Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced
Telecommunications Capability to All Americans
in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible
Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to
Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of
1996, as Amended by the Broadband Data
Improvement Act

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

GN Docket No. 15-191

2016 BROADBAND PROGRESS REPORT
Adopted: January 28, 2016
By the Commission:

Released: January 29, 2016

Chairman Wheeler and Commissioners Clyburn and Rosenworcel issuing
separate statements; Commissioner Pai concurring and issuing a statement;
Commissioner O’Rielly dissenting and issuing a statement.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Heading

Paragraph #

I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 1
II. BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................................... 7
A. Statutory Requirements and Context ............................................................................................... 7
B. Previous Broadband Progress Reports............................................................................................. 9
III. ANALYZING ADVANCED TELECOMMUNICATIONS CAPABILITY IN THE
CONTEMPORARY BROADBAND ECOSYSTEM .......................................................................... 12
A. Advanced Telecommunications Capability Requires Access to Both Fixed and Mobile
Broadband...................................................................................................................................... 20
1. Fixed and Mobile Broadband Have Distinct Characteristics and Capabilities........................ 25
2. Fixed and Mobile Broadband Currently Serve Different Needs ............................................. 31
3. Consumers Require Access to Both Services.......................................................................... 40
B. Fixed Satellite Broadband.............................................................................................................. 45
C. Benchmarking Advanced Telecommunications Capability........................................................... 49
1. Speed ....................................................................................................................................... 50
2. Other Performance Metrics ..................................................................................................... 62
3. Schools and Libraries Benchmark........................................................................................... 71
IV. BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT AND AVAILABILITY.................................................................. 72
A. Data Sources .................................................................................................................................. 73
1. Fixed and Mobile Broadband Deployment (FCC Form 477 Deployment Data, and
Other Data Sources). ............................................................................................................... 73
2. Elementary and Secondary Schools Deployment (FCC Form 471 and Other Sources) ......... 76
B. Broadband Deployment Estimates................................................................................................. 77
1. Access to Fixed Advanced Telecommunications Capability .................................................. 79
2. Access to Mobile Broadband Services .................................................................................... 82
3. Deployment of Fixed Advanced Telecommunications Capability (25 Mbps/3 Mbps)
and Mobile Broadband Services.............................................................................................. 84
4. Estimated Maximum Options for Advanced Telecommunications Capability....................... 85

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

5. Trends in the Availability of Fixed Advanced Telecommunications Capability (2012
to 2014) ................................................................................................................................... 87
6. Demographic Analysis of the Areas Without Access to Fixed Advanced
Telecommunications Capability.............................................................................................. 89
7. Elementary and Secondary School Connectivity .................................................................... 92
C. Adoption and Other Indicators of Availability of Advanced Telecommunications
Capability to All Americans .......................................................................................................... 95
1. Broadband Adoption ............................................................................................................... 98
2. Other Indicators of Availability of Advanced Telecommunications Capability ................... 103
D. International Broadband Service Capability ................................................................................ 114
V. ADVANCED TELECOMMUNICATIONS CAPABILITY IS NOT BEING DEPLOYED
TO ALL AMERICANS IN A REASONABLE AND TIMELY FASHION ..................................... 119
VI. REMOVING BARRIERS, PROMOTING COMPETITION AND EFFORTS TO
ACCELERATE DEPLOYMENT ...................................................................................................... 125
VII.ORDERING CLAUSE....................................................................................................................... 140
APPENDIX A — Commenters
APPENDIX B — Table Index
APPENDIX C — Data Sources and Definitions
APPENDIX D — Americans Without Access to Fixed Advanced Telecommunications Capability
State and U.S. Territory
APPENDIX E — Americans Without Access to Fixed Advanced Telecommunications Capability by
County
APPENDIX F — Impact of the Inclusion of Satellite Services on Deployment and Overall Adoption
Rates for Fixed 4 Mbps/1 Mbps and 10 Mbps/1 Mbps Services
APPENDIX G — Tribal Lands Without Access to Advanced Telecommunications Capability by State
APPENDIX H — Overall Adoption Rates for Fixed Advanced Telecommunications Capability by State
& U.S. Territory
I.

INTRODUCTION

1.
We issue this Report pursuant to section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as
amended, on our annual inquiry regarding the availability of “advanced telecommunications capability”
to all Americans and the Congressional directive to determine whether such capability is being deployed
to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.1 We find that advanced telecommunications
capability is not being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion. As discussed in
detail below, while our efforts have helped increase deployment, many Americans still lack access to
advanced telecommunications capability, especially in rural areas and on Tribal lands. The disparity
between advanced telecommunications capabilities available to rural and urban Americans persists. We
1

47 U.S.C. § 1302(b). For simplicity in past inquiries, the Commission has sometimes used the term “broadband”
to refer to “advanced telecommunications capability.” However, “advanced telecommunications capability” is a
statutory term with a definition that differs from the term “broadband” as it is used in other contexts. See 47 U.S.C.
§ 1302(d)(1) (“The term ‘advanced telecommunications capability’ is defined, without regard to any transmission
media or technology, as high-speed, switched, broadband telecommunications capability that enables users to
originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications using any technology.”).
Thus, in this Inquiry, we do not equate the term “broadband” with the statutory term “advanced telecommunications
capability,” but we do necessarily consider the availability of various broadband services that contribute to advanced
telecommunications capability in our analysis under the statute. See Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of
Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible
Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as Amended
by the Broadband Data Improvement Act, GN Docket No. 15-191, Eleventh Broadband Progress Notice of Inquiry,
30 FCC Rcd 8823, 8824 n. 3 (2015) (Notice or 2015 Eleventh Broadband Progress Notice of Inquiry).

2

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

also find that many schools, particularly those in rural areas, continue to lack access to advanced
telecommunications capabilities, necessary to meet the shorter and long term goals we established for the
E-rate program (more formally known as the Schools and Libraries universal service support program).

2.
Americans continue to turn to advanced telecommunications capability for every facet of
daily life, and use fixed and mobile services for distinct but equally important purposes. We find today
that the availability of advanced telecommunications capability requires access to both fixed and mobile
services. This understanding of advanced telecommunications capability more accurately reflects
consumer needs in today’s society. For example, consumers use fixed broadband service for high
capacity home use, including streaming high definition (HD) video, uploading large files and certain web
services, but also increasingly rely on mobile broadband services for activities like navigation,
communicating with family and friends and on social media, and receiving timely news updates away
from home. Fixed and mobile broadband services are both critical means by which Americans
communicate, and both should be evaluated in our analysis. We recognize that fixed and mobile services
can provide some similar functionalities in certain applications and circumstances. This does not,
however, change the inherent differences in key capabilities provided by the two services. Thus, as part
of this Inquiry, we take the common-sense step of including mobile broadband services in our assessment
of advanced telecommunications capability.
3.
We retain our existing speed benchmark of 25 Mbps download/3 Mbps upload (25
Mbps/3 Mbps) for fixed services, but find that the current record is insufficient to set an appropriate speed
benchmark for mobile service. While we find that it is reasonable to apply the same speed benchmarks to
all fixed services, including fixed terrestrial and fixed satellite broadband service, we continue to observe
different technical capabilities and adoption patterns between fixed terrestrial and fixed satellite service.
Because no fixed satellite broadband service meets the 25 Mbps/3Mbps speed threshold as of the
reporting period, we do not address the question of whether fixed satellite broadband services meeting
this speed threshold would be considered to provide advanced telecommunications capability. Thus, in
this Report we update how we account for both mobile services and satellite services.
4.
We conclude that advanced telecommunications capability is not being deployed to all
Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion. We recognize and applaud the meaningful progress that
has been made through continued public- and private-sector initiatives to advance deployment of 25
Mbps/3 Mbps broadband or higher service since the 2015 Broadband Progress Report.2 But there is still
more work to do. Despite the increase in the number of Americans that are able to obtain advanced
telecommunications capability, these advances are not occurring broadly enough or quickly enough to
achieve our statutory objective. Nationwide, one in ten Americans lacks access to 25 Mbps/3 Mbps
broadband. As importantly, there continues to be a significant disparity of access to advanced
telecommunications capability across America with more than 39 percent of Americans living in rural
areas lacking access to advanced telecommunications capability, as compared to 4 percent of Americans
living in urban areas, and approximately 41 percent of Americans living on Tribal lands lacking access to
advanced telecommunications capability.3 We note that small businesses tend to subscribe to mass
market broadband service. Thus, the rural-urban disparity in deployment of these broadband services also
disproportionately impacts the ability of small businesses operating in rural areas to successfully compete
in the 21st century economy.
2

Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a
Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, as Amended by the Broadband Data Improvement Act, GN Docket No. 14-126,
2015 Broadband Progress Report and Notice of Inquiry on Immediate Action to Accelerate Deployment, 30 FCC
Rcd 1375, 1418, para. 79, Table 4 (2015) (2015 Broadband Progress Report) (providing data on Americans without
access to fixed 25Mbps/3Mbps broadband); see also infra para. 79, Table 1.
3

See infra para. 79, Table 1.

3

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

5.
Congress also requires the Commission to evaluate the availability of advanced
telecommunications capability to schools and classrooms. Recent third-party analysis of data collected by
the E-rate program shows that while 20 million more students have access to high-speed broadband than
two years ago, 41 percent of schools have not yet met our short-term connectivity goal of 100 Mbps per
1,000 users, and an even higher percentage are struggling to meet our longer term goal of 1 Gbps per
1,000 users.4 Moreover, a recent survey of school district leaders conducted by CoSN in partnership with
the School Superintendents Association (AASA) and MDR reported that 68 percent of school district
leaders do not think they have sufficient bandwidth for today and the coming 18 months.5 For these
reasons, we separately conclude that advanced telecommunications capability to schools and classrooms
is not being deployed in a reasonable and timely fashion.
6.
As a consequence of our conclusion that advanced telecommunications capability is not
being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion, section 706 mandates that the
Commission “take immediate action to accelerate deployment of such capability by removing barriers to
infrastructure investment and by promoting competition in the telecommunications market.”6 Our
analysis finds that rural areas and Tribal lands are being left behind, as well as certain schools and
classrooms, from receiving the advanced services envisioned by Congress. Moreover, as outlined below,
only 38 percent of Americans have more than one choice of providers for fixed advanced
telecommunications capability.7 The competitive options for advanced telecommunications capability are
even more limited in rural areas with only 13 percent of Americans living in rural areas having more than
one choice of providers of these services compared to 44 percent of Americans living in urban areas.8
While actions of the Commission and the private sector have done much to accelerate the deployment of
advanced telecommunications capability, more needs to be done. We will continue working to remove
barriers to infrastructure investment, in part by direct subsidies, and in part by identifying and helping to
reduce potential obstacles to deployment, competition, and adoption—concepts that we continue to
recognize are tightly linked.
II.

BACKGROUND
A.

Statutory Requirements and Context

7.
Section 706(b) requires the Commission to “initiate a notice of inquiry concerning the
availability of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans (including, in particular,
elementary and secondary schools and classrooms).”9 In conducting this inquiry, the Commission must
“determine whether advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed to all Americans in a
reasonable and timely fashion.”10 If that determination is negative, the Commission “shall take

4

EducationSuperHighway, Connecting America’s Students: Opportunities for Action, at 12 (April 2014)
http://www.educationsuperhighway.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Connecting-Americas-Students-K12-E-rateSpending-Report-April-2014.pdf (EducationSuperHighway Report) (EducationSuperHighway (ESH) reports on the
number of schools and school districts with broadband access of 100 kbps or more of service per student, which
approximates our short term goal of 100 Mbps per user).
5

CoSN, 2014 Annual E-Rate and Infrastructure Survey, at 5 (2015), http://cosn.org/sites/default/files/pdf/
CoSN%202nd%20Annual%20E-rate%20and%20Infrastructure%20Report,%2010-15-2014_2.pdf (CoSN Survey).
6

47 U.S.C. § 1302(b). The D.C. Circuit has upheld our interpretation of subsections (a) and (b) of section 706 as
independent and overlapping grants of authority. Verizon v. FCC, 740 F.3d 623, 637-39 (D.C. Cir. 2014).
7

See infra para. 86, Table 6.

8

Id.

9

47 U.S.C. § 1302(b) (emphasis added).

10

Id.

4

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

immediate action to accelerate deployment of such capability by removing barriers to infrastructure
investment and by promoting competition in the telecommunications market.”11
8.
In 2008, Congress augmented the government’s role in ensuring that effective broadband
services reach all Americans by passing the Broadband Data Improvement Act (BDIA), which requires
the Commission to issue its section 706(b) reports annually,12 as well as provide specific demographic
information13 and international comparisons in its Report.14 The revisions to our statutory directive under
section 706 were based on Congress’s finding that “[t]he deployment and adoption of broadband
technology has resulted in enhanced economic development and public safety for communities across the
Nation, improved health care and educational opportunities, and a better quality of life for all
Americans.”15 Congress also recognized that continued efforts were necessary so that “our Nation
remains competitive and continues to create business and job growth.”16 Congress took additional action
in this area through the 2009 Recovery Act, which directed the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA) through the State Broadband Initiative (SBI) program to collect more
robust data about broadband deployment and create “a comprehensive nationwide inventory map of
existing broadband service capability and availability” through a National Broadband Map.17
Subsequently, in the 2013 Modernizing FCC Form 477 Order, we held it is in the public interest for the
Commission to collect data on deployment of fixed and mobile broadband networks. We held it should
be the Commission that collects the deployment data in order to help meet our statutory obligations.18
B.

Previous Broadband Progress Reports

9.
In recent Broadband Progress Reports, the Commission found that advanced
telecommunications capability was not being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely
fashion.19 The Commission based its determination on the lack of availability of fixed broadband services
and the Reports also included an assessment of factors indicative of fixed broadband availability,
including physical deployment, broadband price, quality, and adoption by consumers.20 In those Reports,
11

Id. § 1302(b).

12

BDIA § 103(a)(1); 47 U.S.C. § 1302(b).

13

BDIA § 103(a)(3); 47 U.S.C. § 1302(c). The BDIA requires that the Commission “compile a list of geographical
areas not served by any provider of advanced telecommunications capability.” Id. To the extent that Census Bureau
data are available, the Commission must then “determine, for each such unserved area—(1) the population; (2) the
population density; and (3) the average per capita income.” Id.
14

BDIA § 103(b)(1); 47 U.S.C. § 1303(b).

15

BDIA § 102(1); 47 U.S.C. § 1301(1).

16

BDIA § 102(2); 47 U.S.C. § 1301(2).

17

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, § 6001(l), Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115 (2009) (Recovery
Act).
18

Modernizing the FCC Form 477 Data Program, WC Docket No. 11-10, Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 9887,
9897, para. 22 (2013) (Modernizing Form 477 Order).
19

2015 Broadband Progress Report, 30 FCC Rcd at 1378, para. 4; see also Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of
Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible
Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as Amended
by the Broadband Data Improvement Act, GN Docket No. 11-121, Eighth Broadband Progress Report, 27 FCC Rcd
10342, 10344, 10350, paras. 1, 9 & n.47 (2012) (2012 Eighth Broadband Progress Report) (also summarizing the
findings in the first through seventh reports).
20

Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a
Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, as Amended by the Broadband Data Improvement Act, GN Docket No. 10-159,
Seventh Broadband Progress Report and Order on Reconsideration, 26 FCC Rcd 8008, 8020-21, paras. 18-20 (2011)
(continued….)

5

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

the Commission did not include mobile and satellite services in its determination because it found that
data regarding those services may overstate deployment to a significant degree and because of concerns
about the latency and capacity of mobile broadband services.21
In the 2015 Broadband Progress Report, the Commission increased the speed benchmark
for advanced telecommunications capability to 25 Mbps/3 Mbps, up from the 4 Mbps/1 Mbps benchmark
used in the previous three Reports.22 In setting the benchmark, the Commission took into account the
needs of multiple users in the average household, as well as the speeds required to use high-quality video,
data, voice, and other broadband applications.23 The Commission further held that “[t]rends in
deployment and adoption, the speeds that providers are offering today, and the speeds required to use
high-quality video, data, voice, and other broadband applications all point at a new benchmark.”24 The
Commission then found that approximately 55 million Americans lacked access to broadband services
that provided advanced telecommunications capability.25
10.

11.
On August 7, 2015, the Commission released the 2015 Broadband Progress Notice of
Inquiry soliciting new data and information to evaluate various factors that influence the availability of
broadband to all Americans.26 The Commission sought comment on whether advanced
telecommunications capability should include consumer access to both fixed and mobile broadband
service.27 The Commission also sought comment on speed benchmarks.28 The Commission noted its
intention to explore use of the revised FCC Form 477 broadband deployment data in future reports,
including whether and how the revised data could be used for a more comprehensive consideration of
mobile broadband service and potentially satellite broadband.29

(Continued from previous page)
(2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report); see also 2012 Eighth Broadband Progress Report, 27 FCC Rcd at
10363, para. 27.
21

2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8023-24, para. 26; 2012 Eighth Broadband Progress
Report, 27 FCC Rcd at 10365-68, paras. 31-43. On August 21, 2012, the Commission released the 2012 Ninth
Broadband Progress Notice of Inquiry. The Commission did not issue a Report on that inquiry. By separate Order,
the Commission announced the conclusion of the inquiry begun by the 2012 Ninth Broadband Progress Notice of
Inquiry. See Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a
Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps To Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, as Amended by the Broadband Data Improvement Act, GN Docket Nos. 12-228, 14126, Order, 30 FCC Rcd 1567 (2015).
22

2015 Broadband Progress Report, 30 FCC Rcd at 1377, para. 3 & n.4.

23

Id. at 1377, para. 3.

24

Id.

25

2015 Broadband Progress Report, 30 FCC Rcd at 1378, para. 4 (“Although public- and private-sector initiatives
continue to advance deployment, these advances are not occurring broadly enough or quickly enough. Recent data
show that approximately 55 million Americans (17 percent) live in areas unserved by fixed 25 Mbps/3 Mbps
broadband or higher service, and that gap closed only by three percentage points in the last year.”).
26

See generally 2015 Eleventh Broadband Progress Notice of Inquiry, 30 FCC Rcd 8823.

27

Id. at 8824-25, para. 3.

28

Id. at 8825, para. 3 (“…we propose to retain the speed benchmark of 25 Mbps download/3 Mbps upload (25
Mbps/3 Mbps) applied to fixed terrestrial services in the 2015 Broadband Progress Report, and we seek comment
on applying this speed benchmark to fixed satellite services. We also seek comment on a lower speed benchmark
for mobile broadband service….”).
29

2015 Eleventh Broadband Progress Notice of Inquiry, 30 FCC Rcd at 8824-25, para. 3.

6

 Federal Communications Commission
III.

FCC 16-6

ANALYZING ADVANCED TELECOMMUNICATIONS CAPABILITY IN THE
CONTEMPORARY BROADBAND ECOSYSTEM

12.
In this section, we present our findings regarding the proper interpretation of the
definition of advanced telecommunications capability in the contemporary broadband ecosystem. First,
we discuss the incorporation of mobile broadband into our finding regarding the deployment of advanced
telecommunications capability. In particular, we explain our finding that, today, fixed and mobile
broadband are not functional substitutes, and that both services provide necessary components of
advanced telecommunications capability. Next, we discuss fixed satellite service, and determine that all
fixed services should meet the same speed benchmarks in the context of our section 706 advanced
telecommunications capability determination. We then discuss the benchmarks by which the deployment
of advanced telecommunications capability should be measured for broadband services, with separate
consideration of speed benchmarks for fixed and mobile broadband. We also discuss the separate
benchmarks for measuring deployment of advanced telecommunications capability to American schools
and libraries.
13.
Background. Through section 706, Congress has directed the Commission to review, on
an annual basis, “the availability of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans.”30 The
statute broadly defines advanced telecommunications capability as “high-speed, switched, broadband
telecommunications capability that enables users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data,
graphics, and video telecommunications using any technology.”31 Congress left to the Commission the
task of interpreting the meaning of terms such as “advanced,” “high-speed,” and “high-quality.”32
However, as the Commission has noted in past Reports, it is most reasonable to conclude that Congress
used the term “advanced” to refer to broadband services that “permit consumers to originate and receive
highly developed or progressive services” rather than those merely providing “the most common or basic
capabilities.”33 Further, Congress intended that our interpretation of “advanced” telecommunications
capability evolve to keep pace with technological development and changing consumer needs.34 This
view is supported both by the technologically neutral language utilized by Congress to frame section
706,35 and the legislative history of the 1996 Act.36 Therefore, our survey of the deployment of
“advanced” telecommunications capability centers on the functionality broadband services provide to end
users, rather than the underlying technology being utilized.37 Such an approach avoids undue focus on
any subset of broadband services, while also ensuring that our interpretation of the definition of advanced
telecommunications capability is consistent with current technological and market realities.
14.
For these reasons, the Commission has developed a holistic approach to analyzing
broadband services that considers consumer usage patterns and prevailing trends in the residential
broadband market in deciding which broadband services satisfy the definition of advanced
30

47 U.S.C. 1302(b).

31

47 U.S.C. 1302(d).

32

2015 Broadband Progress Report, 30 FCC Rcd at 1394, para. 27.

33

Id. at 1391, para. 22.

34

Id. at 1390-91, paras. 19-23.

35

See 47 U.S.C. § 1302(d)(1) (“The term ‘advanced telecommunications capability’ is defined, without regard to
any transmission media or technology, as high-speed, switched, broadband telecommunications capability that
enables users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications using any
technology.”) (emphasis added).
36

See e.g., 141 Cong. Rec. 15108 (1995) (Senator Pressler, then Chair of the Senate Commerce Committee and a
sponsor of the 1996 Act, explained that the proposed legislation would promote access to existing capabilities “and a
host of other services that soon will be available.”).
37

See, e.g., 2015 Broadband Progress Report, 30 FCC Rcd at 1395-1401, paras. 29-40.

