online, eliminating paperwork. Broadband allows for online 

tutorials for simple government services, which can help free 

government employees to focus on the most complicated cases. 

And broadband can increase efficiency by increasing the speed 

and depth of cooperation across departments and across different levels of government. 

Enhance Internal Government Efficiency

In government, historically siloed institutions have bred siloed 

systems that are inefficient. Through strategic use of broadband-enabled technologies, the federal government has the 

opportunity to become a model of efficiency and performance.

Recommendation 14.5: OMB should develop a vision and 

strategy to guide agencies on cloud computing.15
2 8 6 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 4

During the past decade, federal spending on information 

technology has grown substantially. On IT infrastructure 

alone, the federal government spends $20 billion per year.16

The number of federal government data centers has more than 

doubled over the last 10 years from 493 to more than 1,200.17

Cloud computing has the potential to at least slow the 

growth in federal spending while increasing efficiency. A study 

by Booz Allen Hamilton estimates that an agency that migrates 

its infrastructure to a public or private cloud can achieve 

savings of 50-67%.18 For example, the District of Columbia 

recently moved toward using a commercial cloud computing 

solution for its mail, calendar, instant messaging, word processing and spreadsheet needs. The cost was only $50 per user 

per year; the District’s previous solution for enterprise e-mail 

alone cost $96 per user per year.19

The federal government has already launched a number of limited cloud computing initiatives, with positive results. Electronic 

payroll systems have been consolidated from 26 systems to four 

shared-service provider centers; this will result in estimated savings of more than $1 billion during the next 10 years.20 Apps.gov 

has allowed agencies to nimbly procure software and information 

technology services from GSA’s Schedule 7021 and deploy these 

solutions in the cloud. Agencies such as the U.S. Department of 

Defense (DoD) and the Central Intelligence Agency are also moving forward on internal cloud solutions for sensitive data.22 The 

Rapid Access Computing Environment functions as an internal 

cloud for DoD, allowing for certification of applications that meet 

proper security standards within 40 days, half the time of the noncloud-based method.23

Despite these successes, federal government IT executives 

harbor concerns about security and privacy. These concerns 

have some merit, but the risks can be mitigated through technology and policy solutions.24 Because the risks many federal 

agencies face are the same, they would benefit from a community approach. OMB should develop a coordinated vision 

and strategy that touches upon the security and privacy policy 

concerns that must be resolved as the government moves to 

deploy cloud computing.

Recommendation 14.6: OMB and the Federal Chief Information Officers (CIO) Council25 should develop a competition to 

annually recognize internal efforts to transform government 

using broadband-enabled technologies.

Federal government employees often generate ideas for innovation and efficiency within government, yet many of their ideas 

go unnoticed or unheralded. The federal government has taken 

initial steps to celebrate innovation and efficiency by launching 

the Securing Americans Value and Efficiency Award, a monthlong contest that allowed every federal employee to submit ideas 

for how government can save money and perform better. The 

program received more than 38,000 suggestions.26 The winning 

innovation was an idea to eliminate the waste of medications 

in VA hospitals.27 This innovation has been included in the 

President’s FY2011 budget, and agencies have been directed to 

implement many other recommendations resulting from the contest.28 Expanding upon this, OMB and the Federal CIO Council 

should create a competition focused on transforming government 

operations using broadband-enabled applications.

Recommendation 14.7: The Executive Branch should 

create an interagency working group, comprised of the 

senior grants officials from each agency, to implement 

guidelines and requirements for interagency coordination 

of grants and to improve Grants.gov to make it easier for 

applicants to use. 

During FY2009, the federal government awarded more than 

$1 trillion in grants.29 Using broadband-enabled online services 

in the grant process can improve how the federal government 

implements its policies and programs. 

Grants.gov was set up as a central portal for grants across 

the federal government to make the grants application process 

easier, but it has not succeeded on many metrics.30 On average, federal government websites earn a satisfaction score of 

75/100, but Grants.gov scores only 56/100.31 Potential applicants must download forms to complete applications offline. 

There is no system for generating feedback about Grants.gov, 

limiting the ability to improve it.32

The proposed interagency working group should be empowered to recommend improvements to Grants.gov. Also, 

Grants.gov should allow tagging, or the labeling of grants, to 

make searches (especially of broadband grants) easier. This 

would enable the public to use USASpending.gov to gain a 

crosscutting view of all federal broadband expenditures while 

reducing the burden on applicants searching for grants. 

The grant process should also be improved to require 

grantors to certify that any project requiring broadband has 

sufficient connectivity or that the funds from the grant would 

pay for that connectivity. Oversight for this process should rest 

with the interagency group.

Recommendation 14.8: The Federal CIO Council should 

accelerate agency adoption of social media33 technologies 

for internal use. 

Social media technologies provide the federal government 

another platform to spur innovation and collaboration. For 

example, the National Academy of Public Administration uses 

a wiki to synthesize interview data. This simple collaborative 

tool has reduced data analysis time by nearly 15%.34

The private sector has come to recognize the efficiency 

gains and other benefits of social media within the workplace.35
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 4

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 2 8 7

The federal government has not made widespread use of these 

tools despite evidence that federal government employees 

embrace the use of social media to make their organizations 

more efficient and effective. The Transportation Security 

Administration (TSA) uses a social media platform called 

IdeaFactory that allows its 43,000 officers to securely share 

ideas for improving their workplace and performance. TSA 

employees have submitted more than 9,000 ideas, generating more than 39,000 comments.36 More than 40 ideas from 

IdeaFactory have been implemented, including changes to 

standard operating procedures.37 The DoD has also embraced 

social media platforms to enhance internal efficiency, with 87% 

of DoD workers using these tools at work.38

Many agencies continue to have concerns about social 

media and block employee access to outside websites such as 

YouTube, Facebook and Wikipedia.39 The Federal CIO Council 

has expressed concerns that these social technologies and 

tools could be susceptible to cyber attacks.40 Still, there are 

clear benefits to adopting social media platforms for internal 

or cross-agency collaboration, and the Federal CIO Council 

should address concerns and accelerate adoption of these platforms (see Box 14-1).

Strengthen Cybersecurity

According to the Preamble to the United States Constitution, 

the federal government must “provide for the common defence” (sic). The United States has evolved dramatically since 

its founding, and one of the most significant changes that has 

marked the 21st century is the country’s reliance upon the 

Internet in all sectors of society—from individuals to government to the economy at large.

The global, borderless nature of the Internet has also led 

to the emergence of new categories of threats that can come 

from anyone, anywhere in the world, at any time. Protecting 

the Internet and providing for cybersecurity is both an economic and national security challenge and collectively, one 

of the most serious challenges of the 21st century.43 How the 

federal government approaches and provides cybersecurity 

will be critical to the continuing evolution of the Internet in the 

United States.

The recommendations that follow apply to the federal 

government’s approach to cybersecurity. Specific recommendations relating to the FCC and cybersecurity can be found in 

Chapter 16.

Recommendation 14.9: The Executive Branch, in collaboration with relevant regulatory authorities, should develop 

machine-readable repositories of actionable real-time information concerning cybersecurity threats in a process led 

by the White House Cybersecurity Coordinator.

The federal government recognizes that no operational 

mechanism currently exists for the United States to provide 

a “coordinated and unified effort to detect, prevent, mitigate, 

and carry out a real-time response to significant cyber issues 

affecting the Nation.”44 Recent real45 and simulated events46

demonstrate that responding to a cyberattack in real time is 

complex. Every second counts. Cyber threat detection, prevention, mitigation and response require coordinated action by 

public and private entities. In addition, traditional approaches 

to cybersecurity, including intrusion-detection systems and 

antivirus software, are ineffective against new rapidly evolving 

threats.47 As a result, new methods are required to facilitate a 

coordinated response.

To begin addressing this challenge, the Executive Branch 

should develop machine-readable repositories containing actionable real-time information concerning cybersecurity threats 

(including signatures for viruses, spam, IP address blacklists 

and other indicators). By delivering information faster and in a 

more useful fashion, the Executive Branch will become an active 

partner in the public-private battle to protect cyberspace. These 

repositories will further facilitate timely interaction with both 

the private sector and international partners.

Recommendation 14.10: The federal government should 

take an active role in developing public-private cybersecurity partnerships.

➤ The Executive Branch should develop protocols and 

incentives for establishing public-private cybersecurity 

partnerships with all major industry sectors. These 

protocols would enable sharing of cybersecurity information, threats, and incidents in a non-attributable 

manner, and would provide an existing channel for 

government to communicate actionable cybersecurity 

information to the private sector.

➤ The Executive Branch and the Small Business Administration should work together to develop a cybersecurity reThe Intelligence Wiki

In 2006, members of 

the Intelligence Community 

formally launched the social 

media site Intellipedia to help 

solve information-sharing 

problems.41 The effort has 

been well-received and is used 

by the Intelligence Community 

to share information classified 

up to “Top Secret.” It now has 

more than 900,000 pages 

and 100,000 users who make 

5,000 page edits every day.42

Using Intellipedia, officials 

can quickly learn about new 

topics, scrutinize information 

and ensure it is up-to-date and 

complete. 

BOX 14-1:
2 8 8 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 4

source program, in conjunction with state and local governments, to develop cybersecurity partnerships for small and 

medium enterprises (SMEs) that are not covered by cybersecurity partnerships developed for major industry sectors.

Cybersecurity continues to be a concern for the private sector 

in the United States, which relies on robust intellectual property 

protection to undergird its competitiveness. As a result, private 

sector networks in the United States, where most of its intellectual property resides, have been a major target for attacks, and 

despite the significant resources that the private sector devotes 

to cybersecurity, there have been a number of successful attacks 

on its networks. Recent victims of well-publicized cyber attacks 

include Google48 and the U.S. oil industry.49

Due to the diffuse nature of cyberattacks, sharing of information is critical when responding to, mounting sufficient 

defenses against and remediating attacks. However, businesses 

are often reluctant to share information, either with other 

private sector entities or the government, due to worries about 

the potential disclosure of such an attack and related concerns 

about corporate liability, despite the fact that the resources 

necessary to successfully respond often exceed those of individual private sector organizations.

The public and private sectors must work together to overcome these challenges to ensure the security of the Internet. 

Information Sharing and Analysis Centers (ISACs), which convene a representative industry body to interact with the federal 

government on cybersecurity issues full-time, are good models 

for the kind of collaboration that is needed. Today, ISACs exist 

for the financial services sector (FS-ISAC), the information 

technology sector (IT-ISAC), and state and local governments 

(the Multi-State ISAC, or MS-ISAC). To ensure that ISACs for 

other industry sectors are effective, ongoing communication 

and actionable information will be required from both industry 

participants and the federal government.

SMEs often have fewer resources to dedicate to cybersecurity than large businesses in major industrial sectors. However, 

despite limited resources, cybersecurity is no less important 

to small and medium businesses. Recognizing both resource 

constraints and the importance of cybersecurity, the Executive 

Branch and the Small Business Administration should develop 

a cybersecurity resource program, in conjunction with state 

and local governments, through the MS-ISAC.

The effectiveness of public-private partnerships depends 

on ongoing communication and actionable information from 

both industry sector participants and the federal government. 

To ensure that this occurs, protocols and incentives should be 

developed for the sharing of cybersecurity information, threats 

and incidents in a non-attributable manner.

Recommendation 14.11: The Executive Branch should 

expand existing and develop additional educational programs, scholarship funding, training programs, and career 

paths to build workforce capability in cybersecurity. 

Cybersecurity is a rapidly evolving field, requiring specialized training and expertise. The importance of this field to the 

economy, competitiveness and national security underscores 

the need to build a robust and capable workforce with the skills 

to sustain it. The federal government has an additional challenge in retaining skilled IT security officials because training 

and career advancement opportunities are limited.50 However, 

the quality of professionals in the field of cybersecurity is 

mixed, with current training insufficient to meet the needs of 

either the public or private sectors.51

Immediately following the launch of Sputnik, governments 

in both the United States and Western Europe were deeply concerned about the growing quantity and quality of scientists and 

engineers in the Soviet Union. One of the major policy actions to 

address this concern was education and training in basic science, 

laying the groundwork for the United States’ Apollo mission to 

go to the moon. Similarly, to meet the security challenges of the 

present day, a new professional cybersecurity workforce needs 

to be cultivated. The Executive Branch should expand existing and develop additional educational programs, scholarship 

funding, training programs and career paths to build workforce 

capability in cybersecurity. The Executive Branch should increase its current funding for these efforts.

Recommendation 14.12: The Executive Branch should 

develop a coordinated foreign cybersecurity assistance 

program to assist foreign countries in the development of 

legal and technical expertise to address cybersecurity.

The Internet knows no geographic boundaries, and threats 

and attacks emanating from cyberspace can come from anywhere at any time. The volume of cyberattacks originating 

internationally continues to grow.52 To respond to these attacks effectively, a global response involving both the U.S. and 

foreign governments is necessary.53 Although the U.S. government has been working to address cyber incidents through 

legal and policy actions and public-private partnerships many 

foreign countries lack either the legal framework or the capacity to respond in a similar manner. 

To address this challenge, as it has done in cases of counternarcotics and human trafficking, the federal government must work 

collaboratively with international partners to address detection, 

prevention, mitigation and response with respect to cybersecurity. 

The International Criminal Investigative Training Assistance 

Program at the Department of Justice is an example of one program that works with foreign governments to develop professional 

and transparent legal institutions, with a focus on protecting 
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 4

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 2 8 9

provide ongoing technical assistance to secure these networks 

as an incentive for participation in this program. 

Recommendation 14.14: OMB should accelerate technical actions to secure federal government networks.

Under the Federal Information Security Management Act 

(FISMA), OMB, through the Federal Chief Information Officer 

(CIO), has responsibility for securing all federal networks, 

except those under the purview of DoD and the Intelligence 

Community. OMB has undertaken a number of technical 

efforts to secure its networks. The Federal Desktop Core 

Configuration, a common platform for end-user computers, 

has been rolled out throughout the federal government and 

incorporates a standard information security configuration developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology 

(NIST) in collaboration with DoD and the Department 

of Homeland Security (DHS).61 The Trusted Internet 

Connections initiative is reducing the number of federal government Internet connections from over 8,000 connections 

down to approximately 50, and then deploying security solutions—including antivirus, firewall, intrusion detection, and 

traffic monitoring—on the remaining connections.62

In addition to these initiatives, further steps can be taken 

to bolster the federal government’s cybersecurity efforts. The 

Federal CIO should accelerate technical steps to secure these 

networks and better position the federal government to react 

swiftly to new attack vectors. Particularly, the Federal CIO 

should speed the implementation of Internet Protocol Version 

6 throughout federal government computer networks as a step 

towards implementing Internet Protocol Security and computer security at the network level. The Federal CIO should also 

accelerate efforts to securing the Internet’s routing system. 

OMB recently automated the FISMA data collection 

process, reducing the burden on agencies for FISMA compliance. Automating the data collection process will also allow 

the Federal CIO to more readily ensure FISMA compliance 

and improve existing benchmarks towards outcomes-based 

metrics so that federal agencies are taking all steps necessary to secure federal government IT networks.63 Moving 

towards outcomes-based metrics is vital to securing the nation’s critical infrastructure. 

Improve Service Delivery

Americans can have a high-performance government that delivers many services online. But to realize this vision, technical 

and structural barriers must be addressed, including finding 

secure ways to establish identity and share information across 

agencies. Many government services rightly require identity 

authentication, such as presentation of a driver’s license when 

applying for a U.S. passport. Additionally, government agencies 

human rights, combating corruption and reducing the threat of 

transnational crime and terrorism.54

Each federal government agency55 with expertise should 

work collaboratively with its counterpart agencies in foreign 

governments to nourish the worldwide development of legal 

and technical cybersecurity expertise. In 1999, the U.S. led 

a similar collaborative effort to develop global expertise in 

telecom regulation, leading to the publication of Connecting 

the Globe: A Regulator’s Guide to Building a Global Information 

Community.

56 A similar effort should be undertaken by the 

United States government in cybersecurity, bringing multiple 

countries together to share information on best practices. 

Recommendation 14.13: The FCC should work with 

Internet service providers (ISPs) to build robust cybersecurity protection and defenses into networks offered to 

businesses and individuals without access to cybersecurity 

resources. ISPs that participate in this program should 

receive technical assistance from the federal government 

in securing their networks.

Protecting computers and other devices from new and 

evolving threats found on the Internet is a full-time activity 

that occurs 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Most Fortune 

500 companies spend millions of dollars annually on specialized staff and technology supporting cybersecurity efforts to 

protect their corporate computers and networks. Smaller businesses and individuals, however, may have limited or even no 

cybersecurity protection.

ISPs have taken some steps to provide cybersecurity resources 

to small business and residential customers. For example, 

Comcast has provided a commercial antivirus and security 

software suite for free to customers since 200557 and will alert 

customers if their computers are infected with botnets, viruses 

or other online threats.58 But these efforts only offer incomplete 

protection at best, since antivirus and security software may miss 

up to 80% of previously unknown Internet threats and attacks.59

As cybersecurity becomes increasingly specialized and technologically complex, it is no longer reasonable to expect that 

small business and individuals can engage in self-help when 

it comes to cybersecurity. By having ISPs take a more proactive role in securing their networks, Internet security can be 

enhanced, especially since the top 23 ISPs in the United States 

represent over 75% of all U.S. Internet subscribers.60 Building 

upon efforts already taken by ISPs, the FCC should work with 

ISPs to build robust cybersecurity protection and defenses into 

networks offered to business and individuals. Participation 

by end-users would be voluntary: ISPs could offer a choice to 

subscribers between a network with built-in cybersecurity 

protection or a network with no cybersecurity protection. The 

FCC should identify ways that the federal government can 
2 9 0 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 4

must be able to share information across departments, with appropriate privacy safeguards, in order to reduce the burden on 

the public requesting government services. 

In addition to removing these barriers, the government can 

improve service delivery by leveraging broadband-based tools 

to support the improvement, integration and modernization 

of federal government processes.64 Low-income Americans 

accessing government benefits and services must navigate 

a fragmented world. They deal with multiple agencies and a 

host of forms. They typically must make in-person visits. A 

U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report found 

that a family seeking to apply for the 11 largest means-tested 

benefits programs—including Temporary Assistance for Needy 

Families (TANF), food stamps, Medicaid and school meals—

would have to complete six to eight applications and visit as 

many as six government offices. The process often requires 

many unpaid hours away from work and lengthy commutes.65

A government employee on the other side of the desk spends 

hours per day entering data into antiquated systems that do not 

allow the kind of data sharing that could save money, improve 

productivity, reduce error rates and improve outcomes. 

Recommendation 14.15: OMB and the Federal CIO

Council should develop a single, secure enterprise-wide authentication protocol that enables online service delivery. 

A robust, secure authentication protocol would enable new 

online government services as well as improvements to existing 

online government services, like online passport applications and 

electronic receipt of benefits. Such a system would enable a single 

sign-on so that individuals could access their college loan and tax 

information without creating multiple digital identities.

The federal government has released a strategy for development of secure authentication services for federal employees 

called the Federal Identity, Credential, and Access Management 

(ICAM) Roadmap.66 In addition, the federal government has 

moved forward with limited implementation of an OpenID67 pilot 

to provide public services requiring the lowest assurance level, 

or “little or no confidence in the asserted identity’s validity.”68

Consider that a webmail account has some security and is associated with some identity, but because it is simple to claim any name 

one wishes, there is “little or no confidence” that an email from 

“John Doe” is indeed from a person named John Doe. OpenID 

enables simple applications such as using existing credentials 

(for example, with a webmail account) to provide individual 

customized Web-page functionality69 for the National Institutes 

of Health (NIH) and other agencies. NIH is also currently testing 

applications with higher levels of identity assurance that draw on 

information from providers like Equifax and PayPal.70

A secure authentication protocol would allow the federal government to use broadband to deliver a greater set of 

government services online to the American people,71 but 

efforts to improve authentication are limited. Even the ICAM 

Roadmap offers minimal guidance because it focuses primarily 

on secure authentication as a cybersecurity issue. The Roadmap 

says little about services for the public and provides no metrics for 

measuring the delivery of services. 

To address these gaps, OMB and the Federal CIO Council 

should take the lead in developing a flexible, secure government-wide authentication protocol that covers all levels of 

identity assurance, from the most secure to the least, and that 

facilitates the deployment of the next generation of online government services. There is support for a federated scheme with 

OMB and the Federal CIO Council setting standards.72 The 

Federal CIO Council should also revise the ICAM Roadmap to 

include performance metrics related to government delivery of 

services to the public.

Recommendation 14.16: The Executive Branch should 

establish MyPersonalData.gov as a mechanism that allows 

citizens to request their personal data held by government 

agencies. 

The federal government holds data on many of its citizens, 

and the Privacy Act contains provisions for giving people 

access to it and letting them correct it.73 As currently implemented, this is a manual and costly process, and it is not easy 

for citizens to get access to their information online. Were 

citizens able to securely authenticate their identity online, they 

could easily verify the information (and correct any errors), 

thereby increasing its value.74 Therefore, the Executive Branch 

should create and maintain MyPersonalData.gov. This tool and 

corresponding website would serve as an interface so citizens 

could access the data about them held by federal agencies.

For example, MyPersonalData.gov could allow taxpayers to 

create tax returns by importing data submitted to the Internal 

Revenue Service by employers and financial institutions into 

tax forms. This would save individuals time and money in the 

preparation of their taxes.75

Recommendation 14.17: Congress should consider 

re-examining the Privacy Act to facilitate the delivery of 

online government services and to account for changes in 

technology.

The Privacy Act is the legal framework for how the federal 

government handles personal data and information, but it does 

not address how private third parties handle personal data and 

information. Its limitations in dealing with the issues that arise 

with data in electronic databases are well-recognized.76

The Privacy Act also provides no guidance on new technologies that have privacy implications, such as the use of 

persistent cookies on websites.77 Congressional changes to the 
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 4

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 2 9 1

Act could allow agencies to significantly reduce the administrative burden on students applying for financial aid if agencies 

are allowed to share personal information with each other 

given appropriate privacy safeguards such as the permission of 

the person securely authenticated online. 

Recommendation 14.18: The federal government should 

undertake a series of efforts to improve the delivery of 

government services online.

➤ OMB should benchmark federal government websites 

against the private sector and hold agencies accountable for making improvements on an annual basis.

➤ OMB should modernize the Advance Planning Document (APD) process to encourage state governments to 

develop enterprise-wide solutions.

➤ The Federal Web Managers Council should promulgate 

Web standards and templates to make the federal Web 

presence easier to navigate, easier to recognize and accessible to people with disabilities. 

➤ OMB should deploy a portion of the E-Government 

Fund to facilitate replication of leading best practices.

➤ The results of these efforts should be included in OMB’s 

annual E-Government Report to Congress.

Though some government websites show great promise, 

many are still built from a siloed, agency-centric perspective, 

with insufficient focus on developing websites and portals that 

are integrated, user-friendly and consumer-centric. Though 

more than 75% of Internet users have visited a government 

website,78 reports consistently show that public sector websites 

lag the private sector.79 Additionally, the government has failed 

to meaningfully integrate lessons learned from best practices of 

leading online government services into its operations. Notable 

exceptions include the new U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 

Services (USCIS) portal, which allows applicants to check their 

immigration status instantly along with typical wait times,80

and the Open Government Initiative (see Exhibit 14-A and 

Box 14-2).81 At the state and local government level, the 

eCityGov Alliance, comprised of nine cities in the state of 

Washington, is a successful effort to share best practices and offer cross-government online services.82 The problem is that the 

successes are isolated. Not enough has been done to share lessons 

learned so that other efforts can benefit from the successes. 

Sharing best practices can particularly improve the 

provision of benefits for low-income individuals by state 

governments. Millions of federal dollars are spent annually 

on IT that supports these services, and the APD process allows states to obtain approval for the portion of the costs of 

acquiring new online systems that the federal government 

contributes. The current system contains important mechanisms to hold states accountable for making smart choices 

about what systems are developed, but it may also encourage 

siloed systems, which might add greater costs for later integration as well as biasing states against migrating to solutions 

that could be more cost-effective in the long term. To address 

this gap, OMB should work with relevant agencies to modernize the APD process to encourage governments to develop 

enterprise-wide solutions.

Because public sector websites lag the private sector in usability and design, the Federal Web Managers Council should 

Exhibit 14-A: 

The U.S. Citizenship 

and Immigration 

Services 

Dashboard
2 9 2 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 4

benchmark the design and usability of government websites 

against leading industry best practices. 

OMB should continually recommend specific improvements 

that agencies should make, highlight best practices in its annual 

E-Government Report to Congress and deploy the E-Government 

Fund to help replicate best practices across the federal government.

Recommendation 14.19: The Executive Branch’s review 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act should aim to enable government to solicit input to improve government services. 

The Paperwork Reduction Act is a barrier to implementing many best practices.83 For example, the Act precludes 

surveying Web users to improve an agency’s Web presence 

without undertaking an onerous survey-approval process that 

could take months. One federal employee commented, “[The 

Paperwork Reduction Act] imposes a burden to obtain any 

user-generated input ... The result is that we often don’t go to 

the trouble.”84 The director of USA.gov, the online gateway to 

the federal government, has stated that the Act needs to be reexamined for the new media world.85

The Executive Branch has begun work on updating the 

15-year-old Paperwork Reduction Act.86 This review should 

aim to enable the government to engage in a two-way conversation with the public.

Recommendation 14.20: TheWhite House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) should develop a fiveyear strategic plan for online service delivery. 

Since the release of the Quicksilver plan for deployment 

of 24 Presidential-level E-Government initiatives in 2002,87

there has been no subsequent government-wide effort to develop a strategic plan for online federal government services. 

OMB currently submits an annual E-Government Report to 

Congress pursuant to the E-Government Act,88 but this is an 

historical summary, not a forward-looking strategic vision.

It is clear that Americans want the opportunity to conduct 

simple transactions with the federal government online.89

OSTP should develop a strategic plan, updated every two years, 

that addresses issues such as accessibility (including issues 

raised in the Attorney General’s biennial report on Section 508 

compliance), benefits administration, alternative platforms, 

and state and local government partnerships. 

Recommendation 14.21: The federal government should 

improve the delivery of means-tested benefits to low-income Americans. 

➤ OMB should enhance Partner4Solutions.gov, a platform 

for improving service delivery of government meanstested benefits, to include a database of government, 

non-profit and private tools.

➤ OMB should convene a summit in 2010 of state government CIOs, local health and human services leaders and 

technology innovators to focus on using technology to 

modernize benefit services.

Integrating and streamlining processes through the use 

of broadband can help low-income Americans receive all the 

safety-net benefits for which they qualify, demonstrably bettering 

their chances of getting out of poverty. A 2002 Urban Institute 

report found that getting access to both Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance Program benefits (or food stamps) and Medicaid 

increases the likelihood of job retention for those leaving TANF. 

Twenty percent of former recipients who secured both benefits 

returned to welfare, compared with 51% of those who did not 

secure both benefits. In our current system, many poor people do 

not receive all the benefits they need or for which they are eligible. 

Just over half of those eligible for food stamps receive them. Twothirds of those eligible for Medicaid or the State Children’s Health 

Insurance Program receive it. One-third of those eligible for 

TANF receive these benefits. Many cite confusion over eligibility 

and difficulty of application as major barriers.90

Many states have started to experiment with a continuum of 

changes that leverage the Internet. ACCESS NYC uses online calculators that screen residents for 35 benefits in seven 

languages. Other states have set up “one-stop” online applications for multiple sets of benefits. Still others have gone to 

large-scale systems integration. Moving toward a modernized, 

integrated online benefits system would improve service delivery, reduce access barriers and drive efficiency.

A recently-launched federal program, the Partnership Fund 

for Program Integrity, has begun helping state and local governments find innovative ways to improve benefits programs. 

It should be used to encourage the move to “one-stops” for 

online applications. Instead of merely aggregating application 

forms that will ultimately need to be printed, grantees should 

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Offers Online 

Access 

Until recently, when an 

individual filed an application 

for citizenship with the U.S. 

Citizenship and Immigration 

Services (USCIS), the applicant had no knowledge of 

his case status. USCIS has 

recently revamped its website 

to allow applicants to use an 

identifying number and immediately check a case status 

online. Applicants can receive 

alerts about changes in status 

via text message and e-mail 

updates. Most importantly 

from the applicant’s perspective, the whole system is more 

transparent because wait 

times and changes in status 

are clearly documented.

BOX 14-2:
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 4

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 2 9 3

move toward electronic signatures, full electronic submission 

and pre-population of fields based on applications for other 

benefits, which would save clients time and agencies money. 

These systems could potentially include secure document 

imaging and storage. A 2007 GAO report notes that Florida’s 

document management and imaging system lets caseworkers 

retrieve electronic case records in seconds, compared with as 

long as 24 hours for paper case files.91

Partner4Solutions.gov is a platform for improving service 

delivery in this space. It should develop a database of online 

benefits tools from state, local governments and non-profits, 

functioning as an Apps.gov of the benefits world. Where applicable, the database should include prices (because they can 

vary so widely). For example, the cost of purchasing or developing a pre-screening tool—an online set of questions to give 

families a sense of the range and amount of benefits for which 

they are eligible—costs $15,000 to $5 million.92

Finally, numerous state and local governments are working 

on initiatives to utilize broadband and online service delivery 

to improve the administration of benefits programs. Although 

many best practices are being developed, these efforts are 

occurring independently of each other. To address this gap, 

OMB should convene a summit in 2010 of state government 

CIOs, local health and human services leaders, and technology innovators so they can focus on using technology to 

modernize benefit services. This summit would have three 

goals: to develop a shared time horizon for moving toward 

integrated online platforms for key programs for low-income 

Americans; to showcase and share available data on costs and 

benefits of current state tools as well as external innovations 

such as the Annie E. Casey Foundations’ Casebook, a Web 

2.0 tool for child welfare case management; and to develop 

a shared set of best practices that states can use to improve 

service delivery.
c h a p t e r 1 4 E n d n o t e s 

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 4

2 9 4 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

1 Jason Baumgarten & Michael Chui, E-Government 

2.0, McKinsey on Gov’t, Summer 2009, at 26–27, 

available at http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/

publicsector/pdf/TG_MoG_Issue4_egov.pdf.

2 Shelley Waters-Boots, Ford Found. et al., Improving

Access to Public Benefits: Helping Individuals and

Families get the Income Supports They Need (2010), 

available at http://www.opportunityatwork.org/pdf/

Improving_Access_To_Public_Benefits_1_12_10.pdf.

3 See Jane Patterson, Executive Director, e-NC Authority, 

State of North Carolina, Remarks at the FCC State and 

Local Government Workshop (Sept. 1, 2009), available 

at http://www.broadband.gov/docs/ws_19_state_and_

local.pdf; John Conley, Deputy State Chief Information 

Officer, State of Colorado, Remarks at FCC State and 

Local Government Workshop (Sept. 1, 2009), available 

at http://www.broadband.gov/docs/ws_19_state_and_

local.pdf; Gary Gordier, Chief Information Officer and 

IT Director, El Paso, TX, Remarks at the FCC State and 

Local Government Workshop (Sept. 1, 2009), available 

at http://www.broadband.gov/docs/ws_19_state_

and_local.pdf; FiberTower Comments in re National 

Broadband Plan NOI, filed June 8, 2009, at 2, 6.

4 Transportation, Treasury, Independent Agencies, and 

General Government Appropriations Act of 2005, Pub. 

L. No. 108-447, Div. H, 118 Stat. 2809 (2004).

5 Memorandum from Joshua B. Bolten, Director, 

Office of Mgmt. & Budget (OMB), to Heads of 

Departments and Agencies, Regulation on Maintaining 

Telecommunication Services During a Crisis or 

Emergency in Federally-owned Buildings, M-05-16 

(June 30, 2005), available at http://www.whitehouse.

gov/omb/assets/omb/memoranda/fy2005/m05-16.pdf; 

Memorandum from Clay Johnson III, Deputy Director 

for Management, OMB, to Heads of Departments 

and Agencies, Implementation of Trusted Internet 

Connections (TIC), M-08-05 (Nov. 20, 2007), available 

at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/omb/

memoranda/fy2008/m08-05.pdf; Nat’l Commc’ns

Sys., Dep’t of Homeland Security, The National

Communications System Directive (NCSD) 3-10, 

Minimum Requirements for Continuity Communications

Capabilities (July 25, 2007).

6 E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 

Stat. 2899 (2002).

7 See Alaska Dep’t of Educ. Comments in re NBP PN #15 

(Comment Sought on Broadband Needs in Education, 

Including Change to E-rate Program to Improve 

Broadband Deployment—NBP Public Notice #15, GN 

Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 09-137, CC Docket No. 02-6, 

WC Docket No. 05-195, Public Notice, 24 FCC Rcd 

13560 (WCB 2009) (NBP PN #15)), filed Nov. 20, 2009, 

at 79; State E-Rate Coordinators Alliance Comments 

in re NBP PN #15, filed Nov. 20, 2009, at 19–20; Am. 

Ass’n of Sch. Adm’rs & Ass’n of Educ. Serv. Agencies 

Comments in re NBP PN #15, filed Nov. 20, 2009, 

at 5–6; Nat’l Ass’n of Telecomm. Officers & Advisors 

(NATOA) Comments in re NBP PN #15, filed Nov. 20, 

2009, at 11–12; AT&T Comments in re NBP PN #15, 

filed Nov. 20, 2009, at 8–9; City of Chicago Comments 

in re NBP PN #15, filed Nov. 20, 2009, at 26; Dell 

Comments in re NBP PN #15, filed Nov. 20, 2009, at 

4; Mich. Dep’t of Educ. Comments in re NBP PN #15, 

filed Nov. 20, 2009, at 7; Tex. Educ. Telecomm. Network 

Comments in re NBP PN #15, filed Nov. 20, 2009, at 

3–4; Ohio Pub. Library Info. Network Comments in re 

NBP PN #15, filed Nov. 17, 2009, at 1–2; Alaska E-Rate 

Coordinator Comments in re National Broadband Plan 

NOI, filed June 8, 2009, at 10; U.S. R&E Networks and 

HIMSS Reply in re NBP PN #30 (Reply Comments 

Sought in Support of National Broadband Plan, GN 

Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 09-137, Public Notice, 25 

FCC Rcd 2417 (WCB 2010) (NBP PN #30)), filed Jan. 

28, 2010, at 43–44.

8 See Alaska Dep’t of Educ. Comments in re NBP PN #15, 

filed Nov. 20, 2009, at 7.

9 IBM, Smarter Cities, http://www.ibm.com/

smarterplanet/us/en/sustainable_cities/ideas/

( last visited Feb. 17, 2010); Steve Lohr, To Do More 

With Less, Governments Go Digital, N.Y. Times, Oct. 

10, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/

business/11unboxed.html.

10 Cisco, Literature: Cisco Connected Communities 

for State and Local Governments, http://www.cisco.

com/web/strategy/government/local_connected_

communities.html (last visited Feb. 17, 2010).

11 Richard Whitt, Experimenting with New Ways 

to Make Broadband Better, Faster, and More 

Available, Google Pub. Pol’y Blog, Feb. 10, 2010, 

http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2010/02/

experimenting-with-new-ways-to-make.html. 

12 Benton Found. Comments in re NBP PN#22 

(Comment Sought on Research Necessary for Broadband 

Leadership—NBP Public Notice #22, GN Docket Nos. 

09-47, 09-51, 09-137, Public Notice, 24 FCC Rcd 138207 

(WCB 2009) (NBP PN #22)), filed Dec. 8, 2009, at 9–11; 

Free Press Reply in re NBP PN #30, filed Jan. 27, 2010, 

at 13.

13 Pew Res. Ctr. for the People and the Press, Trends in

Political Values and Core Attitudes: 1987–2007, at 49 

(2007), http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/312.pdf. 

14 Ctr. for Digital Gov’t, Renovation Nation: Improving

Government Service Delivery in Smart and Sustainable

Ways 10 (2009), available at http://www.govtechblogs.

com/fastgov/CDG09RenovationNation.pdf.

15 The National Institute for Standards and Technology 

(NIST) defines cloud computing as “a model for enabling 

convenient, on-demand network access to a shared pool 

of configurable computing resources (e.g., networks, 

servers, storage, applications, and services) that can 

be rapidly provisioned and released with minimal 

management effort or service provider interaction.” 

National Institute of Standards and Technology, 

Cloud Computing, The NIST Definition of Cloud

Computing (2009), http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/SNS/

cloud-computing/ (last visited Feb. 17, 2010). While 

there is not universal agreement on the definition, this 

plan will use the NIST definition. For a full discussion of 

the definition of cloud computing, see AT&T Comments 

in re NBP PN #21 (Comment Sought on Data Portability 

and Its Relationship to Broadband—NBP Public Notice 

#21, GN Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 09-137, Public 

Notice, 24 FCC Rcd 13816 (WCB 2009) (NBP PN 

#21)), filed Dec. 9, 2009, at 3–5; DataPortability Project 

Comments in re NBP PN #21, filed Dec. 9, 2009, at 5; 

FTC Comments in re NBP PN #21, filed Dec. 9, 2009, at 

1–2; InCommon Steering Committee Comments in re 

NBP PN #21, filed Dec. 9, 2009, at 4; Qwest Comments 

in re NBP PN #21, filed Dec. 9, 2009, at 2–4; Letter from 

Paula Boyd, Regulatory Counsel, Microsoft, to Marlene 

H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 09–51 (Jan. 

20, 2010) (Microsoft Jan. 20, 2010 Ex Parte), Attach. 2 

(B. Smith) at 1.

16 Gwen Morton & Ted Alford, Booz Allen Hamilton, The

Economics of Cloud Computing 1 (2009) (Morton & 

Alford, The Economics of Cloud Computing), available 

at http://www.boozallen.com/media/file/Economicsof-Cloud-Computing.pdf.

17 Jason Miller, Data Center Proliferation Must End, 

Kundra Says, Fed. News Radio, Oct. 28, 2009, http://

www.federalnewsradio.com/?sid=1796664&nid=263. 

18 Morton & Alford, The Economics of Cloud Computing

at 5, 9.

19 C.G. Lynch, How Vivek Kundra Fought Government 

Waste One Google App at a Time, CIO.com, Sept. 

22, 2008, http://www.cio.com/article/450636/

How_Vivek_Kundra_Fought_Government_Waste_One_

Google_App_At_a_Time_.

20 Gautham Nagesh, OPM Claims Victory in Huge e-Payroll 

System Consolidation, NextGov, Oct. 21, 2009, http://

www.nextgov.com/nextgov/ng_20091021_4165.php.

21 See GSA, IT Schedule 70: Maximizing the Speed and

Value of IT Acquisition Solutions (2007), available at

http://www.gsaadvantage.gov/images/products/elib/

pdf_files/70.pdf.

22 Patrick Thibodeau, CIA Endorses Cloud Computing, 

But Only Internally, ComputerWorld, Oct. 7, 2009, 

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9139016/

CIA_endorses_cloud_computing_but_only_internally. 

23 Elise Castelli, DISA Expands Cloud Computing Services, 

Fed. Times, Oct. 5, 2009, http://www.federaltimes.com/

article/20091005/IT03/910050304/1036/IT. 

24 MeriTalk & Merlin FederalCloud Initiative, The 2009 

Cloud ConsensusReport 10 (2009), available at http://

www.meritalk.com/2009-cloud-consensus.php (must 

register to download); David Talbot, Security in the Ether, 

MITTech. Rev., Jan./Feb. 2010, available at http://

www.technologyreview.com/web/24166/page1/; Letter 

from Paula Boyd, Regulatory Counsel, Microsoft Corp., 

to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket Nos. 

09-47, 09-51, 09-137 (Nov. 12, 2009) (Microsoft Nov. 

12, 2009 Ex Parte) at 8; InCommon Steering Committee 

Comments in re NBP PN #21, filed Dec. 9, 2009, at 5; FTC 

Staff Comments in re NBP PN #21, filed Dec. 9, 2009, at 

2; DataPortability Project in re NBP PN #21, filed Dec. 

9, 2009 at 6 (filed as Elias Bizannes); Miguel Helft, Now, 

Even the Government Has an App Store, N.Y. Times, Sept. 

15, 2009, http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/15/noweven-the-government-has-an-app-store/; OnLive Reply in 

re National Broadband Plan NOI, filed July 21, 2009, at 4; 

Yaana Reply in re National Broadband Plan NOI, filed July 

21, 2009, at 4.
c h a p t e r 1 4 E n d n o t e s 

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 4

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 2 9 5

25 The Federal CIO Council was created by Executive 

Order 13011 on July 16, 1996. See Exec. Order No. 13011, 

61 Fed. Reg. 37657 (July 16, 1996). This order was 

subsequently revoked. See Exec. Order No. 13403, 71 

Fed. Reg. 28543 (May 12, 2006). The Council’s existence 

was codified by the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. 

L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899 (2002) (codified at 44 

U.S.C. § 101).

26 Aliya Sternstein, Feds Offer 38,484 Budget Cuts, 

NextGov, Oct. 19, 2009, http://techinsider.nextgov.

com/2009/10/feds_offer_38484_budget_cuts.php; 

OMB, SAVE Award, http://www.saveaward.gov (last 

visited Feb. 20. 2010).

27 Jason Miller, Idea to Reuse Medication at VA 

Hospitals Wins SAVE Award, Fed. News Radio, Dec. 

11, 2009, http://www.federalnewsradio.com/index.

php?nid=110&sid=1837851. 

28 Memorandum from Peter Orszag, Director, OMB, to 

the Heads of Departments and Agencies Responding to 

General Government Proposals from the President’s 

SAVE Award, M-10-09 (Dec. 21, 2009), available 

at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/

memoranda_2010/m10-09.pdf. 

29 OMB, USASpending.gov., http://www.usaspending.gov/

faads/tables.php?tabtype=t1&subtype=atf&rowtype=a

(last visited Feb. 20, 2010).

30 Jason Miller, OMB Calls for a Review of Grant 

Application Systems(Federal News Radio broadcast 

March 11, 2009), available at http://www.

federalnewsradio.com/index.php?nid=35&sid=1621782.

31 Larry Freed, Foresee Results, E-Government

Satisfaction Index 2, 6, 18 (2009), available at http://

www.foreseeresults.com/_downloads/acsicommentary/

ACSI_EGov_Report_Q1_2009.pdf.

32 GAO, Grants.gov Has Systemic Weaknesses That

Require Attention 5, 24, GAO-09-589 (2009), available 

at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09589.pdf.

33 As used here, social media refers to the use of 

applications within government to facilitate 

collaboration and information sharing within the federal 

workforce. See Chapter 15: Civic Engagement for further 

discussion of the use of social media in government.

34 Jennifer L. Dorn, Rebooting the Public Square, Fed. 

Computer Wk., Dec. 3, 2007, at 30, available at http://

fcw.com/articles/2007/11/30/web-20-rebooting-thepublic-square.aspx?sc_lang=en.

35 Nora Ganim Barnes & Eric Mattson, Ctr. for

Marketing Res., Social Media in the 2009 Inc. 500: New

Tools & New Trends (2009), available at http://www.

umassd.edu/cmr/studiesresearch/socialmedia2009.pdf. 

36 Ben Bain, 4 Studies in Collaboration—Case 2: TSA’s 

IdeaFactory, Fed. Computer Wk., Feb. 29, 2008, available 

at http://fcw.com/articles/2008/02/29/4-studies-incollaboration-151-case-2-tsa146s-ideafactory.aspx; The 

White House, IdeaFactory, http://www.whitehouse.gov/

open/innovations/IdeaFactory/ (last visited Feb. 20, 

2010). 

37 The White House, IdeaFactory, http://www.

whitehouse.gov/open/innovations/IdeaFactory/ (last 

visited Feb. 20, 2010).

38 Jill R. Aitoro, Defense More Likely Than Civilian 

Agencies To Use Social Networking Tools, NextGov, 

Jan. 15, 2010, http://www.nextgov.com/nextgov/

ng_20100115_4048.php?oref=mostread. 

39 See Andrea Di Maio, Gartner, Inc., Citizen-Driven

Government Must Be Employee-Centric, Too

(2009), available at http://www.gartner.com/

DisplayDocument?doc_cd=168334 (purchase required); 

Fed. Web Managers Council, Social Media and the

Federal Government: Perceived and Real Barriers and

Potential Solutions 2 (2008), available at http://www.

usa.gov/webcontent/documents/SocialMediaFed%20

Govt_BarriersPotentialSolutions.pdf. 

40 Fed. Chief Info. Officers Council, Guidelines for

Secure Use of Social Media by Federal Departments

and Agencies 9 (2009), available at http://www.cio.gov/

Documents/Guidelines_for_Secure_Use_Social_Media_

v01-0.pdf.

41 Massimo Calabresi, Wikipedia for Spies: The CIA 

Discovers Web 2.0, Time, Apr. 8, 2009 (Calabresi, 

Wikipedia for Spies), http://www.time.com/time/

nation/article/0,8599,1890084,00.html.

42 Calabresi, Wikipedia for Spies. 

43 Cyberspace Policy Review: Assuring a Trusted

and Resilient Information and Communications

Infrastructure Review, iii (2009), available at http://

www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/Cyberspace_

Policy_Review_final.pdf.

44 President’s National Security Telecommunications

Advisory Committee, Cybersecurity Collaboration

Report: Strengthening Government and Private

Sector Collaboration Through a Cyber Incident

Detection, Prevention, Mitigation, and Response

Capability 4 (2009) (Advisory Committee Cybersecurity

Collaboration Report), available at http://www.ncs.gov/

nstac/reports/2009/NSTAC%20CCTF%20Report.pdf.

45 Ellen Nakashima, More Than 75,000 Computer Systems 

Hacked in One of Largest Cyber Attacks, Security 

Firm Says, Wash. Post, Feb. 18, 2010 (Nakashima,

More Than 75,000 Computer Systems Hacked), 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/

article/2010/02/17/AR2010021705816.html.

46 Ellen Nakashima, War Game Reveals U.S. Lacks 

Cyber-Crisis Skills, Wash. Post, Feb. 17, 2010, http://

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/

article/2010/02/16/AR2010021605762.html. 

47 Nakashima, More Than 75,000 Computer Systems 

Hacked.

48 David Drummond, A New Approach to China, Official

Google Blog, Jan. 12, 2010, http://googleblog.blogspot.

com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china.html.

49 Mark Clayton, US Oil Industry Hit by Cyberattacks: 

Was China Involved?, Christian Sci. Monitor, Jan. 

25, 2010, available at http://www.csmonitor.com/

USA/2010/0125/US-oil-industry-hit-by-cyberattacksWas-China-involved.

50 Statement of Liesyl I. Franz, Vice President, 

TechAmerica, before the Subcommittee on Research 

and Science Education, House Committee on Science 

and Technology, 111th Cong. (June 10, 2009), available 

at http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/file/

Commdocs/hearings/2009/Research/10jun/Franz_

Testimony.pdf.

51 Statement of Dr. Fred B. Schneider, Samuel B. Eckert 

Professor of Computer Science, Cornell University), before 

the Subcommittee on Research and Science Education, 

House Committee on Science and Technology, 111th Cong. 

(June 10, 2009) available at http://democrats.science.

house.gov/Media/file/Commdocs/hearings/2009/

Research/10jun/Scheider_Testimony.pdf.

52 Ellen Nakashima & John Pomfret, China Proves to be an 

Aggressive Foe in Cyberspace, Wash. Post, Nov. 11, 2009, 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/

article/2009/11/10/AR2009111017588_pf.html (last 

visited Feb. 19, 2010).

53 Advisory Committee Cybersecurity Collaborative

Report at 5.

54 See DOJ, International Criminal Investigative Training 

Assistance Program, http://www.justice.gov/criminal/

icitap/ (last visited Feb. 21, 2010).

55 This should include, at a minimum, representatives from 

the intelligence community, Department of Defense, 

Department of Justice, Department of Homeland 

Security, Department of Energy, Department of State, 

Department of Treasury, Department of Education, 

Department of Commerce, the Federal Communications 

Commission, and the Federal Trade Commission.

56 FCC, Connecting the Globe: A Regulator’s Guide to 

Building a Global Information Community, http://www.

fcc.gov/connectglobe/ (last visited Feb. 21, 2010).

57 Comcast, Comcast Launches Comprehensive Internet 

Security Solution to Help Keep Customers Safe Online

(press release), Aug. 16, 2005, http://www.comcast.

com/About/PressRelease/PressReleaseDetail.

ashx?PRID=132.

58 Comcast, Comcast Unveils Comprehensive “Constant 

Guard” Internet Security Program (press release), Oct. 8, 

2009, http://www.comcast.com/About/PressRelease/

PressReleaseDetail.ashx?PRID=926.

59 Dan Goodin, Anti-virus Protection Gets Worse: What Is 

This Thing You Call Heuristics?, Channel Reg., Dec. 21, 

2007, http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2007/12/21/

dwindling_antivirus_protection/ (last visited Feb. 18, 

2010).

60 Alex Goldman, Top 23 U.S. ISPs by Subscriber: Q3 2008, 

ISP Planet, Dec. 2, 2008, http://www.isp-planet.com/

research/rankings/usa.html.

61 GAO, Information Security: Progress Reported, But

Weaknesses at Federal Agencies Persist, GAO-08-571T 

(Mar. 12, 2008), available at http://www.gao.gov/new.

items/d08571t.pdf; see Carolyn Duffy Marsan, GAO: 

Common Desktop Configuration Holds Promise for Better 

Security, Fed. Computer Wk., Mar. 13, 2008 (Duffy,

GAO: Common Desktop Configuration Holds Promise), 

available at http://fcw.com/Articles/2008/03/13/GAOCommon-desktop-configuration-holds-promise-forbetter-security.aspx.

62 Carolyn Duffy Marsan, U.S. Internet Security Plan 

Revamped, Network World, Feb. 11, 2010, http://www.

networkworld.com/news/2010/021110-cybersecuritydefense-revamped.html, see Duffy, GAO: Common 

Desktop Configuration Holds Promise.
c h a p t e r 1 4 E n d n o t e s 

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 4

2 9 6 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

63 Judi Hasson, Agencies Must Submit FISMA Reports 

Online, Fierce Gov’t IT, Aug. 25, 2009, http://www.

fiercegovernmentit.com/story/agencies-must-submitfisma-reports-online/2009-08-25; Vivek Kundra et 

al., Moving Beyond Compliance: The Status Quo Is No 

Longer Acceptable, IT Dashboard Blog, Sept. 28, 2009, 

http://it.usaspending.gov/?q=content/blog&pageno=2.

64 Connected Nation Reply in re NBP PN #30, filed Jan. 

27, 2010, at 16–17.

65 GAO, Means-Tested Programs: Determining Financial

Eligibility is Cumbersome and Can Be Simplified 3 

(2001), available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/

d0258.pdf.

66 Fed. Chief Info. Officers Council, Federal Identity, 

Credential, and Access Management (FICAM), Roadmap

and Implementation Guidance (2009), available at 

http://www.idmanagement.gov/documents/FICAM_

Roadmap_Implementation_Guidance.pdf. 

67 IDManagement.gov, Open ID solutions for Open 

Government, http://www.idmanagement.gov/

drilldown.cfm?action=openID_openGOV (last visited 

Feb. 20, 2010). 

68 Assurance levels indicate the level of confidence in a 

user’s identity. Low assurance level applications might 

include a customized “My Page” on federal Web sites. 

Higher assurance level applications might include filing 

taxes online. For more information, see Memorandum 

from Joshua B. Bolton, Director, OMB, to the Heads 

of All Departments and Agencies, E-Authentication 

Guidance for Federal Agencies, Memo M-04-04, Attach. 

A (Dec. 16, 2003), available at http://www.whitehouse.

gov/OMB/memoranda/fy04/m04-04.pdf. 

69 This functionality would allow users to save content 

relevant to them on one page that would be available 

every time a user signed on.

70 Nat’l Inst. of Health, Open Identity for Open 

Government at NIH, http://datacenter.cit.nih.gov/

interface/interface245/open_gov.html (last visited Feb. 

20, 2010).

71 Center for Democracy and Technology Comments in re 

NBP PN #21, filed on Dec. 9, 2009, at 3 (filed as Heather 

West); OpenID Foundation Comments in re NBP PN 

#21, filed Dec. 9, 2009, at 8; AT&T Comments in re NBP 

PN #29, (Comment Sought on Privacy Issues Raised by 

the Center for Democracy and Technology—NBP PN #29, 

GN Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 09-137, Public Notice, 25 

FCC Rcd 244 (2010) (NBP PN #29), filed Jan. 22, 2010, 

at 5–8; Microsoft Jan. 21, 2010 Ex Parte at 1–13.

72 Center for Democracy and Technology Comments in 

re PN #21, filed on Dec. 9, 2009, at 6 (filed by Heather 

West).

73 Privacy Act of 1974, Pub. L. No. 93-579, 88 Stat. 1896 

(1974) (codified at 5 U.S.C. § 552a).

74 See Andrea Di Maio, Gartner, Inc., The Case for Citizen 

Data Vaults 3, 4 (2009), available at http://www.

gartner.com/DisplayDocument?id=1031315 (purchase 

required); DataPortability Project Comments in re NBP 

PN #21, filed Dec. 9, 2009, at 7.

75 Randall Stross, Why Can’t the IRS Help Fill in the 

Blanks?, N.Y. Times, Jan. 23, 2010, http://www.nytimes.

com/2010/01/24/business/24digi.htm. 

76 See generally Info. Sec. and Privacy Advisory Bd., 

Toward A 21st Century Framework for Federal

Government Privacy Policy (2009), available 

at http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/SMA/ispab/

documents/correspondence/ispab-report-may2009.

pdf; Ctr. for Democracy and Tech., E-Privacy Act 

Amendments Wiki, http://eprivacyact.org/index.

php?title=Welcome (last visited Feb. 20, 2010); 

Center for Democracy and Technology Comments 

filed in re NBP PN #29, Jan. 22, 2010, at 12; Microsoft 

Jan. 21, 2010 Ex Parte at 1–13.

77 InCommon Steering Committee Comments in re NBP 

PN #21, filed Dec. 9, 2009, at 2–3.

78 John Horrigan, Broadband Adoption and Use in America

16 exh. 3 (OBI Working Paper No. 1, 2010), Horrigan, 

Broadband Adoption and Use in America.

79 Jason Baumgarten & Michael Chui, How We Get to 

E-Government 2.0, McKinsey Q., July 28, 2009, available 

at http://www.ciozone.com/index.php/GovernmentIT/How-We-Get-to-E-government-2.0.html; Larry

Freed, E-Government Satisfaction Index 6 (2009), 

available at http://fcg.nbc.gov/documents/ACSI-EGovcommentary_Q2-2008.pdf.

80 U.S. Customs and Immigration Services, http://www.

uscis.gov (last visited Nov. 27, 2009).

81 U.S. Office of Science and Technology Policy, http://

www.whitehouse.gov/open (last visited Nov. 27, 2009).

82 Massimiliano Claps, Case Study: The eCityGov Alliance

Provides Cross-County Online Services Portals (2009).

83 Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-511, 94 

Stat. 2812 (1980), codified at 44 U.S.C. §§ 3501–21.

84 Vivek Kundra & Michael Fitzpatrick, Enhancing Online 

Citizen Participation through Policy, Open Gov’t Blog, 

June 16, 2009, http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/

Enhancing-Online-Citizen-Participation-ThroughPolicy.

85 Aliya Sternstein, Government Seeks to Update Paperwork 

Rule, NextGov, Oct. 26, 2009 (Sternstein, Government 

Seeks to Update Paperwork Rule), http://www.nextgov.

com/nextgov/ng_20091026_1611.php.

86 See Sternstein, Government Seeks to Update Paperwork 

Rule; see also Improving Implementation of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, 74 Fed. Reg. 55269 (proposed 

Oct. 27, 2009), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/

omb/assets/fedreg_2010/10272009_pra.pdf.

87 See OMB, The President’s Management Agenda 24 

(2002), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/

budget/fy2002/mgmt.pdf.

88 E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No 107-347 § 3606, 

116 Stat. 2899 44 U.S.C. § 3606 (2002).

89 John Horrigan, Broadband Adoption and Use in America

(OBI, Working Paper No. 1, 2010).

90 See, e.g., Randy Albelda & Heather Boushey, Ctr. for

Econ. & Pol’y Res., Bridging the Gaps: A Picture of How

Work Supports Work in Ten States 29 (2007), available 

at http://www.bridgingthegaps.org/publications/

nationalreport.pdf.

91 GAO, Food Stamp Program: Use of Alternative

Methods to Apply for and Maintain Benefits Could be

Enhanced by Additional Evaluation and Information on

Promising Practices 27, GAO-07-573 (2007), available 

at http:// www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-573.

92 Sean Coffey et al., Nat’l League of Cities, Screening

Tools to Help Families Access Public Benefits 6 

(2005), available at http://www.nlc.org/ASSETS/

E2DF31BA4AFF4ADEB19BA434142B0545/

iyefscreeningtools.pdf.
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 5

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 2 9 7

CIVIC 

ENGAGEMENT

c h a p t e r 1 5

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 5

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 2 9 9

Civic engagement is the lifeblood of any democracy and the bedrock of its legitimacy. 

Broadband holds the potential to strengthen our democracy by dramatically increasing the 

public’s access to information and by providing new tools for Americans to engage with this 

information, their government and one another. Increasingly our national conversation, our 

sources for news and information and our knowledge of each other will depend upon broadband. The transition to new information technologies and services can open new doors to 

enhance America’s media environment, but with traditional sources of news and information 

journalism under severe stress in the current media and economic environments, we confront 

serious challenges to ensure that broadband is put to work to strengthen our democracy.

Civic engagement starts with an informed public, and broadband can help by strengthening the reach and relevance of 

mediated and unmediated information. 

Broadband can enable government to share unmediated information more easily with the American people. Providing more 

information and data to the public about the processes and results 

of government can strengthen the citizenry and its government.

Broadband can also empower citizens to engage their government through new broadband-enabled tools. Broadband 

has already increased access to information and revolutionized the way citizens interact with each other. Companies 

such as YouTube enable the distribution of “user-generated 

content” over the Internet; YouTube now supports monthly 

more than 120 million viewers watching more than 10 billion 

videos.1

 More than 80% of U.S. adults who are online use social 

media at least once per month, and half of them participate 

in social networks such as Facebook.2

 Today, out of the 36% 

of Americans involved in a civic or political group, more than 

half of them (56%) use digital tools to communicate with other 

group members.3

 Government must take advantage of these 

trends and adopt broadband-enabled tools to encourage citizens to communicate with government officials more often and 

in richer ways—and to hold these officials more accountable.

Building the infrastructure for America’s democracy has 

been a challenge since the birth of this nation. The Founders 

worried about it long ago. In 1787, when talking about newspapers—the broadband of its time—Thomas Jefferson wrote:

“The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were 

it left to me to decide whether we should have a government 

without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I 

should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should 

mean that every man should receive those papers, and be capable of reading them.”4

More than two centuries ago, Jefferson was addressing 

deployment—getting newspapers out ubiquitously—and adoption—

ensuring people read, recognizing the value of knowledge, and 

making use of the information infrastructure. Although our technology may change, our democratic challenge remains the same. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

Create an open and transparent government

➤ The primary legal documents of the federal government 

should be free and accessible to the public on digital platforms.

➤ Government should make its processes more transparent 

and conducive to participation by the American people.

➤ All data and information that the government treats as public should be available and easy to locate online in a machine-readable and otherwise accessible format in a timely 

manner. For data that are actionable or time-sensitive in 

nature, the Executive Branch should provide individuals a 

single Web interface to manage e-mail alerts and other electronic communications from the federal government.

➤ All responses to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 

requests by Executive Branch and independent agencies 

should be made available online at www.[agency].gov/foia.

➤ The Executive Branch should revise its Data Quality Act guidance to encourage agencies to apply the Act more consistently 

and facilitate the re-publishing of government data. 

Build a robust digital media ecosystem

➤ Congress should consider increasing funding to public media for broadband-based distribution and content. 

➤ Congress should consider amending the Copyright Act to provide for copyright exemptions to public broadcasting organizations for online broadcast and distribution of public media.
3 0 0 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 5

➤ The federal government should create and fund Video.gov 

to publish its digital video archival material and facilitate 

the creation of a federated national digital archive to house 

public interest digital content.

➤ Congress should consider amending the Copyright Act to 

enable public and broadcast media to more easily contribute their archival content to the digital national archive and 

grant reasonable non-commercial downstream usage rights 

for this content to the American people. 

Expand civic engagement through social media 

➤ The Federal Chief Information Officers (CIO) Council should 

accelerate the adoption of social media technologies that 

government can use to interact with the American people.

Increase innovation within government

➤ The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy 

(OSTP) should create an Open Platforms Initiative that 

uses digital platforms to engage and draw on the expertise 

of citizens and the private sector.

➤ The Executive Branch and independent agencies should 

expand opportunities for Americans with expertise in technological innovation to serve in the federal government. 

Modernize democratic processes

➤ Federal, state and local stakeholders should work together 

to modernize the elections process by addressing issues 

such as electronic voter registration, voting records portability, common standards to facilitate data exchanges across 

state borders and automatic updates of voter files with the 

most current address information. 

➤ The Department of Defense (DoD) should develop a secure 

Internet-based pilot project that enables members of the 

military serving overseas to vote online. 

15.1 CREATING an Open 

and Transparent 

Government

Open and transparent governance is central to democratic 

values. In order for government to be accountable to the public, 

it must share the results of its policies with the public as well as 

the processes by which those results are achieved. Ultimately, 

democracy rests on the ability of the people to evaluate the 

performance of their government in order to make informed 

electoral decisions. 

Recommendation 15.1: The primary legal documents of 

the federal government should be free and accessible to the 

public on digital platforms.

➤ For the Executive Branch and independent agencies, 

this should apply to all executive orders and other public legal documents.

➤ For Congress, this should apply to all votes, as well as 

proposed and enacted legislation.

➤ For the Judicial Branch, this should apply to all judicial 

opinions.

Every person who is subject to the laws of this country should 

have free access to those laws online.5

 Online legal documents 

should be appropriately digitally watermarked to preserve their 

integrity. For the Executive Branch and independent agencies, 

this means publishing all executive orders and other public legal 

documents on the Internet and in an easily accessible, machinereadable format. For the Legislative Branch, this means that 

Congress should publish all votes, as well as proposed and 

enacted legislation, in a timely manner, online and in a machine-readable and otherwise accessible format.6

Finally, all federal judicial decisions should be accessible 

for free and made publicly available to the people of the United 

States. Currently, the Public Access to Court Electronic Records 

system charges for access to federal appellate, district and bankruptcy court records.7

 As a result, U.S. federal courts pay private 

contractors approximately $150 million per year for electronic 

access to judicial documents.8

 While the E-Government Act 

has mandated that this system change so that this information 

is as freely available as possible, little progress has been made.9

Congress should consider providing sufficient funds to publish 

all federal judicial opinions, orders and decisions online in an 

easily accessible, machine-readable format. 

Recommendation 15.2: Government should make its 

processes more transparent and conducive to participation 

by the American people.

➤ For the Executive Branch, independent agencies, 

Congress and state and local government, all government meetings, public hearings and town hall meetings 

should be broadcast online.

➤ Congress should consider allowing the American public 

to track and comment on proposed legislation online.

In addition to Recommendation 15.1 to make final documents 

open and transparent to the public, government processes 

should also be made open and transparent. As a guiding principle, the Knight Commission has declared, “the public’s business 

should be done in public.”10 Public hearings and town hall 

meetings are among the most direct and frequent opportunities 
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 5

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 3 0 1

for the public to engage in their democracy. Video streaming 

of government meetings expands access to the government 

by eliminating geographic limitations and allowing for “time 

shifting,” so that a person who is unable to watch a meeting in 

real time (because they are at work, for example) can still watch 

the proceedings and provide feedback.11 That is why federal, 

state and local governments should require that all public 

agency meetings and hearings be streamed over the Internet.12

Additionally, these events should offer closed-captioning services to increase accessibility for persons with disabilities and, to 

the extent practical, enable individuals to ask questions online.13

Congress should consider enabling the American people to 

electronically track and comment on proposed legislation from 

anywhere in the U.S.14 Tools to enable greater civic participation 

are already being implemented in some states. For example, in 

New York the State Senate empowers individuals not only to see 

bills that have been proposed, but to comment on them.15 The 

Sunlight Foundation has experimented with the use of this tool at 

a federal level.16 Congress should consider offering a similar tool 

to more actively engage the American people.

Recommendation 15.3: All data and information that the 

government treats as public should be available and easy to 

locate online in a machine-readable and otherwise accessible format in a timely manner. For data that are actionable 

or time-sensitive in nature, the Executive Branch should 

provide individuals a single Web interface to manage email alerts and other electronic communications from the 

federal government.