7

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

telecommunications capability.38 In the 2015 Broadband Progress Report, for example, we pointed to
several developments that, when taken together, compelled the Commission to reevaluate the thenexisting 4 Mbps/1 Mbps speed benchmark, which had been in place since 2010, in favor of a 25 Mbps/3
Mbps standard.39 In reaching this finding, the Commission relied in particular on the expanding demand
for online video services,40 increasing simultaneous usage of multiple devices in a single household,41 and
growing adoption of 25 Mbps/3 Mbps services by consumers in areas where such services were available,
among other trends.42
15.
Because section 706 requires the Commission to determine “geographical areas that are
not served by any provider of advanced telecommunications capability,”43 our interpretation of the
definition of advanced telecommunications capability also necessarily reflects the quality and granularity
of data available to the Commission.44 The data also affect the scope of our finding. Notably, as we have
explained in prior Reports, the Commission has previously had “significant concerns about the quality
and reliability of the mobile and satellite service data.”45 Partly for this reason, prior Broadband Progress
Reports have discussed mobile and satellite broadband, but have omitted these services from the
Commission’s ultimate finding under section 706(b).46
16.
In the 2015 Broadband Progress Notice of Inquiry, we sought comment on whether and
precisely how to include mobile and satellite broadband into our interpretation of the definition of
advanced telecommunications capability.47 The Notice also sought comment on the use of additional,
non-speed criteria to define advanced telecommunications capability,48 and whether to raise or
supplement the current speed benchmark of 25 Mbps/3 Mbps with a higher, forward-looking
benchmark.49
17.
Overview. After careful review of the record developed in response to the Notice, as well
as other publicly available information, we find that consumers have advanced telecommunications
capability only to the extent that they have access to both fixed and mobile broadband service. As they
currently exist, fixed and mobile broadband services are not functional substitutes for one another, as

38

Id. at 1394, para. 27 (“We interpret the terms in [section 706(d)], such as ‘advanced,’ ‘high-speed,’ and ‘highquality’ . . . by examining trends in providers’ speed offerings, what technical speeds are required to use various
common applications, and data regarding what speeds consumers are adopting when they have the option to
purchase various speeds.”).
39

See id. at 1393-94, paras. 26-27.

40

Id. at 1395-98, paras. 30-32.

41

Id. at 1399-1401, paras. 37-40.

42

Id. at 1401-03, paras. 41-44.

43

47 U.S.C. § 1302(c).

44

For instance, the 2015 Broadband Progress Report referenced the availability of data regarding the deployment of
25 Mbps/3 Mbps services as a factor favoring the adoption of a 25 Mbps/3 Mbps speed benchmark. 2015
Broadband Progress Report, 30 FCC Rcd at 1401, para. 48.
45

Id. at 1379-80, para. 9.

46

2015 Broadband Progress Notice of Inquiry, 30 FCC Rcd 8825-26, para. 5-6; see also 2015 Broadband Progress
Report, 30 FCC Rcd at 1379-80, para. 9; 2012 Eighth Broadband Progress Report, 27 FCC Rcd at 10365-68, paras.
31-43.
47

See 2015 Broadband Progress Notice of Inquiry, 30 FCC Rcd at 8826-31, paras. 7-18, 8833-35, paras. 26-30.

48

See, e.g., id. at 8835, para. 31, 8838, para. 41.

49

See id. at 8832, paras. 24-25.

8

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

some commenters suggest.50 Rather, as many commenters recognize, in today’s society, fixed and mobile
broadband are both critically important services that provide different and complementary capabilities,
and are tailored to serve different consumer needs.51
18.
Additionally, the data from the revised Form 477 collection now enable us to explore
satellite broadband speed data in our section 706(b) analysis. We find that it is reasonable to apply the
same speed benchmarks to all fixed services, including fixed terrestrial and fixed satellite broadband
services for the purposes of our section 706(b) determination in light of the technological neutrality
mandated by the statute.52 However, we also observe different technical characteristics and adoption
patterns for fixed satellite service—factors that remain a part of our section 706(b) analysis. The Form
477 data show that no fixed satellite broadband service reaches the 25 Mbps/3 Mbps speed benchmark as
of the reporting period. Accordingly, we do not need to address the question of whether a fixed satellite
service meeting this benchmark would be considered to provide advanced telecommunications capability
under section 706 of the Act.53
19.
Finally, we find that our current standard of 25 Mbps/3 Mbps continues to represent an
appropriate benchmark for fixed broadband service. As discussed in more detail below, the current
record does not allow us to set a speed benchmark for mobile broadband service. We decline to adopt any
additional benchmarks for defining the boundaries of advanced telecommunications capability at this
time.54 Likewise, we decline to adopt any additional, non-speed benchmarks in this Report, in part due to
concerns about the adequacy of our data on these metrics.55 Although we do not today set specific
standards for metrics such as latency or service consistency, we continue to recognize the importance of
developing a holistic analysis of broadband performance that considers factors other than speed in
evaluating advanced telecommunications capability.56 As such, we intend to continue our evaluation of
these additional performance characteristics in future reports.

50

See, e.g., Verizon Comments at 9 (arguing that fixed and mobile broadband “often are interchangeable” and that
therefore “mobile broadband supplements and substitutes for fixed broadband.”); Free State Foundation Comments
at 4 (“Wireless broadband should be incorporated into the Section 706 analysis in a manner that recognizes wireless
as a substitute or potential substitute for wireline—in other words, as another provider in the same broadband
marketplace.”).
51

See, e.g., CCA Comments at 3 (arguing that our section 706 determination “should take into account the divergent
uses, capabilities and architectures of mobile broadband versus fixed broadband networks”); The Rural Associations
Comments at 4-5 (stating that “significant technical and marketplace differences” indicate that “fixed and mobile
services are not equivalent or substitutable for policymaking purposes”); T-Mobile Reply at (“Both fixed and mobile
services are essential components of advanced telecommunications capability.”).
52

Currently, certain earth stations also are used in motion and operate using Fixed Satellite Service satellites. Due
to size and cost, however, such earth station equipment is generally not suitable for widespread consumer offerings
comparable to those for terrestrial mobile services. See 2015 Broadband Progress Notice of Inquiry, 30 FCC Rcd at
8832, para. 26. ViaSat, a leading provider of satellite broadband services and one of the only commenters to directly
address this issue, argued that “whatever benchmarks the Commission may adopt apply equally to terrestrial and
satellite-based service providers.” ViaSat Comments at 1; see also The Rural Associations Comments at 6-7.
53

We note that there are significant differences, including in technical characteristics and demand patterns, between
a fixed satellite service and a fixed terrestrial service, and nothing in this Report should be considered as a
determination about the economic substitutability of these services. See infra notes 168-169 (discussing current
technical and market-based distinctions between residential fixed terrestrial and fixed satellite broadband services).
54

See infra Section III.C.1.a.

55

See infra Section III.C.2.

56

See infra Sections III.C.2.a; III.C.2.b.

9

 Federal Communications Commission
A.

FCC 16-6

Advanced Telecommunications Capability Requires Access to Both Fixed and
Mobile Broadband

20.
We begin this evaluation by making the determination that mobile broadband is as
essential as fixed broadband service. Americans increasingly rely on mobile devices as indispensable
tools of daily life as personal and business interactions have rapidly become interwoven with smartphoneand tablet-based texting, email, social media, and entertainment applications that rely on mobile
broadband services. In emergency situations, Americans often use mobile devices to contact
first-responders when a fixed connection is not readily available, whether at home, at work, or when
traveling. As smartphone and tablet use increases, mobile broadband will play an increasingly central
role in American culture, business, and the economy. Indeed, mobile device usage is on a steeply
increasing trajectory. The smartphone share of mobile phones in the U.S. increased to 77 percent in
November 2015 from 50 percent two years earlier.57 Monthly data usage per subscriber with data capable
units also increased to 849 MB from 122 MB over the 2010 to 2013 period.58 Ericsson predicts that by
2021, the mobile data traffic per active smartphone in the U.S. and Canada will be almost 25 GB per
month.59 In addition to the increasing demand from smartphones and tablets, other connected devices
such as health monitors could significantly increase the number of wireless connections. Americans also
now rely on mobile devices for important tasks. Pew Research reports that over half of American
smartphone users in the year before October 2014 used their phone to look up health information and do
online banking, and significant percentages use their smartphones for job searches and for education.60
Data and speed demand from smartphones, tablets and other wireless connections is increasing
constantly, as is the capability of such devices. Thus, advanced telecommunications capability over
mobile is needed to satisfy consumer demands of high speed applications.
21.
With these trends expected to continue,61 and future technological developments
imminent, the central importance of mobile broadband use in the United States will only increase. Based
on the current widespread use of mobile broadband for communications, information access, locationbased services, and social media and business networking, as well as emerging trends and the clear
prospect of future innovation, we find that mobile broadband is now an important component of advanced
telecommunications services and will play an increasingly important role in the future.
22.
In the previous Report, we did not include mobile services in our statutorily mandated
finding.62 We stated, however, that future Reports would benefit from more reliable analysis because of
substantially improved mobile data from the revised Form 477 collection.63 Since our last Report, we
have, in fact, substantially increased our collection of data, particularly through the required reporting of
57

Implementation of Section 6002(b) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993; Annual Report and
Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions With Respect to Mobile Wireless, Including Commercial Mobile
Services, WT Docket No. 15-125, DA 15-1487, Eighteenth Report, Chart III.C.3 (Dec. 23, 2015) (Eighteenth
Mobile Competition Report).
58

Id. at 15348, Chart III.C.2.

59

Ericsson Mobility Report, North America (November 2015), http://www.ericsson.com/mobility-report.

60

More precisely, 62 percent of respondents reported using their smartphones to get information about a health
condition, 57 percent used it for online banking, 43% used it for looking for job information; 18% used it to submit a
job application, and 30 percent used the phone to take a class or get educational content. See Aaron Smith, U.S.
Smartphone Use in 2015 (April 1, 2015), http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/01/us-smartphone-use-in-2015.
61

For example, the GSMA predicts that monthly U.S. data usage will increase from 1.9 GB per consumer in 2014 to
10.8 GB in 2019, and smartphone penetration will increase from 35 percent in 2010 to 76.6 percent in the U.S. in
2020. GSMA, The Mobile Economy North America (2015) at 10-11.
62

2015 Broadband Progress Report, 30 FCC Rcd at 1379-80, para. 9.

63

Id. at 1380, para. 10.

10

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

minimum advertised speeds through the Form 477. In addition, we are informed by the mobile
Measuring Broadband America (mMBA) initiative, which crowdsources test results obtained from users
of the Commission’s mobile application.64 Although some current limitations of the available data
sources prevent us from reporting geographic areas that lack advanced mobile services with reliable
accuracy at this time, these data from the Form 477 and mMBA program help us better analyze mobile
broadband deployment than in years past.
23.
There is little doubt that mobile broadband plays an increasingly influential role in
consumers’ lives, and in achieving the Commission’s goal that all Americans will have access to
advanced telecommunications capability.65 Indeed, the record reflects widespread acknowledgement of
the importance of mobile broadband, and support for its inclusion into our section 706(b) finding,66 but
while commenters generally agree that the Commission should consider mobile broadband in analyzing
the deployment and availability of advanced telecommunications capability,67 the record reveals
significant disagreement as to the appropriate means of doing so. Several commenters argue that mobile
and fixed broadband each provide the same Internet access service, and that, insofar as the services are
substitutes for one another, advanced telecommunications capability is deployed wherever consumers
have access to either service.68 Other commenters disagree, arguing that mobile and fixed broadband
provide distinct services to consumers and are not substitutes, and that deployment of advanced
telecommunications capability therefore requires access to both services.69 Still other commenters argue
that the time for consideration of these issues is premature,70 or that the Commission should find that

64

See Measuring Broadband America available at https://www.fcc.gov/measuring-broadband-america (last visited
Nov. 18, 2015); FCC Speed Test available at
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.samknows.fcc&hl=en (last visited Nov. 18, 2015).
65

See, e.g., U.S. Cellular Comments at 3-5; PCIA Reply at 2-3.

66

See, e.g., Public Knowledge Comments at 1 (arguing that mobile is a “critical” part of the nation’s
telecommunications infrastructure, and observing that “[c]onsumers have become increasingly dependent on mobile
broadband and location-based services such as maps, location-sensitive search results, and other tools to manage
their daily lives.”); CCA Comments at 2 (“In the Notice, the Commission asks whether mobile broadband should be
included in the definition of ‘advanced telecommunications capability,’ and the answer is a resounding ‘yes.’”);
CTIA Comments at 2 (“[T]he Section 706 Report should account for the significant role that mobile broadband
plays in Americans’ lives.”); The Free State Foundation Comments at 3; PCIA Reply at 3 (“[T]he Commission’s
inclusion of mobile broadband services in the definition of “advanced telecommunications capability” under Section
706 is long overdue.”).
67

See, e.g., Verizon Comments at 4-5 (“The Eleventh NOI’s recognition that mobile broadband should be
incorporated into Section 706 broadband progress inquiries going forward . . . is an overdue course correction.”);
CTIA Comments at 2; CCA Comments at 1. But see Windstream Comments at 1; California PUC Comments at 3
(recommending that the Commission “defer its decision on including mobile broadband in its definition of advanced
telecommunications capability”).
68

See, e.g., Free State Foundation Comments at 10 (“The proposal to treat broadband as deployed only in areas
where both wireline and mobile wireless broadband have been deployed also appears to be premised on the faulty
premise that wireline and wireless broadband are somehow distinct, non-competing, and non-substitutable services.
But the assumed dichotomy between wireless and wireline broadband is based on hair-splitting. Wireline and
wireless are platforms for providing the same type of service: broadband service.”).
69

See, e.g., Public Knowledge Reply at 7 (“Despite carriers’ assertions to the contrary, there is ample data to
demonstrate that consumers perform different functions depending on whether they are connected to wireline or
mobile broadband networks”); WISPA Reply at 2 (“Mobile broadband is not an adequate substitute for fixed
broadband—it does not enable home-based businesses, online educational opportunities or other applications that
consumers in urban and suburban areas take for granted.”).
70

See Windstream Comments at 2-4, California PUC Comments at 15-16.

11

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed in a reasonable and timely manner without
specifying the precise relationship between fixed and mobile broadband services.71
24.
We find that today fixed and mobile broadband are often used in conjunction with one
another and, as such, are not functional substitutes. We base this finding on the capabilities both services
offer to consumers,72 the manner in which these services are marketed to and used by consumers,73 and
evidence suggesting that consumers overwhelmingly purchase both services when they have the financial
means.74 Taken together, fixed and mobile broadband are currently tailored to serve different consumer
needs. Finally, we find that fixed and mobile broadband each provide essential components of advanced
telecommunications capability, and that, as such, advanced telecommunications capability should be
deemed deployed only in areas where consumers have access to both services as defined herein.75
1.

Fixed and Mobile Broadband Have Distinct Characteristics and Capabilities

25.
Although fixed and mobile broadband services each provide consumers with access to the
public Internet, they offer distinct functionalities utilizing very different network technologies.76 Mobile
broadband services offer consumers mobility – the ability to access the Internet while at myriad locations
and while in transit from one location to another. As a result, fixed and mobile broadband services also
have distinct capabilities and characteristics.77 Therefore, while fixed and mobile services sometimes
provide overlapping functionality, each service has unique attributes. Additionally, mobile and fixed
broadband services often enhance the quality of one another.78
a.

Fixed Broadband

26.
There are several different types of fixed broadband service that generally share the
common characteristic of utilizing a physical transmission path to connect a user to the Internet—
predominantly through coaxial cable, copper wire, or fiber-optic cable. Today, cable modem service is
the most common fixed broadband service in the United States, accounting for approximately 59 percent
of all fixed broadband service subscriptions.79 Wired services, including cable, DSL, and fiber,

71

See, e.g., CTIA Comments at 6-7 (arguing that mobile broadband deployment is reasonable and timely).

72

See infra Section III.A.1.

73

See infra Sections III.A.2.a and III.A.2.b.

74

See infra Section III.A.2.c.

75

See infra Section III.A.3.

76

See, e.g., The Rural Associations Comments at 3-5. See also GAO, Fixed Broadband Data Caps Report at 4-6.

77

See T-Mobile Reply at 3 (noting that fixed and mobile broadband have “different technical service capabilities”
and that “consumers generally access different content and services on different devices depending on the nature of
their broadband connection”).
78

For example, many services allow cashless transactions through mobile devices, and accounts which can be
managed through fixed connections. In another example, commuters can work on projects via a mobile connection
while using public transport, saving time for more intense tasks when they reach a fixed connection. In the near
future, the Internet of Things will require both fixed and mobile connections to seamlessly link communications
devices to non-communication devices and services, like appliances, utilities or even vehicles. See generally Scott
Amyx, Why the Internet of Things Will Disrupt Everything, Wired (July 2014),
http://www.wired.com/insights/2014/07/internet-things-will-disrupt-everything/ (stating that communications of
smart objects will be multimodal).
79

Form 477 Broadband Subscriber Data, as of December 31, 2014 (measuring numbers of residential connections
over 200 Kbps in at least one direction). Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) is the second most common service type,
with roughly 29 percent of the fixed broadband market. Id. Fiber-to-the-premises (FTTP) connections represent
approximately 9 percent of the market, while satellite and fixed wireless account for less than three percent. Id.

12

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

collectively represent approximately 97 percent of the fixed broadband market.80 While there are fixed
broadband services that connect users to the Internet using wireless transmission pathways, such as fixed
satellite and fixed wireless service, they are adopted by less than three percent of residential fixed
broadband subscribers.81
27.
Reliance on physical transmission pathways allows wired terrestrial broadband—
particularly the advanced cable and fiber-to-the-premises (FTTP) services that account for the majority of
fixed connections in the U.S.—the ability to deliver high-speed, high-capacity connections.82 Residential
fixed broadband providers now offer service tiers of up to 1 Gbps in certain markets,83 with even faster
services currently in development.84 Even outside these areas, download speed offerings by fixed
terrestrial providers of 50 Mbps or more are common in urban and suburban markets.85 In addition to
high bandwidth, use of a physical transmission media allows for high-quality broadband access services.
The high-speed cable and fiber services that make up the majority of the fixed broadband market
generally offer low latency, low packet loss, and consistent speeds, even during peak usage times.86
Further, these services are also high in capacity, meaning that they can handle more traffic without
becoming congested.87
28.
While services like cable and FTTP have many advantages, use of a physical connection
also has inherent limitations—most notably that the service is tied to a particular static location. Wi-Fi
routers allow a fixed connection to be easily shared by a variety of devices at the same time, however,
coverage is generally limited to nearby devices.88 Fixed broadband connections may also be vulnerable to
local service interruptions due to power outages or other types of equipment failure.89
b.

Mobile Broadband

29.
Although advances in technologies and functionalities have made mobile broadband
services much more versatile and useful to consumers, there are important differences between mobile
80

See supra note 80. Dial-up technology represents roughly one percent of the overall household Internet
subscriptions (0.853 million dial-up subscriptions out of 88.867 million Internet subscriptions). U.S. Census
Bureau, 2014 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates 2014 ACS One Year Estimates, B28002.
81

Form 477 Broadband Subscriber Data, as of December 31, 2014.

82

As of December 31, 2014, 86 percent of residential household subscriptions to fixed services with a minimum
speed of 25 Mbps/3 Mbps were to cable services, 13 percent were to FTTP services and 1 percent were to DSL
services. Form 477 Broadband Subscriber Data, as of December 31, 2014.
83

See, e.g., AT&T, U-verse with AT&T GigaPower, (last visited January 15, 2015), https://www.att.com/shop/uverse/gigapower.html (last visited Dec. 15, 2015) (advertising “Internet up to 1 Gbps on a 100% fiber-optic
network”), Google Fiber, About, https://fiber.google.com/about/ (Jan. 15, 2015) (advertising a connection “that’s up
to 1,000 megabits per second”).
84

See, e.g., FTTH Comments at 9 (noting that “Comcast’s new 2 Gbps all-fiber offering . . . is nearly 80 times faster
than the Commission’s proposed 25 Mbps/3 Mbps benchmark.”). Verizon indicates that it has begun testing “nextgeneration 10 Gbps speeds over its all-fiber network.” Verizon Comments at 6.
85

Form 477 data suggest that 277.3 million Americans (86 percent) have access to fixed 50 Mbps download
broadband service or higher and 63 percent of these 277.3 million Americans reside in urban areas. Form 477 Data,
as of December 31, 2014. See 2015 Measuring Broadband America Report at 8 (listing the most popular service
tiers for a variety of fixed broadband providers).
86

See 2015 Measuring Broadband America Report at 1-2, 10, 16-18.

87

See, e.g., T-Mobile Reply at 6-7.

88

GAO Fixed Broadband Data Caps Report at 5-6 & 6 n.10.

89

See, e.g., Comcast Xfinity, What to Do if Your Cable or Internet is Out, (last visited Jan. 15, 2015),
http://customer.xfinity.com/help-and-support/cable-tv/cable-not-working/.

13

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

and fixed broadband. Mobile transmissions are subject to environmental factors that fixed line
transmissions do not encounter and, thus, cannot achieve the same kinds of consistent speeds at the
current level of technology.90 Further, mobile devices by their nature must be portable and thus smaller
than their fixed counterparts. This limits the computational abilities of mobile devices and makes their
interfaces smaller, especially screens.91 It follows that data-intensive activities such as telecommuting or
the highest-quality multimedia experiences are generally inappropriate for mobile devices.92
30.
On the other hand, mobile devices also provide unique advantages over fixed
connections. Unmoored from a fixed point, mobile devices empower Americans to access to the web and
web-based applications while on the go. An innovative ecosystem of user-friendly apps has emerged for
both iOS- and Android-based mobile smartphones. These apps harness the unique capabilities of mobile
devices. For example, because mobile devices can pinpoint a user’s location, there are many apps that
will give directions, recommend nearby businesses, or even alert a user when friends are nearby. Mobile
broadband has a special relationship with social media, as it allows users to easily update their social
media while at live events.
2.

Fixed and Mobile Broadband Currently Serve Different Needs

31.
The different characteristics of fixed and mobile networks contribute to further
dissimilarities in the ways in which these services are marketed to and used by consumers. Critically,
fixed and mobile services generally have distinct pricing models, providing consumers with very different
levels of data/capacity,93 which, in combination with the differences in capability discussed above, lead to
significant differences in the ways that most consumers use fixed and mobile broadband.94 Collectively,
these differences indicate that fixed and mobile broadband currently serve different needs, and are not
adequate substitutes for one another.95 This finding is also strongly supported by the preferences and
purchasing decisions of American consumers, who overwhelmingly adopt both services when they have
the means.96
a.

Marketing and Pricing

32.
Fixed Broadband. Fixed broadband services generally do not face the same limitations
regarding capacity and congestion that affect mobile broadband networks and, some fixed broadband
90

For example, the cell traffic loading or demand is dependent on the overall number of concurrent active mobile
broadband users sharing the same cell, which in turn depends on user locations, the day of the week, and the time of
the day. The capacity of a service provider’s wireless network is dependent on the deployed mobile wireless
technology, sites and equipment, available bandwidth, and enhanced backhaul connections. See Implementation of
Section 6002(B) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Annual Review and Analysis of Competitive
Market Conditions With Regard to Mobile Wireless, Including Commercial Mobile Services, WT Docket 11-186, 28
FCC Rcd 3700 at 3894, para. 293 (March 19, 2013) (Sixteenth Competition Report).
91

See Matt Smith, Why Your Smartphone Won’t Be Your Next PC, Digital Trends (Aug. 3, 2013),
http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/why-your-smartphone-wont-be-your-next-pc/.
92

Fixed broadband’s hold on high-resolution multimedia is borne out by Sandvine’s 2015 report on broadband
usage, where video service Netflix represented 34.7 percent of aggregate Peak Traffic for fixed broadband in North
America, compared with 3.22 percent of peak aggregate traffic over mobile networks. See Sandvine Global Internet
Phenomena Report 2015, at 3-7 (2015), https://www.sandvine.com/trends/global-internet-phenomena/ (2015
Sandvine Report).
93

See Public Knowledge Comments at 3 (“In part to deal with the technical limitations, pricing and purchasing
patterns for mobile broadband are substantially different from wireline.”). See also infra Section III.A.2.a.
94

See infra Section III.A.2.b.

95

PCIA Reply at 3 (“[F]ixed and mobile broadband services meet different consumer needs . . . .”).

96

See infra Section III.A.2.c.

14

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

providers offer consumers unlimited data usage plans at a given connection speed for a flat monthly fee.97
Where fixed providers have introduced data caps, these caps have generally been set significantly higher
than those accompanying mobile broadband data plans.98 For this reason, fixed terrestrial broadband
services are generally far less expensive on a cost-per gigabyte basis than mobile broadband services.99
33.
Mobile Broadband. There are two main types of billing plans for mobile service in the
United States: postpaid and prepaid. Postpaid plans require monthly payment after service has been
provided; prepaid requires payment in advance on a minutes, day or data used basis.100 Most U.S. mobile
telephone consumers subscribe to postpaid plans.101 Historically, a postpaid plan required a two-year
service contract that included early termination fees as a method of subsidizing the provision of a mobile
phone handset at a discounted price. Since 2013, carriers have been departing this model, with more
postpaid plans offered without contracts and with consumers paying separately for handsets (either at full
retail price or through an equipment installment plan, or EIP).102
34.
Unlike fixed broadband, comparable metrics of price across carriers is not entirely
straightforward. Postpaid plans generally include a flat fee for a specified limit, or allowance, on
megabytes or gigabytes of data available for use without additional charge and either slower speeds on
data that exceeds the allowance, the option to buy additional data, or a separate overage fee based on how
much one exceeds the allowance.103 Moreover, there are many different plans that differ on numerous
dimensions, such as the data allowance amount or the device used. For example, a standard single line
plan with an EIP in April of 2015, the price per GB of data (as defined by the flat fee divided by the data
allowance) for AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile was $13, and $20 for Verizon.104 For a comparable 4-line
plan, the effective price per GB is lower, with AT&T and Verizon at $10 and Sprint and T-Mobile at
$8.105 Data allowances differ, with AT&T, Verizon, Sprint and T-Mobile respectively having 3, 2, 2 and
97

See GAO, Broadband Internet: FCC Should Track the Application of Fixed Internet Usage-Based Pricing and
Help Improve Consumer Education at 1 (Nov. 2014), http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/667164.pdf.
98

For example, in the Washington D.C. metro area, Comcast currently offers an unlimited 25 Mbps download
service for an introductory price of $39.95 per month. Comcast Xfinity, Internet Service,
http://www.xfinity.com/internet-service (last visited Nov. 17, 2015). In select areas where Comcast has begun to
trial data caps for residential broadband subscribers, monthly usage has been capped between 250 and 600 GB per
month, depending on the location and service tier. See Comcast Xfinity, Questions and Answers about Our Data
Usage Plans, http://customer.xfinity.com/help-and-support/internet/common-questions-datapolicy (last visited Nov.
16, 2015). Furthermore, in most areas where Comcast has imposed data caps, consumers may choose to purchase
additional data in 50 GB increments for $10 per block, or an unlimited data plan for an additional fee of $30 to $35
per month. See Comcast Xfinity, What is the Unlimited Data Option?, http://customer.xfinity.com/help-andsupport/internet/exp-unlimited-data (last visited Nov. 16, 2015). In contrast, data caps accompanying typical mobile
broadband plans tend to range from 2 to 12 GB per month. See infra para. 34.
99

See 2015 Broadband Progress Notice of Inquiry, 30 FCC Rcd at 8830, para. 16 & n. 43-44 (“The potential impact
of data allowances and overage charges in mobile broadband plans if customers tried to switch from fixed terrestrial
broadband to mobile broadband service could be substantial.”). The GAO has investigated the use of data caps by
fixed broadband providers and found that most consumers do not currently exceed these caps. See GAO UsageBased Pricing Report at 20. In contrast, as Public Knowledge notes in its comments, “[r]esearch has shown that
30% of smartphone-dependent Americans ‘frequently’ exhaust their data allowance, and 51% report that it happens
at least occasionally.” Public Knowledge Comments at 2.
100

Eighteenth Mobile Competition Report, WT Docket No. 15-125, DA-15-1487, paras. 74-103.

101

Id. at para. 72.

102

Id. at paras. 82-85.

103

Id. at paras. 97-103.

104

Philip Cusick, North America Equity Research, J.P. Morgan (April 15, 2015).

105

Id.

15

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

3 GB allowances for their single line plans, and 10, 10, 12, and 12 for the four line plans.106 However,
mobile plans on a per GB basis are more expensive and have lower data allowances than fixed plans.107
b.

Usage Patterns

35.
Fixed Broadband. As a service that is generally high in speed and network capacity,
fixed broadband is better positioned than mobile to accommodate multiple simultaneously connected
devices and bandwidth-heavy household uses, particularly streaming video services, which are
increasingly popular with consumers.108 Additionally, as a service that generally permits significant
amounts of monthly data usage, fixed broadband offers consumers an economical way to take advantage
of bandwidth and data-intensive applications like HD video streaming and video conferencing.109 For
these reasons, today’s broadband consumers largely view fixed and mobile as providing different
functionality.110 As T-Mobile explains, “fixed services allow consumers to view high definition video for
larger screens and download and share large files, while mobile broadband powers smartphones, wearable
devices, mobile health monitoring, video suitable for smaller screens and countless location-based
services.”111 These preferences are also reflected in the different composition of broadband traffic across
fixed and mobile networks. As we observed in the 2015 Broadband Progress Notice of Inquiry, real time
entertainment accounts for 64.5 percent of all peak traffic on fixed networks,112 while on mobile
broadband networks, real-time entertainment accounts for only 36.5 percent of aggregate peak traffic.113
36.
Mobile Broadband. Technological advances in the last decade have created new,
powerful, and diverse capabilities for mobile devices, which has fostered consumer demand.
Smartphones and tablets allow Internet access, streaming video, and many other digital activities away
from a fixed connection. Today, smartphone and tablet use is widespread. The Pew Research Center
reports that as of July 2015, 68 percent of Americans use a smartphone.114 Additionally, Americans spend
an increasing amount of time on their mobile devices. For example, market-research firm comScore
estimated that in June 2015 mobile usage represented 62 percent of the time Americans spend on a
computing device.115 Nielsen reports that in the third quarter of 2013, users spent 34 hours and 17
minutes per month on average using their mobile browser or apps and nearly six hours watching video on

106

Id.

107

See supra note 99.

108

See David B. Stewart Comments at 1 (noting that “increasing numbers of customers [are] cancelling their cable
TV subscriptions in favor of online streaming of news and entertainment programming . . . .”).
109

See 2015 Broadband Progress Notice of Inquiry, 30 FCC Rcd at 8830, para. 16 & nn.43-44.

110

See T-Mobile Comments at 3 (“[C]onsumers generally access different content and services on different devices
depending on the nature of their broadband connection.”); see also Public Knowledge Comments at 4 (citing a
recent study finding that consumers “use[] the two connections for different purposes, favoring their smartphone for
social networking and their at-home fixed network for media, shopping, and information searches.”).
111

T-Mobile Comments at 6.

112

Sandvine Global Internet Phenomena, Latin America & North America 2015 at 3.

113

Id. at 6.

114

Pew Research Center, Home Broadband 2015 (December 21, 2015),
http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/12/21/home-broadband-2015/ (Pew December 2015 Report).
115

Adam Lella, Andrew Lipsman & Ben Martin, The 2015 U.S. Mobile App Report, comScore (Sept. 22, 2015).

16

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

116

a mobile device.
This robust mobile usage is expected to increase with further technological
innovation and even more diverse capabilities for mobile devices.117
37.
Consumers’ relative amounts of data usage differs between fixed and mobile broadband
services. Sandvine reports that fixed broadband consumers in North America use an average of 57.4 GB
of data per month per household.118 In contrast, the GSMA reports 1.9 GB of data used per month per
U.S. consumer.119 The ways in which consumers use this data differs as well. For example, for 2013, the
Pew Research Center reported 50 percent of users download apps, 49 percent “get directions,
recommendations, or other location-based information,” and 8 percent “‘check in’ or share [their]
location.”120 Many fast-growing apps take advantage of the hardware built into mobile phones that can
track movement or location, like fitness apps such as FitBit, or on-demand transportation services like
Uber or Lyft.121
c.

Adoption Figures

38.
Analysis of consumers’ purchasing habits supports the conclusion that fixed and mobile
broadband are not currently substitute services. If mobile were a substitute for fixed broadband, then
significant numbers of mobile broadband subscribers could be expected to drop their fixed broadband
subscriptions to avoid the substantial cost of purchasing a redundant service. However, in a recent survey
referenced by Public Knowledge, “ninety-two percent of consumers said they were ‘very’ or ‘somewhat’
unlikely to cancel their home broadband connection in favor of a purely mobile experience.”122 Indeed, as
several commenters note, many Americans continue to purchase to both fixed and mobile broadband, and
both services continue to add subscribers.123 According to the Pew Research Center, 55 percent of adults

116

Nielsen, The Digital Consumer Report (February 2014).

117

It is important to note, however, that usage of a mobile device does not necessarily correspond to usage of a
mobile broadband service. This is because consumers frequently offload traffic generated by the use of a mobile
device to a fixed Wi-Fi connection, when one is available. See 2015 Broadband Progress Report, 30 FCC Rcd at
1399-1400, para. 37. This WiFi offload may account for as much as 80 percent of the data traffic generated by
wireless devices. See Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization, Telecommunications Carriers Eligible for
Universal Service Support, Connect America Fund, WC Docket Nos. 11-42, 09-197, 10-90, Second Further Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking, Order on Reconsideration, Second Report and Order, Memorandum Opinion and Order,
30 FCC Rcd 7818, 7840, para. 45 & n.134 (2015).
118

Sandvine, Global Internet Phenomena at 5 (2014), https://www.sandvine.com/downloads/general/global-internetphenomena/2014/2h-2014-global-internet-phenomena-report.pdf.
119

GSMA, The Mobile Economy North America (2015) at 11, http://gsmamobileeconomy.com/northamerica/.

120

Pew Research Center, Cell Phone Activities (2013), http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/09/19/cell-phoneactivities-2013/.
121

From June 2014 to June 2015, FitBit grew 922 percent in unique users, Uber 453 percent and Lyft 187 percent.
See Adam Lella, Andrew Lipsman & Ben Martin, The 2015 U.S. Mobile App Report, comScore (Sept. 22, 2015).
122

Public Knowledge Comments at 3-4.

123

See, e.g., T-Mobile Reply at 3 (“Millions of Americans subscribe to both fixed and mobile broadband services
and these numbers are increasing.”).

17

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

report having both a smartphone and a home broadband connection, up from 47 percent in 2013.124 These
trends have been observed in other countries as well.125
39.
Moreover, the data suggest that those Americans that do rely on mobile broadband
exclusively often lack the means to purchase both services. In a recent survey of smartphone adoption in
America, Pew Research found that only 13 percent of Americans rely on a smartphone only for
broadband access at home, compared to eight percent in 2013.126 Critically, this group of “smartphone
only” users is disproportionately comprised of young, low income, and minority Americans.127 Pew also
found that these users also are more likely than other users to run up against data-allowance limits that
often accompany smartphone service plans, and more frequently have to cancel or suspend service due to
financial constraints.128 In addition to these demographic differences, Pew found in another recent report
that when compared with other smartphone owners, “smartphone-dependent consumers”129 are less likely
to own a computer or tablet, less likely to have a bank account or health insurance, and less likely to own
their current residence.130 That report also found that although some 13 percent of Americans with a
household income of less than $30,000 per year are smartphone dependent, only one percent of
Americans with an annual income of $75,000 or more rely solely on mobile broadband.131 These data
suggest that the decision to rely exclusively on mobile broadband service is frequently driven by financial
necessity, rather than the view that fixed and mobile broadband are adequate substitutes for one
another.132
3.

Consumers Require Access to Both Services

40.
The aforementioned differences dispel the notion that fixed and mobile broadband, as
they exist today, provide consumers with the same service. On the contrary, they are distinct services
with complementary strengths and weaknesses, distinguishable in capability, pricing, and in the utility
they provide consumers.133 Perhaps most tellingly, as the record demonstrates, American consumers
simply do not treat the two services as functional substitutes.134 On the contrary, Americans, including
those who do not have broadband, increasingly view an at-home, high-speed broadband connection as a
critical communications tool.135 Indeed, as Pew recently found, two-thirds of Americans believe that “not
124

Pew December 2015 Report at 8. Although the Pew Research Center also reports an uptick in the number of
people using smartphone only for broadband access while fixed, home broadband use has “plateaued,” there is no
evidence to suggest any causal connection between the increase in smartphone-only broadband use and the plateau
in fixed, home broadband use, or the observed one-year decrease in home broadband usage.
125

A comprehensive survey of over 160,000 people in 27 EU countries has found mobile and fixed wireless to be
complements. Lukasz Grzybowksi & Frank Verboven, Substitution between Fixed-Line and Mobile Access: the
Role of Complementarities, KU Leuven Center for Economic Studies Discussion Paper, DPS14.12 (June 2014).
126

Pew December 2015 Report at 9.

127

Id. at 9-10. See also Pew Smartphones April 2015 at 3.

128

Pew Smartphones December 2015 at 10.

129

As the term is used in the Pew April 2015 Report, “smartphone-dependent” users are Americans who own a
smartphone and both have “no broadband at home other than a smartphone data plan,” and “have limited options”
for Internet access besides their phone. See Pew Smartphones April 2015 Report at 3-4.
130

Pew Smartphones April 2015 at 18.

131

Id. at 17.

132

Id. at 18.

133

See supra Sections III.A.1 and III.A.2.

134

See supra Section III.A.2.c.

135

Pew December 2015 Report at 4-5.

18

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

having a home high-speed internet connection would be a major disadvantage to finding a job, getting
health information or accessing other key information.”136 Additionally, as discussed earlier, the number
of Americans with both fixed and mobile broadband connections is increasing.137 We therefore conclude
that our analysis of whether advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed in a reasonable
and timely fashion requires access to both fixed and mobile broadband services.
41.
Nonetheless, several commenters argue that, because fixed and mobile broadband
services sometimes fulfill the same needs, the availability of either service is sufficient for a finding that
advanced telecommunications capability is deployed.138 It is true that, at a high level of generality, both
services provide consumers with broadband Internet access service.139 As we have explained, however,
significant differences in service capability and pricing prevent fixed and mobile broadband from being
adequate substitutes for one another.140 Although fixed and mobile broadband sometimes provide
overlapping functionality, this does not compel the conclusion that the two services are interchangeable
for purposes of our Inquiry. Indeed, Americans with access to only one type of service are often unable
to take advantage of the full range of functionality offered by advanced telecommunications capability.141
As Public Knowledge notes, those that rely on only mobile broadband tend to perform a more limited
range of tasks than those who have access to both fixed and mobile broadband.142 Consumers that are
dependent solely on mobile broadband are significantly more likely to exceed their monthly data
allowances, causing them to incur additional fees or forego use of the Internet. And, as several
commenters note, mobile broadband networks lack the capacity or consistency of service to support most
bandwidth intensive uses such as full-screen HD video streaming, online gaming, and video conferencing
applications including telehealth and education platforms.143 In contrast, fixed broadband does not offer

136

Id. at 4. This figure is up from 56 percent in 2010. Id.

137

See supra paras. 38-39.

138

See The Free State Foundation Comments at 10 (“Wireline and wireless are platforms for providing the same
type of service: broadband service.”); Verizon Comments at 9 (arguing that “fixed and mobile often are
interchangeable”); AT&T Comments at 7 (asserting that AT&T’s LTE deployment efforts alone would satisfy
Section 706’s standard for deployment to all Americans).
139

See generally The Free State Foundation Comments at 10 (“Wireline and wireless are platforms for providing the
same type of service: broadband service.”).
140

See, e.g., WISPA Reply at 2-3 (“Mobile broadband is not an adequate substitute for fixed broadband – it does not
enable home-based businesses, online educational opportunities or other applications that consumers in urban and
suburban areas take for granted.”); T-Mobile Reply at 3 (“Fixed and mobile broadband . . . have different technical
service capabilities. Fixed services may offer certain advantages, such as greater capacity and potentially lower
latency. Mobile broadband, by contrast, is uniquely able to provide consumers with an ‘anywhere, anytime’
experience, including for example, location-based services.”).
141

See, e.g., T-Mobile Reply at 4 (“Even as consumers increase their adoption of mobile broadband, they continue
to depend on wired broadband connectivity to meet many of their needs. Consumption patterns suggest that
Americans with the purchasing power to do so often invest in both fixed and mobile technologies.”).
142

Public Knowledge Comments at 3.

143

NTCA, WTA, ERTA and NECA Comments at 3; Public Knowledge Comments at 3; T-Mobile Comments at 3;
United States Cellular Comments at 3; and Wireless Internet Service Providers Association Comments at 2.
Although mobile broadband allows consumers the flexibility to stream video while away from a fixed connection,
this capability is limited by the speed, capacity, and service consistency restrictions faced by mobile broadband
networks. As a result, video streaming on a mobile broadband network is often lower quality when compared to that
using a fixed connection. Further, the lower data allowances on network usage and/or tethering, which result in
significantly higher costs for the purchase of large amounts of data, make mobile broadband networks impractical
for the use of popular streaming services like Netflix.

19

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

consumers mobility, and is unable to provide consumers with Internet access needed to support the
myriad mobile applications they depend on as they go about their lives outside the home.144
42.
Therefore, mobile and fixed services are distinct.145 As we observed in the last Report,
even though a fixed connection suffices for many basic household uses, it is not adequate for all
household broadband needs.146 In fact, residential and business consumers alike often use mobile and
fixed services, for example, when service providers offload traffic from cellular networks to Wi-Fi
systems that are connected to the Internet via a fixed service.147 In addition, the increasingly dynamic
nature of residential and business communication requires a mix of fixed and mobile broadband access to
provide sufficient functionality for families and businesses whose members often simultaneously rely on
data-capacity intensive applications at fixed locations and mobile applications on the go.148 Thus, we find
that the deployment of advanced telecommunications services to all Americans depends on two distinct
but complementary components: fixed broadband and mobile broadband.
43.
Finally, we reject arguments suggesting that the technological neutrality of section 706
precludes us from considering fixed and mobile broadband separately in this Inquiry,149 or that the
Commission cannot reach a conclusion on this issue without first “conduct[ing] a detailed market
analysis” regarding the substitutability of fixed and mobile broadband.150 As we have explained, the
technologically neutral language used by Congress to frame section 706 requires the Commission to focus
on end-user functionality in lieu of the particular transmission media used by a service. Although fixed
and mobile broadband may utilize different network technologies, the salient differences between the two
service types are found not in their technological differences, but in the distinct capabilities that they
provide consumers. Nothing in the language of section 706 prevents the Commission from considering
these features, indeed, they are of particular importance to our inquiry insofar as they impact consumer
access to “high-quality” and “advanced” telecommunications services.
44.
Nor are we required to conduct a formal economic substitutability analysis before
reaching the conclusion that advanced telecommunications capability requires access to both fixed and
mobile services, as ADTRAN suggests.151 The fact that fixed and mobile broadband generally provide
different capabilities for today’s consumers is widely acknowledged.152 Our finding that mobility is a key
element of advanced telecommunications in today’s world is strongly supported by the record in this
proceeding, as is our judgement that fixed broadband is currently unable to provide consumers with this
144

See supra Sections III.A.1 and III.A.2.