Information enables citizens to monitor inefficiency, waste, 

fraud and abuse and hold their government accountable. It also 

empowers the public to more actively participate in government processes and decision-making.17 That is why all public 

information should be easily accessible online and should be 

posted in real time, whenever possible.18

For government at all levels to be more open, it must provide 

more information online in open formats.19 Data.gov shows the 

demand for such information. A Web portal that offers an index 

of data generated by government agencies in machine-readable 

formats, Data.gov received more than 47 million visits in its first 

seven months of existence.20 Data.gov has also received national 

and international recognition, providing a model for transparency that cities and nations around the world are looking to 

emulate.21 By publishing all public data online, government can 

empower the private sector to innovate. In some instances, this 

is already taking place. As an example, the city of San Francisco 

launched DataSF.org, publishing more than 100 data feeds and 

enabling the public to create new applications. These include 

applications to show individuals crime data and health inspection scores for restaurants.22

Despite this progress, most efforts are far from comprehensive. Even Data.gov contains only a small amount of the data 

that the federal government possesses.23 One survey found that 

only half of the states provided at least 12 of 20 types of information online in areas that are important to the public. These 

types of information were selected based on their relevance to 

people’s lives and their usefulness in holding the government 

accountable. They include financial disclosure reports, audit 

reports, nursing home and child care center inspection reports 

and building inspection reports. 24

For data that are actionable or time-sensitive in nature, 

the Executive Branch should provide individuals a single Web 

interface to manage e-mail alerts and other electronic communications from the federal government. Currently, individual 

agencies manage e-mail communications and alerts independently in a variety of ways. Developing a single Web interface 

will simplify individuals’ access to alerts and other communications from the federal government.

Recommendation 15.4: All responses to Freedom of 

Information Act (FOIA) requests by Executive Branch and 

independent agencies should be made available online at 

www.[agency].gov/foia.

FOIA ensures a fair and equitable process through which 

the public can access information about their government.25

However, agencies often do not consider the usability of the 

information they provide to the American people in response to FOIA requests. For example, the U.S. Customs and 

Immigration Service (USCIS) received nearly 80,000 FOIA 

requests in 2008, but in the 60% of cases where the requester 

asked for the information electronically, USCIS mailed a CD, 

rather than providing the data online.26 Additionally, there are 

no guidelines regarding the format in which this underlying 

data should be delivered.

That is why all Executive Branch and independent agencies 

should make all responses to FOIA requests available online in 

each agency’s FOIA Reading Room. Once records are released 

pursuant to a FOIA request, they are in the public domain. 

Agencies are currently required to make frequently requested 

records (generally defined as records requested three or more 

times) available on their websites. Nevertheless, agencies have 

not proactively posted materials likely to be the subject of 

FOIA requests on their websites, nor have they made records 

released pursuant to a FOIA request routinely available on 

their websites. Even initial FOIA determinations by agencies 

are often not routinely available on agency websites. The U.S. 

Department of Justice should issue further guidance stating 

that all records (and not just frequently requested records) 

released pursuant to a FOIA request (which exclude any information subject to a FOIA exemption) should be posted in an 
3 0 2 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 5

agency’s Electronic Reading Room to preempt repeat requests. 

Doing so would eliminate repetitive FOIA requests, make more 

agency records accessible to the public and significantly drive 

down the costs (approximately $338 million per year27) of processing FOIA requests.

Recommendation 15.5: The Executive Branch should 

revise its Data Quality Act guidance to encourage agencies 

to apply the Act more consistently and facilitate the republishing of government data. 

The federal government should eliminate unnecessary internal barriers to making data available to the public. That is why the 

Executive Branch should revise its guidance regarding the Data 

Quality Act. This legislation’s purpose is to “ensure and maximize 

the quality, objectivity, utility and integrity of information” disseminated by the federal government to the public.28 Unfortunately, the 

Act often impedes the release of data. For example, current administration of the Act requires data owners to certify the quality of their 

datasets before they can be published on Data.gov—even if the data 

are already publicly available on an agency’s website. In practice, 

this re-certification imposes a burden that keeps data off Data.gov. 

That burden should be removed. In addition, the U.S. Government 

Accountability Office (GAO) has noted that the Act is often implemented inconsistently and inefficiently.29 These issues have led to 

confusion regarding what types of data can be posted and the process 

for posting it.30

15.2 BUILDING a 

Robust Digital

Media Ecosystem

America’s communities require a media ecosystem that 

provides the educational, news and other content necessary 

to inform the citizenry and to sustain our democracy. Just as 

communities depend on individuals to create and maintain 

communities, individuals rely on trusted media intermediaries to connect them with relevant and accurate information so 

they can make informed decisions in their daily lives.31 Today, 

traditional media and journalism institutions, which serve as 

essential watchdogs over both the public and private sectors, 

face significant challenges.

These challenges are well documented. Newspapers are 

shutting down at an astonishing rate, local television (TV) 

news stations are laying off reporters and as a consequence 

statehouses and other governmental institutions are drawing 

fewer and fewer journalists to cover the news. Between 2001 

and 2009, newspapers laid off an estimated 14,000 journalists, 

25% of their workforce.32 TV news shows eliminated 1,200 

people in 2007 alone,33 and radio newsrooms shed 16% of 

their staff in 2008.34 Such a drastic contraction in the news 

media means fewer checks on government and other powerful 

institutions, more corruption and injustice going unreported 

and less information being made available to citizens. Whether 

uncovering the horrific abuse of veterans at a Veterans Affairs 

hospital or informing the public of toxic chemicals in toys, 

professional journalism at its best arms citizens and consumers 

with the information they need to hold leaders accountable and 

to improve their own communities and the quality of their lives. 

The contraction of traditional professional journalism has 

prompted concern from a wide variety of independent analysts and groups that the United States may end up with fewer 

“informed communities.” The Pew Project for Excellence in 

Journalism recently stated that business trends in the media were “chilling,”31 and a 2009 report from the Columbia 

Graduate School of Journalism observed that “accountability 

journalism, particularly local accountability journalism, is especially threatened by the economic troubles that diminished 

so many newspapers.”32 A shrinking of journalistic capacity 

could mean fewer checks on government and other powerful institutions, more scandals and injustices that go unreported, less 

information available to citizens and less civic engagement.

At the same time, all is not bleak. The popularity and 

accessibility of the Internet have already led to the development of some creative and experimental media. In San Diego 

and Minneapolis, journalists created Voice of San Diego and 

MinnPost, respectively, to fill some of the gaps created by 

contracting newspapers.33 The American Standard covers 

state government and politics, and ProPublica provides high 

quality investigative reporting that many news outlets can no 

longer afford on their own.34 Some organizations have enlisted 

journalism students; others are experimenting with “pro-am” 

journalism—professionals and amateurs collaborating via the 

Internet. The spread of broadband can fuel ever more creative 

uses of technology, including new ways of gathering, explaining 

and distributing news and information. Never before have the 

barriers to add one’s voice to the civic dialogue been so low. We 

should seek ways to harness some of these same digital forces 

that, in part, disrupted old models of journalism to bring creative solutions for restoring American journalism to both large 

and small communities. 

There are differing views about how these negative and 

positive developments net out. Some feel that private and 

non-profit sector innovations will fully replace the loss in 

traditional journalism and, in some cases, improve upon it.35

Others, however, are concerned about the state of traditional 

media in America and believe that these problems may extend 

to new forms of Internet-based media as well.36 For example, 
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 5

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 3 0 3

these observers argue that the proliferation of choices on the 

Internet should not obscure the reality that even most online 

news originates with traditional journalistic organizations.37

They suggest, too, that excessive private sector media industry 

consolidation, coupled with misdirected public sector policies, 

has inflicted serious harm on traditional news and information 

media and that special vigilance must be taken to avoid similar 

outcomes for new media.38 The FCC understands the importance of these lines of inquiry and the need to address these 

questions expeditiously. 

These questions will be studied by the FCC’s new project on 

the Future of Media and Information Needs of Communities in 

a Digital Era (see www.fcc.gov/futureofmedia and GN Docket 

No. 10-25).39 The FCC will move expeditiously to determine 

what actions are needed to ensure that all citizens have access 

to vibrant, local and diverse sources of information and news 

that enable them to enhance their lives, communities and 

democracy. This project will review trends in the provision of 

local news by local TV stations, radio and other media in the 

context of the Internet and evolving economic conditions. The 

project will hold workshops, seek public input and release a 

report this year. 

Though the Future of Media project is in an early stage, two 

points should be clear. First, broadband technology can only 

make a valuable contribution to our civic dialogue if everyone has access to it. As the Internet increasingly becomes the 

standard platform for receiving information, those who do not 

have high-speed access to the Internet will be left completely 

out of the civic dialogue. The media they used to rely on (often 

inexpensively) will be increasingly weakened if not better fortified for the transition, while salutary alternatives will be only 

available to the well-wired.

Second, public media will play a critical role in the development of a healthy and thriving media ecosystem. Public 

media plays a vital and unique role in our democracy, informing individuals and leading our public conversation as well 

as building cohesion and participation in our communities.40

This strength comes from its ability to create connected and 

informed communities, empower citizens to hold their government accountable and enable people to actively participate in 

government processes and decision-making.41 And at a time 

of increasing skepticism, cynicism and distrust of institutions, public media has earned and maintained the trust of the 

American people. According to a 2007 Roper opinion poll, 

nearly half of all Americans trust the Public Broadcasting 

Service (PBS) “a great deal”; this is more than trust commercial 

television or newspapers.42 This trust reinforces the critical 

role that public media plays in American democracy.

This trust enables public media to provide tremendous educational resources to America’s families. Last year, after more 

than 4,000 episodes, Sesame Street celebrated its 40th year 

on the air.43 This is a remarkable testament to public media 

and to its educational programming. Fittingly, last year public 

television also launched a tremendous resource for the broadband age in the form of the PBS KIDS preschool video player. 

During the first month alone, more than 87 million streams of 

educational content were delivered across PBS KIDS sites.44

Providing rich public media content on new digital multimedia 

platforms will help ensure that another generation of kids will 

grow up with Sesame Street and other great public television 

content. Public media’s past is a tremendous success story 

that our communities and our nation should celebrate, and 

it has already begun developing its 21st century digital identity in myriad ways. This is evidenced by the work of PBS and 

National Public Radio (NPR) as well as individual public television and radio stations, all of which are playing important roles 

in communities across the country. For example, Boston public 

television station WGBH has developed the Teachers’ Domain, 

a free collection of more than 2,000 standards-based digital 

resources covering diverse content for students and teachers. 

This collection offers video, audio, articles, lesson plans and 

student-oriented activities for more than 333,000 registered 

users.45 Additionally, Philadelphia’s WHYY radio station has 

partnered with the Philadelphia Daily News to produce a 

multimedia civic engagement blog that solicits essays from 

Philadelphians about their city.46

These examples demonstrate how broadband can bring 

public media into the digital age and help public media achieve 

its full potential. But there is more work to do if its future is 

to be as successful as its past. Public media has historically 

focused on broadcasting, with its capacity constraints and oneway limitations.47 Today, public media is at a crossroads.48 It is 

predominantly structured around broadcast-based communications, both legally and in practice, presenting a challenge 

in the digital age. That is why public media must continue 

expanding beyond its original broadcast-based mission to form 

the core of a broader new public media network that better 

serves the new multi-platform information needs of America.49

To achieve these important expansions, public media will require additional funding.50

Recommendation 15.6: Congress should consider increasing funding to public media for broadband-based 

distribution and content. 

If public media is to continue playing an important role in 

supporting civic engagement with online content, it will need 

expanded support. Public broadcasting is financed by a combination of annual federal appropriations, federal grants, state and 

local funds and private donations; it receives less than 20% of its 

funding from the federal government.51 As broadband adoption 
3 0 4 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 5

and utilization continue to grow, public media will require greater 

and more flexible funding to support new digital platforms.52

As one avenue for the funding of online content, Congress 

should consider creating a trust fund for digital public media 

that is endowed by the revenues from a voluntary auction of 

spectrum licensed to public television. By doing so, Congress 

can increase public media’s role by expanding the resources 

directed to the digital public media ecosystem without diminishing station operations. As discussed in Chapter 5, this plan 

recommends a process by which commercial television broadcasters may contribute some or all of their spectrum allocation 

to an auction in the 2012-2013 time period. Non-commercial 

broadcasters should also be allowed to participate in such an 

auction on a completely voluntary basis. Stations that contribute some (e.g., half ) of their licensed spectrum would then 

share channels and transmission facilities with other public 

television stations who also contributed a portion of their 

spectrum allocation. These stations would not go off the air and 

would still broadcast their primary streams under their on-air 

call letters. In addition, these stations would remain direct 

FCC licensees as they are today, and would continue receiving 

all the benefits of being a direct FCC licensee, such as mustcarry rights.

Congress should consider dedicating all the proceeds from 

the auctioned spectrum contributed by public broadcasters 

to endow a trust fund for the production, distribution, and 

archiving of digital public media. 

There would be multiple benefits to public television stations who participate in this auction. First, it could provide 

significant savings in operational expenses to stations that 

share transmission facilities. Second, 100% of proceeds from 

the public television spectrum auction would be used to fund 

digital multimedia content. The proceeds should be distributed 

so that a significant portion of revenues generated by the sale 

of spectrum go to public media in the communities from which 

spectrum was contributed. 

Recommendation 15.7: Congress should consider amending the Copyright Act to provide for copyright exemptions 

to public broadcasting organizations for online broadcast 

and distribution of public media.

Creating a robust digital public media ecosystem requires 

changes to copyright law as well. Congress passed special 

copyright exemptions for public broadcasting in the 20th

century, but these provisions no longer fulfill their original 

purpose. Current licensing practices make it difficult for public 

broadcasters to produce and distribute the highest quality 

programming. These exemptions should be updated to facilitate the distribution of the highest quality programming on 21st

century digital platforms.53

Recommendation 15.8: The federal government should 

create and fund Video.gov to publish its digital video archival material and facilitate the creation of a federated 

national digital archive to house public interest digital 

content.

Recommendation 15.9: Congress should consider amending the Copyright Act to enable public and broadcast media 

to more easily contribute their archival content to a digital 

national archive and grant reasonable noncommercial 

downstream usage rights for this content to the American 

people. 

The federal government should facilitate the creation of a 

federated national archive for digital content. Creating such an 

archive will require tackling digital rights challenges and coordinating among multiple stakeholders. As part of this federated 

archive, the Executive Branch should create Video.gov, which 

would be modeled after Data.gov. This platform would house the 

federal government’s public digital video content, current and 

historical, and would make it accessible and available to the public. All agencies should be encouraged to release as much video 

content as possible onto Video.gov. The Executive Branch should 

also work closely with Congress to ensure that the Library of 

Congress participates in this effort. Additionally, Congress 

should consider making a one-time appropriation to fund the 

creation of this federated collection of national digital archives.

Public and broadcast media are critical to creating a robust 

national digital archive. Today, public media and much of broadcast media sit on a wealth of America’s civic DNA in the form of 

millions of hours of historical news coverage of wars, elections 

and daily life. This archival content could provide tremendous 

educational opportunities for generations of students and could 

revolutionize how we access our own history (see Box 15-1).

NPR’s Open Application 

Programming Interface (API): 

A Model for a National Digital 

Archive

In July 2008, NPR launched 

an Open API. The API framework provides mediated 

access to almost 15 years of 

NPR-produced content to NPR 

member stations. This allows 

NPR’s member stations to curate NPR content. For example, 

WBUR in Boston re-launched 

its website, using the API to mix 

local and national news stories. 

Third parties can also consume 

and share NPR content (noncommercially) using the API. 

Opening this cache of data for 

non-commercial use led to the 

development of both an iPhone 

application (app) and an Android app. Both apps were not 

developed by NPR, but rather 

by supporters and programmers who used the API to build 

them. This open framework is 

an example of the kind of digital 

archive that would significantly 

expand access to rich content.

BOX 15-1:
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 5

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 3 0 5

achievement of its mission. Government should adopt a 

variety of new media tools across many areas—from those 

primarily used to communicate to those that enable more 

intensive participation. 

While adoption of these tools has been uneven, there are 

many success stories (see Box 15-2). The Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention (CDC) utilizes social media platforms 

to provide access to credible, science-based health information. Between April 22, 2009, and Dec. 6, 2009, the CDC had 

more than 2.6 million views of H1N1 podcasts, more than 

three million views of H1N1-related YouTube videos, and 

more than 37 million views of H1N1-related media feeds.57

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has also 

achieved success with social media, launching a blog in 2008 

to give travelers the opportunity to ask questions and raise 

concerns.58 TSA’s blog has had more than one million hits and 

has resulted in improvements like educating screeners about 

certain computers and translating regulations into easy-tounderstand language.59 The FCC has also made extensive use 

of social media tools, regularly communicating with its more 

than 330,000 Twitter followers (the third most of any federal 

agency) and actively engaging the public.60 So far, individuals 

have submitted more than 450 ideas to the FCC, which have 

generated more than 7,500 comments and over 37,000 votes, all 

online.61 The FCC has also posted more than 175 entries on its 4 

blogs, which have generated more than 11,000 comments.62

Government can use social media in innovative ways to engage individuals on a state and local level as well. Spartanburg 

County, S.C., and the town of Cary, N.C., have used social 

networking to engage residents, soliciting ideas and feedback 

These opportunities will only be realized if several challenges are addressed.54 For example, public television has 

attempted to launch such a digital video archive but has run 

into difficulties obtaining necessary clearances from holders 

of intellectual property rights. To address this issue, Congress 

should consider amending the Copyright Act to enable public 

and broadcast media to more easily contribute their archival 

content to a digital national archive. In addition to clearing 

these upstream rights for submission into a digital national 

archive, the amendment to the Copyright Act should grant the 

public reasonable non-commercial downstream usage rights to 

all materials deposited into the archive. This would ensure that 

archival content is open and accessible.55 Any such amendment 

to the Copyright Act should take into account the interests of 

affected copyright holders.

15.3 Expanding civic 

engagement through 

Social media

Government must also improve the quality and number of 

points at which the American people can contact their government by implementing social media tools, providing 

opportunities for outside experts to increase innovation within 

government, and empowering citizens to engage in the democratic process in a digital age. 

Recommendation 15.10: The Federal CIO Council should 

accelerate the adoption of social media technologies that 

government can use to interact with the American people. 

Just as the internal use of social media tools can enhance the 

performance of government, social media presents a tremendous opportunity for Americans to provide meaningful input 

into their democracy. Americans use these tools in their daily 

lives and are more likely to interact with government officials 

and agencies if these tools make it easier. 

Recent growth in adoption of social media has been dramatic. According to the Pew Internet & American Life Project, 35% 

of American adult Internet users have a profile on an online 

social networking site. That is four times as many as three years 

ago. These tools are likely to become even more prevalent over 

the coming years as the 65% of American teens that are online 

use social networks to engage with their government.56 In order 

to maintain effective contact with the American people, government will need to adopt these tools. 

The government should view social media technologies 

not as pilot projects or add-ons, but as tools central to the 

Broadband-Enabled 

Diplomacy: Citizen-to-Citizen 

Engagement as an Example of 

21st Century Statecraft

Government can also use 

new technologies to reach 

people around the world. On 

Nov. 13, 2009, the U.S. Embassy 

in Beijing launched pages on 

two leading social networking 

portals in China.63

Social media tools are also 

connecting individuals across 

nations and regions. The U.S. 

Department of State recently 

announced the creation of 

a “Virtual Student Foreign 

Service.” This program creates “dorm-room diplomats” 

by matching American college 

students with embassies and 

college students in other nations to build transnational 

relationships and cultural 

understanding through digital 

citizen-to-citizen diplomacy.64

The State Department has also 

used Skype videoconferencing 

capabilities to connect students 

in Massachusetts to students 

in Afghanistan, enabling the Afghan students’ first face-to-face 

conversations with Americans.65

Broadband-based diplomacy 

will only become more important in the years to come.

BOX 15-2:
3 0 6 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 5

concerning local community projects.66 The state of New York 

has released a series of Web-based tools to engage residents in 

the state’s budgetary challenges, including an online calculator 

that allows individuals to create their own proposal to balance 

the budget.67 Maine has engaged residents in the budgeting process through a similar online budget-balancing tool as well.68

15.4 Increasing

INNOVATION IN

GOVERNMENT

Beyond transparency, government should leverage broadband 

to experiment with new ideas and technologies to extend opportunities for engagement.

Recommendation 15.11: The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) should create an Open 

Platforms Initiative that uses digital platforms to engage 

and draw on the expertise of citizens and the private sector.

➤ This initiative should create open expert and peer review 

platforms to bring outside expertise to government.

➤ This initiative should create open problem-solving platforms, including competitions, to bring innovative solutions 

to government.

➤ This initiative should create open grantmaking platforms 

to improve the grantmaking process and enable greater innovations in grantmaking.

Although progress has been uneven, there are examples of 

innovative collaboration throughout the government. As part 

of the development of the Open Government Initiative, OSTP 

solicited comments online through a public brainstorming 

blog, a wiki and a collaborative drafting tool.69 To build on this 

progress, OSTP and the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) should launch and manage an initiative to develop 

open platforms that increase participatory governance.70

These include open peer review and open expert network 

platforms that enable subject matter experts to volunteer to 

review policies under consideration and brainstorm policy 

ideas with each other. The federal government has already 

taken steps to empower citizen experts. In 2007, the U.S. 

Patent and Trademark Office launched its Peer-to-Patent 

program, a groundbreaking Internet-based program in which 

expert volunteers assist the federal government with reviewing patent applications. Within the first year, Peer-to-Patent 

attracted more than 2,000 reviewers, and 93% of patent 

examiners surveyed said that they would welcome examining 

another patent application with public participation.71 This 

kind of knowledge-sharing platform can reduce the cost of 

policymaking and improve government performance.

Recommendation 15.12: The Executive Branch and independent agencies should expand opportunities for Americans with expertise in technological innovation to serve in 

the federal government.

Because many of the best ideas come from outside government, 

OSTP and the FCC should create an Innovation Corps and an 

Innovation Corps to ensure that new ideas continue to flow to the 

federal government. An FCC-operated Innovation Corps of volunteers would serve as a think tank for technologists from inside and 

outside government who would volunteer to design and develop 

platforms and applications for all levels of government. An OSTPadministered Innovation Fellows program could be structured 

similarly to the White House Fellows program.72 It would place 

leading private sector experts and innovators throughout the 

federal government for one year.

15.5 Modernizing the 

Democratic Process 

More Americans engage in democratic election processes than 

in any other civic act. By bringing the elections process into 

the digital age, government can increase efficiency, promote 

greater civic participation and extend the ability to vote to 

more Americans.

The current paper-based system for voter registration can 

include multiple steps: collecting information on paper forms, 

manually entering handwritten data onto voter lists and offering third-party groups the opportunity to distribute, collect and 

submit handwritten registration cards. These practices result 

in a system that is often inaccurate and cumbersome, with large 

numbers of registration forms inundating election offices prior 

to each election. One recent study estimates that voter registration problems resulted in more than two million voters being 

unable to vote in the 2008 general election. The problems are 

even worse for members of the military serving overseas; service members are more than twice as likely to face registration 

problems as the general public.73 According to an Overseas Vote 

Foundation survey, nearly a quarter (23.7%) of experienced 

overseas voters had questions or problems when registering 

to vote in 2008.74 Maintaining this poorly functioning system 

is costly in terms of dollars as well as votes. A study of voter 

registration costs in Oregon found that in 2008 voter registration alone cost taxpayers more than four dollars per vote, with 

an ultimate bill of almost nine million dollars.75
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 5

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 3 0 7

Recommendation 15.13: Federal, state and local stakeholders should work together to modernize the elections 

process by addressing issues such as electronic voter 

registration, voting records portability, common standards 

to facilitate data exchanges across state borders and automatic updates of voter files with the most current address 

information.

Government can improve the voting system by modernizing 

voter registration to increase efficiency and decrease confusion. This change would also increase accessibility for those 

who have difficulty with current voter registration processes, 

such as people living in rural areas and on Tribal lands and 

disabled populations who have difficulty traveling or face other 

accessibility challenges.76 These recommendations will not 

provide instant solutions, but they are important steps toward 

creating a more rational system.

The first step must be to modernize the voter registration process. Arizona, Kansas and Washington already permit citizens to 

complete and submit voter registration applications online.77 In 

Utah, the Governor’s Commission on Strengthening Democracy 

published a final report in December 2009 recommending that 

all citizens of Utah be allowed to register to vote online.78

Common standards will assist in making voting records 

portable so that these records update whenever citizens change 

party affiliation, marital status or move. Several states have 

already begun to adopt common standards to facilitate data exchange across state borders.79 Delaware has implemented a new 

eSignature system that requires every visitor to the Division 

of Motor Vehicles to register to vote, update their registration 

or decline to do so. Delaware’s system immediately downloads 

updated data directly into voters’ files, eliminating the need for 

data entry and reducing the possibility for human error. The 

eSignature program saved Delaware $200,000 annually, and it 

can save other states money as well.

Local governments have also reaped benefits from modernizing voter registration. In Maricopa County, Arizona, paper 

registration forms cost at least 83 cents each to process, while 

online registration costs an average of only three cents.80 In 

Travis County, Texas, the County Tax Office implemented an 

Internet-based application that allows citizens to register to 

vote online, reducing citizen calls by 30% and walk-ins by 40%. 

Voter fraud was also minimized by using wireless devices to 

instantly confirm voter eligibility.81

The federal government has taken steps in this direction as 

well. The Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act, recently passed by Congress, requires that states (beginning with 

the 2010 general election) establish procedures to allow voters 

covered by the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee 

Voting Act to electronically request voter registration applications and absentee ballot applications for federal elections.82

While this is a positive step, empowering citizens to register to 

vote online would remove additional obstacles.83

Recommendation 15.14: The Department of Defense 

(DoD) should develop a secure Internet-based pilot project 

that enables members of the military serving overseas to 

vote online. 

According to the Overseas Voter Foundation, more than half 

(52%) of the military serving overseas who tried to vote were 

unable to do so because their ballots were late or never arrived.84 Based on a survey of seven states by the Congressional 

Research Service, an average of more than 25% of military and 

overseas ballots were returned as undeliverable, lost or rejected 

in the 2008 election.85

The federal government has demonstrated clear intent 

to address these issues. In 2002, the Help America Vote Act 

established the Election Assistance Commission to serve as 

a national clearinghouse, develop voluntary guidelines and 

study new technologies related to voting. The National Defense 

Authorization Act for FY2005 mandated the creation of a 

secure Internet-based electronic voting pilot after the Election 

Assistance Commission establishes Internet voting guidelines. 

In 2007, the GAO built on this momentum, recommending that 

the Election Assistance Commission work with major stakeholders such as the DoD to create an action plan to address 

security and privacy issues and develop a timeframe for developing Web-based absentee voting guidelines. 

In the meantime, other groups are taking important steps 

forward. The Overseas Voter Foundation and the Pew Center 

on the States have developed an online tool to give U.S. military 

personnel and other citizens living overseas easier access to 

Federal Write-in Absentee Ballots. This tool was implemented 

prior to the 2008 election and yielded positive results, receiving 4.5 million visitors in 2008 and registering almost 90,000 

voters.86 Several states, including Minnesota and Ohio, have 

launched similar tools.87

Some states have already made significant progress on these 

issues. In September 2008, Arizona launched a Web-based 

voting system that allows the military and overseas citizens 

to vote online, with completed ballots uploaded directly to 

the Secretary of State’s website. It has been approved by the 

Department of Justice and uses “industry standard, 128-bit 

encryption technology to ensure security, privacy and the overall integrity of the ballot.” At least five other states, including 

Missouri, Florida, Colorado, Montana and Washington, permitted some version of electronic voting (via e-mail or a secure 

online system) in the 2008 general election.88
3 0 8 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

c h a p t e r 1 5 E n d n o t e s 

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 5

1 comScore, Inc., Google Sites Surpass 10 Billion Video 

Views in August (press release), Sept. 28, 2009, http://

comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2009/9/

Google_Sites_Surpasses_10_Billion_Video_Views_in_

August.

2 Sean Corcoran, Forrester Research, Inc., The Broad

Reach of Social Technologies 1 (2009).

3 Aaron Smith et al., Pew Internet & Am. Life Project, 

The Internet and Civic Engagement 9 (2009), available 

at http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/

Reports/2009/The%20Internet%20and%20Civic%20

Engagement.pdf. 

4 Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington 

(Jan. 16, 1787), available at http://en.wikisource.

org/w/index.php?title=Special:Book&bookcmd=d

ownload&collection_id=5abd8f3c1473eb5f&write

r=rl&return_to=Letter+to+Edward+Carrington+-

+January+16%2C+1787.

5 See Knight Comm’n, Informing Communities: Sustaining

Democracy in the Digital Age 38 (2009) (Knight

Comm’n, Informing Communities), available at https://

secure.nmmstream.net/anon.newmediamill/aspen/

kcfinalenglishbookweb.pdf. 

6 Society of Professional Journalists Comments in re NBP 

PN #20 (Comment Sought on Moving Toward a Digital 

Democracy—NBP Public Notice #20, GN Docket Nos. 

09-47, 09-51, 09-137, Public Notice, 24 FCC Rcd 13810 

(WCB 2009) (NBP PN #20)), filed Dec. 9, 2009, at 1 

(filed by Kevin Z. Smith).

7 See Public Access To Court Electronic Records—

Overview, http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/pacerdesc.html

(last visited Jan. 7, 2010).

8 Carl Malmud, President and CEO, Public.Resource.

Org., By the People, Address at the Gov 2.0 Summit, 

Washington, D.C. 25 (Sept. 10, 2009), available at http://

resource.org/people/3waves_cover.pdf.

9 See Letter from Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman to Carl 

Malamud, President and CEO, Public.Resources.Org 

(Oct. 13, 2009), available at http://bulk.resource.org/

courts.gov/foia/gov.senate.lieberman_20091013_from.

pdf. 

10 Knight Comm’n, Informing Communities at 38.

11 Ellen S. Miller Comments in re National Broadband 

Plan NOI, filed June 8, 2009, at 5.

12 See Knight Comm’n, Informing Communities at 38.

13 See Broadband for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing 

Corporation Comments in re NBP PN #20, filed Dec. 9, 

2009, at 2. 

14 Society of Professional Journalists Comments in re NBP 

PN #20, filed Dec. 9, 2009, at 1 (filed by Kevin Z. Smith).

15 See New York State Senate, NYSenate Markup, http://

www.nysenate.gov/markup (last visited Feb. 21, 2010).

16 See PublicMarkup.Org, Welcome to Public Markup, 

www.publicmarkup.org (last visited Nov. 28, 2009).

17 Jonathan Rintels, Benton Found., An Action Plan for

America: Using Technology and Innovation to Address

our Nation’s Critical Challenges 34 (2008) (Rintels, 

An Action Plan for America), available at http://www.

benton.org/sites/benton.org/files/Benton_Foundation_

Action_Plan.pdf.

18 See Christopher Eliott, Is the Transportation Department 

Really ‘Open’? No, But It’s Getting There, Consumer

Traveler, Feb. 11, 2010, http://www.consumertraveler.

com/today/is-the-transportation-departmentreally-%e2%80%9copen%e2%80%9d-no-butit%e2%80%99s-getting-there/. 

19 See Rintels, An Action Plan for America at 35. 

20 Vivek Kundra, Changing the Way Washington Works, 

OMB Blog, Dec. 16, 2009, http://www.whitehouse.gov/

omb/blog/09/12/16/Changing-the-Way-WashingtonWorks/. 

21 Joab Jackson, CIO Council Set up Data.gov in Two 

Months, and Third Parties are Putting Data to Use, 

Governing Comp. News, Oct. 12, 2009, http://www.gcn.

com/Articles/2009/10/12/GCN-Awards-DataGov.aspx. 

22 City of San Francisco, DataSF, http://www.datasf.

org/ (last visited Feb. 21, 2010); Fritz Nelson, Open 

Government: A San Francisco Treat, Info. Week, Nov. 19, 

2009, http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/

archives/2009/11/open_government_1.html. 

23 Clay Johnson, Get Your Act Together, Data.gov, Sunlight

Labs Blog, Nov. 13, 2009, http://sunlightlabs.com/

blog/2009/get-your-act-together-datagov/. 

24 Sunshineweek.org, Sunshine Week 2009 Survey of State

Government Information Online (2009), available at

http://www.spj.org/pdf/sw09-surveyreport.pdf.

25 Freedom of Information Act of 1966, Pub. L. No. 89-554, 

80 Stat. 383 (1966) (codified at 5 U.S.C. § 552) (FOIA).

26 DHS, 2008 Annual Freedom of Information Act Report

to the Attorney General of the United States 6 (2008), 

available at http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/foia/

privacy_rpt_foia_2008.pdf; GAO, DHS Has Taken Steps

to Enhance Its Program, but Opportunities Exist to

Improve Efficiency and Cost-Effectiveness 22 (2009),

available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09260.pdf.

27 Dep’t of Justice Office of Info. Policy, FOIA Post: 

Summary of Annual FOIA Reports for Fiscal Year 2008, 

http://www.justice.gov/oip/foiapost/2009foiapost16.

htm (last visited Feb. 21, 2010).

28 Data Quality Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 106-554, § 515, 114 

Stat. 2763A-153 (2001) (codified at 44 U.S.C. § 3516) 

(Data Quality Act).

29 GAO, Expanded Oversight and Clearer Guidance by

the Office of Management and Budget Could Improve

Agencies’ Implementation of the Act 4–5, GAO-06-765 

(2006), available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/

d06765.pdf.