145

Public Knowledge Comments at 3 (“[C]onsumers treat mobile and fixed broadband differently, and primarily
treat wireless as a complement to, not a substitute for, fixed broadband.”).
146

2015 Broadband Progress Report, 30 FCC Rcd at 1392, para. 53 (finding that household members routinely use
multiple broadband services simultaneously, and that even a single person often uses more than one broadband
service at the same time).
147

See supra note 118. We note that the 2015 Open Internet Order recognized that Wi-Fi is a different technology
from mobile wireless and requires particular network architecture. Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet,
Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 5601, 5611, 5700, 5711, paras. 34, 216,
244 (2015) (2015 Open Internet Order). The Order is currently in effect, pending judicial review in the D.C. Circuit
Court of Appeals following legal challenge in U.S. Telecom Ass’n v. FCC et al., docket No. 15-1063.
148

See generally 2015 Broadband Progress Report, 30 FCC Rcd at 1392, para. 53.

149

Verizon Comments at 9; Mobile Future Comments at 5; ADTRAN Comments at 10-15.

150

ADTRAN Comments at 12-13.

151

Id.

152

Deere & Company Comment at 7; NTCA, WTA, ERTA and NECA Comments at 3; Public Knowledge
Comments at 3; T-Mobile Comments at 3; and Wireless Internet Service Providers Association Comments at 2.

20

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

type of flexibility.153 Furthermore, as we have shown, mobile broadband is currently unable to provide
the capabilities that fixed broadband offers.154 For these reasons, we find that advanced
telecommunications capability requires access to both services.
B.

Fixed Satellite Broadband

45.
As anticipated in the 2015 Broadband Progress Notice of Inquiry, the revised Form 477
broadband deployment data enable us to more closely examine satellite broadband deployment at various
speeds for the first time. Satellite broadband providers have continued to invest substantial resources into
their networks, making progress in their home broadband offerings.155 These providers offer a range of
speeds with different usage limits at different prices, with differing latency and capacity, depending on
the type of services, with monthly service price offerings currently as low as $50.156
46.
As part of our Inquiry regarding the deployment of advanced telecommunications
capability, we conclude that it is reasonable to apply the same speed benchmark to both fixed terrestrial
and fixed satellite broadband service. Both services are fixed, and fixed satellite broadband providers
claim that with the new satellites, they can offer speeds exceeding our current fixed broadband speed
threshold.157 Similar to fixed terrestrial broadband service, fixed satellite service also may be used as a
home broadband solution. Considering that, for the purposes of our Inquiry, section 706 requires us to
measure advanced telecommunications capability irrespective of transmission technology or media, with
respect to speed threshold, it is reasonable to conclude that fixed satellite services must meet the same
speed benchmark as any other fixed services.158

153

See supra Sections III.A.2 and III.A.3. See also T-Mobile Reply at 3-8.

154

See, e.g., Remarks of William Baer, Assistant Attorney General-Antitrust Division, DOJ, The Future of Video
Competition and Regulation, Oct. 9, 2015) (noting that mobile is not currently “an adequate substitute” for fixed
broadband due to capacity and cost restraints).
155

2014 Fourth Measuring Broadband America Report at 4-5, 15-16, 18. Existing providers also are planning to
expand service offerings with the launch of new satellites in the near future, reflecting upgraded designs. For
example, with the launch ViaSat-2, ViaSat anticipates that its systems will have capability to provide speeds
exceeding our current speed benchmarks. See Webcast: Q2 2015 ViaSat Earnings Conference Call, ViaSat Inc.
(Nov. 9, 2015), http://investors.viasat.com/events.cfm. ViaSat also is planning a future series of ViaSat-3 satellites,
which it claims will eventually support a total throughput capacity of roughly one Terabit per second. Peter B. de
Selding, ViaSat Willing to Bet Big on Super-high-throughput Satellites, SpaceNews (Nov. 10, 2015),
http://spacenews.com/viasat-willing-to-bet-big-on-super-high-throughput-satellites/. Hughes plans to launch its
Jupiter 2 satellite in 2016, which according to Hughes, will have more than 150 Gbps throughput, operating with a
50 percent greater capacity than the Jupiter 1 satellite. Hughes, World’s Highest-Capacity Broadband Satellite
Coming in 2016, http://www.hughes.com/company/newsletters/spring-2013/worlds-highest-capacity-broadbandsatellite-coming-in-2016/ (last visited Nov. 12, 2015). O3b, a global broadband satellite provider with 12 satellites
in medium Earth orbit, also plans to expand its satellite constellation to accommodate additional customer demand
for high speed broadband offerings. See O3b Comments at 1-3; see also Caleb Henry, New Antennas on the
Horizon for O3b Networks, Via Satellite (Aug. 18, 2015), http://www.satellitetoday.com/telecom/2015/08/18/newsatellites-new-antennas-on-the-horizon-for-o3b-networks/.
156

See e.g., Exede Internet, Exede Internet Packages and Pricing, http://www.goexede.com/packages/ (last visited
Nov. 12, 2015); HughesNet, HughesNet Plans and Pricing, http://www.hughesnet.com/plans-and-pricing/internetservice (last visited Nov. 12, 2015); Hughes Net, Find the Right Plan for You, http://www.hughesnet.com/learnmore/guide (last visited Jan. 27, 2016).
157

See supra note 156. See also e.g., Fastest Home Satellite Internet Service in the U.S. With the New Exede WiFi
modem and a 25 Mbps Plan, ViaSat Inc. (Nov. 18, 2015), https://www.viasat.com/news/fastest-home-satelliteinternet-service-us-new-exede-wifi-modem-and-25-mbps-plan.
158

47 U.S.C. § 1302(d).

21

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

47.
We note, however, that consumer usage patterns and prevailing trends in the residential
broadband market are relevant to the deployment and availability of advanced telecommunications
capabilities under the Act.159 Although we find that fixed satellite broadband service must be subject to
the same speed benchmark as fixed terrestrial broadband as part of our statutory determination under
section 706(b) and in light of the substantial investments made by satellite providers to improve service
and extend broadband access to new markets,160 we continue to observe significant differences involving
technical capabilities and adoption patterns between fixed terrestrial and fixed satellite services.161 Most
satellite broadband service providers face technological challenges separate and apart from those faced by
fixed terrestrial providers.162
48.
Our finding that fixed satellite services must meet the same speed benchmark as any
other fixed services also should not be construed as a finding that the two services are interchangeable, or
that fixed satellite broadband is a substitute for fixed terrestrial broadband service. By this finding, we
159

2015 Broadband Progress Report, 30 FCC Rcd at 1394, para. 27 (“We interpret the terms in [section 706(d)],
such as ‘advanced,’ ‘high-speed,’ and ‘high-quality’ . . . by examining trends in providers’ speed offerings, what
technical speeds are required to use various common applications, and data regarding what speeds consumers are
adopting when they have the option to purchase various speeds.”).
160

See supra note 156. See also Letter from Tom Stroup, President, Satellite Industry Association (SIA), to Marlene
H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 15-191 at 2-3 (filed Jan. 21, 2016); ViaSat (VSAT) Mark D. Dankberg
on Q2 2016 Results - Earnings Call Transcript, Seeking Alpha (Nov. 10, 2015),
http://seekingalpha.com/article/3669846-viasat-vsat-mark-d-dankberg-on-q2-2016-results-earnings-calltranscript?part=single.
161

We note that the actual usage and adoption patterns for satellite services may differ from those for terrestrial
broadband due to differences in available speeds, pricing, data allowances, capacity, and latency. See 2015
Broadband Progress Notice of Inquiry, 30 FCC Rcd at 8833, para. 26; see also supra para. 26 & nn.80-81
(discussing the significantly larger market share of fixed terrestrial broadband providers compared to other types of
fixed service, including fixed satellite broadband).
162

Due to constraints on network capacity, most fixed satellite providers were generally offering home broadband
solutions with lower monthly usage plans and slower maximum speeds than fixed terrestrial providers during the
reporting period. Currently, fixed satellite providers generally offer residential broadband packages that provide
download speeds ranging between 5 Mbps and 15 Mbps, and upload speeds between 1 Mbps and 3 Mbps. See, e.g.,
Exede Internet, Plans & Pricing, http://promo.exede.com/nov-2015-b/liberty10-99-132LN1487EY.html?keyword=exede (last visited Jan. 22, 2016); Dish, High-Speed Internet,
https://www.infinitydish.com/internet/dishnet (last visited Jan 22, 2016); HughesNet, Plans and Pricing,
http://www.hughesnet.com/plans-and-pricing/internet-service (last visited Jan. 22, 2016). In comparison, many
fixed terrestrial providers offer speeds at or above 25 Mbps/3 Mbps, with certain providers offering download
speeds well in excess of 50 Mbps. See 2015 Measuring Broadband America Report at 8; see also Google Fiber,
About, https://fiber.google.com/about/ (last visited Dec. 15, 2015) (advertising a connection “that’s up to 1,000
megabits per second”). In addition, to date, residential fixed satellite broadband services available in the United
States predominantly utilize geostationary satellites to provide Internet access. Due to the large distances involved
in transmitting data to and from geostationary satellites, these fixed satellite services are also typically characterized
by higher latencies than terrestrial services. See 2015 Measuring Broadband America Report at 17 (noting that “the
average latencies of satellite-based broadband services (which range from 603 ms to 659 ms) are much higher than
those for terrestrial-based broadband services (which range from 14 ms to 52 ms).”). As the Commission observed
in the 2015 Measuring Broadband America Report, “[t]he higher latencies of satellite-based broadband services may
negatively affect the perceived quality of . . . highly interactive applications” such as VoIP calls, video chat, and
online multiplayer games. Id. at 18. Additionally, residential fixed satellite broadband service packages are often
subject to data caps, which generally range from 10 to 70 gigabytes per month. See, e.g., Exede Internet, Plans &
Pricing, http://promo.exede.com/nov-2015-b/liberty10-99-132LN-1487EY.html?keyword=exede (last visited Jan.
22, 2016); Dish, High-Speed Internet, https://www.infinitydish.com/internet/dishnet (last visited Jan. 22, 2016);
HughesNet, Plans and Pricing, http://www.hughesnet.com/plans-and-pricing/internet-service (last visited Jan. 22,
2016). In contrast, many fixed terrestrial broadband providers offer unlimited service plans, or utilize data caps set
at significantly higher levels. See supra para. 32 & n.99.

22

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

recognize the importance of the fixed satellite service and the role that the future satellite systems may
play as a home broadband alternative. Although speed is an important factor, characteristics such as
latency and consistency also may affect whether a service is able to support the “high-quality voice, data,
graphics, and video telecommunications” required for the provision of advanced telecommunications
capability.163 Based on the 477 data covering the relevant period in this Report, no satellite broadband
provider offers residential service meeting our fixed speed benchmark of 25 Mbps/3 Mbps, meaning that
the inclusion of satellite broadband in our calculations does not affect our ultimate finding under section
706(b).164 Because fixed satellite broadband does not meet the speed threshold for advanced
telecommunications capability, we do not need to evaluate whether fixed satellite broadband service as
provided today would otherwise satisfy the definition of advanced telecommunications capability under
the Act. We also do not need to address the technical and other distinctions between the current fixed
terrestrial and fixed satellite service offerings that may be relevant to our Inquiry. We will continue to
evaluate the effect of non-speed performance metrics, such as latency, capacity, and service consistency,
on the deployment and availability of advanced telecommunications capability in future Reports.
C.

Benchmarking Advanced Telecommunications Capability

49.
Although the Commission uses a holistic approach to analyzing broadband Internet
access services, the Commission has ultimately defined advanced telecommunications capability
primarily in terms of download and upload speeds, an approach that we continue in this Report.165 Speed
provides a particularly useful metric for analyzing the deployment of advanced telecommunications
capability because it generally provides a good proxy for service capability,166 and because the
Commission has long had reliable geographic speed data, at least for fixed services.167 This type of
granular geographic data is critical for fulfilling our statutory mandate to determine areas unserved by
advanced telecommunications capability under section 706(c).168
1.

Speed

50.
The 2015 Broadband Progress Notice of Inquiry proposed to retain the 25 Mbps/3 Mbps
speed benchmark for fixed broadband, while also seeking comment on whether any developments
suggested that the 25 Mbps/3 Mbps benchmark should be updated, or supplemented with an additional,
forward-looking speed benchmark.169 Additionally, the Notice sought comment on whether to apply the
25 Mbps/3 Mbps benchmark to fixed satellite services, should the data allow their inclusion in our
finding.170 Finally, the Notice sought comment on whether to adopt a speed benchmark for mobile
broadband,171 and the proper approach to setting a mobile broadband-specific speed benchmark.172
163

47 U.S.C. § 1302(d).

164

See infra Table 1.

165

In the 2015 Broadband Progress Report, for example, we found that the increasing demand for online video
services and proliferation of connected devices within the home necessitated access to broadband services capable of
providing 25 Mbps/3 Mbps throughput in order to deliver advanced telecommunications capability. See 2015
Broadband Progress Report, 30 FCC Rcd at 1394, para. 27.
166

See e.g., ViaSat Comments at 3 (“Speed is the most crucial element of high-quality broadband service, and by far
the most important factor in ensuring a quality experience with video streaming applications, which now account for
more than 50 percent of peak downstream traffic over fixed broadband facilities in North America.”).
167

See 2015 Broadband Progress Report, 30 FCC Rcd at 1392, para. 25.

168

See supra para. 15.

169

2015 Broadband Progress Notice of Inquiry, 30 FCC Rcd at 8833, paras. 24-25.

170

Id. at 8833, para. 26.

171

Id. at 8834-35, para. 30.

23

 Federal Communications Commission
a.

FCC 16-6

Fixed Broadband

51.
We find that the current 25 Mbps/3 Mbps benchmark for fixed services remains an
appropriate measure of whether a service provides advanced telecommunications capability. We
therefore decline to modify our fixed speed benchmark, or to supplement it with an additional forwardlooking component.
52.
We conclude that 25 Mbps/3 Mbps continues to provide consumers with the capacity
necessary to utilize “advanced” services that “enable[] users to originate and receive high-quality voice,
data, graphics, and video telecommunications.”173 As noted by various commenters, use of the existing
25 Mbps/3 Mbps standard is appropriate for determining whether consumers have access to advanced
telecommunications capability.174
53.
Certain commenters, however, assert that the 25 Mbps/3 Mbps benchmark is “already
forward-looking,”175 in the process arguing that it sets a higher threshold than is currently necessary to
meet the needs of broadband consumers.176 These commenters either misunderstand the nature of our
finding, or ignore the reality of today’s broadband marketplace. The past year has seen rapid expansion
in service offerings far exceeding the 25 Mbps/3 Mbps threshold, including services at speeds greater than
100 Mbps.177 Moreover, as many commenters observe, consumers have increasingly flocked to these
higher-speed services, belying the notion that the 25 Mbps/3 Mbps benchmark is somehow divorced from
the needs of today’s consumers.178 And, as we observed last year, arguments by providers to this effect
are contradicted by their own marketing of broadband services, which often recommend speeds well in
excess of 25 Mbps/3 Mbps to serve normal household broadband needs.179
54.
Despite the growth in adoption of broadband services at or above our 25 Mbps/3 Mbps
threshold, we find that household usage patterns for fixed broadband services have not changed so
significantly in the past year that further increase in our fixed speed benchmark is required. Our fixed
broadband download speed threshold of 25 Mbps remains sufficient to ensure that a household can access
a range of bandwidth intensive services, including HD video streaming, simultaneously over multiple
(Continued from previous page)
172
Id.
173

47 U.S.C. § 1302.

174

The Rural Associations Comments at 6; WISPA Comments at 4; ViaSat Comments at 3.

175

ADTRAN Comments at 6.

176

ADTRAN, for example, suggests that our speed benchmark in the 2015 Broadband Progress Report was based
on the projected near-term adoption of 4K television by consumers, and then argues that our finding is undercut by
the fact that “usage of services such as 4K TV . . . is de minimis presently.” ADTRAN Comments at 6-7. Similarly,
The Free State Foundation claims that the 2015 Report set a speed benchmark of 25 Mbps at a “level[] considered
compatible for 4K ultra HD TV,” and did so “despite the fact that few consumers have HD TV sets.” The Free State
Foundation Comments at 7. However these commenters mischaracterize our finding, which was not based primarily
on the demands of ultra HD 4K television, or predictions about its future adoption. Instead, our interpretation of the
definition of advanced telecommunications capability was based on cumulative, household demand for common
broadband services such as HD video streaming, video chat, and online gaming. 2015 Broadband Progress Report,
30 FCC Rcd at 1399-1401, paras. 37-40.
177

See, e.g., supra notes 84-85.

178

Verizon, for example, notes that “64 percent of FiOS Internet customers subscribe to service plans with speeds of
50 Mbps or higher.” Verizon Comments at 6.
179

2015 Broadband Progress Report, 30 FCC Rcd at 1400, paras. 38; see also, e.g. Comcast, Xfinity, Internet
Service, http://www.xfinity.com/internet-service.html (last visited Nov. 17, 2015) (advertising 75 Mbps as “[b]est
for 3-5 devices online at the same time,” allowing customers to “[s]tream and download HD TV shows, game
online, video chat, share photos and videos”).

24

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

devices.180 The 2015 Broadband Progress Notice of Inquiry also observed that consumers may be making
greater use of upload-intensive services, such as HD video calling and online gaming, and sought
comment on whether these trends warranted any change in our upload speed benchmark.181 Although
some commenters argued that the Commission should place greater emphasis on upload capacity in our
analysis of advanced telecommunications capability,182 others suggest that the asymmetric nature of
broadband traffic is unlikely to change significantly in the near term.183 While we agree that upload
capacity is increasingly important for the delivery of advanced telecommunications capability, we find
that services offering 3 Mbps upload speed continue to support advanced broadband services including
HD video calling, virtual private network (VPN) platforms, telemedicine, and distance learning
applications.184 We therefore conclude that an increase in fixed broadband upload speed threshold is not
required at this time.
55.
Finally, we decline to apply any additional speed benchmarks to fixed broadband service.
While the Commission continues to recognize the importance of gathering and publishing data on
advanced services that exceed our threshold interpretation of the definition of advanced
telecommunications capability, we do not feel that use of additional speed benchmarks is necessary to
further this goal.185 We therefore continue our approach of analyzing and reporting data regarding these
higher-speed services in this Report,186 but do so without incorporating these services into our finding
through any additional fixed speed benchmarks.
b.

Mobile Broadband

56.
Speed is a central factor in the user experience of mobile Internet services and is a key
determinant of advanced telecommunications capability. While traditional mobile services such as text
messaging remain widely popular, new uses that require high speeds, such as two-way, real-time high
definition video calling, high definition streaming video, and real-time educational courses, are becoming
increasingly commonplace. Such uses require consistent, reliable connectivity at higher speeds than ever
before. Thus, an appropriate advanced telecommunications capability benchmark for mobile services
must be both forward-looking and attainable.
57.
In the Notice, the Commission sought comment on the specific mobile speed benchmark
that should be adopted if the Commission were to find that advanced telecommunications capability
requires access to both fixed and mobile broadband meeting applicable benchmark standards.187 As we
observed in the Notice, trends in deployment and adoption, the speeds that providers are offering today,
and the speeds required to use high-quality video, data, voice, and other broadband applications all inform
180

The record developed in this proceeding broadly supports maintaining our current speed standard rather than
increasing it in this Report. See, e.g., The Rural Associations Comments at 6; WISPA Comments at 4; ViaSat
Comments at 3 (“Continued use of the 25 Mbps/3 Mbps standard is appropriate in determining whether consumers
have access to “advanced telecommunications capability.”).
181

See 2015 Broadband Progress Notice of Inquiry, 30 FCC Rcd at 8833, para. 24.

182

See Christopher Morgan Comments at 1; Glen Akins Reply at 1.

183

ADTRAN Comments at 7.

184

For example, Skype currently recommends 1.5 Mbps upload capacity for an HD video call. Skype, How Much
Bandwidth Does Skype Need?, https://support.skype.com/en/faq/FA1417/how-much-bandwidth-does-skype-need
(last visited Jan. 5, 2016).
185

The few parties that responded to our request for comment on this issue did not endorse use of additional speed
benchmarks to supplement our existing 25 Mbps/3 Mbps standard. See ADTRAN Comments at 7; The Rural
Associations Comment at 6 n.18.
186

See supra note 86.

187

2015 Eleventh Broadband Progress Notice of Inquiry, 30 FCC Rcd at 8824-25, para. 3.

25

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

a mobile benchmark.188 We take these factors, as well as the needs of multiple users, into account when
considering what level of service is necessary to be considered advanced telecommunications
capability.189 We consider, too, the services that providers are offering today, as well as the services that
American consumers are choosing and the development of new technologies.190
58.
After review of comments submitted in the record, however, we have determined that the
current record is not sufficient to set a mobile speed benchmark. There is insufficient evidence in the
record of what an appropriate speed benchmark for mobile should be. The record does not provide
adequate use cases, engineering models, or empirical evidence for mobile that could be used to support a
particular benchmark. We disagree with those commenters who suggest that we should adopt a
benchmark at 5 Mbps/1Mbps.191 We find that these comments do not account for uses that require high
speeds, such as video calls, streaming media and real-time educational courses. These uses are becoming
increasingly common, and require consistent connectivity in a mobile network environment at
increasingly higher speeds than ever before. In addition, we note that mobile broadband providers’ own
marketing of mobile broadband services often recommend speeds well in excess of 5 Mbps/1 Mbps.192
We also find that those commenters recommending that we set a higher mobile speed benchmark do not
provide substantive evidence that 10 Mbps/1 Mbps they recommend should be the benchmark.193 Nor do
they address whether a higher speed benchmark is a forward looking benchmark that will reflect the
projected trajectory of consumer demand for mobile data.
59.
As we consider setting a mobile speed benchmark, and other relevant technical
requirements for mobile ATC in future Reports, we will need to consider the distinct nature of mobile
versus fixed networks. As discussed in the Notice,194 and earlier in this Report,195 a number of factors
appear to indicate that mobile and fixed broadband respectively address different consumer needs and
different components of the definition of advanced telecommunications capability. We may need to
consider the adoption of benchmarks for mobile service that are different than those for fixed services.196
60.
In addition to current mobile needs, we will need to account for the mobile services that
are anticipated for the future. To establish a speed benchmark that is truly forward looking, we will need
to project future trends in consumer demand and device functionality required to meet that demand. For
example, automobile-based mobile services, which allows multiple users on one mobile connection, are in
nascent states of introduction into the marketplace, and tethering and hotspot use for these and other
188

Id.