30 Aliya Sternstein, White House Bars Agencies From 

Posting Some Statistics, NextGov, Jan. 27, 2010, http://

www.nextgov.com/nextgov/ng_20100127_9912.php. 

31 Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism, Pew Res. 

Ctr., The State of the News Media 2009: An Annual

Report on American Journalism 3 (2009), available at 

http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2009/chapter%20

pdfs/COMPLETE%20EXEC%20SUMMARY%20PDF.

pdf.

32 Leonard Downie, Jr., & Michael Schudson, The 

Reconstruction of American Journalism, Colum. 

Journalism Rev., Oct. 19, 2009, at 3, available at http://

www.cjr.org/reconstruction/the_reconstruction_

of_american.php; see also id. at 2 (Accountability 

journalism “holds government officials accountable 

to the legal and moral standards of public service and 

keeps business and professional leaders accountable to 

society’s expectations of integrity and fairness.”). 

33 See voiceofsandiego.org, About Us, http://www.

voiceofsandiego.org/support_us/about_us/ (last visited 

Mar. 3, 2009); MinnPost.com, About Us, http://www.

minnpost.com/about/ (last visited Mar. 3, 2009).

34 See The American Independent, About, http://tainews.

org/about/ (last visited Mar. 3, 2009); ProPublica, About 

Us, http://www.propublica.org/about/ (last visited Mar. 

3, 2009).

35 See, e.g., Dan Gillmor, We the Media: Grassroots

Journalism, by the People, for the People 18–19 

(2006) (discussing the transformative power of open 

source journalism); Henry Jenkins et al., Confronting

the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media

Education for the 21st Century 8–9 (2009) (developing 

a toolkit for future participatory media creation 

and consumption). See generally Henry Jenkins, 

Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media

Collide (2006); Yochai Benkler, The Wealth of

Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets

and Freedom (2006).

36 See, e.g., C. Edwin Baker, Media, Markets, and

Democracy 285–307 (2005) (discussing why the 

emergence of digital technologies does not eliminate 

the problems with media markets); Jon M. Garon, 

Media & Monopoly in the Information Age: Slowing the 

Convergence at the Marketplace of Ideas, 17 Cardozo

Arts & Ent. L.J. 491, 591–92 (1999) (discussing the 

problem of convergence in traditional media); Richard 

T. Karcher, Tort Law and Journalism Ethics, 40 Loy. U. 

Chi. L.J. 781, 797–801 (2009) (discussing the problem of 

infotainment and sensationalism in journalism); Christa 

Corrine McLintock, Comment, The Destruction of Media 

Diversity, or: How the FCC Learned to Stop Regulating 

and Love Corporate Dominated Media, 22 J. Marshall

J. Comp. & Info. L. 569, 602 (2004) (“The premise that 

the Internet alone will solve all media consolidation 

and diversity problems is fundamentally flawed because 

in order for this proposed solution to work, we must 

assume the same market pressures and problems that 

exist in the traditional media market will not infiltrate 

the Internet.”).

37 See Eagle Creek Broadcasting et al. Reply in re NBP PN 

#30 (Reply Comments Sought in Support of National 

Broadband Plan—NBP Public Notice #30, GN Dockets 

No. 09-47, 09-51, 09-137, 23 FCC Rcd 241 (WCB, 2010) 

(NBP PN #30)), filed Jan. 27, 2010, at 6 (filed as Joint 

Broadcast Parties); Pew Project for Excellence in

Journalism, Pew Res. Ctr., How News Happens: A Study

of the News Ecosystem of One American City (2010) 

(finding that 95% of news stories that contained new 

information came from traditional media), available 

at http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/how_

news_happens; Gary Kamiya, The Death of the News, 

Salon, Feb. 17, 2009, http://www.salon.com/opinion/

kamiya/2009/02/17/newspapers/ (estimating that “80% 

of all online news originates in print”).

38 See, e.g., Graham Murdock, Redrawing the Map of the 

Communication Industries: Concentration and Ownership 
F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 3 0 9

c h a p t e r 1 5 E n d n o t e s 

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 5

in the Era of Privatization, in Public Communication: The

New Imperatives (Marjorie Ferguson ed., 1990); Peter 

Dahlgren, Introduction, Communication and Citizenship

10 (Peter Dahlgren & Colin Sparks eds., 1991); Dan

Gillmor, We the Media: Grassroots Journalism, by the

People, for the People, at xxvii (2006).

39 See FCC, Reboot.FCC.gov, Future of Media, http://

reboot.fcc.gov/futureofmedia/ (last visited Feb. 2, 

2010); FCC, FCC Launches Initiative to Examine Future 

of Media: Issues Public Notice and Launches FCC.Gov/

FutureofMedia (press release), GN Docket No. 10-25 

(Jan. 21, 2010).

40 Knight Comm’n, Informing Communities at 3.

41 Knight Comm’n, Informing Communities at 35.

42 Knight Comm’n, Informing Communities at 35.

43 Elysa Gardner, At 40, ‘Sesame Street’ Is in A Constant 

State of Renewal, USA Today, Nov. 10, 2009, available at

http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2009-

11-06-sesame06_CV_N.htm. 

44 Pub. Broad. Serv., PBS KIDS Web Sites Break Video 

View Records (press release), Jan. 13, 2009, available 

at http://www.pbs.org/aboutpbs/news/20100113_

pbskidssitesbreakvideorecords.html. 

45 Ellen P. Goodman Comments in re National Broadband 

Plan NOI, filed Nov. 7, 2009, at 9.

46 Ellen P. Goodman Comments in re National Broadband 

Plan NOI, filed Nov. 7, 2009, at 13.

47 Ellen P. Goodman Comments in re National Broadband 

Plan NOI, filed Nov. 7, 2009, at 4. 

48 Knight Comm’n, Informing Communities at 38.

49 Ellen P. Goodman Comments in re National Broadband 

Plan NOI, filed Nov. 7, 2009, at 4; Ellen P. Goodman, 

Public Service Media 2.0, in And Communications for

All: A Public Policy Agenda for a New Administration

263 (Amit M. Schejter ed., Lexington Books 2009) 

(Goodman, Public Service Media 2.0).

50 Letter from Robert M. Winteringham, Deputy General 

Counsel, Corp. for Public Broad., to Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary, FCC, GN Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 09-137 

(Dec. 30, 2009) at 2; Letter from Kinsey Wilson, Sr. Vice 

President, Digital Media, NPR & Michael Riksen, Vice 

President, Policy and Representation, NPR, to Marlene 

H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-

51, 09-137 (Dec. 28, 2009) at 4–5.

51 Corp. for Pub. Broad, Public Broadcasting Revenue, 

Fiscal Year 2008 (2009), available at http://www.cpb.

org/stations/reports/revenue/2008PublicBroadcasting

Revenue.pdf. 

52 Am. Univ. Ctr. for Social Media, Report on Public Media

2.0: Dynamic, Engaged Publics 21 (2009).

53 William W. Fisher & William McGeveran, Berkman Ctr. 

for Internet & soc’y, The Digital Learning Challenge: 

Obstacles to Educational Uses of Copyrighted

Materials in the Digital Age, 6, 50 (2006) (Fisher & 

McGevern, Digital Learning Challenge); Goodman, 

Public Service Media 2.0 at 263, 270–71, 276; Letter 

from Susan L. Kantrowitz, Vice President and General 

Council, WGBH Educ. Found. et al., to Marlene H. 

Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 09-51 (Feb. 

22, 2010) at 15 (filed on behalf of the Association of 

Public Television Stations, Corporation for Public 

Broadcasting, Public Broadcasting Service, and National 

Public Radio); see also Kim Hart, Public Knowledge 

Proposes Copyright Reform Bill, Hill’s Tech. Blog, Feb. 

16, 2010, http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/

technology/81117-public-knowledge-proposescopyright-reform-bill.

54 At least one Congressional committee has already 

recognized the tremendous value of this opportunity. On 

June 22, 2007, the Senate Appropriations Committee 

stated that “[t]he Committee has strongly supported 

the conversion of public broadcasting stations to digital 

formats and continues to do so.” It also “recognize[d] 

that this conversion to digital transmission leaves a 

great number of stations with limited programming 

and makes a substantial proportion of the public 

broadcasting library unusable.” It concluded that “this 

archive of material is a valuable asset to the public and 

to historians.” Ass’n. of Pub. Television Stations, Senate 

Committee Endorses American Archive Project (press 

release), June 22, 2007, http://www.apts.org/news/

senateendorsesAmericanarchive1.cfm. 

55 William W. Fisher & William Mcgeveran, The

Berkman Cetenr for Internet & Society, The Digital

Learning Challenge: Obstacles to Educational Uses

of Copyrighted Materials in the Digital Age 94–95 

(2006); Ellen P. Goodman, Public Service Media 2.0 at 

263, 277; Ellen P. Goodman National Broadband Plan 

NOI Comments, filed Nov. 7, 2009, at 29.

56 Amanda Lenhard, Pew Internet & Am. Life Project, 

Adults and Social Networking Websites 1 (2009). 

57 CDC, CDC.gov, Social Media & CDC-INFO Metrics, 

http://www.cdc.gov/metrics/campaigns/reports/

Biweekly_SocialMediaWebandCDC-INFO_

Metrics_12-07-09.pdf (last visited Dec. 9, 2009). 

58 Posting of Kip Hawley to The TSA Blog, http://www.tsa.

gov/blog/2008/01/welcome.html (Jan. 30, 2008 10:00 

AM). 

59 Posting of Craig Newmark to The Hill’s Pundit’s 

Blog, http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/

technology/31046-tsa-blog-a-good-example-ofproviding-improved-citizencustomer-service (Mar. 30, 

2009, 4:27 AM EDT); Posting of Blogger Bob to The 

TSA Blog, http://www.tsa.gov/blog/2009/09/tsa-blog1000000-hits.html (Sept. 10, 2009 9:33 AM).

60 Twitter, FCC, http://twitter.com/fcc (last visited Feb. 21, 

2010); Twitter, The White House, http://twitter.com/

whitehouse (last visited Feb. 21, 2010); Twitter, CDC 

Emergency, http://twitter.com/cdcemergency (last 

visited Feb. 21, 2010). 

61 FCC, Broadband.gov IdeaScale, http://broadband.

ideascale.com/ (last visited Feb. 19, 2010); FCC, 

OpenInternet.gov Ideascale, http://openinternet.

ideascale.com/ (last visited Feb. 19, 2010).

62 FCC, Reboot Blog, http://reboot.fcc.gov/blog/ (last 

visited Feb. 19, 2010); FCC, Broadband Blog, http://blog.

broadband.gov/ (last visited Feb. 19, 2010); FCC, Future 

of Media Blog http://reboot.fcc.gov/futureofmedia/blog

(last visited Feb. 19, 2010); FCC, Open Internet Blog, 

http://Blog.openinternet.gov (last visited Feb. 19, 2010). 

63 Athena Kwey, U.S. Embassy Uses New Media to Reach 

Chinese Netizens, Dipnote, Nov. 16, 2009, http://blogs.

state.gov/index.php/entries/new_media_netizens/.

64 U.S. State Dep’t, Virtual Student Foreign Service, http://

www.state.gov/vsfs (last visited Feb. 21, 2010); Olivia Jung, 

Dorm Room Diplomacy Group Pairs Penn, Middle East 

College Students, TheDaily Pennsylvanian, Sept. 20, 2009, 

http://thedp.com/article/dorm-room-diplomacy-grouppairs-penn-middle-east-college-students.

65 Anna P. Mussman, Online Conversation Connects 

Students in Afghanistan and Massachusetts, Dipnote, 

Nov. 19, 2009, http://blogs.state.gov/index.php/entries/

students_boston_jalalabad/.

66 Ai-Mei Chang and P.K. Kannan, Leveraging Web 2.0 in

Government 22 (2008). 

67 Paterson Announces Web Site, Town Hall Meeting to 

Address New York State Budget Problems, Gov’t Tech., 

Nov. 10, 2008, http://www.govtech.com/gt/429195 (Nov. 

10, 2008).

68 State of Maine, Office of the Governor, The Budget, 

http://www.maine.gov/governor/baldacci/policy/

budget/index07-07.html (last visited Mar. 4, 2009).

69 Beth Noveck, U.S. Deputy Chief Tech. Officer for Open 

Gov’t, Presentation at FCC Open Government and 

Civic Engagement Workshop 10 (Aug. 6, 2009), http://

www.broadband.gov/docs/Fcc_OpenGov_Noveck.pdf; 

Beth Noveck, Open Gov’t Directive, Phase III: Drafting, 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Open-GovernmentDirective-Phase-III-Drafting (June 22, 2009).

70 This group should include all relevant senior 

stakeholders at the federal level and could consist 

of the same positions represented by the working 

group on transportation, accountability, participation 

and collaboration that was created by the Open 

Government Directive. Memorandum from Peter R. 

Orszag, Director, Open Gov’t Directive to the Heads of 

Executive Departments and Agencies (Dec. 8, 2009), 

available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/

memoranda_2010/m10-06.pdf.

71 New York Law School, Peer-to-Patent Pilot Releases 

Report Demonstrating Success of Public Participation in 

Patent Process (press release), June 18, 2008, available at

http://www.nyls.edu/news_and_events/peer_to_patent.

72 White House, White House Fellows Program, http://

www.whitehouse.gov/about/fellows (last visited Feb. 23, 

2010). 

73 Pew Ctr .on the States, Bringing Elections into the

21st Century: Voter Registration Modernization 1–2 

(2009) (Pew, Voter Registration Modernization), 

available at http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/

wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Election_reform/Voter_

Registration_Modernization_Brief_web.pdf.

74 Overseas Vote Found., 2008 OVF Post Election

UOCAVA Survey Report and Analysis 5 (2009), 

available at https://www.overseasvotefoundation.org/

files/OVF_2009_PostElectionSurvey_Report.pdf.

75 Pew, Voter Registration Modernization at 1–2.

76 Open Source Digital Voting Foundation Comments in 

re NBP PN #20, filed Dec. 10, 2009, at 6–7; Broadband 

for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Corp. Comments in re 

NBP PN #20, filed Dec. 9, 2009, at 1–2.

77 National Association of Counties Comments in re NBP 
3 1 0 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

c h a p t e r 1 5 E n d n o t e s 

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 5

PN #20, filed Dec. 10, 2009, at 4; Open Source Digital 

Voting Foundation Comments in re NBP PN #20, filed 

Dec. 10, 2009, at 5.

78 Governor’s Comm’n on Strengthening Democracy, 

Final Report 22 (2009), available at http://www.

strengthendemocracy.org/uploads/2009/12/governorscommission-final-report.pdf.

79 Pew, Voter Registration Modernization at 3–4.

80 Pew, Voter Registration Modernization at 3.

81 IBM, Travis County Tax Office Develops a New Way

to Vote and Access Other Key Government Services

(2007), available at http://www-01.ibm.com/software/

success/cssdb.nsf/CS/JSTS-78RR3D.

82 Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act, Subtitle 

H of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-84, §§ 575–589, 123 Stat. 2190, 

2318–35 (2009).

83 Democrats Abroad Comments in re NBP PN #20, filed 

Dec. 10, 2009, at 1 (filed by Christine Marques).

84 Overseas Vote Found., 2008 OVF Post Election

UOCAVA Survey Report And Analysis: A Detailed Look

at How Overseas And Military Voters And Election

Officials Fared in the 2008 General Election And

What To Do About It 5 (2009).

85 Pew Ctr. on the States, Bringing Elections into the 21st

Century: Voter Registration Modernization 2 (2009).

86 William Jackson, Offshore Voting Gets Assist from the 

Web, Gov’t Computer News, Nov. 11, 2008, http://gcn.

com/Articles/2008/11/11/Offshore-voting-gets-assistfrom-the-Web.aspx.

87 William Jackson, States Launch Online Voter 

Registration Sites, Gov’t Computer News, Jan. 16, 2008, 

http://gcn.com/Articles/2008/01/16/States-launchonline-voter-registration-sites.aspx. 

88 Nat’l Conf. of State Legislatures, Arizona Leads the Way 

As Military and Overseas e-Voting Gains Momentum, 

The Canvass, Mar. 2009, http://www.ncsl.org/Default.

aspx?TabId=16466.
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 6

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 3 1 1

PUBLIC 

SAFETY

c h a p t e r 1 6

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 6

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 3 1 3

Safety and security are vital to America’s prosperity. Broadband can help public safety 

personnel prevent emergencies and respond swiftly when they occur. Broadband can also provide the public with new ways of calling for help and receiving emergency information.

A cutting-edge public safety communications system uses 

broadband technologies:

➤ To allow first responders anywhere in the nation to send 

and receive critical voice, video and data to save lives, reduce injuries and prevent acts of crime and terror. 

➤ To ensure all Americans can access emergency services 

quickly and send and receive vital information, regardless 

of how it is transmitted.

➤ To revolutionize the way Americans are notified about 

emergencies and disasters so they receive information vital 

to their safety.

➤ To reduce threats to e-commerce and other Internet-based 

applications by ensuring the security of the nation’s broadband networks. 

Unfortunately, the United States has not yet realized the 

potential of broadband to enhance public safety. Today, first 

responders from different jurisdictions and agencies often cannot communicate during emergencies. Emergency 911 systems 

still operate on circuit-switched networks. Similarly, federal, 

Tribal, state and local governments use outdated alerting systems to inform the public during emergencies. 

The United States also faces threats to the resiliency 

and cybersecurity of its networks. As the world moves online, America’s digital borders are not nearly as secure as its 

physical borders.

The country must do better. In a broadband world, there is a 

unique opportunity to achieve a comprehensive vision for enhancing the safety and security of the American people. Careful 

planning and strong commitment could create a cutting-edge 

public safety communications system to allow first responders 

anywhere in the nation to communicate with each other, sending and receiving critical voice, video and data to save lives, 

reduce injuries and prevent acts of crime and terror. 

Broadband can also make 911 and emergency alert systems 

more capable, allowing for better protection of lives and property. For example, with broadband, 911 call centers (also known 

as public safety answering points or PSAPs) could receive text, 

pictures and videos from the public and relay them to first 

responders. Similarly, the government could use broadband 

networks to disseminate vital information to the public during 

emergencies in multiple formats and languages.

Finally, well-structured and well-protected broadband 

networks could reduce threats to Internet-based applications. 

The proliferation of Internet Protocol (IP)-based communications requires stronger cybersecurity. Disasters and pandemics 

can lead to sudden disruptions of normal IP traffic flows. As a 

result, broadband communications networks must be held to 

high standards of reliability, resiliency and security.

The recommendations in this chapter are designed to realize 

this vision. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

Promote public safety wireless broadband communications

➤ Create a nationwide interoperable public safety wireless 

broadband communications network (public safety broadband network).

➤ Survey public safety broadband wireless infrastructure 

and devices. 

➤ Ensure that broadband satellite service is a part of any 

emergency preparedness program.

➤ Preserve broadband communications during emergencies. 

Promote cybersecurity and the protection of critical 

broadband infrastructure 

➤ The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) should 

issue a cybersecurity roadmap.

➤ The FCC should expand its outage reporting requirements 

to broadband service providers. 

➤ The FCC should create a voluntary cybersecurity certification regime. 

➤ The FCC and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

should create a cybersecurity information reporting system 

(CIRS). 

➤ The FCC should expand its international participation and 

outreach. 

➤ The FCC should explore network resilience and 

preparedness.

➤ The FCC and the National Communications System (NCS) 

should create priority network access and routing for 

broadband communications. 

➤ The FCC should explore broadband communications’ reliability and resiliency.
3 1 4 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 6

Encourage innovation in the development and deployment 

of Next Generation 911 (NG 911) networks and emergency 

alert systems 

➤ The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA) should prepare a report to identify the costs of 

deploying a nationwide NG 911 system and recommend that 

Congress consider providing public funding. 

➤ Congress should consider enacting a federal regulatory 

framework. 

➤ The FCC should address IP-based communications devices, 

applications and services.

➤ The FCC should launch comprehensive next-generation 

alert system inquiry.

➤ The Executive Branch should clarify agency roles on the 

implementation and maintenance of a next-generation 

alert and warning system.

16.1 Promoting

Public Safety

Wireless Broadband 

Communications

Recommendation 16.1: Create a public safety broadband 

network. 

➤ Create an administrative system that ensures access to 

sufficient capacity on a day-to-day and emergency basis.

➤ Ensure there is a mechanism in place to promote interoperability and operability of the network.

➤ Establish a funding mechanism to ensure the network is 

deployed throughout the United States and has necessary coverage, resiliency and redundancy.

➤ Conform existing programs to operate with the public 

safety broadband network.

The country has long recognized the potential for broadband technologies to revolutionize emergency response 

wireless mobile communications. This technology will give 

first responders new tools to save American lives. The country needs a public safety broadband network that allows first 

responders to communicate with one another. A three-pronged 

approach will allow the speedy deployment, operation and 

continued evolution of such a network. 

First, an administrative system must ensure that users of 

the public safety broadband spectrum have the capacity and 

service they require for their network and can leverage commercial technologies to capture economies of scale and scope. 

There are significant benefits, including cost efficiencies and 

improved technological advancement, if the public safety 

community can increasingly use applications and devices 

developed for commercial wireless broadband networks. 

Ultimately, this system must be flexible, allowing public safety 

entities to forge incentive-based partnerships with commercial 

operators and others.1

This system will allow the public safety community to realize the benefits of commercial technologies, which will reduce 

costs and ensure the network evolves. However, leveraging 

Exhibit 16-A :

Public Safety 

Broadband Network 

Architecture3
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 6

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 3 1 5

commercial broadband will not be sufficient to develop a truly 

interoperable nationwide network that meets public safety 

standards. To ensure the necessary resiliency, capacity and redundancy, the public safety community should be able to roam 

and obtain priority access on other commercial broadband 

networks. Commercial operators will need to be compensated 

at a reasonable rate for this service.

Past efforts to create a public safety narrowband interoperable voice network have failed. Data suggest that many public 

safety radio systems lack basic interoperability. They also suggest that most jurisdictions that have improved their systems 

still only have an “intermediate” level of interoperability at 

best—not the advanced level of interoperability that is required 

for truly seamless communications in the event of a major 

emergency.2

 The public safety broadband network offers a new 

opportunity to achieve advanced interoperability now.

In addition to a strong administrative system, the FCC 

should also create an Emergency Response Interoperability 

Center (ERIC) to ensure that these applications, devices and 

networks all work together, so that first responders nationwide 

can communicate with one another seamlessly. In addition, 

the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) should 

undertake a survey to track progress on broadband interoperability for the public safety community. ERIC will set the course 

for interoperability immediately and ensure it is maintained. 

Focusing on interoperability from the beginning should help 

the public safety broadband network to overcome the difficulties faced by other earlier voice efforts.

Finally, a grant program will be designed to provide federal 

support to local efforts in order to fund the capital and ongoing costs of the public safety broadband network. The grant 

program must provide public safety network operators with 

long-term support and enough flexibility to form appropriate 

partnerships with systems integrators and other vendors to ensure the public safety broadband network is deployed properly.

Administrative System

In 1997, Congress directed the FCC to provide public safety 

agencies with spectrum in the 700 MHz band, considered 

prime spectrum for public safety communication. In 2007, 

the FCC adopted rules to promote the construction, deployment and operation of a nationwide and seamless wireless 700 

MHz public safety broadband network4 by creating a mandatory partnership between the public safety community and the 

private licensee of a 700 MHz commercial spectrum allocation 

known as the “D block.” The FCC subsequently held an auction 

in which the D block spectrum failed to attract a required minimum bid. There are many possible reasons for this failure.5

The FCC should overcome past challenges by encouraging, 

though not requiring, incentive-based partnerships to ensure 

success. The FCC should encourage network solutions that 

reduce costs and should provide options for the public safety 

community to leverage commercial networks, private networks 

or both.6 These rules should also provide the public safety 

community with more competitive choice among commercial 

partners. In addition, once the new network is able to support “mission critical” voice communications, the FCC should 

evaluate the spectrum requirements necessary to ensure 

adequate capacity for that use, as well as for existing networks. 

Ultimately, a more flexible set of rules should allow a better 

balance between the needs of the public safety community and 

the companies that will partner to build this network. 

In more detail, this administrative system should include:

➤ An opportunity to enter flexible spectrum-sharing partnerships with commercial operators. The public safety community must be able to partner with commercial operators 

and others (such as systems integrators) to lower the costs 

of building the network and encourage its evolution. Unlike 

the previous approach that focused solely on the D block, 

an incentive-based partnership model that addresses not 

just the D block, but commercial wireless spectrum more 

broadly, will provide enhanced flexibility and the benefits 

of economies of scale. Such partnerships should be subject 

to interoperability requirements set forth by ERIC. Public 

safety licensees should also be able to allow non-public safety 

partners to use their spectrum on a secondary basis—that can 

be preempted—through leasing or similar mechanisms. Partners could include critical infrastructure users such as utilities connecting to the Smart Grid.7

 However, any revenues 

Realizing the Promise of 

Broadband to Improve 

Emergency Medical 

Response

Cardiologist Richard Katz 

knows the life-saving potential of broadband. During an 

FCC field hearing at Georgetown University Medical Center, the George Washington 

University (GWU) professor 

of medicine vividly detailed 

how wireless broadband 

technologies can help him 

provide emergency medical 

care. A “smart band-aid” attached to an accident victim’s 

chest or wrist can detect vital 

signs and wirelessly transmit 

this information to Dr. Katz 

over GWU’s mVisum network. 

He can receive electrocardiograms of “pristine” quality 

on his cell phone. And he 

can use his phone to access 

patient medical records and 

disseminate emergency messages and alerts. In short, 

broadband technologies allow 

Dr. Katz to integrate aspects 

of medical care, improving 

his ability to offer assistance 

during a disaster or other 

emergency.

BOX 16-1:
3 1 6 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 6

received by a public safety entity for such use must be used to 

build or improve the public safety broadband network. 

➤ Public safety access to roaming and priority access on commercial networks. To improve the capacity of public safety 

networks during emergencies, the FCC should begin a rulemaking to require commercial mobile radio service providers to give public safety users the ability to roam on commercial networks in 700 MHz and potentially other bands. 

The public safety community should have this ability both 

in areas where public safety broadband wireless networks 

are unavailable and where there is currently an operating public safety network but more capacity is required to 

respond effectively to an emergency. 

The rulemaking also should stipulate that, when a public 

safety broadband wireless network is at capacity or unavailable, authorized public safety users should get priority 

access on commercial networks, including all networks 

using the 700 MHz band and potentially other networks 

as well. The licensee(s) should be able to obtain priority access under terms similar to those required in today’s 

Wireless Priority Service (WPS). But, unlike WPS, this 

capacity should be available for state and local first responders as well as National Security/Emergency Preparedness 

(NS/EP) communications. In addition, the priority access 

framework should take advantage of the additional access 

and prioritization capabilities of 4G wireless technologies. Unlike today’s circuit-switched cellular networks, 

4G wireless networks can give public safety data immediate priority without waiting for commercial capacity to be 

freed up. Commercial operators should receive reasonable 

compensation for public safety priority access and roaming 

capabilities on their networks.  

➤ Licensing the D block for commercial use, with options for 

public safety partnership. The FCC should quickly license 

the D block for commercial use, while implementing several 

requirements for the D block licensee(s) to maximize options for partnerships with public safety. First, the FCC 

should require the D block licensee(s) and the public safety 

broadband licensee(s) each to operate their networks using 

the same air interface technology standard. The emerging 

consensus of the public safety community and carriers is 

that 700 MHz networks will use the Long Term Evolution (LTE) family of standards. The FCC should consider 

designating this standard.8

 A consistent air interface creates 

a greater likelihood of interoperability between the public 

safety and commercial D block networks. It will facilitate 

roaming between networks to improve coverage and access 

for public safety and commercial customers. In addition, a 

consistent air interface will encourage a larger number of 

potential users and allow public safety entities to benefit from commercial economies of scale that otherwise 

would not exist. Before the D block is auctioned, it must 

be clear that any D block licensee(s) will be required to 

provide roaming and WPS-like priority access with reasonable compensation.

Second, it is critical to develop commercial devices that 

can operate across 3GPP Band 14 in its entirety. (Band 14 

in the 700 MHz band includes the D block and the public 

safety broadband spectrum.) Accordingly, the FCC should 

require the D block licensee(s), and potentially other 700 

MHz commercial licensees, to develop and offer devices 

capable of providing service using all 700 MHz Band 14 

spectrum and identify a path toward the large-scale production of such devices. Commercial devices should allow the 

public safety community access to better and less expensive 

options for use in the public safety spectrum, and will facilitate access to spectrum blocks where the D block licensee 

and the public safety licensee enter into a shared network 

partnership. The FCC should explore other ways to encourage the deployment of public safety devices that transmit 

across the entire broadband portion of the 700 MHz band 

(i.e., Band 12, Band 13, Band 14 and Band 17). 

➤ Liability protection for commercial partners. A federal 

statute provides wireless, Voice over Internet Protocol 

(VoIP) and other emergency communications providers 

with immunity or liability protection for carriage of public 

safety communications that is not less than the immunity 

or liability protection given to local exchange carriers.9

Commercial licensees should have similar liability protection for public safety communications when, for example, 

public safety licensees are roaming or using priority access 

on commercial networks or on shared networks supporting 

both commercial and public safety communications. 

➤ Leveraging purchasing power. The FCC, working with other 

federal agencies, should explore other cost-saving measures 

for the buildout of public safety broadband networks. ERIC 

and DHS should work with the General Services Administration (GSA) to provide rate schedules that public safety 

entities can use to access commercial nationwide broadband networks and to obtain equipment for their networks. 

This would generate immediate cost savings and provide 

an important cost benchmark. In addition, state, Tribal 

and local governments can help lower costs. Infrastructure 

sharing can also reinforce network reliability and service 

continuity among commercial networks, particularly carriers entering into incentive-based partnerships with public 

safety organizations.
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 6

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 3 1 7

ERIC

The FCC should create ERIC under the umbrella of the Public 

Safety and Homeland Security Bureau immediately. ERIC will 

develop common standards for interoperability and operating 

procedures to be used by the public safety entities licensed to 

construct, operate and use this nationwide network. To establish a common vision, ERIC must exist before any licensees 

begin construction of such a network. This will ensure that government, public safety and the communications industry move 

away from creating and supporting fragmented public safety 

networks for broadband wireless communications.10

ERIC will establish a baseline for the seamless exchange of 

public safety wireless broadband communications on a nationwide, interoperable basis from the start of the network’s 

development. This is crucial to allow responders from varying jurisdictions and disciplines to communicate with one 

another when they converge at an emergency, or when incidents span several jurisdictions. Similarly, first responders 

must have access to common applications in any situation or 

location.11 To ensure success and leverage existing expertise, 

ERIC should be chartered to work closely with DHS’s Office 

of Emergency Communications (OEC). Close coordination 

will enable ERIC to complement OEC’s mission of creating 

standard operating procedures and governance to ensure that 

public safety communications flow over a seamless network. 

ERIC also should have a public safety advisory body to ensure 

appropriate consultation.12

The FCC’s FY2011 budget proposes $1.5 million in funding 

to establish ERIC and support initial staffing requirements. 

As ERIC and the proposed broadband networks mature, about 

$5.5 million will be necessary each year starting in FY2012 for 

ERIC to be fully functional.13 These additional funds will allow 

the FCC to partner with the National Institute of Standards 

and Technology (NIST) to develop appropriate standards 

and to maintain ERIC’s expertise. The funds will also ensure adequate staffing to address the three core functions of 

ERIC: network engineering, network technical operations 

and network governance. In addition, Congress should consider providing DHS $1 million of public funding in FY2011, as 

proposed in its budget, and each year thereafter. The funding 

will help DHS to coordinate ERIC with OEC and relevant DHS 

entities, and enhance OEC outreach to Tribal, state and local 

agencies.

At a minimum, ERIC should:

➤ Adopt technical and operational requirements and procedures to ensure a nationwide level of interoperability; this 

should be implemented and enforced through FCC rules, 

license and lease conditions and grant conditions.

➤ Adopt and implement other enforceable technical, interoperability and operational requirements and procedures to 

address, at a minimum, operability, roaming, priority access, gateway functions and interfaces and interconnectivity of public safety broadband networks.

➤ Adopt authentication and encryption requirements for common public safety broadband applications and network use.

➤ Coordinate the interoperability framework of regulations, 

license requirements, grant conditions and technical standards with other entities (e.g., the public safety broadband 

licensee(s), DHS, NIST and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration).

ERIC should also work with DHS and the public safety community to ensure that the public safety broadband network and 

public safety narrowband wireless networks can communicate 

with one another seamlessly. ERIC’s public safety advisory 

committee14 will provide input from the public safety community on ERIC’s proposed actions.

ERIC should work with NIST’s Public Safety Communications 

Research Program to ensure that it collaborates in its work on 

research, development, testing, evaluation and standards with 

both the public safety community and industry. No federal 

laboratory facilities exist to independently test and demonstrate public safety 700 MHz broadband technologies. Creating 

a neutral host facility will allow all stakeholders to work together to develop a nationwide seamless public safety wireless 

broadband network and ensure that commercial broadband 

standards can meet public safety’s specific requirements. This 

will help make networks and equipment compatible for public 

safety use.

NIST has announced that it is moving forward with development of a demonstration 700 MHz public safety broadband 

network in FY2010. Congress should consider allocating longterm public funding to continue this and other programs that 

support the new public safety network.

Grant Program

Development of a nationwide public safety broadband network 

through incentive-based partnerships will make Americans 

safer and more secure.15 A grant program will give public safety 

its own “hardened” broadband wireless access network; ensure 

that the most vulnerable areas of the United States have the 

coverage they require; provide public safety with additional 

capacity and resiliency via access to nearby commercial spectrum; ensure that the emergency response community has the 

tools it requires; and optimize the effective use of resources.

As shown in Exhibit 16-B, a multi-pronged approach will 

provide public safety with greater dependability, capacity and 

cost savings. First, the hardened network will provide reliable 

service throughout a wide area. Second, since emergency responders will be able to roam on commercial networks, capacity 
3 1 8 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 6

and resiliency will improve, at a reasonable cost. Third, localized 

coverage will improve through the use of fixed microcells—like 

those that provide indoor coverage in skyscrapers—and mobile 

microcells, which can be placed in fire trucks, police cars and 

ambulances. Fourth, equipment can be retrieved from caches 

and used during a disaster when infrastructure is destroyed or 

insufficient or unavailable. Grants to support the public safety 

broadband network should be distributed by a single agency to 

streamline operations, reduce costs and ensure that grants are 

made in a consistent manner. The grants should only fund projects that comply with ERIC requirements and should be made 

for the following four purposes:

➤ Construction of a public safety 700 MHz broadband network that involves partnerships and uses commercial infrastructure, the public safety infrastructure or both through 

incentive-based partnerships.

➤ Coverage of the rural areas within the network’s 

geography.

➤ Hardening of the existing commercial network and new 

sites that operate as part of the public safety network 

(including covering non-recurring engineering costs for priority broadband wireless).16

➤ Development of an inventory of deployable capability for the 

700 MHz public safety band.

A single grant-making agency, in coordination with ERIC, 

should structure the funding to ensure the network is built 

efficiently. The grant-making agency should have flexibility to 

limit the time that a grant recipient has to spend any granted 

funds. It should also ensure that the money spent is accounted 

for through reporting and auditing requirements. The grantmaking agency should encourage grant recipients to enter into 

infrastructure-sharing agreements, where appropriate, with 

entities deploying broadband networks with support from 

other grant programs. Such arrangements should be reviewed 

annually, and any savings they generate should be taken into 

account when allocating funds for each program. 

The public safety broadband network requires a substantial 

investment. Using a 99% population coverage model,17 deployment of this network will require as much as $6.5 billion 

in capital expenditure in 2010 dollars over a 10-year period, 

which can be reduced through efficiency measures such as state 

and local programs and USF.18 Initial public funding for the 

capital requirement should commence in a timely manner to 

enable the public safety network to benefit from the planned 

build-outs of the private 4G wireless broadband networks, 

which are scheduled to begin in 2010. Congress should consider providing the bulk of these funds in the second to fifth years 

of the network’s construction.

Exhibit 16-B :

Public Safety 

Network and 

Solutions
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 6

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 3 1 9

Congress should also consider enabling FCC the to implement 

or authorize mechanisms to collect, manage, audit and support the grant-making agency’s disbursement of these funds. 

Receipts would fund the grant-making agency’s program for 

public safety broadband operations and evolution. Strict conditions must be established to prohibit any diversion of these 

funds by state and local governments, and require adherence to 

ERIC-developed standards. The grant-making agency should 

be authorized to determine how to best allocate these funds 

to ensure an appropriate balance among urban, suburban and 

rural users and to require grant recipients to account for the 

funds they receive. And it should distribute the funds in a way 

that also enables the evolution of the network.

Existing Programs

In emergencies, the federal government uses an FCC-developed 

system called Project Roll Call to determine the operational 

status of wireless and broadcast communications (including 

public safety communications) and to help emergency managers restore operations when necessary. However, the system 

is not designed to operate in a 700 MHz broadband spectrum 

environment. Deployment of a new broadband public safety 

network will require a redesign of Project Roll Call and the procurement of new equipment to operate over the new spectrum. 

These efforts will give the federal government the capability it 

needs to rapidly restore public safety broadband communications in a disaster or emergency. Accordingly, Congress should 

consider providing an additional $6.9 million no later than FY 

2012—and $1.9 million of public funding on a recurring annual 

basis—to the FCC for the design and acquisition of enhanced 

Roll Call systems.

Ongoing costs, including operating expense and appropriate 

network improvement costs are expected to rise from zero at the 

beginning of FY2011 to a peak of as much as $1.3 billion per year 

in year 10 of the capital build program, following a substantial 

ramp-up that coincides with the network’s expansion.19

The total present value of the capital expenditure and ongoing costs over the next 10 years is approximately $12–16 billion. 

State and local governments could contribute funds to cover 

some of these costs, and there may be additional cost-saving 

methods that reduce this estimate—such as sharing federal 

infrastructure, working with utilities, or use of state and local 

tower sites to improve coverage. This undertaking is also expected to produce a significant number of long-term U.S. jobs.20

It is essential that the United States establish a long-term, 

sustainable and adequate funding mechanism to help pay for 

the operation, maintenance and upgrade of the public safety 

broadband network. America’s safety depends on it. Congress 

should consider creating such a funding mechanism in FY2011, 

but in any event, no later than FY2012. Recognizing that 

Americans will obtain substantial benefits from the creation of 

this network, imposing a minimal public safety fee on all U.S. 

broadband users would be a fair, sustainable and reasonable 

funding mechanism. The fee should be sufficient to support the 

operation and evolution of the public safety broadband network.

It is essential that the public safety community has the funds 

to operate, maintain and improve this network. All U.S. broadband users will benefit from this network. Spreading nominal 

costs among them will ensure that this country’s emergency 

responders have access to critical communications capabilities 

when and where they need them. 21

Congress should consider authorizing the FCC to impose 

or require the imposition of such a fee or other funding means. 

Exhibit 16-C:

Selection of Proposed 

Broadband Applications 

and Services for the 

Public Safety 

Broadband Network

Public Safety Spectrum Trust • Remote access to criminal databases

• High-speed file downloads

• Distribution of surveillance video feeds to on-scene personnel

The National Association of State 

EMS Officials

• Medical-quality video

• Multiple vital signs transmission

• Real-time resource tracking (e.g., of ambulances)

• Secure transmission of patient records

National Public Safety 

Telecommunications Council

• Intelligence gathering

• Automated inspections

• Environmental monitoring

• Traffic management

AT&T • Location-based services

• Messaging

• Virtual private networking

Telcordia • Real-time command and control

• Logistics and decision support

District of Columbia • Real-time identity management and credentialing

• Interoperability with computer-aided dispatch systems, emergency operation centers 

and voice systems
3 2 0 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 6

Recommendation 16.2: Survey public safety broadband 

wireless mobile infrastructure and devices. 

There is a lack of detailed information about state and local 

deployments of public safety broadband networks, infrastructure and equipment. FEMA, working with Regional Emergency 

Communications Coordination working groups, periodically 

collects data on narrowband systems .22 But there is no systematic study of public safety wireless broadband communications 

networks. Documentation of deployment and use of broadband by the state, Tribal and local public safety community, 

including the status of interoperability, will help in evaluating 

programs that support this technology.

Accordingly, Congress should consider providing public 

funding of $3.75 million per year for three years (for a total of 

$11.3 million) to allow FEMA to expand its data collection and 

survey efforts with states and territories. Providing federal, 

Tribal, state and local governments with up-to-date information on public safety broadband capabilities can help target 

grants to fill broadband gaps.23

Recommendation 16.3: Ensure that broadband satellite 

service is a part of any emergency preparedness program.

Technical factors can affect broadband service during 

disasters,but it is vital that broadband networks operate reliably and have redundant capabilities in an emergency. A way 

to ensure this is to use existing broadband mobile and fixed 

satellite services in an affected area in the event of a disaster 

or crisis. Satellites can serve as a communications option and a 

critical source of redundancy, particularly when terrestrial infrastructure is unavailable. Satellite services may be even more 

important as a method of communication in the first few hours 

or days of a disaster, should terrestrial-based services be damaged or destroyed—providing unique value for public safety 

purposes. Already, several state, local and federal agencies use 

broadband satellite service applications for public health, continuity of government and disaster preparedness activities.24

Federal agencies should recommend the use of broadband 

fixed and mobile satellite service for emergency preparedness and response activities, as well as for national security, 

homeland security, continuity and crisis management.25 These 

recommendations should be issued when the agencies offer 

emergency preparedness and response information guidelines to the emergency response community, or when they 

develop plans and programs on emergency response. The U.S. 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) should issue a report 

on the current and future capability of satellite broadband to 

provide necessary service during an emergency.

Recommendation 16.4: Preserve broadband communications during emergencies. 

Current law bars for-profit entities, such as hospitals, broadcasters and service providers, from receiving federal assistance 

to maintain or restore communications—including broadband 

and broadcast services—immediately following a disaster. 

However, certain for-profit communications entities provide 

vital services that ensure public safety. Hospitals, for example, 

provide public health information, while broadcasters distribute important information and warn the public of impending 

dangers. The inability to maintain or restore broadband service 

may prevent hospitals and public health officials from sharing time-sensitive information. Loss of power or broadband 

connectivity also could prevent broadcasters from distributing 

health information to the public on a timely basis.26 Without 

federal efforts to maintain and quickly restore broadband and 

broadcast services, the most vulnerable residents could be cut 

off from essential services such as NG 911, alerts and warnings, 

including Emergency Alert System (EAS) messages.

Accordingly, Congress should consider amending the Stafford 

Act to permit limited federal assistance during a disaster to 

private, for-profit entities—including health care providers, 

broadcasters and communications service providers—to maintain 

or restore public safety-related critical communications services 

(e.g., public warning and alerts, law enforcement, fire, medical, 

search and rescue, PSAPs and other emergency services) during 

a major disaster. The Federal Coordinating Officer or Federal 

Resource Coordinator at the Joint Field Office (JFO)—or, prior 

to establishment of a JFO, the Operations Section Chief at the 

National Response Coordination Center—should be authorized to 

decide whether to grant requests for such federal assistance.27 To 

prevent abuse, requests should be granted only for services related 

to operational issues and only for a limited duration, such as 30 

days. 28 These statutory and regulatory changes should be made 

effective prior to the start of the 2010 hurricane season in June, 

because of the possibility of frequent and large-scale weatherrelated disasters.

16.2 Promoting

Cybersecurity and 

PROTECTING CRITICAL 

INFRASTRUCTURE

Improving Cybersecurity 

Communications providers have experienced frequent attacks on 

critical Internet infrastructure. A variety of state and non-state 

entities has demonstrated the ability to steal, alter or destroy 

data and to manipulate or control systems designed to ensure the 
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 6

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 3 2 1

functioning of portions of our critical infrastructure. Additional 

safeguards may be necessary to protect our nation’s commercial 

communications infrastructure from cyberattack. Such safeguards could promote confidence in the safety and reliability of 

broadband communications and spur adoption. 

Recommendation 16.5: The FCC should issue a cybersecurity roadmap.

Admiral Mike McConnell, former Director of National 

Intelligence, said recently that “the United States is fighting 

a cyber-war today, and we are losing.”29 He noted that “to the 

extent that the sprawling U.S. economy inhabits a common 

physical space, it is in our communications networks.”30 The 

country needs a clear strategy for securing the vital communications networks upon which critical infrastructure and public 

safety communications rely. Within 180 days of the release 

of this plan, the FCC should issue, in coordination with the 

Executive Branch, a roadmap to address cybersecurity. The 

FCC roadmap should identify the five most critical cybersecurity threats to the communications infrastructure and its end 

users. The roadmap should establish a two-year plan, including 

milestones, for the FCC to address these threats.

Recommendation 16.6: The FCC should expand its outage 

reporting requirements to broadband service providers. 

Today the FCC currently does not regularly collect outage 

information when broadband service providers experience 

network outages. This lack of data limits our understanding of 

network operations and of how to prevent future outages. The 

FCC should initiate a proceeding to extend FCC Part 4 outage 

reporting rules to broadband Internet service providers (ISPs) 

and interconnected VoIP providers. Such reports will allow 

the FCC, other federal agencies and, as appropriate, service 

providers to analyze information on outages affecting IP-based 

networks. The information also will help prevent future outages and ensure a better response to actual outages. 

The timely and disciplined reporting of network outages will 

help protect broadband communications networks from 

cyberattacks, by improving the FCC’s understanding of the 

causes and how to recover. This will help improve cybersecurity 

and promote confidence in the safety and reliability of broadband communications.31

Recommendation 16.7: The FCC should create a voluntary cybersecurity certification program. 

Many Internet users apparently do not consider cybersecurity a priority. Nearly half of all businesses in the 2009 Global 

State of Information Security Study reported that they are 

cutting budgets for information security initiatives. A 2008 

Data Breach Investigations Report concluded that 87% of 

cyber breaches could have been avoided if reasonable security 

controls had been in place.32 The FCC should explore how to 

encourage voluntary efforts to improve cybersecurity. 

The FCC should begin a proceeding to establish a voluntary 

cybersecurity certification system that creates market incentives for communications service providers to upgrade their 

network cybersecurity. The FCC should examine additional 

voluntary incentives that could improve cybersecurity as and 

improve education about cybersecurity issues, and including 

international aspects of the issues. A voluntary cybersecurity 

certification program could promote more vigilant network 

security among market participants, increase the security of 

the nation’s communications infrastructure and offer endusers more complete information about their providers’ 

Exhibit 16-D :

The Cyber World
3 2 2 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 6

of physical failures—either malicious or non-malicious—and 

under severe overload. This will allow the FCC to assess the 

ability of next-generation public safety communications systems to withstand direct attacks and to determine if any actions 

should be taken in this regard. 

This proceeding should also examine commercial networks’ 

preparedness to withstand overloads that may occur during 

extraordinary events such as bioterrorism attacks or pandemics. DHS has developed pandemic preparedness best practices 

for network service providers, but adherence to these voluntary 

standards is not tracked. For example, a surge in residential 

broadband network use during a pandemic or other disaster could hinder network performance for critical users and 

applications by hindering the flow of time-sensitive medical and public health information over public networks.This 

proceeding will give the FCC insight into pandemic preparedness in commercial broadband networks. In addition, it will 

yield important information about the susceptibility of such 

networks to severe overloads and how network congestion on 

residential-access networks—particularly in the “last mile”—

may undermine public safety communications and 911 access 

during a pandemic or other large-scale event.34

Recommendation 16.11: The FCC and the National Communications System (NCS) should create priority network access 

and routing for broadband communications. 

Broadband users in the public safety community have no 

system of priority access and routing on broadband networks. 

Such a system is critical to protect time-sensitive, safety-oflife information from loss or delay due to network congestion. 

While technical work is under way to allow the creation of such 

a system, no corresponding set of FCC rules exists to support it. The FCC and the National Communications System 

(NCS) should leverage their experience with the Government 

Emergency Telecommunications Service (GETS) and the 

WPS to jointly develop a system of priority network access and 

traffic routing for national security/emergency preparedness 

(NS/EP) users on broadband communications networks. The 

Executive Branch should consider clarifying a structure for 

agency implementation and delineating responsibilities and 

key milestones; the order should be consistent with national 

policies already in existing presidential documents.The FCC 

and NCS should jointly manage this program. 

Recommendation 16.12: The FCC should explore standards 

for broadband communications reliability and resiliency.

For years, communications networks were designed and 

deployed to achieve “carrier-class” reliability. As the communications infrastructure migrates from older technologies to 

broadband technology, critical communications services will be 

cybersecurity practices. In this proceeding, the FCC should 

consider all measures that will promote confidence in the 

safety and reliability of broadband communications. 33

Recommendation 16.8: The FCC and the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) should create a cybersecurity 

information reporting system (CIRS). 

The FCC, other government partners and ISPs lack “situational awareness” to allow them to respond in a coordinated, 

decisive fashion to cyber attacks on communications infrastructure. The FCC and DHS’s Office of Cybersecurity and 

Communications together should develop an IP network CIRS 

to accompany the existing Disaster Information Reporting 

System. CIRS will be an invaluable tool for monitoring cybersecurity and providing decisive responses to cyberattacks. 

CIRS should be designed to disseminate information rapidly 

to participating providers during major cyber events. CIRS 

should be crafted as a real-time voluntary monitoring system 

for cyber events affecting the communications infrastructure. 

The FCC should act as a trusted facilitator to ensure any sharing is reciprocated and that the system is structured so ISP 

proprietary information remains confidential. 

Recommendation 16.9: The FCC should expand its international participation and outreach. 

The FCC should increase its participation in domestic and 

international fora addressing international cybersecurity 

activities and issues. It should also engage in dialogues and 

partnerships with regulatory authorities addressing cybersecurity matters in other countries. This should include outreach to 

foreign communications regulators and international organizations about elements of the National Broadband Plan (see 

Chapter 4 which discusses international outreach). The FCC 

should also continue to review other nations’ and organizations’ cybersecurity activities so it is better aware of those 

activities as they relate to U.S. domestic policies. And it should 

continue to participate in domestic initiatives that relate to 

cybersecurity activities in the international arena. 

Critical Infrastructure Survivability 

Recommendation 16.10: The FCC should explore network 

resilience and preparedness.

Simultaneous failure of or damage to several IP network 

facilities or routers could halt traffic between major metropolitan areas or between national security and public safety offices. 

Because many companies colocate equipment, damage to certain buildings could affect a large amount of broadband traffic, 

including NG 911 communications. The FCC should begin an 

inquiry into the resilience of broadband networks under a set 
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 6

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 3 2 3

carried over a communications network that may or may not be 

built to these high standards. The potential decline in service 

reliability is a concern for critical sectors, such as energy and 

public safety, and for consumers in general. The FCC should 

begin an inquiry proceeding to gain a better understanding of the reliability and resiliency standards being applied 

to broadband networks. The proceeding should examine the 

standards and practices applied to broadband infrastructure at 

all layers, from applications to facilities. Its objective should be 

to determine what action, if any, the FCC should take to bolster 

reliability of broadband infrastructure.

16.3 LEVERAGING 

BROADBAND

TECHNOLOGIES TO

ENHANCE EMERGENCY 

COMMUNICATIONS

with THE PUBLIC

The Move to Next Generation 911

The nation’s 911 system is evolving toward supporting NG911, 

which will integrate the core functions and capabilities of 

Enhanced 911 (E911) while adding new 911 capabilities in multiple formats, such as texting, photos, video and e-mail. NG911 

also will integrate entities involved in emergency response 

beyond the PSAP (see Exhibit 16-E.). This will vastly improve 

the quality and speed of response, giving all callers—including people with disabilities—equal service. The possibility of 

sending video and photographs to the PSAP will transcend 

language barriers and provide eyewitness-quality information 

to give first responders the most relevant information at the 

scene of an emergency. NG911 will provide a more interoperable and integrated emergency response capability for PSAPs, 

first responders, hospitals and other emergency response 

professionals. 

The four fundamental purposes of NG911 are to:

➤ Replace the E911 system while retaining its core functions, 

such as automatic location information and automatic 

number identification.

➤ Add capabilities to support 911 access in multiple formats 

for all types of originating service providers, application 

developers and device manufacturers.

➤ Increase system flexibility, redundancy and efficiency for 

PSAPs and 911 governing authorities.

➤ Add capabilities to integrate and interoperate with entities 

involved in emergency response beyond the PSAP.

Broadband will make it possible for PSAPs to push and 

pull video, images, medical information, environmental 

Exhibit 16-E :

Call Flow in NG91135
3 2 4 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 6

Exhibit 16-F :

NG911 Will Enable 

the Public to Access 

911 Through Text 

Messaging (SMS) and 

Other Formats

Exhibit 16-G :

Physical Architectures 

of Current and NextGeneration 911
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 6

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 3 2 5

sensor transmissions and a host of other data through shared 

databases and networks. This will make it easier for the public—including persons with disabilities—to access 911 services. 

Users will be able to transmit voice, text or images to PSAPs 

from a variety of broadband-capable devices. 

Using Broadband to Bridge the Gap to NG911 

Many in the public safety community lack access to broadband 

services.36 Some PSAPs are located in areas where broadband 

communications are unavailable.37 Many PSAPs cannot afford 

broadband connectivity, and existing grant programs are not 

focused on long-term funding activities. Further, regulatory 

roadblocks have hindered NG911 deployment. A more efficient 

transition needs to be developed to support these services.

The transition from the legacy 911 system to NG911 has 

begun. Public safety and industry standards organizations 

have reached a consensus on NG911 technical architecture to 

meet demands posed by new forms of technology and methods 

of communication. The U.S. Department of Transportation 

(DOT) has published a transition plan for NG911 migration.38

Several states and localities have begun deploying NG911. At 

least one ongoing live test of 911 texting is underway39 (see 

Exhibit 16-F).

Yet financial and regulatory barriers hinder NG911 

implementation. Grant programs that support NG911 are 

uncoordinated and limited in scope. Inconsistent, overlapping and outdated state and federal regulations have slowed 

NG911 development. 

It is critical that the NG911 system is developed in a way 

that most effectively ensures Americans can access 911 systems 

anytime and anyplace. (see Exhibit 16-G for differences between 

the architecture of current legacy 911 and NG911 systems.) 

Further, the NG911 system must be able to quickly communicate 

caller-generated information to first responders. U.S. policy on 

NG911 should focus on fosteringrapid transition from analog, 

voice-centric 911 and emergency communications systems to a 

broadband-enabled, IP-based emergency services model.

Recommendation 16.13: The National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA) should prepare a report to 

identify the costs of deploying a nationwide NG911 System 

and recommend that Congress allocate public funding. 

The lack of coordinated funding is a significant roadblock 

for NG911 deployment. Several agencies administer existing 

grant and loan programs without any central coordination or 

uniform criteria.40 Moreover, limited information has been 

developed on the potential cost of NG911 implementation. 

Though DOT estimated in mid-2008 that the total cost of 

implementing and operating a nationwide NG911 system over 

the next 20 years would be $82 to $87 billion,41 the country 

requires a more detailed and targeted report to help Congress 

develop a grant program. A NHTSA analysis should determine detailed costs for specific NG911 requirements and 

specifications, and specify how costs would be broken out 

geographically or allocated among PSAPs, broadband service 

providers and third-party providers of NG911 services. The 

NHTSA report should also address the current state of NG911 

readiness among PSAPs and how differences in PSAP access to 

broadband across the country may affect costs. 

Congress should consider providing public funding for 

NHTSA to analyze the costs of deploying a nationwide NG911 

system. The report should be completed by Dec. 1, 2011. It 

should include a technical analysis and cost study of different 

delivery platforms—such as wireline, wireless and satellite—and an assessment of the architectural characteristics, 

feasibility and limitations of NG911 delivery. The report also 

should include an analysis of the needs of persons with disabilities and should identify standards and protocols for NG911 and 

for incorporating VoIP and “Real Time Text” standards.43 The 

report should be a resource for Congress as it considers creating a coordinated, long-term funding mechanism for NG911 

deployment and operation, accessibility, application development, equipment procurement and training. This analysis is 

essential to identify funding requirements for the implementation of NG911.

Iowa 911 Call Center Becomes 

First to Accept Texts42

An emergency call center in 

Black Hawk County, Iowa, became the first in the nation to 

accept text messages sent to 

“911” in August 2009. “I think 

there’s a need to get out 

front and get this technology 

available,” Black Hawk County 

police chief Thomas Jennings 

told the Associated Press. 

Black Hawk County’s system 

is designed so people with 

speech and hearing impediments can text 911 for emergency services. It eliminates 

the cumbersome process of 

having a deaf person using a 

keyboard to write a message, 

which is then delivered via a 

relay center to the operator 

answering the call. An added 

advantage is that 911 operators can text back. 

While voice communication is still the primary 

method for 911 communications, this new wave of Next 

Generation 911 capability is 

just one example of the way 

the nation is modernizing its 

911 system to better serve 

the public.

BOX 16-2:
3 2 6 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 6

Recommendation 16.14: Congress should consider enacting of federal NG911 regulatory framework. 

Federal and state regulations that focus on legacy 911 systems 

have hampered NG911 deployment.44 Many rules were written 

when the technological capabilities of NG911 did not exist.45

Congress should consider establishing a federal legal and regulatory framework for development of NG911 and the transition 

from legacy 911 to NG911 networks. This framework should remove jurisdictional barriers and inconsistent legacy regulations 

and provide legal mechanisms to ensure efficient and accurate 

transmission of 911 caller information to emergency response 

agencies. Without such a comprehensive framework and a 

funding mechanism, it is unlikely all Americans will receive the 

benefits of NG911 in the near term. 

The legislation should recognize existing state authority 

over 911 services but require states to remove regulatory roadblocks to NG911 development. It should also give the FCC the 

authority to implement a NG911 federal regulatory framework, 

eliminate outdated 911 regulations at the federal level and preempt inconsistent state regulations. This legislation should be 

coordinated with the NHTSA report to ensure federal regulation of NG911 is consistent. 

Congress should also consider steps to curtail Tribal, 

state and local use of 911 funds for purposes other than 911. 

In the FCC’s “Report to Congress on State Collection and 

Distribution of 911 and Enhanced 911 Fees and Charges” for 

the year ending Dec. 31, 2008, some states reported that 911/

E911 funds collected at the state level are or may be used, at 

least in part, to support non-911 and E911 programs. 

Congress should also consider amending and reauthorizing 

the ENHANCE 911 Act and restoring the E911 Implementation 

Coordination Office (ICO) with appropriate funding. ICO can 

build upon its prior work with wireless and IP-enabled 911 

services and help ensure NG911 is deployed in an interoperable 

and reliable fashion.

Recommendation 16.15: The FCC should address IP-based 

NG911 communications devices, applications and services.

The FCC is considering changes to its location accuracy 

requirements and the possible extension of Automatic Location 

Identification (ALI) requirements to interconnected VoIP 

services.46 The FCC should expand this proceeding to explore 

how NG911 may affect location accuracy and ALI.

The current 911 system will also need to be re-evaluated as 

broadband-based communications continue to proliferate. The 

911 system mainly provides a voice-centric communications 

platform between the public and 911 operators. However, the 

deployment of different types of communications, devices, applications and services has meant consumers are changing their 

expectations about how they can access 911. Many consumers, for 

example, already have come to expect they may send non-voice 

communications, such as short text messages and multimedia 

messages, to PSAPs. But PSAPs typically cannot receive such 

communications. The national strategy for NG911 deployment 

should be designed to meet future consumer expectations.

New broadband-based devices and applications may not 

offer the traditional voice and “call” capabilities that wireless 

or VoIP phones do today. Thus, consumers may assume they 

can reach PSAPs via various IP-based communications modes. 

Non-voice methods of communicating with 911 would have 

the added benefit of promoting accessibility to 911 for nonEnglish-speaking persons and persons with disabilities. Thus, 

the FCC should initiate an additional proceeding to address 

how NG911 can accommodate communications technologies, 

networks and architectures beyond traditional voice-centric 

devices. It should also explore how public expectations may 

evolve in terms of the communications platforms the public 

would rely upon to request emergency services.

Moving Toward Next-Generation Alerting

Building on today’s emergency alerting technology, FEMA 

has taken steps to develop an Integrated Public Alert and 

Warning System (IPAWS) that will lead to a next-generation 

public alert and warning system.48 The IPAWS vision is to 

build and maintain an effective, reliable, integrated, flexible 

and comprehensive system that allows Americans to receive 

alert and warning information through as many communication pathways as possible.49 But in a September 2009 

report, GAO identified a number of challenges with IPAWS 

implementation, including some related to the inclusion of 

new technologies,50 stakeholder coordination51 and technical issues.52 States and localities need additional resources to 

upgrade their alerting operations to effectively access IPAWS. 

Emergency Alert 

System Saves Lives in 

American Samoa47

On Sept. 29, 2009, an 8.1 

magnitude earthquake triggered a tsunami in American 

Samoa—the biggest earthquake of that year. KKHJ, the 

primary station in American 

Samoa’s Emergency Alert 

System, issued 2 EAS alerts—

one after the earthquake hit 

and a second when waters in 

Pago Pago Harbor began to 

rise. This EAS alert warned 

residents to evacuate the 

area. Upon receiving the alert, 

a pastor from the village of 

Amanave rang his church 

bells, providing a further 

warning to locals to evacuate the area. Although more 

than 180 people perished in 

the earthquake and tsunami, 

the early warning system is 

credited with saving lives. 

BOX 16-3:
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 6

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 3 2 7

Further, the federal government should disseminate information about IPAWS development and deployment.

Recommendation 16.16: The FCC should launch a comprehensive next-generation alert system inquiry.

The FCC should quickly begin a proceeding exploring all 

issues for developing a multiple-platform, redundant nextgeneration alert system. Next-generation alerting should 

include delivery of emergency alerts throughout the nation 

via broadband. The inquiry should consider Emergency Alert 

System (EAS) and Commercial Mobile Alert Service (CMAS) 

developments, as well as FEMA’s development of IPAWS. It 

also should consider all potential multiplatform technologies, 

including the use of emergency alerts via video programming 

on the Internet. The inquiry should determine how best to 

ensure all Americans can receive timely and accurate alerts, 

warnings and critical information about emergencies regardless of the communications technologies used.

The FCC has not yet begun a wide-ranging inquiry into 

next-generation alerting. Such an inquiry can bridge the gap 

from the current EAS and CMAS systems to a comprehensive 

next-generation alerting system by detailing an implementation strategy. Such a proceeding should be initiated.

Next-generation technologies will transform the information delivery capabilities of both EAS and CMAS. They can 

also increase the effectiveness of alerts during emergencies. 

Emergency managers could provide alerts to communities 

now served poorly—such as persons with disabilities and 

non-English speakers—and provide improved alert file “trails” 

containing valuable information, such as full-motion videos 

of radar-tracked storm systems. Emergency alerts in Internet 

video format would allow emergency alert originators to reach 

people who are not, at the time, listening to broadcast radio 

and television or other current sources of alerts. Providing 

alternative methods for distributing emergency alerts to all 

Americans will save lives. However, the systems that assemble, manage and transmit alerts will need to be upgraded to 

accommodate broadband. 

The system should alert the public of emergencies through 

all possible means of communications. In the event of a tornado, for example, alerts would be broadcast on local media 

outlets, sent to wireless and wireline phones within the affected area, posted on Internet feeds and websites sites, and 

issued through any other communication outlet serving the 

affected area. That would ensure the public is informed of an 

emergency and has the information it needs to protect itself. 

The FCC’s inquiry should focus primarily on how to develop 

such a system.

FEMA’s development of IPAWS should help ensure that a 

ubiquitous alert transmission system is available to accommodate multiple alert platforms and participation by all federal, 

state, Tribal, local and private sector alert stakeholders. There 

also needs to be a comprehensive evaluation of the ability of 

alert managers to participate in IPAWS when launched.

A comprehensive inquiry will allow the FCC to obtain input 

on the alerting system’s future and to form a new regulatory 

framework for next-generation alerting. This inquiry should 

focus on the wide-ranging technical, legal and policy issues associated with this new multi-platform system. The proceeding 

should analyze the developing IPAWS architecture to evaluate the ability of IPAWS to support a broadband-based, next 

generation alert system. The inquiry also should examine the 

needs of state, Tribal and local emergency alert originators 

in utilizing the next-generation alerting system; what assistance, if any, the FCC and its federal partners should provide 

to address those needs; and what actions the FCC and federal 

partners should take to ensure the system’s timely development and deployment.

Recommendation 16.17: The Executive Branch should 

clarify agency roles on the implementation and maintenance of a next-generation alert and warning system.

The Executive Branch through an interagency policy council 

or through a directive should take action by executive order, 

federal interagency policy committee or other formal means, to 

clarify the responsibilities of each federal agency in the implementation, maintenance and administration of next generation 

alerting systems. This action should also set milestones, benchmarks and necessary actions for implementation and establish 

a system of accountability among the federal agencies responsible for emergency alerting.
3 2 8 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 6

c h a p t e r 1 6 E n d n o t e s 

1 Under this approach, for example, the public safety 

licensee(s) is afforded the flexibility to enter into 

agreements with commercial partners for construction 

and operation of their 700 MHz network.