189

Id.

190

Id.

191

See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 13 (asserting that 10 Mbps would be too high of a benchmark for mobile
broadband and 5 Mbps/1 Mbps is sufficient for most mobile broadband functionalities).
192

T- Mobile and AT&T are currently marketing their LTE with 20 Mbps as the upper range of the speed, while
Sprint is advertising 15 Mbps as the upper range and Verizon advertises 12 Mbps as the upper range. See T-Mobile,
About T-Mobile, http://www.tmobile.com/Company/CompanyInfo.aspx?tp=Abt_Tab_
ConsumerInfo&tsp=Abt_Sub_InternetServices&link=unav (last visited Jan. 6, 2016); AT&T, Broadband
Information, http://www.att.com/gen/public-affairs?pid=20879 (last visited Dec. 9, 2016); Sprint, Important
Coverage and Performance Information, http://coverage.sprint.com/coverageDescVMU.html (last visited, Jan. 6,
2016), Verizon, 4G LTE Speeds vs. Your Home Network, http://www.verizonwireless.com/mobile-living/networkand-plans/4g-lte-speeds-compared-to-home-network/ (last visited Jan. 6, 2016).
193

See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 13 (asserting that 10 Mbps would be too high of a benchmark for mobile
broadband and 5 Mbps/1 Mbps is sufficient for most mobile broadband functionalities).
194

2015 Eleventh Broadband Progress Notice of Inquiry, 30 FCC Rcd at 8834-35, paras. 27-30.

195

See supra Sections III.A.2 and III.A.3.

196

2015 Eleventh Broadband Progress Notice of Inquiry, 30 FCC Rcd at 8834-35, paras. 27-30.

26

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

systems will likely grow. There are also mobile services contemplated by the development of nextgeneration 5G wireless technologies. An appropriate mobile benchmark must take into account—in the
mobile as opposed to the fixed context—the ability to serve multiple consumers at once with some
consumers using larger, more data-intensive tablets. We find that some of the commenters do not give
enough weight to these trends and developing technologies in their assessments of speed benchmarks.
This finding builds on our last Report, where we assessed comments on what speed would be an
appropriate benchmark and, in doing so, observed various functionalities that would be available at
different speeds.
61.
As mentioned above, a mobile speed benchmark will need to take into account the unique
technical characteristics of mobile wireless communication. For example, mobile broadband encounters
greater degrading effects from factors such as congestion, interference, and challenges presented by
physical velocity of a mobile antenna. A data-intensive activity like video conferencing may be able to
operate at relatively slow speeds if such speeds are consistently available. Video conferencing, however,
may be unsupportable at such speeds due to mobile network congestion that temporarily reduces
throughput to much lower speeds. Accordingly, even though it might be currently possible to provide
certain advanced telecommunications capabilities at lower data rates in certain circumstances, in the nottoo-distant future such speeds may not be sufficient to account for potential signal degradation as well as
the advent of new technologies and increasing consumer demand. In doing so, we anticipate the
possibility that we may need to set a speed benchmark well in excess of what may be necessary to support
a current mobile service in ideal network conditions, while accounting for the different network and
economic characteristics of mobile and fixed services.
2.

Other Performance Metrics

62.
Although speed is generally the most useful metric for assessing broadband performance,
other metrics can also provide valuable insight into the capabilities of broadband services.197 Therefore,
in addition to broadband speeds, the 2015 Broadband Progress Notice of Inquiry also discussed the
impact of other performance characteristics on the delivery of advanced telecommunications capability.
For example, the Commission observed that latency and consistency of service seem to figure
prominently into whether a broadband service is able to provide advanced capabilities.198 The
Commission noted that latency—a measurement of the time it takes a data packet to travel through the
network199—is “important for a variety of applications, including Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP),
video calling, distance learning, and online gaming” which “may be effectively unusable over high
latency connections, regardless of the download/upload speeds being offered.”200 Similarly, the
Commission observed that consistency of service may also factor into our interpretation of the definition
of advanced telecommunications capability, and that consistent performance may be “of particular
importance for users of certain advanced services, such as VoIP, distance learning, or telemedicine.”201
The Commission sought comment on adoption of latency and service consistency as quality of service
metrics to supplement our speed benchmark.202
63.
While we continue to recognize the importance of low latency, high consistency
broadband networks for the deployment of advanced telecommunications capability, we do not adopt
197

Via Sat Comments at 2 (“[W]hile speed is often the single best predictor of broadband service quality, no single
performance criterion adequately measures such quality or, in and of itself, predicts consumer satisfaction with
respect to broadband performance.”).
198

2015 Broadband Progress Notice of Inquiry, 30 FCC Rcd at 8835-40, paras. 31-46.

199

Id. at 8835, para. 32.

200

Id. at 8835, para. 32 n.69.

201

Id. at 8838-39, para. 42.

202

Id. at 8835, para. 31, 8838, para. 41.

27

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

non-speed performance benchmarks in this Report.203 Several commenters argued that analysis of
additional criteria would provide the Commission a valuable complement to our review of speed data, and
present a more accurate and complete picture of advanced telecommunications capability deployment.204
However, because we currently lack comprehensive data on factors other than speed, we are unable to
formally incorporate these factors into our interpretation of the definition of advanced
telecommunications capability. Instead, we intend to continue gathering information about these
important features of broadband service, with an eye to reevaluating their role in providing advanced
telecommunications capability in a future Report. In addition, we will continue to update and refine our
tools to evaluate privacy and security concerns as they affect broadband deployment.205
a.

Latency

206

64.
Latency is an important measurement of broadband network performance because it
significantly impacts the performance of interactive, real-time applications, including VoIP, online
gaming, videoconferencing, and VPN platforms.207 As the Commission has observed, these kinds of
applications are contemporary examples of the advanced services that Congress directed the Commission
to consider in our section 706 inquiry. Latency, therefore, is also relevant to this proceeding.208
65.
A number of commenters argue that the Commission should analyze latency as a factor
affecting the deployment and availability of advanced telecommunications capability.209 Other
commenters oppose the adoption of additional criteria, including latency, arguing that latency is not a
useful tool to assess broadband, or alternatively that the Commission lacks the technical capability to
analyze latency at this time.210 While the Commission disagrees with commenters who suggest that
latency is not a useful or important metric for measuring the deployment of advanced telecommunications
capability,211 we nonetheless agree with those commenters who argue that adoption of a latency
benchmark at this time would be premature.212

203

See, e.g., 2015 Measuring Broadband America Report at 7.

204

See, e.g., California PUC Comments at 18-21 (urging the Commission to consider additional factors including
latency, quality, and reliability); ViaSat Comments at 1 (supporting “a multidimensional definition of broadband
that accounts for more than mere speed”); Public Knowledge Comments at 6-7.
205

2015 Broadband Progress Notice of Inquiry, 30 FCC Rcd at 8841, para. 52. See also 2015 Broadband Progress
Report, 30 FCC Rcd at 1438, para. 105 (“As communications technologies emerge and change, we must reassess
and update methods for ensuring that communications, including telephony and other switched or legacy services,
remain as secure and reliable over broadband as they were under legacy technologies.”).
206

For further discussion of the impact of latency on communications networks, see Policies and Rules Governing
Retirement Of Copper Loops by Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers Special Access for Price Cap Local Exchange
Carriers AT&T Corporation Petition for Rulemaking to Reform Regulation of Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier
Rates for Interstate Special Access Services, Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration and Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, 30 FCC Rcd 9372, 9482, paras. 216-217 (2015).
207

See 2015 Broadband Progress Notice of Inquiry, 29 FCC Rcd at 8835-36, paras. 32-33; see also 2015 Broadband
Progress Report, 30 FCC Rcd at 1392-93, paras. 24-25; Eighth Broadband Progress Report, 27 FCC Rcd at 10366,
para. 36; 2015 Measuring Broadband America Report at 7.
208

See 2015 Broadband Progress Notice of Inquiry, 30 FCC Rcd at 8835, para. 32 n.69.

209

See, e.g., Christopher Morgan Comments at 1; Eugene Liu Comments at 1, Public Knowledge Comments at 6-7,
California PUC Comments at 18-21, The Rural Associations Comments at 5-6.
210

See, e.g., Verizon Comments at 11-12, AT&T Comments at 5; Competitive Carriers Association Comments at
11; CTIA Comments at 8; ViaSat Reply Comments at 2-3.
211

See, e.g., ViaSat Comments at 6 (stating that “latency is not an effective proxy for broadband service quality” and
“low latency is not necessary to ensure the availability of high-quality service to consumers”); Competitive Carriers
(continued….)

28

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

66.
As we explained in the 2015 Broadband Progress Notice of Inquiry, “the Commission
currently lacks the kind of small-scale geographic data for latency that it has for speed.”213 While the
Commission has begun to collect data on latency through the Measuring Broadband America program,
these data are collected from a representative sample of volunteer participants and are national in scope.214
Therefore, while the data are valuable for assessing Internet service provider (ISP) performance generally,
the data are not sufficiently granular to use for accurately determining the deployment of advanced
telecommunications capability. Several commenters have argued that without these kinds of data, the
Commission cannot implement latency measurements into its interpretation of the definition of advanced
telecommunications capability in the rigorous manner required by section 706, which focuses on
producing geographic measurement of unserved areas.215 Because we agree that the Commission
currently lacks sufficiently comprehensive data on latency, we decline to adopt a latency benchmark in
this Report.
67.
We disagree, however, with commenters who suggest that incorporation of a latency
benchmark into our analysis of advanced telecommunications capability deployment would somehow be
improper or unhelpful to our review.216 As the Measuring Broadband America Report has explained,
“[l]atency may affect the perceived quality of highly interactive applications such as phone calls over the
Internet, video chat, or online multiplayer games.”217 Further, the higher latencies of some services,
particularly “satellite-based broadband services,” may “negatively affect the perceived quality of such
highly interactive applications.”218 Because latency plainly affects whether consumers have access to
“high quality” advanced telecommunications services, particularly satellite-based services, it is both
relevant to the deployment of advanced telecommunications capability, and necessary for the
Commission to continue to consider ways to incorporate latency into our annual 706 inquiry.219
b.

Consistency

68.
Like latency, service consistency has the potential to significantly impact whether a
broadband service delivers advanced telecommunications capability, particularly in the mobile
environment. As we explained in the 2015 Broadband Progress Notice of Inquiry, broadband services
that do not perform consistently may not provide consumers with meaningful access to interactive

(Continued from previous page)
Association Comments at 11 (arguing that “latency does not effectively measure the quality of mobile broadband as
it does with fixed broadband”).
212

See, e.g., USTelecom Comments at 8-9 (“The Commission has in the past rejected imposing latency benchmarks
because reliable data (and methodologies for reliably gathering such data) have not been available. . . . Given the
continuing lack of data on these two metrics, benchmarks for latency and consistency should not be imposed at this
time.”).
213

2015 Broadband Progress Notice of Inquiry, 30 FCC Rcd at 8837, para. 36.

214

See 2015 Measuring Broadband America Report at 6.

215

See AT&T Comments at 14-18 (arguing that the Commission does not have the data sources necessary to
conduct a geographically granular analysis); Competitive Carrier Association Comments at 11 (“there is not enough
data yet to accurately determine latency.”); Windstream Comments at 5; see also supra para. 15.
216

See, e.g., NCTA Comments at 9-10.

217

2015 Measuring Broadband America Report at 7.

218

Id.

219

Similarly, high latencies may effectively prevent users from using interactive services altogether, thereby
interfering with the ability to “originate and receive high quality voice, data, graphics and video
telecommunications” services, as required by section 706. 47 U.S.C. § 1302(d).

29

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

advanced services including VoIP, telemedicine, and online education applications.220 Because these
services permit broadband consumers to “originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and
video telecommunications,” service consistency is relevant to the deployment of advanced
telecommunications capability.
69.
Several commenters object to the Commission’s consideration of consistency in this
proceeding, arguing that consideration of service consistency, like latency, is irrelevant or impractical.221
We disagree. As we have explained, the plain language of section 706 undercuts assertions that service
consistency is somehow unrelated to the deployment of advanced telecommunications capability.
Additionally, we reject the assertion that use of additional criteria such as latency and consistency as
criteria for interpreting the definition of advanced telecommunications capability is implicitly
“unworkable.”222 As comments submitted by the California Public Utilities Commission and Nebraska
Public Service Commission demonstrate, not only is it possible to incorporate these types of metrics into
a geographical survey of broadband deployment, but doing so can yield valuable insights.223
70.
Nonetheless, as with latency, we conclude that adoption of any service consistency
benchmarks in this Report would be premature. As we have explained above, whether a broadband
service performs consistently is likely to affect whether consumers are able “to originate and receive high
quality voice, data, graphics and video telecommunications” services, as required by section 706.224 We
agree, however, with commenters that suggest that the Commission currently lacks sufficiently
comprehensive data to measure service consistency in the rigorous fashion required by section 706.225
Additionally, we note that different benchmarks for service consistency may be appropriate for mobile
services that are inherently less consistent. It is therefore appropriate that the Commission decline to
impose consistency benchmarks at this time, while continuing to consider methods to incorporate this
metric into our annual inquiry in future reports.
3.

Schools and Libraries Benchmark

71.
We conclude that 100 Mbps per 1,000 students and staff as a short-term benchmark, and
a long-term benchmark of 1 Gbps per 1,000 students and staff continue to be appropriate for evaluating
deployment and availability of advanced telecommunications capability to elementary and secondary
schools and libraries. These benchmarks coincide with those we set in the 2014 E-rate Modernization
Order, which found that these standards were sufficient in the short term to account for the increasing use
of “digital learning strategies and one-to-one device initiatives” by American schools.226 Furthermore,
although certain commenters in this proceeding object to the manner in which the Commission measures
deployment of advanced telecommunications capability to schools, they do not take issue with our
benchmarks as established by the 2015 Broadband Progress Report.227 Access to broadband has become
essential for students in all levels of education. Fixed broadband access, combined with cutting edge
educational tools and content, are transforming the educational landscape in America. Mobile broadband
220

See 2015 Broadband Notice of Inquiry, 30 FCC Rcd at 8838, para. 41; see also 2015 Measuring Broadband
America Report at 7 (“Consistency of speed may be more important to customers who are heavy users of
applications that are both high bandwidth and sensitive to variations in actual speed, such as streaming video.”).
221

See AT&T Comments at 17.

222

AT&T Comments at 17.

223

See generally California PUC Comments, Nebraska PSC Comments.

224

47 U.S.C. § 1302(d).

225

Competitive Carrier Association Comments at 11; Windstream Comments at 5.

226

E-Rate Modernization Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 8883, para. 34. These standards were in turn based on target
recommendations by the State Education Technology Directors Association (SETDA). Id.
227

See ADTRAN Comments at 11-12, The Rural Association Comments at 14-15.

30

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

access does not currently provide the speeds or capacity that schools and libraries need. Particularly
given ongoing disparities in broadband deployment and adoption, it is critical that our Nation’s students
have access to high-speed broadband to effectively participate in the digital world.228
IV.

BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT AND AVAILABILITY

72.
This section presents the results from our Inquiry into the deployment and availability of
advanced telecommunications capability and broadband to all Americans. We first summarize the data
sources on which we rely for our deployment estimates. We then present our deployment estimates of
advanced telecommunications capability and broadband to Americans, including trends in the availability
of advanced telecommunications capability and broadband, demographic analyses, and an analysis of
deployment to our Nation’s schools and classrooms under the Commission’s schools-specific advanced
telecommunications capability benchmarks. We also discuss adoption and other indicators of availability
of advanced telecommunications capability. Although we do not adopt a mobile benchmark in this
report, we report information on mobile deployment. Finally, we discuss international broadband service
capability.
A.

Data Sources
1.

Fixed and Mobile Broadband Deployment (FCC Form 477 Deployment
Data, and Other Data Sources).

73.
Consistent with our statements in the 2015 Broadband Progress Report and the Notice,
we rely primarily on the new, revised Form 477 deployment data for this Report.229 We present data
analysis across technologies as part of our inquiry, looking at fixed terrestrial and satellite broadband as
well as mobile broadband deployment.
74.
In the last several Broadband Progress Reports, the Commission relied on the SBI
program for deployment data. The revised Form 477 data improves upon the SBI data in several respects.
First, the revised Form 477 deployment data are a mandatory collection that requires filing parties to
certify the accuracy of their filings.230 In addition, the revised Form 477 data uses a uniform nationwide
collection methodology, which reduces the likelihood of inconsistencies and inaccuracies.231 The Form
477 data also improves upon the SBI data for fixed broadband services by collecting census block level
data by customer class (i.e., residential and business) and by maximum advertised speed for each
technology.232 This data also improves upon the SBI data for mobile data services by requiring providers

228

As reflected in our benchmarks, schools and libraries have large capacity needs and almost exclusively receive
service over fixed broadband. We therefore do not consider mobile broadband access or deployment as part of our
evaluation at this time.
229

2015 Broadband Progress Report, 30 FCC Rcd at 8827-28, paras. 10-11, 68; 2015 Eleventh Broadband Progress
Notice of Inquiry, 30 FCC Rcd at 8824, para. 3.
230

All facilities-based providers of broadband connections to end users are required to provide data on broadband
deployment and subscription. Examples of facilities-based providers of broadband connections include: incumbent
and competitive local exchange carriers (LECs), cable television system operators, terrestrial fixed wireless
providers (including wireless Internet service providers (ISPs), or WISPs) that provide service to end user premises,
satellite network operators, terrestrial mobile wireless operators with owned network facilities, electric utilities,
public utility districts and municipalities. See Form 477 Filing Instructions (June 30, 2015) at 5,
https://transition.fcc.gov/form477/477inst.pdf.
231

See Form 477 Filing Instructions (June 30, 2015), https://transition.fcc.gov/form477/477inst.pdf; Modernizing
Form 477 Order, 28 FCC Rcd at 9897, para. 23.
232

See Form 477 Filing Instructions (June 30, 2015), https://transition.fcc.gov/form477/477inst.pdf; Data
Specifications for Form 477, 28 FCC Rcd at 12669-70.

31

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

to submit shapefiles containing information about both speed and mobile network technology (e.g., EVDO, WCDMA, HSPA+, LTE, WiMAX).233
75.
We rely upon the best information available for fixed and mobile broadband services.234
In the case of fixed services, we find that the new Form 477 data is the most accurate data and we rely
exclusively upon the new Form 477 broadband deployment data to identify areas without access to
services meeting the 25 Mbps/3 Mbps speed threshold for fixed advanced telecommunications capability.
In the case of mobile broadband services, we rely upon the new Form 477 broadband technology and
speed deployment data for mobile services and other reliable data sources.
2.

Elementary and Secondary Schools Deployment (FCC Form 471 and Other
Sources)

76.
Our assessment of developments in the elementary and secondary schools is based upon
the best publically available data. To evaluate the deployment of advanced telecommunications
capability to America’s schools, we rely upon the new FCC Form 471 data (FCC Form 471) for E-rate
funding year 2015, the EducationSuperHighway Report, and the CoSN Survey. Last year, the
Commission revised the FCC Form 471 to improve the quality of the information collected from schools
and libraries that apply for E-rate support for broadband connections.235 The EducationSuperHighway
tracks public schools progress toward the Commission’s goals for K-12 connectivity using the
Commission’s FCC Form 471 data and its outreach efforts to FCC E-Rate applicants for clarifications on
their Form 471 applications.236 CoSN’s report summarizes the results of it survey of public school district
leaders regarding the current state of broadband and technology infrastructure in U.S. school systems.237
233

See Modernizing Form 477 Order, 28 FCC Rcd at 9888, para. 3; Data Specifications for Form 477, 28 FCC Rcd
at 12671-72. Shapefiles also contain information about the spectrum band associated with each shape.
234

Our analysis may overstate the deployment of services throughout an area. Providers of fixed broadband services
identify, by census block, whether they provide services somewhere within the census block. Similarly, we evaluate
the ability of mobile wireless providers to provide services throughout a census block by evaluating whether the
provider’s shapefile overlaps the centroid of the census block. Thus, our analysis could indicate that the services are
offered to Americans residing within the census block even if services are offered only to a portion of the residents
residing in that census block. Modernizing Form 477 Order, 28 FCC Rcd at 9904-05, para. 35; 2015 Broadband
Progress Report, 30 FCC Rcd at 1414, para. 72, n.284. In addition, our identification of areas without access to
advanced telecommunications capability, may be understated or overstated to the extent that broadband providers
fail to report data or misreport data. While over 3,000 providers of broadband services have submitted Form 477
data to the Commission, the Commission has initiated compliance actions against some providers that have failed to
submit data. See Rio Verde Wireless, LLC, Order, DA 15-1014 (EB Oct. 7, 2015) ($10,500 civil penalty for failure
to provide data in a timely manner and failing to respond to the Bureau inquiry letter); Marseilles Telephone Co.,
Metamora Telephone Co. and MTCO Communications, Inc., Order, 29 FCC Rcd 2603 (EB 2014). We have
performed quality and consistency checks on the submitted data, and we have contacted many filers with questions
about inconsistencies or likely errors in the data. For example, the instructions require that the data be reported in
Mbps. Some providers submitted data reporting 768 for an upload and download speed suggesting 768 Mbps
download and 768 Mbps upload. These types of filing resulted in a question to the filer whether the reported data
should be for 0.768 Mbps download and 0.768 Mbps upload. We also contacted filers when it seemed likely that the
filer may have omitted decimal points in their fixed broadband speed data or reported a top maximum speed for
fixed broadband services that either seemed too high for the reported technology or was inconsistent with the filers’
advertised speed for residential services. While, many filers submitted corrected filings in response to our inquiries;
in order to move forward with our analysis, we have had to implement coding in some instances for apparent data
errors. These amendments to the filers’ data have been documented and the appropriate filers have been contacted.
See https://www.fcc.gov/general/explanation-broadband-deployment-data (explaining adjustments made to the
December 31, 2014 Form 477 data as filed).
235

2015 Broadband Progress Notice of Inquiry, 30 FCC Rcd at 8842, para. 55.

236

We recognize that services may be deployed in an area even in the absence of an application for 100 Mbps
services for each 1,000 students or 1 GB of service per 1,000 students. See ADTRAN Comments at 12; NTCA,
(continued….)