2 Based on the results of the 2006 National 

Interoperability Baseline Survey, the 2007 UASI 

Tactical Interoperability scorecards, and 2008/2009 

information provided by each state regarding its 

Statewide Communications Interoperability Plans, 

it is possible to estimate that a majority of the UASIs 

and states are at approximately an intermediate level 

of interoperability. See generally Dep’t of Homeland

Sec., 2006 National Interoperability Baseline Survey

(2006), available at http://www.safecomprogram.

gov/NR/rdonlyres/40E2381C-5D30-4C9C-AB81-

9CBC2A478028/0/2006NationalInteroperability

BaselineSurvey.pdf; Dep’t Homeland Sec., Tactical

Interoperable Communications Scorecards Summary

Report and Findings (2007), available at http://

www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/grants-scorecardreport-010207.pdf; Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 

National Summary of Statewide Communication

Interoperability Plans (SCIPs) (2009), available at

http://www.safecomprogram.gov/NR/rdonlyres/

C6C0CD6A-0A15-4110-8BD4-B1D8545F0425/0/

NationalSummaryofSCIPs_February2009.pdf. As 

set forth in the Goals of the National Emergency 

Communications Plan, DHS plans to assess each of the 

nation’s 60 largest urban areas’ ability to clearly achieve 

response-level communications by September 30, 2010, 

and will evaluate each of the more than 3,000 counties 

in the United States by September 30, 2011. See Dep’t of

Homeland Sec., National Emergency Communications

Plan 6–7 (2008), available at http://www.dhs.gov/

xlibrary/assets/national_emergency_communications_

plan.pdf. 

3 Eur. Telecomm. Standards Inst. [ETSI], Project 

MESA; Technical Specification Group—System; System 

and Network Architecture, at 20, ETSI TR 102 653 

V3.1.1 (2007–2008), available at http://www.etsi.org/

deliver/etsi_tr/102600_102699/102653/03.01.01_60/

tr_102653v030101p.pdf.

4 See Implementing a Nationwide, Broadband, 

Interoperable Public Safety Network in the 700 MHz 

Band, PS Docket No. 06-229, Second Report and Order, 

22 FCC Rcd 15289 (2007). 

5 Comments submitted in the Commission’s 700 MHz 

D block proceeding suggest a number of possible 

explanations. See, e.g., Association of Public Safety 

Communications Officials-International, Inc. (APCO) 

Comments in re 700 MHz Third Further Notice (Service 

Rules for the 698–746, 747–762 and 777–792 Bands; 

Implementing a Nationwide, Broadband, Interoperable 

Public Safety Network in the 700 MHz Band, WT Docket 

No. 06-150, PS Docket No. 06-229, Third Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 23 FCC Rcd 16661 

(2008) (700 MHz Third Further Notice)), filed June 20, 

2008, at 3; Verizon Wireless Comments in re 700 MHz 

Third Further Notice, filed June 20, 2008, at 2 .

6 The record includes proposals, for example, for public 

safety agencies to use existing core infrastructure while 

individuating end-user devices and other aspects of the 

edge network to meet public safety requirements, and 

also to employ satellite, aircraft or other technologies 

to extend coverage to rural areas. See, e.g., Letter from 

Lucian Randolph, CEO, Planet TV Air-Tower Systems, 

to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC GN Docket No. 

09-51, (Nov. 12, 2009) (Planet TV Nov. 12, 2009 Ex 

Parte) at 9; Space Data Reply in re National Broadband 

Plan NOI, filed July 21, 2009, at 3; Iridium Satellite 

Comments in re National Broadband Plan NOI, filed 

June 8, 2009, at 4–5; MSS/ATC Coalition Comments in 

re National Broadband Plan NOI, filed June 8, 2009, at 

5–6; Spacenet Inc. Comments in re National Broadband 

Plan NOI, filed June 8, 2009, at 9. The Commission 

should also explore how to best meet public safety 

requirements through a variety of means, including the 

use of commercial infrastructure to be procured by the 

public safety broadband licensee.

7 This serves the added purpose of allowing the public 

safety licensee(s) to leverage infrastructures that 

utilities might currently have. Therefore, access to 

utilities’ towers and other structures may be part of any 

secondary usage program. 

8 See, e.g., APCO Comments in re NBP PN #8, (Additional 

Comment Sought on Public Safety, Homeland Security, 

and Cybersecurity Elements of National Broadband 

Plan—NBP Public Notice #8, GN Docket Nos. 09-47, 

09-51, 09-137, PS Docket Nos. 06-229, 07-100, 07-114, 

WT Docket No. 06-150, CC Docket No. 94-102, WC 

Docket No. 05-196, Public Notice, 24 FCC Rcd 12136 

(PSHSB 2009) (NBP PN #8)) filed Nov. 12, 2009, at 

11; AT&T Comments in re NBP PN #8, filed Nov. 12, 

2009, at 2; Verizon and Verizon Wireless Comments in 

re NBP PN #8, filed Nov. 12, 2009, at 6; Public Safety 

Spectrum Trust Comments in re 700 MHz Public Safety 

Broadband Networks Waiver PN (Public Safety and 

Homeland Security Bureau Seeks Comment on Petitions 

for Waiver to Deploy 700 MHz Public Safety Broadband 

Networks, PS Docket No. 06-229, Public Notice, DA 

09-1819 (rel. Aug. 4, 2009) (700 MHz Public Safety 

Broadband Networks Waiver PN) at 11. 

9 See New and Emerging Technologies 911 Improvement 

Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-283, 122 Stat. 2620 (2008) 

(NET 911 Act) amending Wireless Communications and 

Public Safety Act of 1999, Pub.L. No. 106-81, 113 Stat. 

1286 (1999) (Wireless 911 Act).

10 To the extent that other users are permitted on a public 

safety network, ERIC will also be responsible for 

working on establishing common priorities.

11 ERIC’s mission can also be extended over time to serve 

other functions, such as coordinating PSAP access to 

the network and improving interoperability for mission 

critical voice. 

12 The FCC should consider a membership comprised 

of representatives of state and local public safety 

agencies, public safety trade associations, the Public 

Safety Spectrum Trust, federal user groups, and 

SAFECOM. The FCC should also consider appropriate 

representation from industry representatives and 

representatives of equipment vendors and service 

providers. The FCC should also establish a federal 

partners coordinating committee that includes DHS, 

the Department of Justice, NIST and the National 

Telecommunications and Information Administration 

(NTIA) and that leverages the Emergency 

Communications Preparedness Center (ECPC). 

13 This includes 20 new engineering and technical 

personnel, travel and office expenses, computing and 

simulation equipment and contracting with NIST for 

standards development and testing. Omnibus Broadband

Initiative, The Public Safety Broadband Wireless

Network (forthcoming) (OBI, The Public Safety

Broadband Wireless Network).

14 This advisory committee should be made exempt 

from the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Secondly, 

Congress should ensure appropriate funding for ERIC to 

enable the FCC to pay for reasonable travel expenses of 

the public safety advisory committee members.

15 Under this model, public safety entities, as authorized by 

the FCC, should be allowed to select entities they want 

to partner with to construct and operate their networks, 

consistent with FCC, including ERIC, requirements.

16 Many state and local jurisdictions have enacted 

regulations requiring the installation of transmitters 

or other equipment within buildings to improve inbuilding coverage for public safety narrowband voice 

networks. State and local governments should consider 

implementing similar in-building coverage requirements 

for public safety broadband communications. 

17 To achieve the 99% population coverage, externally 

mounted antennas are assumed for use in highly rural 

areas of the country.

18 The cost basis for this funding request will be released 

subsequently in an OBI, The Public Safety Broadband

Wireless Network . These capital costs include 

leveraging approximately 41,600 commercially 

deployed sites, 3,200 rural sites (a blend of new and 

upgraded sites, with vehicles being mounted with 

externally deployed antennas), hardening of all sites, 

and providing deployable caches of equipment at the 

state and local level.

19 This figure is based on an annual RAN fee for managed 

services, additional costs for rural services and an annual 

OA&M including transport managed services fee. OBI, 

The Public Safety Broadband Wireless Network.

20 Most of these jobs will be in services and operations, 

while a smaller percentage will be in product 

development and manufacturing. OBI, The Public

Safety Broadband Wireless Network.

21 Such a fee should be modest. Operating expenses for the 

first 2 years of network operation are estimated at $500 

million. 

22 See 6 U.S.C. § 575. This statute mandates the formation 

of RECC working groups, id. at § 575(a), and charges 

them with, among other duties, “assessing the 

survivability, sustainability and interoperability of local 

emergency communications systems.” Id. at § 575(d)(1). 

This section does not direct the working groups to focus 

on broadband infrastructure. 

23 These surveys should include information to be provided 

to ERIC on the current status of interoperability for the 

public safety broadband network.
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 6

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 3 2 9

c h a p t e r 1 6 E n d n o t e s 

24 FCC, FCC Preparedness for Major Public Emergencies, 

Chairman’s 30 Day Review (2009), available at http://

hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC293332A1.pdf.

25 See Letter from Diane Cornell, Vice President of 

Government Affairs, Inmarsat, to Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary, FCC, GN Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 09-137, 

WC Docket No. 02-60 (Dec. 4, 2009) at 7.

26 See 47 U.S.C. § 5172(a)(1)(B); Office of the President, 

The Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina: 

Lessons Learned 58–59 (2006), available at http://

georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/reports/katrinalessons-learned.pdf.

27 Ann Arnold, President, Tex. Ass’n of Broadcasters, 

Statement at FCC Summit: Lessons Learned: Hurricane 

Seasons 2008 (Dec. 11, 2008) available at http://www.

fcc.gov/realaudio/mt121108.ram (1:00:35).

28 For-profit entities should be deemed eligible for 

assistance only when the need for their services exceeds 

the capabilities of the private sector and any relevant 

state, Tribal and local governments, or relates to an 

immediate threat to life and property, is critical to 

disaster response or community safety, or relates to 

essential federal recovery measures.

29 See Mike McConnell, Op.-Ed., Mike McConnell on How 

to Win the Cyber-War We’re Losing, Wash. Post, Feb. 

28, 2010, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/

content/article/2010/02/25/AR2010022502493.html. 

(McConnell, How to Win the Cyber-War).

30 McConnell, How to Win the Cyber-War.

31 Steven Chabinsky, Deputy Ass’t Director-Cyber 

Division, Fed. Bureau of Investigation (FBI), 

Testimony before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, 

Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security 

(Nov. 17, 2009). The FBI considers the cyber threat 

against the nation to be “one of the greatest concerns of 

the 21st century.” Id.

32 Verizon Business, 2008 Data Breach Investigations

Report 2–3 (2008), available at http://www.

verizonbusiness.com/resources/security/

databreachreport.pdf.

33 The Commission will have to allocate funding to obtain 

a vendor to develop audit criteria and to accredit thirdparty certification bodies. Congress should consider 

public funding for the FCC in its next budget and on an 

ongoing basis as required.

34 In fact, estimates of residential-access network capacity 

suggest that current networks can carry between 1/100 

and 1/10 of their advertised per-user capacity. See also

AT&T Comments in re National Broadband Plan NOI, 

filed June 8, 2009, at 67–69; Telcordia Comments in re 

National Broadband Plan NOI, filed June 8, 2009, at 19.

35 Research and Innovative Tech. Admin., Next Generation 

911 Concept of Operations, Fig. 4-2, http://www.its.dot.

gov/ng911/pubs/concept_operations.htm (last visited 

Feb. 15, 2010).

36 See generally NENA Comments in re NBP PN #8, filed 

Nov. 12, 2009.

37 PSST Comments in re NBP PN #8, filed Nov. 12, 2009, 

at 2.

38 U.S. Dep’t of Transp., Next Generation 911 (NG9-1-1) 

System Initiative, Final Analysis of Cost, Value, and

Risk (Mar. 5, 2009) (DOT NG911 Cost Study).

39 Intrado Comments in re NBP PN #8, filed Nov. 12, 

2009, at 11.

40 For instance, through the 911 Access Program, the Rural 

Utilities Service provides low-interest loans to state and 

local governments, Indian tribes and other entities for 

facilities and equipment to improve 911 access in rural 

areas. Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, Pub. 

L. No. 110-246, §6107, 122 Stat. 1651, 1959 (2008); see

E911 Grant Program, 74 Fed. Reg 29,967 (June 5, 2009).

41 U.S. Dep’t of Transp., Next Generation 911 (NG9-1-1) 

System Initiative, Final Analysis of Cost, Value, and

Risk (Mar. 5, 2009) (DOT NG911 Cost Study).

42 See Peter Svensson, Iowa 911 Call Center Becomes 

First to Accept Texts, ABC News, Aug. 5, 2009, http://

abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=8259735 .

43 Real-Time Text is a feature that allows users to see text 

as it is typed into a text interface.

44 NENA Comments in re NBP PN #8, filed Nov. 12, 2009, 

at 18–20.

45 See NENA Comments in re NBP PN #8, filed Nov. 12, 

2009, at 18–20.

46 See Wireless E911 Location Accuracy Requirements; 

Revision of the Commission’s Rules to Ensure 

Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling 

Systems; 911 Requirements for IP-Enabled Service 

Providers, PS Docket No. 07-114, CC Docket No. 94-102, 

WC Docket No. 05-196, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

22 FCC Rcd 10609 (2007).

47 See Federal Emergency Management Agency, 

Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS): 

Success Stories, http://www.fema.gov/emergency/

ipaws/successstories.shtm (last visited Mar. 5, 2010) 

(IPAWS Success Stories).

48 See Federal Emergency Management Agency, 

Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS), 

http://www.fema.gov/emergency/ipaws/ (last visited 

Feb. 15, 2010).

49 GAO, Emergency Preparedness: Improved Planning

and Coordination Necessary for Modernization and

Integration of Public Alert and Warning System

14 (2009) (GAO Emergency Preparedness Report), 

available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09834.pdf

(noting that capabilities to distribute emergency alerts 

and warnings through e-mails, telephones, text message 

devices, cell phones, pagers and Internet-connected 

desktops have not been implemented).

50 GAO Emergency Preparedness Report at 20–24.

51 GAO Emergency Preparedness Report at 24–26. 

Challenges identified by GAO included lack of 

redundancy, gaps in coverage, systems integration, 

standards development, development of geo-targeted 

alerting and alerts for people with disabilities and those 

who do not speak English. In response to the report, 

the DHS agreed with GAO’s recommendations for 

addressing these concerns and has begun to address 

many of these challenges. See Written Statement of 

Damon Penn, Assistant Administrator, FEMA before 

the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 

Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public 

Buildings and Emergency Management, U.S. 

House of Representatives (Sept. 30, 2009), http://

republicans.transportation.house.gov/Media/file/

TestimonyEDPB/2009-09-30-Penn.pdf.

52 See Radio World, EAS Trigger Saved Lives in Samoa 

Tsunami (Sept. 20, 2009), http://www.radioworld.

com/article/87954; Bill Hoffman, Lucky To Be Alive 

After Tsunami Destroys Dream Resort, New Zealand

Herald, Oct. 1, 2009, available at http://www.

nzherald.co.nz/american-samoa/news/article.cfm?l_

id=500605&objectid=10600668.

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 3 3 1

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 7

IMPLEMENTATION

AND BENCHMARKS

c h a p t e r 1 7

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 3 3 3

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 7

This plan is in beta, and always will be.

Like the Internet itself, this plan will always be changing—adjusting to new developments in 

technologies and markets, reflecting new realities and evolving to realize previously unforeseen opportunities.

The plan is both a “noun” and a “verb.”1 Of course, the “noun”—the 

March 2010 version of this plan—will be forever available, preserved deep in caches and crawled by search engines. The “verb,” 

though, will be forever alive—updated regularly and driven by new 

data, analysis and scenarios that the “noun” could not foresee.2

Implementation of this National Broadband Plan requires 

a long-term commitment to measuring progress and adjusting programs and policies to improve performance. It requires 

periodic assessments of where the country stands in broadband 

deployment, adoption and utilization; in competition across 

networks, devices and applications; and in how effectively national priorities embrace the power of broadband.

But evaluation is not an excuse for paralysis. Actions and 

their results matter most to capturing the opportunities broadband presents.

This plan recommends significant action by the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC), the Executive Branch and 

Congress and a strong partnership among all broadband stakeholders. Federal action is necessary, but state, local and Tribal 

governments, corporations and community-based organizations 

must all do their part to build a high-performance America.

RECOMMENDATIONS

➤ The Executive Branch should create a Broadband Strategy 

Council to coordinate the implementation of National Broadband Plan recommendations.

➤ The FCC should quickly publish a timetable of proceedings to 

implement plan recommendations within its authority, publish an evaluation of plan progress and effectiveness as part 

of the annual Section 706 Advanced Services Inquiry, create 

a Broadband Data Depository and continue to utilize Broadband.gov as a public resource for broadband information.

➤ The FCC should publish a Broadband Performance Dashboard with metrics designed to track broadband plan goals.

17.1 IMPLEMENTATION 

More than 20 other nations have published national broadband plans. Their implementation efforts highlight the 

importance of a long-term commitment and coordination 

across multiple institutions.

International Lessons

Many countries have depended on long-term and high-level 

coordination and collaboration efforts across government to 

implement their broadband plans. For example, in the mid1990s South Korea created a durable structure for long-term 

broadband policy planning by passing a law requiring publication of a national broadband strategy every five years (along 

with annual implementation plans).3

 Since then, South Korea 

has published three master plans, some with multiple versions.4

The statutory obligation to produce new plans every five years 

has ensured that successive political administrations have 

made broadband a national priority.

South Korea’s Prime Minster chairs the Informatization 

Promotion Committee (IPC), the entity responsible for 

implementing South Korea’s broadband plans.5

 The IPC’s 

membership includes 24 ministerial-level representatives, 

thereby fostering intragovernmental coordination.6 Member 

ministries submit annual implementation plans to the IPC 

for approval.7

Japan provides another example of successful long-term 

implementation. Japan created an IT Strategy Headquarters 

to oversee the execution of its broadband strategies, beginning 

with the e-Japan Strategy of 2001.8

 Japan’s Prime Minister 

chairs the IT Strategy Headquarters. It also is composed of 

ministers across agencies with responsibility for broadband 

policy.9 The IT Strategy Headquarters conducts an annual 

review of broadband policy priorities and directs the implementation of plan recommendations by government agencies, 

local governments and independent institutions.10

The United Kingdom has also established a high-level 

coordinating body to implement broadband strategy. In June 

2009, the U.K. government published Digital Britain, its first 

broadband plan.11 Soon after Digital Britain was published, the 

U.K. government published an implementation plan providing 

for a cross-agency coordination staff and a dedicated legislative 
3 3 4 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 7

affairs group.12 The implementation plan also created a 

Programme Board, responsible for policy proposals, monitoring 

progress and ensuring value for the public’s financial investment.13 Recognizing the importance of keeping stakeholders 

and the public informed of plan progress, the U.K. government 

also periodically releases implementation updates.14

Recommendation 17.1: The Executive Branch should create a Broadband Strategy Council to coordinate the implementation of National Broadband Plan recommendations.

The FCC is the focus of approximately half of the plan’s 

recommendations and the National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration (NTIA) the President’s advisor for 

telecommunications policy, has responsibility for many actions 

in the plan. Most of the remaining proposals are directed at 

other Executive Branch agencies. The Executive Branch should 

create an entity accountable to ensure implementation across, 

and foster effective coordination among the multiple agencies 

targeted by specific recommendations and engage senior-level 

officials in these efforts.

This proposed Broadband Strategy Council (BSC) could include senior officials from the White House Office of Science and 

Technology Policy, the National Economic Council and the Office 

of Management and Budget. The BSC’s membership could also include high-level personnel drawn from the FCC, NTIA and other 

agencies with key roles in implementing plan recommendations.15

The BSC could also rely on the President’s Council of Advisors on 

Science and Technology for external input and support.

Charter of the Broadband Strategy Council

This plan contains recommendations directed at more than 20 

agencies. To ensure timely and effective implementation, the 

BSC should be given direct responsibility for managing the execution of the plan’s recommendations to the Executive Branch.

The President could require that Executive Branch departments and agencies submit project plans to the BSC 

on proposed steps to implement plan recommendations. 

Additionally, the BSC could track recommendations requiring 

congressional action with the FCC and legislative affairs offices 

in the Executive Branch.

Today, the responsibility for broadband-related government 

policy and programs is spread across many federal agencies as 

well as state, Tribal and local governments. Successful implementation of the recommendations in this plan will intensify 

the need for coordination among these actors. The BSC should 

create a forum for relevant agencies to discuss broadband policy, assign responsibility for joint duties, share best practices 

and coordinate broadband funding so that broadband-related 

government spending has maximum economies of scale and 

maximum impact.16

Recommendation 17.2: The FCC should quickly publish 

a timetable of proceedings to implement plan recommendations within its authority, publish an evaluation of plan 

progress and effectiveness as part of the annual Section 

706 Advanced Services Inquiry, create a Broadband Data 

Depository, and continue to utilize Broadband.gov as a 

public resource for broadband information.

The FCC is responsible for implementing approximately 

half of the plan’s recommendations. It should quickly publish 

a timetable of proceedings for implementing broadband plan 

recommendations directed to the FCC.

Additionally, given the evolving nature of the broadband 

ecosystem, the National Broadband Plan should be periodically 

reviewed and revised to reflect new realities. The FCC should 

conduct a National Broadband Plan strategy review as part of 

its annual Section 706 Advanced Services Inquiry. The review 

should analyze plan progress and effectiveness, and, if necessary, recommend strategic and tactical adjustments that will 

help America meet plan goals. This review should also track the 

implementation of plan recommendations.

FCC data collection and analysis efforts are essential to understanding the effectiveness of plan policies and the progress 

being made toward plan goals. The plan includes recommendations to improve the quality and transparency of this process. 

The FCC should also create a Broadband Data Depository 

on the Internet to give researchers and the public better access 

to the FCC’s data. This will help the FCC serve its essential 

role as a source of independent data on broadband deployment, 

adoption and usage in America. The FCC should have a general 

policy of making the data it collects available to the public, 

ideally over the Internet, except in certain circumstances such 

as when the data are competitively sensitive, protected by 

copyright or classified. Additionally, the FCC should have a 

separate process for allowing researchers access to non-public 

data, subject to certain restrictions.17

The FCC should also continue to utilize Broadband.gov, 

which has been a successful Web portal for communicating 

with the public in an open and interactive fashion about the development of the National Broadband Plan. Going forward, this 

website should serve as a source for tracking the implementation of the plan. It should also serve as a consumer resource 

for information about broadband. In addition to hosting the 

Broadband Performance Dashboard (see Recommendation 

17.3), Broadband.gov should contain updates on the progress 

made in implementing each recommendation, links to the 

National Broadband Map, access to broadband quality tests 

and surveys, details on how to obtain computer literacy education, and links to third-party resources from which consumers 

can purchase broadband. 
F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 3 3 5

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 7

17.2 BENCHMARKING

Measuring the effects of a broadband plan over time is a critical 

challenge. This plan recommends that the FCC track and report several important broadband indicators: how many people 

and businesses have access to broadband, how many subscribe, 

what speeds they get, how much they pay and what they do 

with it.18

In the same spirit as these recommendations, other countries have expanded their broadband data compilation and 

dissemination efforts to provide more information to policymakers and consumers. These efforts include collecting and 

publishing richer information about the extent of broadband 

deployment, utilization and pricing through broadband mapping,19 usage surveys,20 pricing portals21 and broadband quality 

of service measurements.22

In preparing the National Broadband Plan, the FCC used 

existing resources such as data from Broadband Deployment 

Form 477, which was recently updated to include census tractlevel data. The FCC created a broadband deployment model, 

conducted surveys of residential and business broadband consumers and performed a detailed consumer preference analysis 

of consumers’ willingness to pay for broadband services. The 

FCC has also developed tools and mobile applications to collect 

address level and location-based data on actual delivered speed 

over fixed and mobile broadband networks. 

Nevertheless, as recommended in Chapter 4, the FCC needs 

to collect more detailed and accurate data on actual broadband 

availability, penetration, pricing and network performance in 

order to accurately benchmark progress toward plan goals.23

Only with these data inputs can the FCC publish a Broadband 

Performance Dashboard.

Recommendation 17.3: The FCC should publish a Broadband Performance Dashboard with metrics designed to 

track broadband plan goals.

The FCC should publish a Broadband Performance 

Dashboard to supplement the improved data collection process 

recommended in the plan. This dashboard should display key 

progress indicators aligned with plan goals, enable the public to understand important broadband performance metrics 

and clearly communicate plan progress and effectiveness. 

The dashboard should be updated regularly and provide data 

metrics that, track the broadband performance goals detailed 

in Chapter 2. The sample dashboard (see Exhibit 17-A) details 

the metrics that the FCC should collect and analyze in order to 

track progress towards plan goals.

While these fundamental broadband indicators are important, it is equally important to know how broadband affects the 

very core of the economy: innovation, productivity and the way 

people live and work. Measures like broadband availability and 

adoption, while enormously important, cannot provide that 

kind of information. 

The problem is that it is difficult, if not impossible, to know 

how new technologies, like broadband, will ultimately integrate 

themselves into the economy. Measurement bias against new 

technologies by conventional indices makes this even more 

challenging.24 Nobel Laureate Robert Solow famously quipped 

more than a decade ago that “you can see the computer age 

everywhere but in the productivity statistics.”25 Indeed, it was 

not until well after companies began using computers that it 

was possible to statistically attribute any productivity effects to 

computers or information technology.

If this broadband plan is effective, we will see rapid progress in terms of increased adoption, especially by currently 

disadvantaged groups; faster speeds; transitions to electronic 

medical health records and Smart Grids; and better incorporation of broadband into education and government. But none of 

those are ends in themselves. Broadband access by more people 

opens up new opportunities for them, helping them to unleash 

their potential. Faster broadband speeds and better broadband 

quality improve incentives for entrepreneurs to innovate. And 

savings realized by incorporating broadband into existing areas 

like education and health care represent resources that can be 

newly invested elsewhere.

Thus, if we succeed, not only will the indicators that we currently measure improve, but we will also see improvement in 

other areas of the economy and will need to derive new indicators to measure changes in industries and activities that do not 

yet exist. 
3 3 6 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 7

Exhibit 17-A: 

Broadband Goals 

and Performance 

Dashboard Sample

Goals for 2020 (see Chapter 2) Metrics Sources

At least 100 million U.S. homes should have 

affordable access to world-class actual 

download speeds of at least 100 megabits per 

second and actual upload speeds of at least 

50 megabits per second.

The nationwide, and per provider, average 

actual upload and download speeds of broadband networks

FCC network performance 

measurements and provider 

disclosures (See Recs. 4.4–4.6.)

Number of households with access to broadband networks with sufficient speedFuture revisions to Form 477 data 

(See Rec. 4.2.)

The nationwide, and per provider, minimum 

price for a broadband subscription with sufficient speed 

Future revisions to Form 477 data 

(See Rec. 4.2.)

The United States should lead the world in 

mobile innovation, with the fastest and most 

extensive wireless networks of any nation.

MHz of spectrum released since 2010 FCC self-reporting

The nationwide, and per provider, average 

actual upload and download speeds of mobile 

broadband networks, by geographic area

FCC network performance 

measurements and provider 

disclosures (See Recs. 4.4–4.6.)

Percentage of population covered by 3G and 

4G services

Future revisions to Form 477 data 

(See Rec. 4.2)

Percentage of Americans that subscribe to 

mobile broadband services, both overall and 

per socio-economic and demographic groups

FCC consumer surveys 

(Broadband Data Improvement 

Act (BDIA) mandated survey)

Every American should have affordable access 

to robust broadband service and the means 

and skills to subscribe if they so choose.

Percentage of households with access to 

broadband networks with sufficient speed

Future revisions to Form 477 data 

(See Rec. 4.2.)

The nationwide, and per provider, minimum 

price for a broadband subscription with sufficient speeds

Future revisions to Form 477 data 

(See Rec. 4.2.)

Percentage of Americans that subscribe to 

broadband services, both overall and by socioeconomic and demographic group

Future revisions to Form 477 

data, FCC Consumer Surveys 

(See Rec. 4.2), and mandated 

survey26

Percentage of Americans with sufficient digital 

literacy skills

FCC consumer surveys 

(BDIA mandated survey)

Every American community should have affordable access to service of at least 1 gigabit 

per second to anchor institutions such as 

schools, hospitals and government buildings.

Average actual upload and download speeds 

of broadband networks

FCC network performance 

measurements and provider 

disclosures (See Recs. 4.4–4.6.)

Deployment of networks with sufficient speed Future revisions to Form 477 data 

(See Rec. 4.2.)

Percentage of communities with sufficient 

access to broadband

Future revisions to Form 477 data 

(See Rec. 4.2.)

The nationwide, and per provider, minimum 

price for an institutional broadband subscription with sufficient speeds

Future revisions to Form 477 data 

(See Rec. 4.2.)

To ensure the safety of the American people, 

every first responder should have access to a 

nationwide, wireless, interoperable broadband 

public safety network.

Percentage of first responders using the 

nationwide public safety network

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency survey (See Rec. 16.1)

To ensure that America leads in the clean 

energy economy, every American should be 

able to use broadband to track and manage 

their real-time energy consumption.

Percentage of American homes that have 

smart electric meters capable of communicating real-time energy information to consumers

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission metering assessment 

and the Department of Energy 

Smart Grid Systems Report27
F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 3 3 7

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 7

17.3 THE LEGAL 

FRAMEWORK FOR THE

FCC’S IMPLEMENTATION

OF THE PLAN

The plan sets out a strategic vision for America, establishing national goals regarding broadband and recommending 

specific policies to achieve those goals. It does not reach 

conclusions about or explore in detail the many legal issues 

that will be relevant to the FCC’s implementation of the plan. 

These will be addressed through notice-and-comment rulemakings the FCC will conduct following the plan. A variety 

of parties have, however, offered thoughts on the proper legal 

framework for the FCC’s plan implementation. The following 

section provides the relevant background and summarizes 

these comments.

Historically, the FCC treated broadband transmission as a 

common carrier service subject to the statutory requirements 

set forth by Title II of the Communications Act.28 Facilitiesbased carriers that provided “enhanced” or “information” 

services—remote computer applications that allow subscribers 

to access, modify, or interact with information—were required 

to offer on a common carrier basis the underlying transmission 

function known as a “basic” service.29

Beginning in 2002, the FCC adopted a series of orders 

classifying broadband Internet access services as information 

services subject to the FCC’s general jurisdiction under Title 

I of the Communications Act.30 Although the Act does not 

establish specific rules for providers of information services, 

the Supreme Court has held that the Communications Act 

gives the FCC “ancillary authority” to regulate matters that 

fall within its general jurisdiction but are not directly addressed by the substantive provisions of the Act.31 In NCTA v. 

Brand X, the United States Supreme Court held that the FCC’s 

conclusion that cable modem service providers offer only an 

information service was a reasonable interpretation of an 

ambiguous statute.32 The Commission then applied a similar 

analysis to Internet access provided via Digital Subscriber Line 

(DSL),33 broadband over power line,34 and wireless broadband 

technologies,35 classifying all of these as information services. 

These broadband services are not subject to the requirements 

Congress established for common carrier services, unless the 

provider chooses to offer broadband transmission as a standalone telecommunications service.36

Comments in the record include competing views on the 

appropriate legal framework for implementing plan recommendations that involve broadband Internet access services. 

One approach would involve Congress enacting legislation to 

direct or enable the FCC to implement specific plan recommendations. Absent Congressional action, however, parties 

discuss two alternative approaches to plan implementation.

The first suggested approach is to rely on ancillary authority under Title I when promulgating most of the recommended 

rules and regulations regarding broadband. Some parties 

believe that Title I and the doctrine of ancillary authority, together with various other provisions of the Act addressing such 

matters as spectrum, cable television, and universal service, 

provide the FCC sufficient authority to advance broadband 

deployment and adoption, including to establish direct support 

for broadband under the Universal Service Fund’s High Cost, 

Lifeline and Link-Up programs;37 to ensure privacy protections 

regarding sharing of consumers’ personal information;38 and to 

promote accessibility for people with disabilities.39 Others have 

expressed doubts about the adequacy of Title I to support FCC 

efforts to advance broadband goals.40

Some commenters have suggested a second approach, in 

which the FCC would implement certain plan recommendations under its Title II authority, after classifying broadband 

services as telecommunications services. These commenters 

believe such an approach would provide a sounder legal basis 

for establishing direct support for rural broadband under the 

Universal Service Fund’s High Cost program and broadband 

access under the Lifeline and Link-Up programs;41 requiring enhanced disclosures of broadband speed, performance 

and pricing;42 and other plan recommendations, including 

ensuring privacy protections regarding sharing of consumers’ 

personal information.43 Commenters further note that classifying broadband services as telecommunications services would 

not require the application of all requirements of Title II to 

broadband.44 Congress gave the FCC “forbearance authority” 

in section 10 of the Act. Consistent with the comments, this 

forbearance authority would permit the FCC to narrowly tailor 

its use of Title II to advance the policies described above without imposing additional regulatory burdens. To the degree that 

wireless-based broadband is a common carrier service, section 

332 of the Act grants similar authority to forbear.45 Other parties, however, believe that reverting to Title II to implement the 

plan would be unwise policy, contending that Title II is an illfitting, over-regulatory legal framework for broadband Internet 

access services.46

The FCC will consider these and related questions as it 

moves forward to implement the plan.
3 3 8 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 7

17.4 CONCLUSION

This plan is premised on the potential of broadband to improve 

lives today and for generations.