32

 Federal Communications Commission
B.

FCC 16-6

Broadband Deployment Estimates

77.
This section presents our deployment estimates of advanced telecommunications
capability and broadband to Americans. We present information for the Nation as a whole, for Tribal
lands, and for U.S. Territories, and provide an urban/rural breakdown within these three geographies.238
First, we present estimates of deployment of fixed advanced telecommunications capability. Then, we
present data to illustrate the extent to which Americans may have access mobile broadband services.
78.
Our identification of areas without access to 25 Mbps/3 Mbps fixed broadband services is
by census block. We identify the population in each census block that does not have access to 25 Mbps/3
Mbps fixed broadband services (as indicated by the Form 477 fixed broadband speed data). In section
IV.B.2, we present estimates of mobile broadband deployment based upon our Form 477 mobile
broadband technology data for LTE services and our mobile broadband technology speed data based upon
LTE services with a minimum advertised speed of 10 Mbps/1 Mbps.239
1.

Access to Fixed Advanced Telecommunications Capability

79.
We first present data showing Americans without access to fixed advanced
telecommunications capability, which demonstrates that a significant percentage of the country lacks
access to fixed broadband services. As of December 31, 2014, approximately 34 million (10 percent) of
Americans lack access to fixed 25 Mbps/3 Mbps advanced telecommunications capability.240 At slower
speeds, 6 percent of Americans lack access to fixed terrestrial service at 10 Mbps /1 Mbps and 5 percent
lack access to such services at 4 Mbps /1 Mbps.241 There is also a significant disparity between rural and
(Continued from previous page)
WTA and National Exchange Carrier Comments at 15. The figures reported in the EducationSuperHighway Report
may overstate or understate school’s connectivity. The EducationSuperHighway Report is based upon the original
Form 471 requests and does not include any subsequent updates made to the Form 471 as part of the Universal
Service Administrative Company’s Program Integrity Assurance process. EducationSuperHighway Report at 101.
The report presents state-level metrics that are calculated based upon a sample of the total school districts in each
state. See EducationSuperHighway Report at 100-118 (discussing statistical methodology and efforts to validate and
clean the data).
237

CoSN Survey at 4.

238

The deployment estimates are based on Form 477 Data, as of December 31, 2014, unless otherwise noted. Rural
areas are identified using the 2010 Census block identification. Our assessment of Tribal lands is conducted by
examining the census blocks identified by the Census Bureau in the 2010 Census as federally recognized Tribal
lands. Tribal lands are identified using the American Indian Area Alaska Native Area Hawaiian Home Land Class
Code (AIANHHCC) affiliation. See Appx. C (Data Sources and Definitions); Appx. D (Americans Without Access
to Fixed Advanced Telecommunications Capability by State & U.S. Territory; and Appx. G (Tribal Lands Without
Access to Fixed Advanced Telecommunications Capability by State).
239

See infra Section IV.B.2.

240

See Appx. D (Americans in Urban and Rural Areas Without Access to Fixed Advanced Telecommunications
Capability by State & U.S. Territory) and Appx. E (Americans Without Access to Fixed Advanced
Telecommunications Capability by County) at https:// www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/broadband-progressreports/2016-broadband-progress-report. We provide interactive online maps at https://www.fcc.gov/reportsresearch/reports/2016-broadband-progress-report. These maps indicate whether fixed advanced telecommunications
capability is available in each census block. In addition, for each area, the maps identify the area as Tribal lands,
rural or urban; provide demographic analysis required in section 706(c) (i.e., population, population density, and per
capita income); and provide the name and maximum advertised speed for each provider of fixed services. We also
will continue to monitor the deployment of higher broadband speeds. For example, Form 477 data suggest that
277.3 million Americans (86%) have access to fixed 50 Mbps download broadband service or higher.
241

See Appx. F (Impact of Inclusion of Satellite Services on Deployment and Overall Adoption Rates for Fixed 4
Mbps/1 Mbps and 10 Mbps/1 Mbps Services). For example, excluding satellite services, 16.080 million out of
323.785 million Americans (or 5%) lack access to 4 Mbps/1 Mbps services.

33

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

urban areas, with more than 39 percent of Americans living in rural areas lacking access to 25 Mbps/3
Mbps advanced telecommunications capability, as compared to 4 percent of Americans living in urban
areas.242 We also see that approximately 41 percent of Americans living on Tribal lands and 66 percent of
Americans living in the U.S. Territories lack access to advanced telecommunications capability as
compared to 10 percent of the U.S. population as a whole. The significant number of Americans that lack
access to services at the speeds that we find best represent advanced telecommunications capability, as
well as the disparity in availability of services to Americans residing in urban versus rural areas, on Tribal
lands and in the U.S. Territories, indicate that advanced telecommunications capability is not available to
all Americans.
Table 1
Americans Without Access to Fixed Advanced Telecommunications Capability (Millions)
Population

Percentage of Population

United States

33.982

10%

Rural Areas

23.430

39%

Urban Areas

10.552

4%

1.574

41%

Rural Areas

1.291

68%

Urban Areas

0.283

14%

U.S. Territories

2.628

66%

Rural Areas

1.078

98%

Urban Areas

1.550

54%

Tribal Lands

a.

Tribal Lands Without Access to Fixed Advanced
Telecommunications Capability

80.
Table 2 presents the number of Americans residing on Tribal lands that lack access to
fixed advanced telecommunications capability. While over 40 percent of citizens living on Tribal lands
lack access to fixed advanced telecommunications capability, there is a larger disparity between rural
Tribal lands residents and the rest of the country. As in prior years, our assessment of Tribal lands
considers availability of services in census blocks identified for the 2010 Census as federally recognized
Tribal lands. We present information for all federally recognized Tribal Lands, and separately for
Alaskan Villages, Hawaiian Home Lands, Tribal Lands in the Lower 48 States and Tribal Statistical
Areas.243


Approximately 1.6 million Americans living on Tribal lands (41 percent) lack access to fixed
advanced telecommunications capability. While only 1 percent of Americans residing on
Hawaiian Home Lands do not have fixed advanced telecommunications capability, 49
percent of Americans living in Alaskan Villages and 58 percent of Americans living on
Tribal lands in the lower 48 states are without access to fixed advanced telecommunications
capability.



More than 68 percent of Americans living on Tribal lands in rural areas lack access to
advanced telecommunications capability compared to 14 percent of Americans living on
Tribal lands in urban areas.

242

For fixed terrestrial broadband at slower speeds, 25 percent of rural Americans lack access to 10 Mbps/1 Mbps
fixed terrestrial broadband services compared to 2 percent of urban Americans, and 19 percent of rural Americans
lack access to 4 Mbps/1 Mbps fixed terrestrial broadband service compared to 2 percent of urban Americans.
243

See Appx. C (Data Sources and Definitions) and Appx. G (Tribal Lands Without Access to Fixed Advanced
Telecommunications Capability by State).

34

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

Table 2
Tribal Lands Without Access to Fixed Advanced Telecommunications Capability
Population

Percentage of Population

1,573,925

41%

Rural Areas

1,291,330

68%

Urban Areas

282,595

14%

Alaskan Villages

128,638

49%

Rural Areas

113,706

70%

Urban Areas

14,932

15%

367

1%

Rural Areas

307

7%

Urban Areas

60

0%

588,324

58%

Rural Areas

469,818

72%

Urban Areas

118,506

33%

856,596

34%

Rural Areas

707,499

66%

Urban Areas

149,097

10%

Tribal Lands

Hawaiian Home Lands

Tribal Lands in the Lower 48 States

Tribal Statistical Areas

b.

U.S. Territories without Fixed Advanced Telecommunications
Capability

81.
Table 3 presents the number of Americans residing in each of the U.S. Territories that
lack access to fixed advanced telecommunications capability and, much like the Tribal data depicted in
Table 2, it shows an overwhelmingly large percentage of Territorial residents without access to fixed
advanced telecommunications capability.244

244

See Appx. E (Americans Without Access to Fixed Advanced Telecommunications Capability by County) at
https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/broadband-progress-reports/2016-broadband-progress-report.

35

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

Table 3
U.S. Territories Without Access to Fixed Advanced Telecommunications Capability
Population

Percentage of Population

U.S. Territories

2,628,397

66%

Rural Areas

1,077,935

98%

Urban Areas

1,550,462

54%

American Samoa

54,504

100%

Rural Areas

13,197

100%

Urban Areas

41,307

100%

159,377

99%

Rural Areas

52,333

100%

Urban Areas

107,044

99%

51,455

100%

Rural Areas

17,549

100%

Urban Areas

33,906

100%

2,259,097

62%

Rural Areas

933,414

98%

Urban Areas

1,325,683

50%

103,964

100%

Rural Areas

61,442

100%

Urban Areas

42,522

100%

Guam

Northern Mariana Islands

Puerto Rico

U.S. Virgin Islands

2.

Access to Mobile Broadband Services

82.
We next present some estimates of Americans without access to mobile services. We
present figures based upon Form 477 mobile deployment data for services using an LTE technology and a
LTE technology with a minimum advertised speed of 10 Mbps/1 Mbps. The estimates for mobile
services are not comparable to the estimates reported in prior years because those estimates were based
upon the SBI Data, which collected data for the maximum advertised speed whereas the Form 477 Mobile
broadband data is based upon the minimum advertised speed.245 Because of this difference, estimates for
mobile services in prior Reports are not directly comparable to the figures reported in Tables 4 and 5.246
83.
The figures in Table 4 suggest that 1.7 million (1 percent) of Americans do not have
access to a mobile provider using LTE technology, and that 171.5 million (53 percent) of Americans do
245

See 2015 Broadband Progress Notice of Inquiry, 30 FCC Rcd at 8843, para. 57 (explaining that the Commission
has shifted away from collecting maximum advertised speed, as NTIA had done with the SBI data, to collecting
minimum advertised speed for mobile broadband).
246

The Commission can rely upon Form 477 reported maximum advertised speeds for fixed services because the
Commission has found that actual speeds experienced by most ISPs’ subscribers are close to or exceed the
advertised maximum speed. See e.g., 2015 Measuring Broadband America Fixed Broadband Report at 6. In
contrast, the relationship between advertised and actual speed is more complex for mobile services because the
mobile providers report their minimum advertised speed and each mobile provider advertises the minimum speed at
various points of their actual speed distribution. For example, one provider’s advertised speed may fall within the
20th percentile; for another it may fall in the 60th percentile. Therefore, we cannot assume a uniform
correspondence between actual and minimum advertised speed for mobile services.

36

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

not have access to mobile service provider with a LTE technology service with a minimum advertised
speed of 10 Mbps/1 Mbps.247 In rural areas, 1.5 million (3 percent) of Americans are without access to
LTE services, and 52.2 million (87 percent) of Americans are without access to a LTE services with a
minimum advertised speed of 10 Mbps/1 Mbps. In contrast, in urban areas, the estimates are,
respectively, 163,000 (0 percent) and 119.3 million (45 percent).
Table 4
Americans Without Access to Mobile Broadband Services (Millions)
LTE Technology
Population
Percentage of
Population
1.682
1%

United States

10 Mbps/1 Mbps
Population
Percentage of
Population
171.486
53%

Rural Areas

1.519

3%

52.231

87%

Urban Areas

0.163

0%

119.255

45%

3.

Deployment of Fixed Advanced Telecommunications Capability (25 Mbps/3
Mbps) and Mobile Broadband Services

84.
Table 5 presents estimates of the number and proportion of Americans without access to
fixed 25 Mbps/3 Mbps service and two measures of mobile services. Overall, 34.7 million (11 percent)
Americans lack access to both a 25 Mbps/3 Mbps fixed service and a mobile services provisioned using
LTE technology.248 This estimate increases to approximately 177 million (55 percent) Americans based
upon access to a 25 Mbps/3 Mbps fixed service and a mobile service with a minimum advertised speed of
10 Mbps/1 Mbps. In rural areas, these estimates range from approximately 24 million (40 percent) to 54
million (90 percent).249 In contrast, in urban areas, the estimate ranges from 10.6 million (4 percent) to
122.8 million (47 percent), as depicted in Table 5 below.250
Table 5
Americans Without Access to Fixed Advanced Telecommunications Capability and Mobile
Broadband Services (Millions)

United States

Fixed 25 Mbps/3 Mbps and
LTE Technology
Population
Percentage of
Population
34.477
11%

Fixed 25 Mbps/3 Mbps and
10 Mbps/1 Mbps Mobile Services
Population
Percentage of
Population
176.959
55%

Rural Areas

23.897

40%

54.139

90%

Urban Areas

10.580

4%

122.820

47%

247

Last year, approximately 2 percent of Americans did not have access to LTE technology and that approximately
3 percent of Americans did not have access to a mobile service with a maximum advertised speed of 10 Mbps/768
kbps. 2015 Broadband Progress Report, 30 FCC Rcd at 1442, para. 113, Table 15.
248

The population in a census block has access to fixed and mobile only if consumers have access to a fixed service
and to a mobile service.
249

Last year, we reported 54 percent of Americans residing in rural areas did not have access to a fixed 25 Mbps/3
Mbps and LTE service, and that 56 percent of these Americans did not have access to a fixed 25 Mbps/3 Mbps
service and a mobile 10 Mbps/768 kbps service. 2015 Broadband Progress Report, 30 FCC Rcd at 1445, para. 121,
Chart 5.
250

Last year, we reported 9 percent of Americans residing in urban areas did not have access to a fixed 25 Mbps/3
Mbps and LTE service, and 9 percent of these Americans did not have access to a fixed 25 Mbps/3 Mbps service
and a mobile 10 Mbps/768 kbps service. Id.

37

 Federal Communications Commission
4.

FCC 16-6

Estimated Maximum Options for Advanced Telecommunications Capability

85.
Our consideration of the availability of advanced telecommunications capability also
encompasses the number of options consumers have for these services because the price of services is
often cited as a deterrent to subscription, and the existence of multiple providers of a product or services
can result in lower prices than would be found in areas where there is a single service provider.251 We
present a series of tables depicting the proportion of Americans with multiple options for fixed advanced
telecommunications capability.
86.
Table 6 reports the proportion of Americans with multiple competitive options for fixed
25 Mbps/3 Mbps advanced telecommunications capability.


Approximately 51 percent of Americans have one option for a provider of 25 Mbps/3 Mbps
fixed broadband service, 38 percent of Americans have more than one option for 25 Mbps/3
Mbps fixed broadband service, and approximately 10 percent of Americans have no options
for 25 Mbps/3 Mbps fixed broadband service.



Americans in urban areas have significantly more providers offering 25 Mbps/3 Mbps speeds
than Americans in rural areas. In rural areas, only 13 percent of Americans have more than 1
option for service compared to 44 percent in urban areas.
Table 6
Estimated Percentage of Americans With Multiple Options
for Fixed Advanced Telecommunications Capability
No Provider

One Provider

More Than One Provider

United States

10%

51%

38%

Rural Areas

39%

48%

13%

Urban Areas

4%

52%

44%

5.

Trends in the Availability of Fixed Advanced Telecommunications
Capability (2012 to 2014)

87.
We next report on the trends in the availability of our recently adopted 25 Mbps/3 Mbps
speed threshold for fixed advanced telecommunications capability. These trends show that fixed
advanced telecommunications capability is only gradually becoming more available to consumers. We
caveat this analysis because the Commission’s deployment analysis of advanced telecommunications
capability has transitioned from one based upon the SBI Data to one based upon the new Form 477 Data.
The analysis below is based upon the best data available for the time period reported. The estimates for
2014 are based upon the new Form 477 Data, whereas the estimates for prior years are based upon the
SBI Data. Because of differences in the collection methodology, results for years prior to 2014 are not
directly comparable to results since 2014.252 As noted above, the new Form 477 data reporting is
mandatory for all providers, and providers are expected to submit data separately for residential and
business services.253 We report how our estimates of the population without fixed advanced
telecommunications capability has changed over time. We expect that the data submitted with the new
Form 477 should be more accurate, and that the accuracy of the data will improve over time as filers gain
more experience with the Form. In future years we will be able to present similar data for mobile service
meeting our definition of advanced telecommunications capability. Finally, the accuracy of our estimates
251

The Commission has found that deployment, competition, and adoption are tightly linked. 2015 Broadband
Progress Report, 30 FCC Rcd at 1455, para. 141.
252

See supra Section IV.A.1.

253

Id.

38

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

are dependent upon the population data source.254 With these caveats, we discuss the change in
unavailability of services for rural and urban areas in the U.S. overall, as well as for Tribal Lands and the
U.S. Territories.
88.
Table 7 shows the changes in deployment of 25 Mbps/3 Mbps service from December
31, 2012 to December 31, 2014 for rural and urban areas in the U.S, Tribal Lands and the U.S. Territories.
The data show, generally, a decline in unavailability for 25 Mbps/3 Mbps service, but the data also depict
a striking disparity between urban and rural areas.


From December 2013 to December 2014, there was a 7 percentage point decline in the
proportion of Americans without fixed advanced telecommunications capability in the U.S. as
a whole, a 22 percentage point decline for Americans living on Tribal lands, and a 3
percentage point increase for Americans living in the U.S. Territories.



From December 2013 to December 2014, there was a 14 percentage point decline in
Americans without fixed advanced telecommunications capability in rural areas, 17
percentage point decline for Americans living on Tribal lands in rural areas and a 19
percentage point increase for Americans living in rural areas in the U.S. Territories.255

Table 7
Percentage of Americans Without Fixed Advanced Telecommunications Capability (2012-2014)
2014

2013

2012

United States

10%

17%

20%

Rural Areas

39%

53%

55%

Urban Areas

4%

8%

11%

41%

63%

68%

Rural Areas

68%

85%

89%

Urban Areas

14%

41%

47%

U.S. Territories

66%

63%

100%

Rural Areas

98%

79%

100%

Urban Areas

54%

57%

100%

Tribal Lands

6.

Demographic Analysis of the Areas Without Access to Fixed Advanced
Telecommunications Capability

89.
In this Inquiry, we provide the demographic analysis required by section 706(c), which
requires the Commission to compile a list of geographical areas that are not served by any provider of
advanced telecommunications capability and to determine, based on available census data the population,
the population density, and average per capita income for each such unserved area.256 In Table 8, we
report average population, average population density and average per capita income for each area
without access to advanced telecommunications capability.257 In addition, we report median household
254

We do not have a good block-level data source for the population of the U.S. Territories for years since the 2010
census. See Appx. C (Data Sources and Definitions).
255

We caveat the results for the U.S. Territories because our estimates are dependent upon the source of population
data for the area.
256

47 U.S.C. § 1302(c). See Appx. E (Americans Without Access to Fixed Advanced Telecommunications
Capability by County) at https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/broadband-progress-reports/2016-broadbandprogress-report.
257

47 U.S.C. § 1302(c).

39

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

income and the average proportion of households living in poverty. To report demographic information,
including income measures, we aggregate the census block data up to the census tract level.258
90.
Our demographic analysis includes the United States as a whole, Tribal lands, and U.S.
Territories.259 For each of these geographic areas, we also present results within the urban core and
outside of the urban core using the 2010 Census classification of a census tract as part of the “urban
core.”260 For purposes of this Report, we call these areas urban and non-urban. We conduct this
additional analysis because census tracts are large and typically include urban centers as well as rural or
sparsely populated areas. Finally, we conduct hypothesis testing to determine if there is a statistically
significant difference in the demographics between areas with and without access to advanced
telecommunications capability. Comparing Americans with and without access to advanced
telecommunications capability, we find that Americans without access to these services typically live in
areas with a higher average population,261 a lower average population density, lower average per capita
income, lower median household income, and a higher percentage of households living in poverty than
Americans livings in areas with access to this broadband service.

258

A census tract is categorized as “Without Full Access” if any of the census blocks have been identified as without
access to fixed broadband. We compare demographic data between census tracts in which any resident lacks access
to fixed broadband to census tracts in which all residents have access to fixed broadband. This approach is
conservative because a census tract is classified as “Without Full Access” to fixed broadband even if only a small
portion of the population of the census tract is without access to the service.
259

A census tract is designated as Tribal land if at least 50 percent of the land area in the census tract is Tribal land.
See Appx. C (Data Sources and Definitions). While the Census Bureau has created Tribal Census tracts, we do not
employ these in this Report because our analysis of broadband adoption is based upon form 477 data collected using
the Census Bureau’s standard census tract boundaries. We do not have sufficient information to segment the Form 477
Data between the Tribal census tracts and standard census tracts.
260

The Census defines an “urban core” as an area smaller than 3 square miles with a population density of at least
1,000 people per square mile. All other census tracts are “outside of the urban core.” Department of Commerce,
Census Bureau, Urban Area Criteria for the 2010 Census, 76 Fed. Reg. 53030, 53040 (Aug. 24, 2011) (2011 Census
Bureau Notice).
261

This analysis is based upon census tracts. We note that, on average, the population is generally larger in census
tracts without access compared to census tracts with access because most of the census tracts without access tend to
be very large either because they are entirely or in part in non-urban areas. For example, referring to the first two
rows of Table 8, we find that an average population of 4,491.0 for census tracts without access compared to an
average population of 4,228.2 for census tracts with access. The average land area of the census tracts without
access is 84.8 square miles compared to 5.9 square miles for census tracts with access.

40

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

Table 8
Comparison of Demographic Data Between Areas
With and Without Access to Fixed Advanced Telecommunications Capability
Average
Population

Average
Population
Density
(Pop./sq. mi.)

Average Per
Capita Income
($2014)

Average
Median
Household
Income
(2014)

Average
Percentage of
Households Living
In Poverty
(2014)

Without Access

4,491.03

2,330.13

$27,157.803

$54,777.203

16.6%3

With Access

4,228.2

8,937.4

$29,251.10

$59,184.60

17.6%

Without Access

4,617.73

374.53

$26,646.203

$54,900.303

15.1%3

With Access

4,918.5

771.7

$31,470.60

$66,365.90

13.0%

Without Access

4,289.43

5,555.03

$28,000.003

$54,574.003

19.1%1

With Access

4,096.4

11,125.4

$28,682,30

$57,354.60

18.8%

Without Access

3,807.23

499.93

$21,519.003

$44,476.303

20.8%3

With Access

3282.8

2,644.3

$27,566.90

$50,599.60

18.0%

Without Access

3,830.61

179.33

$21,252.203

$44,599.603

20.7%2

With Access

3,252.3

463.0

$29,255.40

$54,510.90

16.8%

Without Access

3,628.3

2,953.52

$23,561.301

$43,538.001

21.3%1

With Access

3,403.6

3,405.6

$27,045.60

$49,392.00

18.4%

Without Access

4,936.03

2,934.22

$10,028.603

$19,069.603

49.3%3

With Access

1,533.7

4,765.0

$14,033.80

$24,819.10

40.0%

5,161.62

830.2

$9,717.702

$19,376.202

48.7%

601.2

647.9

$12,767.10

$23,283.20

43.7%

Without Access

4,482.73

7,159.8

$10,689.703

$18,419.303

50.6%3

With Access

1,678.6

5,404.8

$14,222.00

$25,047.30

39.6%

Census Tracts
All Areas

Non-Urban Core Areas

Urban Core Areas

Tribal Lands

Non-Urban Core

Urban Core Areas

U.S. Territories

Non-Urban Core Areas
Without Access
With Access
Urban Core Areas

The level of statistical significance is indicated by a superscript: 1 signifies statistical significance at a 90% level of
confidence, and 2 signifies statistical significance at a 95% level of confidence, and 3 signifies statistical
significance at 99% level of confidence

91.
Table 9 shows how the average proportion of the population without access to fixed
services by speed tier varies with the county-level median household income, county-level population
density, the proportion of the population categorized as living in a rural area, and the county-level poverty
41

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

rate.262 On average, the proportion of the population without access is highest in counties with the lowest
median household income, the lowest population density, the highest rural population rate and the highest
poverty rate.263
Table 9
Average Percentage of Population Without Access to Fixed Services
by Speed Tier and by Demographic Variable
4 Mbps/1 Mbps 10 Mbps/1 Mbps

25 Mbps/3 Mbps

County Median Household Income
First Quartile (Lowest Income)

4%

4%

50%

Second Quartile

0%

0%

40%

Third Quartile

0%

0%

33%

Fourth Quartile (Highest Income)

0%

0%

23%

First Quartile (Lowest Population Density)

0%

0%

57%

Second Quartile

0%

0%

47%

Third Quartile

1%

1%

30%

Fourth Quartile (Highest Population Density)

4%

4%

13%

First Quartile (Lowest Poverty Rate)

0%

0%

31%

Second Quartile

0%

0%

34%

Third Quartile

0%

0%

36%

Fourth Quartile (Highest Poverty Rate)

4%

4%

46%

First Quartile (Lowest Rural Population Rate)

2%

2%

13%

Second Quartile

1%

1%

30%

Third Quartile

1%

1%

45%

Fourth Quartile (Highest Rural Population Rate)

1%

1%

59%

County Population Density

County Poverty Rate

County Rural Population Rate

7.

Elementary and Secondary School Connectivity

92.
Schools’ bandwidth needs continue to grow, and school district leaders anticipate
additional substantial bandwidth demands over the next three years.264 The E-rate program provides
support for broadband for elementary and secondary schools, and the changes we made to the program in
262

The quartile county rankings are presented from the lowest value to highest value for the particular demographic
variable being examined. The first quartile represents the lowest median household income, the lowest population
density, lowest poverty rate, and the lowest rural population rate. See also Appx. E (Americans Without Access to
Fixed Advanced Telecommunications Capability by County) at https://www.fcc.gov/reportsresearch/reports/broadband-progress-reports/2016-broadband-progress-report.
263

We include satellite services in our analysis this year and this affects the availability of fixed 4 Mbps/1 Mbps and
10 Mbps/1 Mbps services. See Appx. F (Impact of Inclusion of Satellite Services on Deployment and Overall
Adoption Rates for Fixed 4 Mbps/1 Mbps and 10 Mbps/1 Mbps services).
264

CoSN Survey at 16.

42

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

2014, both ensure sufficient funding for broadband to schools, and provide schools with additional tools
for purchasing high-speed broadband. Schools increasingly have access to high-speed connections.
According to the EducationSuperHighway Report, in 2013, only 30 percent of school districts had
Internet access connectivity that satisfied the short term goal of 100 Mbps per 1,000 users that we set in
the first E-rate Modernization Order.265 ESH estimates that, “77% of school districts, representing 59%
of schools and 53% of students” have met the Commission’s goal.266 That means that 23 percent of
schools districts representing 41 percent of schools and 47 percent of students, do not receive broadband
services that meet our near-term goal of 100 Mbps per 1,000 users.267 This is consistent with the CoSN
survey data that found that 23 percent of the school districts reported that none of the schools in their
district meet the FCC’s short term connectivity goals.268
93.
ESH estimates that 9,500 schools still need access to fiber to meet our speed goals.269
These schools appear to be disproportionately in small town and rural areas. ESH estimates that 16
percent of schools located in small towns and 21 percent of schools located in rural areas do not have a
fiber connection compared to only 5 percent of schools located in urban areas and 10 percent of schools
located in suburban areas.270
94.
In the E-rate Modernization proceeding, the Commission also established a long-term
goal for schools of broadband speeds of 1 Gbps per 1,000 students. The EducationSuperHighway Report
estimates that, based on the most recent FCC Form 471 data, only 9 percent of schools currently have
sufficient connectivity to meet our long-term connectivity goal for schools.271 The
EducationSuperHighway Report expects that bandwidth demand will increase at a rate of 50 percent or
more per year, so even those schools and school districts that currently meet the Commission’s short-term
connectivity goals will likely require more connectivity in the future.272
C.

Adoption and Other Indicators of Availability of Advanced Telecommunications
Capability to All Americans

95.
We continue to affirm the Commission’s prior findings that, for the purpose of our
analysis, the terms broadband “deployment” and “availability” are broader than mere physical presence of
broadband networks.273 Indeed, section 706 requires the Commission to conduct an inquiry into
broadband “availability” and determine whether broadband “is being deployed” in a reasonable and
timely fashion. As stated in the 2015 Broadband Progress Report, section 706 does not indicate that we
must consider a set of circumstances narrower than the “availability” inquiry to determine that broadband
is being deployed.274 Thus, we continue to make our annual determination as to how broadband ‘‘is being
deployed’’ by assessing how well we are progressing toward the goal of “availability to all Americans.”
265

EducationSuperHighway Report at 6 (ESH reports the Commission’s short-term goal in terms of 100 kbps per
user rather than 100 Mbps per 1,000 users). Id. at 10.
266

Id. at 12.

267

Id.

268

CoSN Survey at 5.

269

EducationSuperHighway Report at 23.

270

Id.

271

Id. at 7, 10.

272

Id. at 20. See also CoSN Survey.

273

See 2015 Broadband Progress Report, 30 FCC Rcd at 1410-11, para. 64; see also 2012 Eighth Broadband
Progress Report, 27 FCC Rcd at 10363, para. 27; 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 802021, paras. 18-20.
274

2015 Broadband Progress Report, 30 FCC Rcd at 1410-11, para. 64.

43

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

96.
As in previous Reports, some commenters urge the Commission to look only to physical
deployment,275 while others recommend that we continue to interpret these terms more broadly.276 We
continue to reject comments that request our interpretation of section 706(b) be limited to physical
deployment. Rather, in determining whether broadband is “being deployed to all Americans in a
reasonable and timely fashion,” we must look at a variety of factors that affect access to broadband.
Consistent with our prior analyses, our inquiry includes an assessment of factors indicative of broadband
availability, such as price, quality, and adoption by consumers, as well as physical network.277 In the
2015 Broadband Progress Notice of Inquiry, we sought comment on several pricing surveys for
consideration on availability of advanced telecommunications capability.278 We have also considered
GAO’s Report— Broadband Internet: FCC Should Track the Application of Fixed Internet Usage-Based
Pricing and Help Improve Consumer Education—for further information on the impact of usage-based
pricing on broadband availability.279 We further sought comment on possible factors, beyond those listed
above, to determine whether broadband is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely
fashion.280
97.
We continue to abide by the statutory construction of section 706(b) utilized by the
Commission in the prior two Reports.281 We find that “is being deployed” refers to “existing deployment
and current actions that will meaningfully affect broadband deployment in the near future . . . [but not]
general plans or goals to deploy broadband, particularly long-range plans or goals that are uncertain to be
realized.”282 The phrase “reasonable and timely fashion” also lends itself to various interpretations.
While there is no single objective standard, we interpret the language in light of Congress’ directive to
encourage and promote the universal availability of advanced telecommunications capability as a national
priority.283 As stated in the previous Report, progress in the United States should compare favorably to
progress in other countries as demonstrated by the international comparison of broadband capabilities that
Congress added to the inquiry in 2008.284 As the Commission has stated previously, “broadband
deployment is more likely to be reasonable and timely if communities in the United States compare
favorably to comparable foreign communities on broadband service capability metrics, and less likely to
be reasonable and timely if U.S. communities compare unfavorably.”285
275

See, e.g., Verizon Comments at 12 (arguing that the 706 mandate only speaks in terms of deployment and
therefore requires the Commission to distinguish between broadband availability and broadband adoption).
276

See, e.g., Public Knowledge Comments at 6 (“The Commission should move forward with its plan to include
non-speed metrics, such as latency, reliability, and data caps in its inquiry.”); Comment of Christopher Morgan at 1
(“I think it's wise to evaluate all aspects of an internet connection to ensure it meets the needs of consumers using it.
This includes considering aspects such as latency, data allowance, download speeds, and upload speeds.”).
277

See 2015 Broadband Progress Report, 30 FCC Rcd at 1411, para. 65; see also 2012 Eighth Broadband Progress
Report, 27 FCC Rcd at 10363, para. 27.
278

2015 Eleventh Broadband Notice of Inquiry, 30 FCC Rcd at 8848-49, paras. 75-76 (surveys include the
International Broadband Data Reports and Urban Rate Surveys).
279

See GAO Usage-Based Pricing Report; see also 2014 Broadband Progress Report, 30 FCC Rcd at 1411, para.
65, n.267.
280

2015 Eleventh Broadband Notice of Inquiry, 30 FCC Rcd at 8841, para. 50.

281

2015 Broadband Progress Report, 30 FCC Rcd at 1412, para. 66; 2012 Eighth Broadband Progress Report, 27
FCC Rcd at 10400-01, para. 135 n.347.
282

Id.

283

See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. § 1302(a) (“shall encourage”); 47 U.S.C. § 157 (“It shall be the policy of the United States to
encourage the provision of new technologies and services to the public.”).
284

Id. § 1303(b); see also 2015 Broadband Progress Report, 30 FCC Rcd at 1412, para. 66.

285

2012 Eighth Broadband Progress Report, 27 FCC Rcd at 10400-01, para. 135 & n.347.

44

 Federal Communications Commission
1.

FCC 16-6

Broadband Adoption

98.
This section presents adoption rates for fixed advanced telecommunications capability
and broadband services. We provide estimates for the adoption rates based upon our Form 477 data for
the United States as a whole, non-urban, urban, and Tribal lands.286 The adoption rate we report is the
number of residential connections to fixed broadband at or above the specified level of speed divided by
the total number of households in the area with access to fixed broadband services advertised at or above
the specified level of speed.287
99.
Broadband adoption informs our Inquiry in multiple ways, including both what
consumers choose to purchase when they have options at multiple speed levels and prices, and also
whether service in a particular area is truly available in the sense of being offered at an affordable price
and with features and functionalities that cause consumers to want to purchase it.288 As of December
2014, 73 percent of households have a subscription to a fixed broadband service of at least 200 kbps in
one direction, and 46 percent of these subscriptions were to services with a speed of at least 25 Mbps/3
Mbps.289 As noted above, our analysis considers more than physical network deployment and includes an
assessment of broadband adoption because it is indicative of the availability of broadband services.
a.

Broadband Adoption Estimates for Fixed Advanced
Telecommunications Capability

100.
Table 10 shows the overall adoption rates for fixed services at or above 25 Mbps/3 Mbps
services from December 31, 2012 to December 31, 2014 for Americans in the United States as a whole,
non-urban, urban, Tribal lands,290 and U.S Territories.291

286

Because the Form 477 Data are based upon the standard census tract definition, we caution interpretation of the
estimates as being representative for all Tribal lands. Our process for segmenting areas into Tribal lands and nonTribal lands is the best available analysis for this Report, but will result in the exclusion of some Tribal lands from a
Tribal land category and include non-Tribal land in the Tribal land category. We do not present the adoption trends
in the U.S. Territories to maintain firm confidentiality.
287

See Appx. C (Data Sources and Definitions). Our adoption rate does not account for households that use
broadband services at work, their local library, community center, or a retail establishment.
288

See 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8020-21, paras. 18-20; 2012 Eighth Broadband
Progress Report, 27 FCC Rcd at 10363, para. 27.
289

The 73 percent figure is expressed as a percentage of all households. Form 477 Data, as of December 31, 2014.
Our data is based upon a data collection of all facilities-based providers of broadband connections to end users.
Services Providers that are required to file the Form 477 but fail to do so may be subject to enforcement action under
sections 502 and 503 of the Communications Act and any other application law. FCC, Instructions for Local
Telephone Competition and Broadband Reporting (FCC Form 477),
http://transition.fcc.gov/Forms/Form477/477inst.pdf at 5, 33. As of 2015, Pew estimates that 80 percent of adults
have either a home broadband subscription or a smartphone, and 13 percent of adults have a smartphone but no
broadband at home. The Pew estimates suggest that 67 percent of adults have fixed broadband at home. Pew, Home
Broadband 2015. We note that our estimate of adoptions are based upon provider data and are expressed as a
percentage of households. In contrast, the Pew estimates are based upon a national sample of 2,001 adults ages 18
and older, were conducted during a landline or cellphone interview, and have a margin of error of 2.5 percentage
points. In addition, the adoption rates reported by Pew are not for services meeting our interpretation of advanced
telecommunications capability, but instead reflect the consumer’s interpretation of broadband. Id. at 22-23.
290

Because the Form 477 Data are based upon the standard census tract definition, we caution interpretation of the
estimates as being representative for all Tribal lands. Our process for segmenting areas into Tribal lands and nonTribal lands is the best available analysis for this Report, but will result in the exclusion of some Tribal lands from a
Tribal lands category and include non-Tribal lands in the Tribal lands category.
291

We report overall adoption for the U.S. Territories in the national figures for 2014. We do not report figures for
2013 to maintain confidentiality of the providers. This is signified by a star. Fixed advanced telecommunications
(continued….)

45

 Federal Communications Commission




FCC 16-6

From December 2013 to December 2014, the overall adoption rate for fixed advanced
telecommunications capability increased to over 37 percent for the United States. In contrast,
overall adoption for this service declined on Tribal lands by 5 percent, and is less than 5
percent in the U.S. Territories.
Overall adoption rates in urban areas exceed overall adoption rates in non-urban areas by
almost 7 percentage points in the United States and on Tribal lands.292

Table 10
Overall Adoption Rate for Fixed Advanced Telecommunications Capability (2012-2014)
2014

2013

2012

37%

29%

11%

Non-Urban Core Areas

33%

28%

11%

Urban Core Areas

40%

30%

11%

28%

33%

7%

Non-Urban Core Areas

25%

29%

7%

Urban Core Areas

33%

36%

7%

4%

*

Not Available

Non-Urban Core Areas

5%

*

Not Available

Urban Core Areas

3%

*

Not Available

United States

Tribal Lands

U.S. Territories

b.

Demographic Analysis of Adoption Rates for Fixed Services

101.
Table 11 reports average county level overall household adoption rates against the
quartile ranking for median household income, unemployment rate, the poverty rate, the rural population
rate (the proportion of the population that resides in a rural area), and population density. We present
results for average overall adoption rates for 4 Mbps/1 Mbps, 10 Mbps/1 Mbps and 25 Mbps/3 Mbps
services.293
102.
Examining the data by quartile and demographic features offers another way to
understand differences in adoption rates. For example, the data indicate that, in the counties with the
lowest median household income (the first quartile), the average adoption rate for fixed services with a
speed of at least 25 Mbps/3 Mbps broadband service is 12 percent. The average adoption rate for the
counties with the highest median household income, the fourth quartile, is 32 percent. These data suggest
that the average household adoption rate increases with median household income and population density,
but the adoption rate decreases as the poverty rate, rural population rate, and unemployment rate
increases.

(Continued from previous page)
services were not available in the U.S. Territories in 2012. To the extent possible, we report adoption rates for the
U.S. Territories in Appendix H. See infra Appx. H (Overall Adoption Rates for Advanced Telecommunications
Services by State & U.S. Territory).
292

We caveat the results for the U.S. Territories because our estimates are dependent upon the source of household
data for the area.
293

We include satellite services in our analysis this year. See Appx. F (Impact of the Inclusion of Satellite Services
on our Deployment and Overall Adoption Rates for Fixed 4 Mbps/1 Mbps and 10 Mbps/1 Mbps Services).

46

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

Table 11
Average Overall County Adoption Rate by Speed Tier and by County Demographic Variable
4 Mbps/1 Mbps 10 Mbps/1 Mbps 25 Mbps/3 Mbps
County Median Household Income
First Quartile (Lowest Median Household Income)

23%

18%

12%

Second Quartile

34%

26%

19%

Third Quartile

41%

32%

21%

Fourth Quartile (Highest Median Household Income)

51%

44%

32%

First Quartile (Lowest Population Density Rate)

36%

20%

14%

Second Quartile

28%

22%

16%

Third Quartile

35%

30%

23%

Fourth Quartile (Highest Population Density Rate)

51%

48%

32%

First Quartile (Lowest Poverty Rate)

48%

38%

27%

Second Quartile

40%

32%

22%

Third Quartile

36%

29%

22%

Fourth Quartile (Highest Poverty Rate)

26%

20%

14%

First Quartile (Lowest Rural Population Rate)

53%

48%

34%

Second Quartile

37%

32%

23%

Third Quartile

28%

23%

16%

Fourth Quartile (Highest Rural Population Rate)

31%

18%

11%

First Quartile (Lowest Unemployment Rate)

44%

32%

22%

Second Quartile

41%

35%

23%

Third Quartile

36%

31%

22%

Fourth Quartile (Highest Unemployment Rate)

28%

23%

18%

County Population Density Rate

County Poverty Rate

County Rural Population Rate

County Unemployment Rate

2.

Other Indicators of Availability of Advanced Telecommunications
Capability

103.
For purposes of evaluating availability of advanced telecommunications capability, we
examine not only physical deployment and adoption, as presented above, but also quality and price.294 To
understand broadband service quality, we look at the 2015 Fifth Measuring Broadband America Report
and the data from the Commission’s Measuring Mobile Broadband America program. The Measuring
Broadband America program is an ongoing, rigorous nationwide study of consumers’ broadband
performance in the United States. Below, we present some information about advertised prices for fixed
broadband and mobile broadband services and usage limits for fixed services.295 However, we are unable
294

See supra para. 96.

295

See supra Section III.A.2 and infra Section IV.D.

47

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

to provide a rigorous analysis regarding price because we lack reliable data as to the actual prices
consumers pay for these services and information about the extent that consumers subscribe to or whose
on-line activities are affected by usage allowances.
a.