But broadband alone will not solve America’s problems. It 

cannot guarantee that the United States will lead the world 

in the 21st century. It cannot promise that the U.S. and other 

nations will conquer crippling inequality. It cannot ensure that 

the U.S. bestows the best job, education, health care, public 

safety and government services on every American.

Broadband is a critical prerequisite, though, to solutions to many of America’s problems. It can open up ways 

for American innovators and entrepreneurs to reassert U.S. 

leadership in some areas and extend it in others. It can unlock doors of opportunity long closed by geography, income 

and race. It can enable education beyond the classroom, 

health care beyond the clinic and participation beyond the 

town square.

In 1938, President Roosevelt travelled to Gordon Military 

College in Barnesville, Georgia, to speak at the dedication of 

a local utility. “Electricity is a modern necessity of life, not a 

luxury,” the President told the audience, “That necessity ought 

to be found in every village, in every home and on every farm in 

every part of the wide United States.”47

He added, “Six years ago, in 1932, there was such talk about 

the more widespread and the cheaper use of electricity.” But 

words did not matter until the country, “reduced that talk to 

practical results.”48

Broadband, too, is a modern necessity of life, not a luxury. It 

ought to be found in every village, in every home and on every 

farm in every part of the United States.

There has long been talk of the widespread and affordable 

use of broadband. This plan is a transition from simple chatter 

to the difficult but achievable reality of implementation. It is 

a call to action for governments, businesses and non-profits to 

replace rhetoric with targeted, challenging actions.

It is time again to reduce talk to practical results.
F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 3 3 9

c h a p t e r 1 7 E n d n o t e s 

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 7

1 See Plan | Define Plan at Dictionary.com, http://

dictionary.reference.com/browse/plan (last visited 

Mar. 1, 2010).

2 See generally Letter from Andrew Blau et al., Monitor 

Group, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN 

Docket No. 09-51 (Feb. 19, 2010) Attach.

3 Baljit Singh Grewal, Neoliberalism and Discourse: Case 

Studies of Knowledge Policies in the Asia-Pacific 130–33 

(2008) (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Auckland University 

of Technology), available at http://aut.researchgateway.

ac.nz/bitstream/10292/407/4/GrewalB.pdf.

4 Republic of Korea Nat’l Info. Soc’y Agency, Korea

Informatized 1–3 (2007), available at http://old.nia.

or.kr/open_content/board/fileDownload.jsp?tn=PU_00

00100&id=53923&seq=1&fl=7.

5 Jong Sung Hwang & Sang-Hyun Park, Digital Review of 

Asia Pacific 2009–2010: .kr Korea, Republic of, http://

www.idrc.ca/pan/ev-140957-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html

(last visited Feb. 19, 2010).

6 Jong Sung Hwang & Sang-Hyun Park, Digital Review of 

Asia Pacific 2009–2010: .kr Korea, Republic of, http://

www.idrc.ca/pan/ev-140957-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html

(last visited Feb. 19, 2010).

7 Letter from Young Kyu Noh, Minister Counselor of 

Broadcasting and ICT, Embassy of the Republic of Korea, 

to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket Nos. 

09-47, 09-51, 09-137 (filed Dec. 15, 2009) at 1.

8 The full name of the IT Strategy Headquarters is 

the Strategic Headquarters for the Promotion of an 

Advanced Information and Telecommunications 

Network Society.

9 Prime Minister of Japan, Basic Law on the Formation 

of an Advanced Information and Telecommunications 

Network Society, http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/it/

it_basiclaw/it_basiclaw.html (last visited Mar. 1, 2010).

10 Letter from Masaru Fujino, Counselor for 

Communications Policy, Embassy of Japan, to Marlene 

H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket Nos. 09-47, 

09-51, 09-137 (filed Dec. 15, 2009) App. A (National 

Broadband Strategies in Japan (2001–09)).

11 Department for Culture, Media and Sport and

Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, Digital

Britain: Final Report (2009), available at http://www.

culture.gov.uk/images/publications/digitalbritainfinalreport-jun09.pdf.

12 Department for Culture, Media and Sport and

Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, 

Digital Britain: Implementation Plan 1–4 (2009) 

(Digital Britain: Implementation Plan), available 

at http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/

DB_ImplementationPlanv6_Aug09.pdf.

13 Digital Britain: Implementation Plan 1–4.

14 Department for Culture, Media and Sport and

Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, Digital

Britain: Implementation Update—December 2009

(2009), available at http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/

publications/DB_Implementationplan_Dec09.pdf.

15 At a minimum, membership should include 

representatives from the Federal Communications 

Commission, the Department of Commerce and 

the National Telecommunications and Information 

Administration, the Department of Homeland Security, 

the Department of Education, the Department of 

Energy, the Department of Health and Human Services, 

the Department of Housing and Urban Development, 

the Department of Agriculture, the Small Business 

Administration, and other agencies who may be 

responsible for implementing recommendations set 

forth in the plan.

16 See also Ch. 14, Recommendation 14.3, supra

(recommending that federal agencies coordinate grants 

that have a broadband connectivity requirement).

17 For example, certain U.S. Census data are made 

available to researchers in a controlled fashion at the 

U.S. Census Bureau’s Center for Economic Studies and 

Research data center. See U.S. Census Bureau Center for 

Economic Studies, Research Program Overview, http://

www.ces.census.gov/index.php/ces/researchprogram

(last visited Feb. 14, 2009).

18 See Ch. 4, supra (recommending more detailed and 

accurate broadband data collection).

19 See, e.g., Gov’t of Germany, Bundesministerium für

Wirtschaft und Technologie, Breitbandatlas 2009_02

(2009) (detailing Germany’s broadband mapping 

efforts), available at http://www.zukunft-breitband.de/

Dateien/BBA/PDF/breitbandatlas-bericht-2009-02,pr

operty=pdf,bereich=bba,sprache=de,rwb=true.pdf; Nat’l

IT and Telecom Agency, Gov’t of Denmark, Mapping

of Broadband Access Services in Denmark (2004), 

available at http://en.itst.dk/the-governments-it-andtelecommunications-policy/publications/mappingof-broadband-access-services-in-denmark-statusby-mid-2004/Mapping%20of%20Broadband%20

Access%20Services%20in%20Denmark%20-%20

Status%20by%20mid-2004.pdf; The National 

Broadband Map: New Zealand’s Broadband Landscape, 

Home, www.broadbandmap.govt.nz/map (last visited 

Feb. 19, 2010).

20 See, e.g., Swedish Post and Telecom Agency, PTS 

Statistics Portal, http://www.statistics.pts.se/start_en/

(last visited Feb. 19, 2010); Finnish Commc’ns Reg. 

Auth., Gov’t of Finland, Use of Telecommunications

Services (2009), http://www.ficora.fi/attachments/

suomiry/5n2kRC9zk/Tutkimusraportti_2009_

Telepalveluiden_kayttotutkimus.pdf (in Finnish).

21 See, e.g., Startsida, Telepriskollen, http://www.

telepriskollen.se/ (last visited Feb. 19, 2010) (Swedish 

site for comparing tariffed services); Finnish 

Communications Regulatory Authority, Surveys and 

Statistics: Market Information, http://www.ficora.fi/

en/index/tutkimukset/puhelinjalaajakaistapalvelut/

markkinatieto.html (last visited Mar. 7, 2010).

22 See, e.g., IT-Borger, Bredbåndsmåleren, http://www.

it-borger.dk/verktojer/bredbaandsmaaleren (last visited 

Feb. 19, 2010) (providing a broadband speed test in 

Danish); Nettimitari–etusivu, http://nettimittari.ficora.

fi/nettimittari/mainPage.aspx (last visited Feb. 19, 2010) 

(Finland’s broadband speed test).

23 See Ch. 4, supra (recommending more detailed and 

accurate broadband data collection).

24 Paul A. David, The Dynamo and the Computer: An 

Historical Perspective on the Modern Productivity 

Paradox, 80 AEA Papers & Proceeding, 355, 356–60 

(1990), available at http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~bhhall/

e124/David90_dynamo.pdf.

25 Robert Solow, We’d Better Watch Out, N.Y. Rev. of Books, 

July 12, 1987, at 36.

26 The Broadband Data Improvement Act (BDIA)

mandates that the FCC conduct periodic surveys of 

national characteristics of the use of broadband services. 

See BDIA, Pub. L. No. 110-385, 122 Stat. 4096 (2008).

27 Fed. Energy Reg. Comm’n, Assessment of Demand

Response & Advanced Metering (2009), available 

at http://www.ferc.gov/legal/staff-reports/

sep-09-demand-response.pdf; Dep’t of Energy, 

Smart Grid Systems Report (2009), available at

http://www.oe.energy.gov/DocumentsandMedia/

SGSRMain_090707_lowres.pdf.

28 See 47 U.S.C. §§ 201–76.

29 Amendment of Section 64.702 of the Comm’n’s Rules & 

Regs, Second Computer Inquiry, Docket No. 20828, Final 

Decision, 77 F.C.C. 2d 384, 417–35, 86–132, 461–75, 

paras. 201–31 (1980) (Computer II Final Decision), aff ’d 

sub nom. Computer & Commc’ns Indus. Ass’n v. FCC, 

693 F.2d 198 (D.C. Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 938 

(1983); Amendment of Section 64.702 of the Comm’n’s 

Rules & Regs. (Third Computer Inquiry), CC Docket No. 

85-229, Phase I, Report and Order, 104 F.C.C. 2d 958, 

para. 4 (1986) (Computer III Phase I Order) (subsequent 

history omitted); see also 47 C.F.R. § 64.702 (defining 

“enhanced service”).

30 47 U.S.C. §§ 151–61.

31 United States v. Southwestern Cable Co., 392 U.S. 

157 (1968); United States v. Midwest Video Corp., 

406 U.S. 649 (1972). The Commission has ancillary 

authority when a matter falls within its jurisdiction 

over interstate communications by wire or radio and 

the proposed action is “reasonably ancillary to the 

effective performance of the Commission’s various 

responsibilities.” See 47 U.S.C. § 152(a); Southwestern 

Cable, 392 U.S. at 172–73; Midwest Video, 406 U.S. 

at 667–68 (“[T]he critical question . . . is whether 

the Commission has reasonably determined that its 

[regulatory action] will further the achievement of 

long established regulatory goals.” (quotation marks 

omitted)); United Video Inc. v. FCC, 890 F.2d 1173 (D.C. 

Cir. 1989) (upholding ancillary authority where action 

was taken to further “a valid communications policy 

goal”).

32 Nat’l Cable & Telecomms. Ass’n v. Brand X Internet 

Servs., 545 U.S. 967, 986–87 (2005).

33 See Framework for Broadband Access to the Internet 

over Wireline Facilities; Universal Service Obligations 

of Broadband Providers, CC Docket Nos. 02-33, 01-337, 

95-20, 98-10, WC Docket Nos. 04-242, 05-271, Report and 

Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC Rcd 

14853, 14864, 14909–11, para. 15, paras. 103–04 (2005) 

(Wireline Broadband Report and Order and Broadband 

Consumer Protection Notice), aff ’d sub nom. Time Warner 

Telecom, Inc. v. FCC, 507 F.3d 205 (3d Cir. 2007).
3 4 0 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

c h a p t e r 1 7 E n d n o t e s 

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n c h a p t e r 1 7

34 United Power Line Council’s Petition for Declaratory 

Ruling Regarding the Classification of Broadband over 

Power Line Internet Access Service as an Information 

Service, WC Docket No. 06-10, Memorandum Opinion 

and Order, 21 FCC Rcd 13281, 13286, 13288, paras. 9, 12 

(2006) (BPL-Enabled Broadband Order).

35 Appropriate Regulatory Treatment for Broadband Access 

to the Internet Over Wireless Networks, WT Docket No. 

07–53, Declaratory Ruling, 22 FCC Rcd 5901, 5909–10, 

5912, paras. 22, 29 (2007) (Wireless Broadband Order).

36 Wireline Broadband Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 

14858, para. 5, 14900–03, paras. 89–95, 14909–10, para. 

103; BPL-Enabled Broadband Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 

13289, para. 15; Wireless Broadband Order, 22 FCC Rcd 

at 5913–14, para. 33. The Commission, however, has 

interpreted the Wireline Broadband Order to mean that 

rate-of-return ILECs are not entitled to offer broadband 

Internet access transmission on a non-common carrier 

basis until the Commission has addressed associated 

cost allocation issues. See Petition of ACS of Anchorage, 

Inc. Pursuant to Section 10 of the Communications 

Act of 1934, as Amended (47 USC Section 160(c)), for 

Forbearance from Certain Dominant Carrier Regulation 

of Its Interstate Access Services, and for Forbearance 

from Title II Regulation of its Broadband Services, in the 

Anchorage, Alaska, Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier 

Study Area, WC Docket No. 06–109, Memorandum 

Opinion and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 16304, 16339–40, paras. 

75, 80 (2007).

37 See, e.g., Letter from Gary L. Phillips, General Attorney 

& Associate General Counsel, AT&T Services, Inc., to 

Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC (Jan. 29, 2010), GN 

Docket Nos. 09–51, 09–47, 09–137, WC Docket Nos. 

05–337, 03–109, attach. at 6 (“[F]unding of universal 

service lies at the heart of the Commission’s core 

statutory mission, and widespread deployment and 

subscribership of broadband Internet access is without 

question a high national priority. The Commission’s 

jurisdictional analysis [for use of Title I authority] could 

stop here.”).

38 See, e.g., Electronic Privacy Information Center 

Comments in re National Broadband Plan NOI (A 

National Broadband Plan for Our Future, GN Docket 

No. 09-41, Notice of Inquire, 24 FCC Rcd 4342 (2009) 

(National Broadband Plan NOI), filed June 8, 2009, 

at 3 (filed by Mark Rotenberg) (“[T]he Commission 

should exercise its ancillary jurisdiction to ensure that 

the national broadband plan includes robust privacy 

safeguards, lest consumers’ critical broadband privacy 

interests go unaddressed.”).

39 See, e.g., RERC on Telecom Access Comments in re NBP 

PN#4 (Comment Sought on Broadband Accessibility 

for People with Disabilities Workshop II: Barriers, 

Opportunities, and Policy Recommendations—NBP 

Public Notice #4, GN Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 09-137, 

Public Notice, 24 FCC Rcd 11968 (GCB 2009) (NBP 

PN#4)), filed Oct. 6, 2009, at 11 (“In order to ensure that 

individuals who use hearing aids and cochlear implants 

are not left out again, it is critical for the FCC to use its 

ancillary jurisdiction to carry over the protections now 

afforded under existing [Hearing Aid Compatibility] 

laws to handsets used with broadband communication 

technologies.”).

40 See, e.g., National Telecommunications Cooperative 

Association Reply in re National Broadband Plan NOI, 

filed July 21, 2009, at 5 (“[S]ome argue that [universal 

service funding to support broadband] should be allowed 

without a finding that broadband is a supported service. 

However, there is no rational, policy or legal arguments 

[sic] to support that position.” (citation omitted)), 28 

(“Defined under Title II, the FCC can look at broadband 

and determine what access regulations are appropriate 

and necessary, and refrain from regulations that are 

inappropriate and unnecessary. The FCC does not have 

sthis is harming consumers, education, public health 

and safety, and national security.”); Public Knowledge 

Reply in re NBP PN#30 (Reply Comments Sought in 

Support of the National Broadband Plan—NBP Public 

Notice #30, GN Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 09-137, Public 

Notice, 25 FCC Rcd 241 (WCB 2010)), filed Jan. 26, 

2010, at 5 (“[R]eliance on Title I creates uncertainty for 

the Commission and imperils the goals of the National 

Broadband Plan.” (citation omitted)).

41 See, e.g., The Nebraska Rural Independent Companies 

Comments in re NBP PN #19 (Comment Sought on 

the Role of the Universal Service Fund and Intercarrier 

Compensation in the National Broadband Plan—NBP 

Public Notice #19, GN Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 09-137, 

Public Notice, 24 FCC Rcd 13757 (OSP 2009) (NBP 

PN #19)), filed Dec. 7, (“[N]ow is the time to fulfill the 

mandate of Section 254 and to expand USF support to 

broadband Internet access services by finding they are 

properly considered telecommunications services, or 

telecommunications at a minimum.” (citation omitted)); 

National Telecommunications Cooperative Association 

Reply in re National Broadband Plan NOI, filed July 21, 

2009, at 5, 26 (“By classifying all broadband Internet 

access service as a telecommunications service regulated 

under Title II, the base of USF contributors will expand 

to include all broadband service providers as required 

under section 254.”); Public Knowledge Reply in re NBP 

PN #30, filed Jan. 26 2010. See generally 47 U.S.C. §§ 

254(b)(3), ( j); Federal-State Joint Board on Universal 

Service, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 8776, 8956–57, 

paras. 332–40 (1997).

42 See, e.g., Metro PCS Communications Comments in re 

Consumer Information and Disclosure NOI (Consumer 

Information and Disclosure; Truth-in-Billing and Billing 

Format; IP-Enabled Services, CG Docket No. 09-158, 

CC Docket No. 98-170, WC Docket No. 04-36, Notice 

of Inquiry, 24 FCC Rcd 11380 (2009) (Consumer 

Information and Disclosure NOI)), filed Oct. 13, 2009, 

at 19 (noting that if the Commission proceeds with 

disclosure rules for communications services, “the better 

alternative, in the view of MetroPCS, is to find other 

statutory bases in addition to Title I to justify its actions 

or not impose regulation. One possible approach, which 

may go beyond this particular proceeding, is for the 

Commission to revisit its earlier determinations that 

high speed broadband Internet access services are not 

common carrier services.”). But see Letter from Mark A. 

Stachiw, Executive Vice President, General Counsel & 

Secretary, MetroPCS Communications Inc., to Marlene 

H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-

51, 09-137, 09-191, WC Docket No. 07-52 (Feb. 3, 2010) 

(opposing reclassification of broadband Internet access 

services on policy grounds). See generally 47 U.S.C. §§ 

201(b), 258.

43 See, e.g., Letter from Michael Weinberg, Staff Attorney, 

Public Knowledge, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, 

FCC GN Docket Nos. 09-51, 09-137, 09-157, 09-191, WC 

Docket Nos. 04-36, 07-52, CC Docket No. 98-170, CG 

Docket No. 09-158, WT Docket No. 09-66 (Feb. 19, 2010) 

at 1.

44 See, e.g., National Telecommunication Cooperative 

Association Reply in re National Broadband Plan 

NOI, filed July 21, 2009, at 28 (“Defined under Title 

II, the FCC can look at broadband and determine what 

access regulations are appropriate and necessary, and 

refrain from regulations that are inappropriate and 

unnecessary.”); Public Knowledge Reply in re NBP PN 

#30, filed Jan. 26, 2010, at 6 (citing Wireline Broadband 

Order). See generally 47 U.S.C. § 160(a).

45 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(1)(A). That provision does not grant 

the Commission the authority to forbear from sections 

201, 202 or 208.

46 See, e.g., Verizon and Verizon Wireless Comments in 

re National Broadband Plan NOI, filed June 8, 2009, at 

87–91 (“[T]he Commission’s recommendations . . . should 

not move backward by supporting . . . ill-fitting common 

carrier or Title II regulation.”); Alcatel-Lucent Reply in 

re National Broadband Plan NOI, filed July 21, 2009, at 2 

(“The Commission must reject calls to repudiate the entire 

framework under which broadband services are regulated 

by re-classifying those offerings . . . .”), 4–9.

47 Pres. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Address at Barnesville, 

Georgia (Aug. 11, 1938) (Pres. F. D. Roosevelt 1938 

Address at Barnesville, Georgia), available at

http://georgiainfo.galileo.usg.edu/FDRspeeches/

FDRspeech38–6.htm.

48 Pres. F. D. Roosevelt 1938 Address at Barnesville, 

Georgia.
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n A P P ENDICES

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 3 4 1

APPENDICES

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n A P P ENDICES

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 3 4 3

APPENDIX A

BTOP PROGRESS ASSESSMENT

In addition to directing the FCC to develop a plan to ensure 

that all Americans have access to broadband, Congress also 

directed the FCC to evaluate the progress of projects supported by grants under the National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration (NTIA)’s Broadband Technology 

Opportunities Program (BTOP). This section considers the 

program so far and makes recommendations for future evaluation—as BTOP has only just funded some projects. 

This plan acknowledges the substantial investment BTOP 

is making to improve connectivity and advance the adoption 

of broadband. Chapters 8 and 9 make specific mentions of this 

important program and how it likely will improve the broadband ecosystem. Careful evaluation of BTOP investments will 

provide valuable insights into the effectiveness of different 

funding mechanisms, project structures and technologies for 

future investments.

RECOMMENDATIONS

➤ Ensure that assessment tracks program outcomes, not only 

execution.

➤ Develop measures that specify outcomes to be assessed.

➤ Create a panel of experts from the academic and research 

community to advise on assessment approaches.

➤ Employ longitudinal design in assessing programs where 

possible. 

Background

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act) 

appropriated $7.2 billion to fund programs to promote the 

adoption and deployment of broadband. NTIA was charged 

with using $4.7 billion of these funds to create BTOP which 

funds three types of programs:

➤ Infrastructure projects that aim to deploy broadband infrastructure in unserved and underserved areas.

➤ Projects that enhance the capacity of public computing 

centers (PCCs).

➤ Efforts to support the sustainable adoption of broadband 

service by users.

Infrastructure projects are set to receive the bulk of this 

funding. With regard to the latter two types of programs, 

Congress specifically stated that NTIA should spend $250 

million on “innovative programs that encourage sustainable 

adoption of broadband services” and spend at least $200 million “to upgrade technology and capacity at public computing 

centers, including community colleges and public libraries.”1

Funds are being disbursed in two rounds. Applications for 

the first round were due Aug. 14, 2009. As of mid-February 

2010, the BTOP program had awarded $597 million in grants: 

➤ $547 million for infrastructure projects; 

➤ $42 million for PCC projects; and 

➤ $8 million for sustainable adoption programs.2

Applications for the second round of funding were due on 

March 15, 2010. The Recovery Act directs that all funds be 

awarded by Sept. 30, 2010. 

Programs Funding Infrastructure Deployment

BTOP infrastructure grants are intended to promote community and economic development by connecting community 

anchor institutions—such as public schools, universities, libraries, and community colleges—to high-speed infrastructure. 

Many funded grantees promote connectivity in the middle 

mile.3

 By solving the middle-mile problem, the hope is to foster 

investment in “last mile” facilities to provide service to individuals and institutions that need it. 

Most grantees leverage in-kind or financial contributions, 

not relying solely on BTOP support to complete projects. 

Public Computing Centers

Grants for PCCs will provide funding for additional computers 

for institutions such as public housing developments, typically 

with the goal of offering training and access for community 

members. The FCC recently announced a grant for the Housing 

Authority of San Bernardino, Calif. which aims to serve 350 

additional users per week. On a larger scale, a grant awarded 

to the New York State Education Department intends to serve 

an additional 50,000 users per week system-wide and provide 

access to job-search resources 24 hours per day, seven days per 

week. Both these grants are intended to serve additional users 

and make a difference in their employment prospects.4
3 4 4 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n A P P ENDICES

Sustainable Adoption Grants

Grants intended to foster and sustain adoption often focus 

on the community level. A grant to the West Virginia Future 

Generations Graduate School funds a community-based approach to promote adoption among low-income and rural 

residents of the state.5

 This particular project creates a partnership between fire and emergency rescue squads and the 

community. The squads will use computers that will also be 

made available to the public. At the same time, they will promote outreach about and awareness of the Internet’s potential 

to members of the community—adopters and non-adopters 

alike. Training programs will build capacity and confidence 

with the Internet and, it is hoped, foster at-home adoption.

Assessing BTOP

BTOP was designed as a short-term investment in broadband infrastructure, broadband adoption and job creation. At 

the same time, Congress charged the FCC with developing a 

long-term plan for increasing accessibility, affordability and 

utilization of broadband, as well as a plan to use broadband to 

serve designated national purposes—a charge that led to the 

creation of this plan. In addition to deploying infrastructure 

and providing resources to communities, BTOP-funded projects can serve as testbeds. Examining projects funded under 

BTOP can help answer these questions:

➤ What leads individuals and communities to adopt 

broadband?

➤ What quantifiable difference does broadband make in communities?

➤ What is the impact of broadband on economic development 

in communities?

➤ How does the “broadband experience” vary by community, 

demographics and institutions? 

Congress did not allocate funds to assess BTOP’s effectiveness. It did allocate $10 million to the U.S. Department 

of Commerce’s Office of Inspector General for oversight and 

auditing of the program. Such oversight and auditing activities are important, but they focus on execution of the program. 

Assessing program impacts on a community or on individuals 

or groups is different.6

The plan makes the following recommendations for assessing the BTOP program, some of which may require action by 

NTIA and some of which may require that NTIA coordinate 

with the research community:

Recommendation A.1: Ensure that assessment tracks 

program outcomes, not only execution.

Recommendations for how to assess BTOP must take into 

account the program’s multiple goals (as discussed above). 

BTOP infrastructure grants have a primary goal of making 

broadband service more available, typically with a secondary 

goal of promoting economic development. Moreover, BTOP 

grants for sustainable adoption have the goal of bolstering 

adoption rates among individuals. 

Any assessment should at a minimum determine whether a 

grantee carried out the project funded by its grant in the time 

horizon specified. This kind of assessment can be completed in 

a relatively short period of time. 

Thereafter, the assessment should focus on whether the 

grant had a meaningful impact in the context for which funding 

was specified. This is a longer-term undertaking and recognizes that the proper basis to assess a program that promises 

to fund infrastructure is not simply to determine whether 

the grantee in fact built the infrastructure. The first step in 

this assessment must be to ascertain whether the grant itself 

was responsible for the new infrastructure, or whether the 

infrastructure would likely have been built anyway within a 

reasonable time period. While it is impossible to know this 

with any certainty, assessors could identify control groups 

against which to measure the potential for this result. Such 

control groups might include projects (or areas) that were not 

funded and, if possible, geographically or socioeconomically 

similar areas that submitted no BTOP applications.

Once control groups are identified, assessors should measure whether the infrastructure built with BTOP grant money 

fostered economic growth, how additional adoption impacted 

users’ lives or other relevant metrics. Similarly, a PCC project 

with a goal of placing more computers at a specific site should 

not be considered successful simply if it increases the number 

of computers at a particular location. Instead, the success of a 

PCC project depends, instead, on its precise impacts—whether 

those additional computers helped more people go online for 

the first time, allowed computer users to spend more productive time online and materially improved a users’ lives. In 

assessing these impacts, NTIA should develop measures that 

determine the grantees’ cost of adding new adopters.

Recommendation A.2: Develop measures that specify 

outcomes to be assessed.

Assessing outcomes requires well-defined measures for programs. An infrastructure program may seek to foster economic 

growth or better connectivity among particular institutions. 

Whatever the goal, common measures across individual grants 

are necessary for proper evaluation of the BTOP program as a 

whole. The process of developing metrics should be done in coordination with other government-wide initiatives to promote 

broadband infrastructure and adoption.
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n A P P ENDICES

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 3 4 5

Recommendation A.3: Create a panel of experts from the 

academic and research community to advise on assessment 

approaches.

The Recovery Act’s funding of broadband investment and 

adoption promotion has prompted some academic researchers 

to explore how effective such investments have been in other 

contexts.7

 There is little empirical evidence on the impact of 

demand-side adoption programs, and evidence on infrastructure investments is thin as well. As researchers explore the 

limits of the current assessment literature, a discussion has 

developed about the kind of evidence, metrics and methods 

needed to undertake rigorous assessment. NTIA should take 

advantage of this discussion by convening an expert panel 

and having the panel coordinate with other experts within 

the government.

Recommendation A.4: Employ longitudinal design in assessing programs where possible. 

When feasible, assessments should compare outcomes from 

the beginning of an award’s life to a date in the future. Proper 

assessment of newly connected anchor institutions in an infrastructure grant would take a baseline reading of the institutions’ 

characteristics at the time the grant is made and at periodic 

intervals time periods into the future. The characteristics to be 

measured will depend on specification of proper metrics. 

Longitudinal design takes into account the fact that the 

impacts of BTOP grants are likely to unfold over a longer 

time horizon than the period of the grant itself. The impact 

of a sustainable adoption grant on an individual who may 

have passed through a training program can only be determined at some point after the individual has completed the 

program. Similarly, the proper way to determine the impact 

of an infrastructure grant is to compare conditions at some 

point (or several points) beyond completion of deployment of 

the infrastructure. 

Finally, assessment approaches should take into consideration the context of programs under study. Infrastructure 

projects may have fewer measurement challenges than 

programs which more directly affect users. If so, program assessment for user-centric grants may need to study program 

strategies to reach users as well as outcomes for those users. 

This, in turn, may mean that proper assessment should employ 

qualitative research approaches as well as quantitative ones.
3 4 6 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n A P P ENDICES

APPEND I X A E n d n o t e s 

1 Nat’l Telecomm. & Information Admin., Office of 

Telecommunications and Information Applications, 

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/otiahome/otiahome.html (last 

visited Mar. 1, 2010). 

2 Nat’l Telecomm. & Information Admin. BTOP Project 

Information, http://www.ntia.doc.gov/broadbandgrants/

projects.html (last visited Feb. 20, 2010).

3 Exec. Off. of the Pres., Nat’l Econ. Council, Recovery Act 

Investments in Broadband: Leveraging Federal Dollars 

to Create Jobs and Connect America (2009), available at

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/20091217-

recovery-act-investments-broadband.pdf.

4 Nat’l Telecomm. & Information Admin., Secretary Locke 

Announces Recovery Act Grants to Expand Broadband 

Internet Access and Spur Economic Growth (press release), 

Feb. 18, 2010, available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/

press/2010/02182010_Locke_BTOP_Announcement.pdf.

5 Nat’l Telecomm. & Information Admin., Secretary Locke 

Announces Recovery Act Grants to Expand Broadband 

Internet Access and Spur Economic Growth (press release), 

Feb. 18, 2010.

6 Scott J. Wallsten, Measuring the Effectiveness of the 

Broadband Stimulus Plan, The Economists’ Voice 6:6, art. 

3 (2009).

7 Janice Hauge & James Prieger, Demand-side Programs 

to Stimulate Adoption: What Works? (Oct. 22, 2009) 

(unpublished working paper), available at http://papers.

ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1492342.
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n A P P ENDICES

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 3 4 7

APPENDIX b

COMMON ABBREVIATIONS

2G Second-generation

3G Third-generation

4G Fourth-generation

AIP Administrative Incentive Pricing

ALI Automated Location Information

AMI Advanced Metering Infrastructure

AMT Aeronautical Mobile Telemetry

AP Advanced Placement

APD Advance Planning Document

API Application Programming Interface

app Application

ATC Ancillary Terrestrial Component

AWS Advanced Wireless Services

BAS Mobile Broadcast Auxiliary Service

BAWG Broadband Accessibility Working Group

BDIA Broadband Data Improvement Act

BIP Broadband Infrastructure Program

BIS Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics

BMAC Broadband Measurement Advisory Council

BRS Broadband Radio Service

BSC Broadband Strategy Council

BTOP Broadband Technology Opportunities Program

CAF Connect America Fund

capex Capital expenditures

CARS Mobile Cable TV Relay Service

CBO Community-based organization

CCHT Care Coordination/Home Telehealth

CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

CEDS Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy

CFF Computers for Families

CIO Chief Information Officer

CIP Critical Infrastructure Protection

CIRS Cybersecurity Information Reporting System

CITI Columbia Institute for Tele-Information

CMS Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services

CNCS Corporation for National and Community Service

CPE Customer premises equipment

CSEA Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act

CT scan Computed tomography scan

CVD Cardiovascular disease

DARPA Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

DHS Department of Homeland Security

DIA Dedicated Internet Access

DOCSIS Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification

DoD Department of Defense

DOE Department of Energy

DOJ Department of Justice

DOL Department of Labor

DOT Department of Transportation

DS1 Digital Signal 1

DS3 Digital Signal 3

DSL Digital Subscriber Line

DSLAM Digital Subscriber Line Access Multiplexer
3 4 8 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n A P P ENDICES

DSRC Dedicated short-range communication

DTA Digital Transport Adapter

DTS Distributed Transmission System

DTV Digital television

E911 Enhanced 911

EAS Emergency Alert System

EBS Educational Broadband Service

EC Enterprise Community

ECPA Electronic Communications Privacy Act

EDA Economic Development Administration

EHR Electronic health record

EISA Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007

EMEA Europe, the Middle East and Asia

EO Executive Order

EPSCoR Experimental Program to Stimulate 

Competitive Research

ERC Engineering Research Center

ERIC Emergency Response Interoperability Center

ET Engineering and Technology

ETC Eligible telecommunications carrier

EZ Empowerment Zone

FCC Federal Communications Commission

FDA Food and Drug Administration

FDIC Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

FHS Framingham Heart Study

FISMA Federal Information Security Management Act

FLVS Florida Virtual Schools

FOIA Freedom of Information Act

FS-ISAC Financial Services Information 

Sharing and Analysis Center

FTC Federal Trade Commission

FTTN Fiber-to-the-node

FTTP Fiber-to-the-premises

FY Fiscal year

GAO Government Accountability Office

Gbps Gigabits per second

GDP Gross domestic product

GED General Educational Development

GPS Global Positioning System

GPT General Purpose Technology

GSA General Services Administration

GWU George Washington University

HBCUs Historically Black Colleges and Universities

HD High definition

HHS Health and Human Services

HIPAA Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act

HITECH Act Health Information Technology for Economic and 

Clinical Health Act

HL7 CDA Health Level 7 Clinical Document Architecture

HPSA Gealth professional shortage area

HSIACs Hispanic-Serving Institutions Assisting Communities

HSPA High Speed Packet Access

HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development

IAS Interstate Access Support

IC3 Internet Crime Complaint Center

ICAM Identity, Credential, and Access Management

ICC intercarrier compensation

ICLS Interstate Common Line Support

ICO Implementation Coordination Office

ICT information and communications technology

IHS Indian Health Service

ILEC incumbent local exchange carrier

IMLS Institute of Museum and Library Services
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n A P P ENDICES

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 3 4 9

IP Internet Protocol

IPAWS Integrated Public Alert and Warning System

IPC Informatization Promotion Committee

IPIA Improper Payments Information Act

ISAC Information Sharing and Analysis Center

ISM industrial, scientific and medical

ISO Independent System Operator (ISO)

ISP Internet service provider

IT information technology

IT-ISAC Information Technology Information Sharing and 

Analysis Center

ITS Intelligent Transportation System

ITU International Telecommunication Union

JFO Joint Field Office

K-12 Kindergarten through twelfth grade

kbps Kilobits per second 

kWh Kilowatt-hour

LEA Local educational agency

LEC Local exchange carrier

LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design

LMRS Land mobile radio system

LPTV Low-power television

LSTA Library Services and Technology Act

LTE Long Term Evolution

M2M Machine-to-machine

Mbps Megabits per second

MFN Multi-Frequency Network

mpg Miles per gallon

MRI Magnetic resonance imaging

MSA Metropolitan service area

MS-ISAC Multi-State Information Sharing and Analysis Center

MSS Mobile Satellite Services

MVPD Multichannel video programming distributor

NARUC National Association of Regulatory Utility 

Commissioners

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NATOA National Association of Telecommunications 

Officers and Advisors

NCS National Communications System

NECA National Exchange Carrier Association

NERC North American Electric Reliability Corporation

NG911 Next Generation 911

NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

NIA National Institute on Aging

NIH National Institutes of Health

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology

NOFA Notice of Funding Availability

NPR National Public Radio

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

NS/EP National Security/Emergency Preparedness

NSF National Science Foundation

NTIA National Telecommunications and Information 

Administration

OATS Older Adults Technology Services

OEC Office of Emergency Communications

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and 

Development

Ofcom Office of Communications

OMB Office of Management and Budget

ONC Office of the National Coordinator for Health 

Information Technology

OOBE out-of-band emission

OSL Online Skills Laboratory

OSTP Office of Science and Technology Policy

PBS Public Broadcasting Service

PC Personal computer
3 5 0 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n A P P ENDICES

PCC Public computing center

PCS Personal Communications Service

PDF Portable Document Format

PET Positron emission tomography

PHEV Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle

PISA Programme for International Student Assessment

POTS Plain Old Telephone Service

PSAP Public safety answering point

PSBL Public Safety Broadband Licensee

PSTN Public Switched Telephone Network

PUC Public utility commission

R&D Research and development

R&E Research and Experimentation or 

RC Renewal Community research and education

RFP Request for Proposal

RSA Rural service area

RUS Rural Utilities Service

SBA Small Business Administration

SBDC Small Business Development Center

SBTDC Small Business Technology Development Center

SCORE Service Corps of Retired Executives

SCTCA Southern California Tribal Chairmen’s Association

SD Standard definition

SDARS Satellite Digital Audio Radio

SDB Small disadvantaged business

SDV Switched Digital Video

SFN Single Frequency Network

SIM Subscriber Identity Module

SLA Service Level Agreement

SLC Subscriber line charge

SMB Small or medium-sized business

SME Small and medium enterprise

SMS Short Message Service

SOAR Specialist Optimization Access and Results

SSA Social Security Administration

SSI Supplemental Security Income

STEM Science, technology, engineering and mathematics

TANF Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

TCUs Tribal Colleges and Universities

Telco Telecommunications

TLBC Tribal Land Bidding Credit

TOP Technology Opportunity Program

TRS Telecommunications Relay Services

TSA Transportation Security Administration

TV Television

UCAN Unified Community Anchor Network

UHF ultra high frequency

USAC Universal Service Administrative Company

USCIS U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USF Universal Service Fund

VHA Veterans Health Administration

VHF Very high frequency

VoIP Voice over Internet Protocol

WBC Women’s Business Center

WCS Wireless Communications Service

WiMAX Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access

WISP wireless Internet service provider

WPS Wireless Priority Service

WRC World Radiocommunication Conference
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n A P P ENDICES

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 3 5 1

APPENDIX C

GLOSSARY1

Accelerometer—An electromechanical device that measures acceleration forces or motion.

Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI)—Digital two-way 

communications hardware and software between smart meters 

and utility systems which can transmit energy usage, price, and 

control signals.

Air interface—The technical protocol that ensures compatibility between mobile radio service equipment, such as handsets, 

and the service provider’s base stations.

Ancillary Terrestrial Component (ATC)—A ground-based infrastructure in a mobile satellite system to enhance the coverage 

of the satellite network.

Backhaul—The telecommunications link used to transport traffic 

from a geographically distant point, such as a wireless base station, 

to a significant aggregation point in the network, such as a mobile 

telephone switching office or Internet peering point.

Bluetooth—An industry standard using unlicensed radio frequency spectrum for wireless connectivity over short distances 

to link computers, wireless handsets, and other devices. 

CableCARD—A credit card-sized device that contains the video 

provider’s security information. When this card is plugged into 

a set-top box, it enables customers to access the video programming and services to which they have subscribed.

Carrier of last resort—The carrier that commits (or is required 

by law) to provide service to any customer in a service area that 

requests it, even if serving that customer would not be economically viable at prevailing rates.

Census block—The smallest geographic unit for which the 

Census Bureau collects and tabulates decennial census data.

Census tract—A small, relatively permanent statistical subdivision of a county, designed to contain roughly 1,000 to 8,000 

people who are relatively homogeneous with respect to their 

demographics, economic status and living conditions.

Churn—The number of customers who leave a service provider 

over a given period of time, usually expressed as a percentage of 

total customers.

1 The National Broadband Plan provides this glossary solely as a reader aid. These definitions do not necessarily represent the views of the FCC or the United States Government on past, 

present, or future technology, policy, or law and thus have no interpretive or precedential value.

Commercial Mobile Alert System—A system established by the 

Commission that allows wireless service providers choosing to 

participate to send emergency alerts as text messages to their 

subscribers.

Commercial Mobile Radio Service—A mobile communications 

service that is provided for profit and makes interconnected 

service available to the public, usually in the form of mobile 

phone service.

Common carrier—A telecommunications provider, such as a 

telephone company, that offers its services for a fee to the public indiscriminately.

Competitive Local Exchange Carrier—A company that offers local telephone service in competition with the legacy telephone 

company.

Conditional access—Encrypting digital television services 

(e.g. premium channels) to limit access to authorized users.

Credentialing (or certification)—The process of establishing 

the qualifications of licensed professionals (e.g. physicians and 

teachers), organizational members, or organizations, and assessing their background and legitimacy.

Dark fiber—A fiber optic cable that is laid and ready for use, 

but for which the service provider has not provided modulating 

electronics; usually contrasted to lit fiber, which is fiber optic 

cable in use to provide wired communications.

Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification (DOCSIS)—

A standard for the transmission of data over a cable network.

Emergency Alert System (EAS)—A national public warning 

system that requires broadcasters, cable television systems, 

wireless cable systems, satellite digital audio radio service 

(SDARS) providers, and direct broadcast satellite (DBS) providers to provide the communications capability to the President 

to address the American public during a national emergency. 

The system also may be used by state and local authorities to 

deliver important emergency information, such as AMBER 

alerts and weather information targeted to specific areas.

Encumbered—Spectrum that is burdened with occupancy, 

usage or congestion limitations or licenses that are subject to 

obligations or restrictions.
3 5 2 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n A P P ENDICES

Ethernet—A type of digital transmission service. Traditionally, 

Ethernet operates at 10 megabits per second (Mbps) (also 

known as 10-Base-T), although 100-Base-T (100 Mbps) and 

Gigabit (1,000 Mbps) Ethernet are also available.

Extension arm—A support arm that extends from a telephone 

pole to hold communications lines at the same level as existing 

lines which are attached to the pole.

Gateway device—A network device that acts as an entrance to 

another network and often is used to connect two otherwise 

incompatible networks.

Grid computing—The linking of two or more computers in a way 

that allows efficient use of available resources. For example, 

grid computing could store a single database across multiple 

servers to allow efficient use of unused storage and parallel 

processing of database queries.

Independent System Operator (ISO)—An organization that coordinates, controls, and monitors the operation of the electrical power 

system, either within a single state or across multiple states.

Information service—The offering of a capability for generating, 

acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available information via telecommunications.

Intelligent Transportation System (ITS)—A broad range of 

advanced communications technologies that, when integrated 

into transportation infrastructure and vehicles, relieves congestion, improves safety, and mitigates environmental impact.

Internet gateway—The closest peering point between a broadband provider and the public Internet for a given consumer 

connection. See diagram below.

Linear channel—Video content that is delivered in a scheduled 

mode, such as through broadcast or cable network channels. 

Internet video (and other platforms such as Video On Demand, 

or VOD), on the other hand, delivers content upon request and 

often with pause/rewind/fast-forward capability.

Loop—The connection from the network central office to the 

customers’ premises.

Microcell—Cell sites with extremely limited, but targeted, coverage. Microcells may provide indoor coverage in skyscrapers 

or may be placed in fire trucks, police cars and ambulances.

Mobile Earth Station—An earth station in the mobile-satellite 

service intended to be used while in motion or during halts at 

unspecified points.

Modem—A piece of customer premise equipment typically 

managed by a broadband provider as the last connection point 

to the managed network.

Multicast—Simultanous transmission of information/data to 

multiple receipients.

Multichannel Video Programming Distributor (MVPD)—An 

entity that makes available for purchase, by subscribers or customers, multiple channels of video programming.

Multi-Frequency Network (MFN)—A network in which multiple stations consolidate their capacity and broadcast over 

different channels at different sites and times, similar to a frequency re-use pattern employed by mobile operators to avoid 

interference between cell sites.

Must-carry—A requirement that cable operators cablecast the 

broadcast signals of local commercial television stations that 

request carriage. 

Near-Field communications device—A short-range high frequency wireless communication technology which enables 

simple two-way data interactions between devices.

Next Generation 911 (NG911)—An emergency response system 

that integrates the core functionalities of the E911 system and 

also supports multimedia communications (such as texting, 

e-mail, and video) to the PSAP and to emergency personnel on 

the ground.

Notice of Inquiry—A proceeding initiated by a federal agency to 

gather facts and public comment on an issue within the responsibility of the agency, which may lead to a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)—A notice containing a proposal for adoption of new rules. The Administrative 

Procedure Act (APA) requires that an agency, before 
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n A P P ENDICES

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 3 5 3

promulgating a binding rule, must publish general notice of its 

proposal in the Federal Register.

Offload—Shifting telecommunications traffic from one network to another to relieve network congestion.

Open source—A software development model by which the 

source code to a computer program is made available publicly 

under a license that gives users the right to modify and redistribute the program.

Out-of-band emission (OOBE)—Any frequency outside of the 

frequency ranges covered by the adjacent channel power tables 

found in section 27.53 of the Commission’s rules.

Over-builder—A facilities-based provider of cable service, telecommunications, or broadband that builds in an area already 

served by another facilities-based provider.

Overlay auction—An auction for licenses to unused portions of 

the spectrum already assigned to incumbent users.

Payload capacity—The amount of throughput possible using a 

given technology at certain specifications.

Penetration—The homes that are connected to a network, usually provided as a percentage of homes passed.

Point of Presence—A physical location where a communications 

carrier allows other carriers to access its network.

Pole attachment—Any attachment by a cable television system 

or provider of communications service to a pole, duct, conduit, 

or right-of-way owned or controlled by a utility.

Private Branch Exchange—Privately owned switch. A commercial building may have a PBX to route calls within the building.

Privileging—The process health care organizations (predominantly hospitals) employ to authorize practitioners to provide 

specific services and procedures for their patients.

Protocol stack—The ordered set of protocol types used in communications networks. At the lowest level, the protocol defines 

the physical interaction of the network components; at the 

highest level, the protocol defines the applications interacting 

with users. A protocol stack is designed so that protocols in 

each layer of the stack are substitutable for each other without 

affecting protocols higher up the stack.

Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP)—A call center responsible for answering emergency calls and dispatching emergency 

services.

Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN)—The legacy 

circuit-switched telephone network.

Radiodetermination—The determination of the position, 

velocity or other characteristics of an object, or the obtaining 

of information relating to these parameters, by means of the 

propagation of radio waves.

Reband—To reconfigure the assignment of spectrum licenses 

regarding either who controls the license or how a licensee may 

use its spectrum.

Remote patient monitoring—Using devices and communications networks to remotely collect and send diagnostic data to a 

monitoring station for interpretation. For example, measuring 

blood pressure when a patient is at home.

Right-of-way—The right to pass over or occupy a particular 

piece of land. For example, utilities generally receive rightsof-way from municipalities to erect and wire poles to carry 

electricity, telecommunications services, and cable service.

Secondary market ( for spectrum)—A mechanism for reapportioning allocated spectrum based on economic demand. 

The secondary market for spectrum enables licensees to lease 

their spectrum to third parties, which permits spectrum to 

flow more freely among users to the extent consistent with the 

Commission’s public interest objectives.

Service Level Agreement (SLA)—An agreement between a 

user and a service provider defining the nature of the service 

provided and establishing metrics for that service, trouble 

reporting procedures and penalties if the service provider fails 

to perform.

Set-top box—A stand-alone device that receives and decodes 

programming so that it may be displayed on a television. Settop boxes may be used to receive broadcast, cable, and satellite 

programming.

Side lobe—Distribution of microwave energy outside the main 

beam. Side lobes are measured in both the horizontal (E-plane) 

and the vertical (H-plane) directions. Normally, the E-plane 

has higher sidelobes, i.e., more energy distributed outside the 

main beam.

Single Frequency Network (SFN)—A network used in distributed transmission and differing from a cellular telephone system 

by using the same frequency in all adjacent cells.

Smart Grid—The electric delivery network, from electrical generation to end-use customer, integrated with sensors, software, 

and two-way communications technologies to improve grid 

reliability, security, and efficiency. 

Smart meter—A digital meter (typically electric) located on the 

customer premises that records energy usage and has two-way 

communications capabilities with utility systems.
3 5 4 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n A P P ENDICES

Spatial reuse—An efficiency measure that allows use of the 

same spectral link at the same time.

Subscriber Line Charge (SLC)—A federally regulated monthly 

service charge assessed by telephone companies to pay for a 

portion of the local telephone wires, poles and other facilities 

used to connect a local telephone exchange.

Substantially Underserved Trust Area—A community on land 

held in trust by the United States for Native Americans (or on 

certain other trust lands), which the Secretary of the Interior 

has determined has a high need for the benefits of certain federal programs.

Sufferance basis—The use of spectrum with no legal claim to 

tenancy. Using spectrum on a sufferance basis means that the 

use is subject to preemption at any time by the licensee. 

Switched Digital Video (SDV)—A method of delivering video 

programming to subscribers in a given area only when at least 

one subscriber in that area actively requests that programming.

Switching—The process of connecting the transmission path 

that allows the calling party to connect to the called party.

Table of Allotments—A list of which television stations may 

broadcast a digital or analog signal over a given band of spectrum in a given community. The tables may be found in sections 

73.606(b) and 73.622(b) of the Commission’s rules.

Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS)— A telephone service 

that enables persons with TTYs, individuals who use sign 

language and people who have speech and hearing disabilities 

to use telephone services by having a third party transmit and 

translate a call. Consumers can access these services by using, 

for example, video phones, computers, web-enabled devices, 

captioned telephones, and TTYs.

Teletype or telephone typewriter—A type of machine that allows 

people with hearing or speech disabilities to communicate over 

the phone using a keyboard and a viewing screen.

Transcoding—The process of directly converting a digital media 

file or object from one format to another allowing one to view 

media that is otherwise not supported by his/her device.

Transport—The transmission facilities between the wire center 

or switch of an incumbent local exchange carrier and the wire 

center or switch of another carrier.

Use case—In software engineering and systems analysis, a 

methodology used to identify, clarify, and organize system 

requirements as it responds to a request that originates from 

outside of that system. 

Video description—The insertion of audio-narrated descriptions 

of a television program’s key visual elements into natural pauses 

between the program’s dialogue so that the critical details of the 

information are accessible to persons with visual disabilities.

Video navigation device—A piece of equipment used by consumers within their premises to receive multichannel video 

programming and other services offered over multichannel 

video programming systems Converter boxes, interactive 

equipment, and other.

Wireless Priority Service (WPS)—A federal program that authorizes cellular communications service providers to prioritize calls 

over wireless networks. Participating service providers typically 

deploy WPS in stages until service is available in most coverage 

areas and functionality has reached full operating capability.
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n A P P ENDICES

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 3 5 5

APPENDIX D

LIST OF WORKSHOPS AND FIELD HEARINGS

The FCC held 36 public workshops in Washington, D.C. and nine field hearings across the country as part of an extensive effort to 

engage the public in crafting the National Broadband Plan. These workshops and hearings attracted more than 10,000 in-person 

and online attendees. The panelists for the workshops and hearings included FCC staff and commissioners, other government 

officials and representatives from consumer groups, service providers, broadcasters, manufacturers, application providers and 

many other companies and organizations. The transcripts and videos for these events are all part of the National Broadband Plan 

record and are available at www.broadband.gov.

Event Date Location

1 E-Gov/Civic Engagement Workshop 8/6/2009 Federal Communications Commission

2 Deployment: Wired-General Workshop 8/12/2009 Federal Communications Commission

3 Deployment: Wireless-General Workshop 8/12/2009 Federal Communications Commission

4 Deployment: Unserved-Underserved Workshop 8/12/2009 Federal Communications Commission

5 Technology/Fixed Broadband Workshop 8/13/2010 Federal Communications Commission

6 Technology/Wireless Workshop 8/13/2009 Federal Communications Commission

7 International Lessons Workshop 8/18/2009 Federal Communications Commission

8 Opportunities for Small and Disadvantaged Businesses Workshop 8/18/2009 Federal Communications Commission

9 Building the Fact Base: The State of Broadband Adoption and Utilization 

Workshop

8/19/2009 Federal Communications Commission

10 Low Adoption and Utilization: Importance of Broadband and Applications 

Workshop

8/19/2009 Federal Communications Commission

11 Programmatic Efforts to Increase Broadband Adoption and Usage: What 

Works and What Doesn’t Workshop

8/19/2009 Federal Communications Commission

12 Broadband Opportunities for People with Disabilities Workshop 8/20/2009 Federal Communications Commission

13 Education Workshop 8/20/2009 Federal Communications Commission

14 Public Safety and Homeland Security Workshop 8/25/2009 Federal Communications Commission

15 Smart Grid, Broadband and Climate Change Workshop 8/25/2009 Federal Communications Commission

16 Economic Growth, Job Creation and Private Investment Workshop 8/26/2009 Federal Communications Commission

17 Job Training Workshop 8/26/2009 Federal Communications Commission

18 Technology/Applications and Devices Workshop 8/27/2009 Federal Communications Commission

19 State and Local Governments: Toolkits and Best Practices Workshop 9/1/2009 Federal Communications Commission

20 Benchmarks Workshop 9/2/2009 Federal Communications Commission

21 Big Ideas with Potential to Substantially Change the Internet Workshop 9/3/2009 Federal Communications Commission

22 Broadband Consumer Context Workshop 9/9/2009 Federal Communications Commission

23 Health Care Workshop 9/15/2009 Federal Communications Commission

24 The Role of Content in the Broadband Ecosystem 9/17/2009 Federal Communications Commission

25 Spectrum Workshop 9/17/2009 Federal Communications Commission

26 Public Field Hearing, National Broadband Plan, FCC Commissioner 

Meredith Atwell Baker

9/21/2009 The Thompson Conference Center, 

TCC 3.108

2405 Robert Dedman Drive

Austin, Texas
3 5 6 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n A P P ENDICES

Event Date Location

27 Cybersecurity Workshop 9/30/2009 Federal Communications Commission

28 FCC Hearing on Capital Formation in the Broadband Sector 10/1/2009 Federal Communications Commission

29 Diversity and Civil Rights Issues In Broadband Deployment and Adoption 

Workshop

10/2/2009 Federal Communications Commission

30 FCC Hearing on Broadband Adoption, Commissioners Mignon Clyburn and 

Michael Copps

10/6/2009 Trident Technical College

Palmer Campus

66 Columbus St.

Charleston, S.C.

31 FCC Field Hearing: Mobile Applications and Spectrum 10/8/2009 Univ. of San Diego

5998 Alcala Park

San Diego, Calif. 

32 Economic Issues in Broadband Competition Workshop 10/9/2009 Federal Communications Commission

33 Broadband Accessibility for People with Disabilities II: Barriers, 

Opportunities and Policy Recommendations Workshop

10/20/2009 Federal Communications Commission

34 FCC Field Hearing on Broadband Access for People with Disabilities 11/6/2009 Gallaudet University

Kellogg Conference Center

800 Florida Ave. N.E.

Washington, D.C. 

35 FCC Broadband Field Hearing on Improving Public Safety Communications 

and Emergency Response

11/12/2009 Georgetown University

Leavey Center

3800 Reservoir Road N.W.

Washington, D.C. 

36 Capitalization Strategies for Small and Disadvantaged Businesses 

Workshop

11/12/2009 Federal Communications Commission

37 Future Fiber Architectures and Local Deployment Choices Workshop 11/19/2009 Federal Communications Commission

38 Research Recommendations for the Broadband Taskforce Workshop 11/23/2009 Federal Communications Commission

39 FCC Field Hearing on Energy and the Environment 11/30/2009 MIT Stratton Student Center 

Twenty Chimneys

84 Massachusetts Ave.

Cambridge, Mass. 

40 Lessons for the National Broadband Plan from Local Officials Representing 

Underserved Communities Workshop

12/9/2009 Federal Communications Commission

41 Global Broadband Connects America and the World: Infrastructure, 

Services and Applications Workshop

12/10/2009 Federal Communications Commission

42 Review and Discussion of Broadband Deployment Research Workshop 12/10/2009 Federal Communications Commission

43 FCC Field Hearing on Digital Inclusion 12/14/2009 National Civil Rights Museum Rose 

Room 450 Mulberry St.

Memphis, Tenn. 

44 FCC Broadband Field Hearing on Small Business 12/21/2009 Univ. of Chicago

Gleacher Center

450 N. Cityfront Plaza Drive

Chicago, Ill.

45 Broadband and New Media Strategies for Minority Radio Workshop 1/26/2010 Federal Communications Commission
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n A P P ENDICES

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 3 5 7

APPENDIX e

LIST OF NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN

CONTRIBUTORS

The National Broadband Plan was created by the staff of the FCC

Omnibus Broadband Initiative

Rajeev Bajaj Pierce Graham-Jones Janice Morrison

Sharren Bates Rebecca Hanson Byron Neal

Philip Bellaria Joseph Heaps Andrew Nesi

Kevin Bennett Keyla Hernandez-Ulloa Stagg Newman

Scott Berendt John Horrigan Karen Perry

Elana Berkowitz Shawn Hoy Tom Peters

Mialisa Bonta Eugene Huang Marie Pharaoh

Peter Bowen Spencer Hutchins Sridhar Prasad

Val Brock Lyle Ishida Steven Rosenberg

Michael Broom David Isenberg Ellen Satterwhite

Thomas Brown Kristen Kane Douglas Sicker

Paul Carroll Mohit Kaushal Michael Simkins

Mukul Chawla Thor Kendall Nicholas Sinai

Ronnie Cho Kevin King Joseph Soban

Robert Curtis Carlos Kirjner Jessica Strott

Brian David Elise Kohn Elvis Stumbergs

Rohit Dixit Brian Korgaonkar Gayle Teicher

Vishal Doshi Thomas Koutsky Jordan Usdan

Elizabeth Duncan Anurag Lal Jing Vivatrat

Robert Eckert Blair Levin Dave Vorhaus

Roger Fillion Elizabeth Lyle Scott Wallsten

Leo Fitzpatrick Colleen Mallahan Christopher Walti

Jennifer Flynn Mark Maltais Stacey Weiss

John Erik Garr Jennifer Manner Brian Weeks

Sheryl Gelfand Carol Mattey Mark Wigfield

Adam Gerson Nicholas Maynard Charles Worthington

Roger Goldblatt Kerry McDermott Phoebe Yang

Rebekah Goodheart Steve Midgley

Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau

Joel Gurin Cheryl King Mikelle Morra

Michael Jacobs Steve Klitzman Mark Stone

Karen Johnson Lauren Kravetz Gregory Vadas

Donice Jones Yul Kwon

Susan Kimmel Celeste McCray

Enforcement Bureau

Cynthia Bryant Genaro Fullano Koyulyn Miller

P. Michele Ellison Nissa Laughner Katherine Power
3 5 8 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n A P P ENDICES

International Bureau

Donna Christianson Narda Jones Caroline Schleh

Mindel De La Torre Karl Kensinger Daniel Shiman

Anita Dey Carrie Lee Early Marilyn Simon

Jerry Duvall Hsin Mei Hsu Thomas Sullivan

Kiran Duwadi Robert Nelson Emily Talaga

Gardner Foster Kathryn O’Brien Robert Tanner

Pamela Gerr Shelia S Crawley Andrea Tutmarc

Francis Gutierrez Sean O’More Irene Wu

Linda Haller Sloan Roderick Porter

Media Bureau

Simon Banyai Alma Hughes Rodney Royse

William Beckwith William Lake Debra Sabourin

Joyce Bernstein Wayne McKee Dana Scherer

Katie Costello Kris Monteith Krista Witanowski

Heather Dixon Alison Neplokh John Wong

Marcia Glauberman Michael Perko

Roger Holberg

Office of Communications Business Opportunities

Gilberto DeJesus Belford Lawson Carolyn Williams

Calvin Osborne Thomas Reed

Office of Engineering and Technology

Rashmi Doshi James Miller Salomon Satche

Walter Johnston Nicholas Oros Rodney Small

Ira Keltz Nam Pham Alan Stillwell

Julius Knapp Ron Repasi Robert Weller

Geraldine Matise Bruce Romano Anh Wride

Office of Legislative Affairs

Diane Atkinson Solita Griffis Aurelle Porter

Jim Balaguer Christopher Lewis Chelle Richmond

Connie Chapman Lori Maarbjerg Timothy Strachan

Shomik Dutta Joy Medley

Terri Glaze Chris Moore

Office of Managing Director

Kim Bassett Joshua Wingard Cynthia Schieber

Walt Boswell Judy Herman Dana Shaffer

Gray Brooks Diana Huynh Larry Shields

Toby Brown Eric Kanner Sheila Shipp

Lavonia Connelly George Krebs Wanda Sims

Daniel Daly Vanessa Lamb Mark Stephens

Ruth Dancey Andrew Martin Geraldine Taylor

Arecio Dilone Lynn Moaney Jamie Thompson

Stephen Ebner Ann Pricci Bonita Tingley

Bridget Gauer Mercedes Ragland Haley Van Dyck

Diane Graham Patricia Rinn Steve VanRoekel

Noelle Green Richard Robinson Carlyn Walker

Shoko Hair Juan Salazar Tenecia Williams

Judith Herman Erik Scheibert Darshan Williams
a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n A P P ENDICES

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | NATIONAL b r o a d b a n d P LAN 3 5 9

Office of Media Relations

Steve Balderson Jen Howard Jeffrey Riordan

Cozette Ballesteros Dann Oliver David Kitzmiller

Charles Harrington Audrey Spivack Meribeth McCarrick

David Fiske

Office of Strategic Planning and Policy Analysis

Adele Andrews Sherille Ismail Jon Peha

Jonathan Baker Zachary Katz William Sharkey

Robert Cannon Evan Kwerel Tamara Smith

Jared Cornfeld Amaryllis Flores John Williams

Paul de Sa

Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau

Pat Amodio David Furth William Lane

Kim Anderson Aaron Garza Richard Lee

Jamie Barnett Behzad Ghaffari Jennifer Manner

Tom Beers Jeff Goldthorp Tim May

Joe Casey Brian Hurley Susan McLean 

Yoon Chang Mike Iandolo Ken Moran

Jeff Cohen Greg Intoccia Erika Olsen

Jean Ann Collins Kurian Jacobs Timothy Peterson

Eric Ehrenreich Robert Kenny Joy Ragsdale

Lisa Fowlkes Deborah Klein Deandrea Wilson

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau

Joan Andes Beth Fishel Paul Murray 

Richard Arsenault Benjamin Freeman Roger Noel

Audrey Bashkin Suzan B Friedman Charles Oliver 

Karen Black Nese Guendelsberger Michael Pollak 

Cheryl Black Mae Hall Sayuri Rajapakse

Craig Bomberger Kevin Holmes Lynn Ratnavale 

Ty Bream William Huber Annette Ritchie

Barret Brick Jane Jackson Mark Rossetti

James Brown Elias Johnson Erik Salovaara

Mary Bucher Stephen Johnson John Schauble 

Steve Buenzow Joyce Jones Jim Schlichting 

Saurbh Chhabra Heidi Kroll Blaise Scinto 

Linda Chang Yolanda Lee Ziad Sleem

Michael Connelly John Leibovitz Michael Smith

Renee Crittendon Joseph Levin Martha Stancill

Lloyd Coward Scott Mackoul Jeff Steinberg 

Howard Davenport Eliot Maenner Walt Strack 

Peter Daronco Paul Malmud Joel Taubenblatt 

Melvin Del Rosario Charles Mathias Ruth Taylor 

Monica Delong Nicole McGinnis Jeffrey Tignor

Monica Desai Gary Michaels Peter Trachtenberg 

Debra Dick Chris Miller Margaret Wiener

Sandra Eckenrode Elizabeth Miller Brian Wondrack

Chelsea Haga Fallon Ruth Milkman Morasha Younger

Stacy Ferraro Jackye Milne Nancy Zaczek 
3 6 0 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o m m i s s i o n | w w w . b r o a d b a n d . g o v

a m e r i c a ’ s p l a n A P P ENDICES

Wireline Competition Bureau

Claude Aiken Zina Ellison Jennifer Prime

Nicholas Alexander Lynne Engledow Jonathan Reel

James Bachtell Irene Flannery Vickie Robinson

Daniel Ball Lisa Gelb Catherine Seidel

Ernesto Beckford Sharon Gillett Cecilia Seppings

Amy Bender Amy Goodman Carol Simpson 

Dana Bradford Heather Hendrickson Gina Spade

Val Brock Terrance Judge Cindy Spiers

Regina Brown Katie King Tim Stelzig

Thomas Buckley Melissa Kirkel Donald Stockdale 

Kirk Burgee Jim Lande Craig Stroup 

Ted Burmeister Al Lewis Jamie Susskind 

Ellen Burton Kenneth Lynch Elizabeth Valinoti McCarthy

Thomas Butler Marcus Maher Cara Voth 

Anita Cheng Jennifer McKee Geoff Waldau

Randy Clarke Erica Meyers Matthew Warner

Bryan Clopton Jeremy Miller Romanda Williams

Nicholas Degani Alexander Minard Rodger Woock 

William Dever Mark Nadel Adrian Wright

Ian Dillner Claudia Pabo

James Eisner Wesley Platt 

The staff of the FCC wishes to thank several contractors who supported the creation of the National Broadband Plan. 

Key contractors included: Umasankar Arumugam, Arnab Das, Ivan Djordjevic, Mark Guttman, Andrew Herman, 

Sarah Kellogg, Vinay Oberoi, Glenda Rivas, James Stegeman, and Patricia Wheelock.