Performance Measures for Fixed Services

104.
2015 Fifth Measuring Broadband America Report. We examine the quality of fixed
broadband services by considering the 2015 Fifth Measuring Broadband America Report.296 We
summarize the results related to actual speed experienced by consumers, consistency of service, latency
and packet loss.297 The results presented in the 2015 Fifth Measuring Broadband America Report suggest
that, in general, consumers of higher speed broadband services, such as those provided by Cablevision,
Comcast and Verizon FIOS receive high quality services, while services provided by some DSL providers
do not consistently provide high quality services.
105.
Actual Speeds. We continue to find that consumers’ broadband services using cable,
fiber or satellite technologies are close to or exceed advertised speeds, while consumers’ broadband
services from certain DSL-based ISPs experience actual speeds that are on average below the advertised
“up-to” speed.298
106.
Consistency of Service. We present two measures of consistency of service discussed in
the 2015 Fifth Measuring Broadband America Report. The first metric is the percentage of an ISP’s
sampled panelists who experience an actual monthly average download speed that was greater than 95
percent of the advertised speed. Measured by this performance metric, the highest performing ISPs are
Cablevision, Comcast and Hughes because over 90 percent of their customers were able to attain an
actual download speed of at least 95 percent of the advertising download speed.299 In contrast, the ISP
with the lowest performance for this metric is AT&T DSL services because less than 10% of its
customers were able to attain an actual download speed of at least 95 percent of advertising download
speed.300
107.
The second metric, the “80/80 consistent speed” metric, considers how speeds
experienced by an ISP’s sampled panelists vary during the day.301 The “80/80 consistent speed metric” is
the minimum actual speed experienced by 80 percent of the sampled panelists during at least 80 percent
of the peak usage period. Consistency of speed may be more important to heavy users of applications that
are both high bandwidth and sensitive to variations in actual speed.302 Measured by this service metric,
the results indicate that customers of Cablevision, Comcast and Verizon FiOS experienced very consistent
actual download speed, with over 80 percent of their customers experiencing actual download speeds at or
above advertised download speeds during at least 80 percent of the peak usage period.303
108.
Latency. The 2015 Fifth Measuring Broadband America Report found that the
differences in average latencies among terrestrial-based broadband services area small, and are unlikely to

296

Our Measuring Broadband America Program measures network performance for subscribers ISPs serving over
80% of the residential marketplace. 2015 Fifth Measuring Broadband America Report at 6.
297

A small of amount of packet loss is expect and some Internet protocols use packet loss to assess Internet
congestion and adjust the send rate. Id. at 19.
298

Id. at 6, 14.

299

Id. at 15.

300

Id.

301

Id.

302

Id. at 16.

303

2015 Fifth Measuring Broadband America Report at 16.

48

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

affect the perceived quality of web browsing and video streaming.304 Average latency for all terrestrial
technologies ranged from 14 ms to 52 ms.305 Among Terrestrial ISPs, Cablevision and Verizon FiOS had
the lowest average latency results and CenturyLink, Frontier DSL and Windstream have the highest
average latency.306 Average latency for satellite-based broadband services range from 603 ms to 659
ms.307
109.
Packet Loss. The Measuring Broadband America program denotes a packet is lost if the
latency exceeds 3 seconds or it the packet is never received.308 The Report asserts that packet losses over
a few tenths of a percent are sufficiently small so that they are unlikely to significantly affect the
perceived quality of phone calls, over the Internet video chat and some online multiplayer games and
video streaming.309 The 2015 Fifth Measuring Broadband America Report found that packet loss for all
participating cable providers was less than 0.2 percent; while packet loss for the participating fiber
providers was just over 0.2 percent.310 In contrast, packet loss for DSL providers ranged from a low of
just over 0.1 percent for AT&T U-verse to almost 0.8 percent for Frontier DSL, and packet loss for
satellite services ranged from under 0.2 percent for Hughes Satellite to almost 0.4 percent for
ViaSat/Exede.311
b.

Performance Measures for Mobile Services

110.
While the data available to the Commission is currently insufficient to establish a fixed
speed benchmark to be applied at the very local level, the Commission has identified various measures of
mobile broadband speed on a national level. The Commission runs the Mobile Measuring Broadband
American program (mMBA), which crowdsources data from a mobile app. Other sources include Ookla,
a company that crowdsources data from a mobile app, and Root Metrics, a company that conducts runs a
test program that measures mobile data, call and text performances in all 50 states. The most current
numbers can be found in the Eighteenth Mobile Competition Report,312 along with other sources of data.313
111.
On a national level, mMBA reports median LTE download speeds for the first two
quarters of 2015 as 11.6, 7.5, 5 and 13.6 megabits per second for Verizon, AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile,
respectively.314 Ookla reports somewhat higher download LTE speeds during this period of 13.2, 10.7,
and 14.4 megabits per second but with the same relative ordering.315 In contrast, Root Metrics has a
304

Id. at 7, 17.

305

Id. at 17.

306

Id.

307

Id. at 18.

308

Id.

309

2015 Fifth Measuring Broadband America Report at 19.

310

Id.

311

Id.

312

See Eighteenth Mobile Competition Report, WT Docket No. 15-125, DA 15-1487 at Table VI.C.5.

313

The FCC also reports in the 18th report data from CalSpeed, a testing program run by the California Public
Utilities Commission. The report also acknowledges the existence of crowdsourcing data from OpenSignal and MLab, though the FCC does not report their numbers. See Eighteenth Mobile Competition Report, WT Docket No. 15125, DA 15-1487, Section VI.C.
314

See Eighteenth Mobile Competition Report, WT Docket No. 15-125, DA 15-1487 at Table VI.C.3. Including all
technologies and all discount brands results in slower speeds. For example, the MMBA reports median 1 Half 2015
download speeds of 10, 5, 2 and 8 megabits per second, respectively. See Eighteenth Mobile Competition Report,
WT Docket No. 15-125, DA 15-1487, Table VI.C.ix.
315

Eighteenth Mobile Competition Report, WT Docket No. 15-125, DA 15-1487 at Table VI.C.1.

49

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

different relative ordering for its median download LTE speeds for the H1 2015, with 16, 10, 5 and 10
megabits per second.316
112.
As these numbers are averages on a national level, they do not imply universal attainment
of certain speeds to a fixed percentage of the U.S. population or land area. However, using July 2015
data, the commission has estimated up to 99.6% of the U.S. population is covered by at least one carrier
with LTE.317 Thus the earlier cited speeds are at least suggestive of typical speeds available for a large
number of U.S. consumers. However, we note that these numbers—at a nationwide level—will mask
regional disparities in coverage and may convey a false sense of consistency of speeds across geographic
areas and service providers. As the Commission has found in the past, the methodology and data used to
report this coverage has the potential to overstate that coverage.318 Additionally, the data do not expressly
account for factors such as signal strength, bit rate, or in-building coverage, and may convey a false sense
of consistency of speeds across geographic areas and service providers.
113.
MMBA also measures latency for 2H2014 and 1H2015.319 Verizon had the lowest mean
latency during this period, followed by AT&T, T-Mobile and then Sprint.
D.

International Broadband Service Capability

114.
Section 706(b) requires the Commission to “include information comparing the extent of
broadband service capability (including data transmission speeds and price for broadband service
capability) in a total of 75 communities in at least 25 countries abroad for each of the data rate
benchmarks for broadband service utilized by the Commission to reflect different speed tiers.”320 We are
incorporating by reference a Report from our International Bureau.321 The 2016 Fifth International
Broadband Data Report approaches its analysis differently from this Report by employing, in certain
cases, different data sources, different definitions, and/or different time periods to facilitate comparisons
across national borders, and its observations must be read in that context.322 The international analysis
serves as a year-to-year measure of our progress in comparison to other nations.
115.
In the 2016 Fifth International Broadband Data Report, International Bureau assessed
“high-speed” broadband deployment at 25 or 30 Mbps download, as available, to most closely match
available European data.323 The International Bureau reported that with respect to deployment of high
316

Id. at Table VI.C.5.

317

These numbers are based on data from the company Mosaik. See Eighteenth Mobile Competition Report, WT
Docket No. 15-125, DA 15-1487, Table III.A.3.
318

2015 Broadband Progress Report, 30 FCC Rcd at 1414-15, para. 74. These estimates likely overstate the
coverage actually experienced by consumers because Mosaik reports advertised coverage as reported to it by service
providers, each of which uses a different definition or determination of coverage.
319

See Eighteenth Mobile Competition Report, WT Docket No. 15-125, DA 15-1487, at para. 134.

320

47 U.S.C. § 1303(b).

321

International Comparison Requirements Pursuant to the Broadband Data Improvement Act; International
Broadband Data Report, GN Docket 15-191, Fifth Report, DA 16-97 (IB rel. Jan. 29, 2016) (2016 Fifth
International Broadband Data Report).
322

For example, for fixed services, the 2016 Fifth International Broadband Data Report includes in its analysis any
service above 200 kbps as “basic broadband.” 2016 Fifth International Broadband Data Report, Appx. G at 4. The
2016 Fifth International Broadband Data Report also relies on different sources of data or different time-sets than
the analysis contained herein.
323

2016 Fifth International Broadband Data Report at para. 15. For an appropriate comparison, the 2016 Fifth
International Broadband Data Report uses the European Union’s definition of “high-speed” broadband, which is 30
Mbps. For 2013, it uses fixed broadband coverage data at 25 Mbps for the United States based on the SBI Data,
which most closely matches the 30 Mbps threshold used in the 2013 and 2014 European Commission’s study (EC
(continued….)

50

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

speed fixed broadband, the United States remains ahead of Europe in both non-rural and rural areas, with
89 percent of all U.S. households having access compared to 68 percent of households in the European
countries in the EC study in 2014. In rural areas in 2014, 58 percent of U.S. households have access to
fixed high-speed broadband, compared to 25 percent of households in the European countries in the EC
study.324
116.
The International Bureau also reported that with respect to fixed broadband speed, for
example, in 2014, the United States ranked 26th of the 40 countries studied in the 2016 Fifth
International Broadband Data Report, with an average download speed (weighted by sample size) of
26.68 Mbps, an 8.01 Mbps improvement from 2013. The International Bureau compared the
Commission’s most recent Measuring Broadband America325 data for fixed broadband to the European
Commission’s actual broadband speed measurement data for Europe. In the United States, broadband
providers appeared to be more effective than European providers in delivering (or exceeding) promised
broadband speeds to consumers when comparing results of hardware-based speed tests.326
117.
In the 2016 Fifth International Broadband Data Report, the International Bureau also
examined advertised broadband prices for both fixed and mobile service plans around the world, and
reported data including detailed price information for smartphone broadband plans. For standalone fixed
broadband plans with data usage limits and taking those limits into account by calculating price per GB of
data allowed, the United States was the third least expensive in 2014 with a price of $0.22 per GB for
plans with speeds less than 25 Mbps out of nine countries.327 The U.S. ranking was fourth least expensive
with $0.33 per GB for plans with speeds greater than 25 Mbps.328 When comparing countries according
to average monthly cost of stand-alone broadband plans with unlimited usage, the United States ranked
near the middle for several speed tiers. For example, the United States ranked eighth least expensive of
17 countries for unlimited plans with speeds less than 10 Mbps ($33.12) and 15th out of 29 countries for
unlimited plans with speeds less than 25 Mbps ($32.60).329 The United States, however, ranked 23rd least
expensive out of 33 countries for overall fixed broadband plans (i.e., when considering all fixed plans in
the sample together).330 Among countries that have mobile smartphone plans with unlimited data and
unlimited minutes, the United States ranked 13th least expensive out of 17 countries in 2014 (compared to
fourth least expensive out of five countries in 2013).331
118.
The International Bureau also reported Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) broadband penetration data (based on subscriptions per 100 inhabitants) from
December 2014. The United States ranked 16th out of 34 countries for overall fixed broadband
subscriptions, with 31.4 broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants. In 2013, the United States also
ranked 16th out of 34 countries with 30.35 broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants.332 The United
(Continued from previous page)
Study). In 2014, using the new Form 477 data, the 2016 Fifth International Broadband Data Report is able to
compare the coverage data for the United States and Europe at the same speed level (e.g., 30 Mbps). Id.
324

2016 Fifth International Broadband Data Report at paras. 14-19.

325

Measuring Broadband America is discussed in more depth above. See supra Section IV.C.2.

326

2016 Fifth International Broadband Data Report at paras. 28, 30.

327

Id. at 37.

328

Id.

329

Id. at para. 38.

330

Id. at para. 36.

331

Id. at para. 41.

332

2016 Fifth International Broadband Data Report at para. 23 (citing OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.1
(December 2014)).

51

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

States ranked eighth overall out of the 34 OECD countries in mobile broadband subscriptions, with 104.0
mobile broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants as of the end of 2014,333 and by comparison, Finland
ranked first in 2014 with 138.0 mobile broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants.334 The United States
ranked seventh out of 34 countries in 2013 with 94.2 mobile broadband subscriptions per 100
inhabitants.335
V.

ADVANCED TELECOMMUNICATIONS CAPABILITY IS NOT BEING DEPLOYED
TO ALL AMERICANS IN A REASONABLE AND TIMELY FASHION

119.
As discussed in detail above, although deployment has increased, many Americans are
still without advanced telecommunications capability, especially in rural areas and on Tribal lands.336
Moreover, we find that many schools continue to lack access to advanced telecommunications
capabilities. Based on our findings, we “take immediate action to accelerate deployment of such
capability by removing barriers to infrastructure investment and by promoting competition in the
telecommunications market” as required by our section 706 mandate.
120.
Recent data show that approximately 34 million Americans (10 percent of the population)
lack access to fixed 25 Mbps/3 Mbps broadband or higher service.337 In urban areas, nearly 10.6 million
Americans (4 percent) remain unserved.338 These data are notably better than last year, when one in six
Americans overall—17 percent—were unserved.339 Still, we are not satisfied that approximately 34
million Americans lack service, nearly the population of Canada.340
121.
Moreover, beneath the aggregate, nationwide total, the data show a stark contrast in
service between urban and rural America. Americans living in rural areas and Tribal lands
disproportionately lack access to advanced telecommunications capability, where approximately 23.4
million (39 percent of the population, or approximately two out of every five residents) lack fixed access
at 25 Mbps/3 Mbps.341 In other words, Americans who live in rural areas are ten times more likely to be
unserved than their urban counterparts. Small businesses are also likely subscribe to mass market
broadband service, so the rural-urban disparity in deployment of these services may prevent small
businesses in rural areas from competing successfully in the 21st century economy. The disparity is even
more severe for Americans on rural Tribal lands, where 68.2 percent lack access to fixed access service at
25 Mbps/3 Mbps or higher.342 Under these circumstances we find that broadband is not being deployed to
all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.
122.
In addition, the available international broadband data, though not perfectly comparable
to U.S. data, suggest that broadband services in the United States appear to be behind a number of other
333

Id. at para. 24 (citing OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.2 (December 2014)).

334

Id.

335

OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.5.2, OECD Historical Mobile Broadband Penetration Rates (see also note 42
above.).
336

See supra para. 79, Table 1 Americans Without Access to Fixed Advanced Telecommunications Capability
(Millions).
337

Id.

338

Id.

339

2015 Broadband Progress Report, 30 FCC Rcd at 1378, para. 4.

340

See Central Intelligence Agency, The World Factbook: Canada, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/theworld-factbook/geos/ca.html (last visited Jan. 29, 2016) (reporting Canada’s population as 35,099,836).
341

See supra para. 79, Table 1.

342

Id.

52

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

developed countries in certain respects, although we also compare favorably to some developed countries
in other respects.343
123.
Looking at schools and classrooms, the EducationSuperHighway Report estimates that 59
percent of schools have met the Commission’s short-term goal of 100 Mbps per 1,000 students, but 41
percent of schools, representing 47 percent of students, have not met our short-term goal.344 With regard
to our long-term goal of 1 Gbps per 1,000 students, the EducationSuperHighway Report estimates that
only 9 percent of schools have connectivity that meets this goal.345 Given the emphasis Congress placed
on advanced telecommunications capability in schools and classrooms, these data alone would preclude a
positive finding.
124.
In light of our findings, we conclude that much work remains to be done to ensure that all
Americans have the access to advanced telecommunications capability, as Congress demanded in section
706.346 As we have stated in previous reports, the standard for success is universal availability of
advanced telecommunications capability and we will continue to take action to achieve this mandate.347
VI.

REMOVING BARRIERS, PROMOTING COMPETITION AND EFFORTS TO
ACCELERATE DEPLOYMENT

125.
We continue to work to accelerate advanced telecommunications capability deployment,
but there is still more work to do. As the Commission has found in recent Reports, there are numerous
barriers to infrastructure investment.348 In particular, the high cost of deploying and operating a
broadband network is a substantial barrier, as are low broadband adoption rates in some circumstances.349
We continue to work to remove barriers to deployment, in part by direct subsidies, and in part by
identifying and helping to reduce potential obstacles to deployment, competition, and adoption—concepts
that we continue to recognize are tightly linked.350 By taking steps to remove barriers, the Commission
continues its work to ensure that all Americans have access to, and can afford, the high-quality services
that constitute advanced telecommunications capability. There have also been other noteworthy federal
and public and private sector initiatives to accelerate broadband deployment.
126.
Barriers to broadband deployment are many and varied. They include the high cost of
serving rural areas and Tribal lands; potential customers that find service or devices unaffordable; and
costs and impediments to making use of existing infrastructure, such as poles and conduits. This list of
barriers is not exhaustive, and we remain vigilant in monitoring for other impediments to adoption and
deployment. For example, if consumers have concerns about the privacy of their personal information,
such concerns may restrain them from making full use of broadband services, thereby lowering the

343

See supra Section IV.D. See also generally 2016 Fifth International Broadband Data Report.

344

EducationSuperHighway Report at 12.

345

Id. at 7, 10.

346

47 U.S.C. § 1302(b). See 2015 Broadband Progress Report, 30 FCC Rcd at 1442, para. 132.

347

2015 Broadband Progress Report, 30 FCC Rcd at 1455, para. 140; 2012 Eighth Broadband Progress Report, 27
FCC Rcd at 10403, para. 138; 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8033, para. 48; 2010 Sixth
Broadband Progress Report, 25 FCC Rcd at 9574, para. 28.
348

2015 Broadband Progress Report, 30 FCC Rcd at 1455-160, paras. 141-152; 2012 Eighth Broadband Progress
Report, 27 FCC Rcd at 10403-10, paras. 139-54; 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8040,
para. 65; 2010 National Broadband Plan at 167-90.
349

See 2015 Broadband Progress Report, 30 FCC Rcd at 1455-1460, paras. 141-152; 2012 Eighth Broadband
Progress Report, 27 FCC Rcd at 10403, para. 139.
350

2015 Broadband Progress Report, 30 FCC Rcd at 1455, para. 141.

53

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

likelihood of broadband adoption and decreasing consumer demand.351 Conversely, the protection of
customers’ personal information may spur consumer demand for those services, in turn “driving demand
for broadband connections, and consequently encouraging more broadband investment and deployment’
consistent with the goals of the 1996 Act.”352
127.
Broadband in Rural Areas. We continue our commitment to incenting the deployment of
broadband in rural areas as we implement the reforms adopted by the Commission in the 2011 USF/ICC
Transformation Order and subsequent Connect America and related orders, which comprehensively
reformed and modernized the high-cost program within the universal service fund (USF or Fund) to
support networks capable of providing voice and broadband services, both fixed and mobile, to all
Americans throughout the nation.353 In December 2014, the Commission revised the minimum speed
requirement necessary to qualify for fixed universal service high cost (Connect America Fund) support,
and finalized the decisions necessary to proceed with the offer of model-based support to price cap
carriers.354 On April 29, 2015, the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) announced the offers of modelbased Phase II Connect America support to price cap carriers to fund the deployment of voice and
broadband-capable networks in their service territories, a total of $1.675 billion annually for six calendar
years (2015-2020).355 On August 27, 2015, the Bureau announced that ten telecommunications carriers
accepted over $1.5 billion in annual support for rural broadband deployment from the Connect America
Fund to serve over 3.6 million homes and businesses by the end of 2020.356 This support, along with
carrier investment, will expand broadband to nearly 7.3 million rural consumers in 45 states and one U.S.
territory.
128.
In July 2014, the Commission adopted a $100 million budget for rural broadband
experiments and established an objective methodology for selecting projects among formal applications
351

Although we do not base our determination in this 2016 Broadband Progress Report on these issues, we observe
that past Broadband Progress Reports found that a correlation exists between non-adoption of broadband and
security and privacy concerns. See 2015 Broadband Progress Report, 30 FCC Rcd at 1438, para. 104; see also
Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable
and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, as Amended by the Broadband Data Improvement Act, GN Docket 14-126, FCC
14-113, Tenth Broadband Progress Notice of Inquiry, 29 FCC Rcd 9747, 9769, para. 47, n. 108 (2014); Eighth
Broadband Progress Report, 27 FCC Rcd at 10410, para. 154, nn.432-33; 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress
Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8044-45, para. 75, nn.248-49.
352

2015 Open Internet Order, 30 FCC Rcd 5601, 5821, para. 464 and n.1387 (2015).

353

Connect America Fund et al., Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 26 FCC Rcd 17663
(2011) (2011 USF/ICC Transformation Order), pets. for review denied sub nom., In re FCC 11-161, 753 F.3d 1015
(10th Cir. 2014).
354

See Connect America Fund et al., Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd 15644, 15645, para. 2 (2014) (2014 Connect
America Order).
355

Wireline Competition Bureau Announces Connect America Phase II Support Amounts Offered to Price Cap
Carriers to Expand Rural Broadband, Public Notice, 30 FCC Rcd 3905 (WCB 2015).
356

Carriers Accept Over $1.5Billion in Annual Support from Connect America Fund to Expand and Support
Broadband for Nearly 7.3 Million Rural Consumers in 45 States and One Territory, Press Release, 30 FCC Rcd
8577 (WCB 2015). The carriers accepting support include AT&T, Cincinnati Bell, CenturyLink, Consolidated
Communications, Fairpoint Communications, Frontier Communications, Hawaiian Telecom, Micronesian Telecom,
Verizon and Windstream. The Bureau provided all non-contiguous carriers the option of choosing either to continue
to receive frozen support amounts or to elect to receive the model-determined support amount. CAM Inputs Order,
29 FCC Rcd at 4019. ACS (Alaska), PRTC (Puerto Rico), and Vitelco (Virgin Islands) elected to receive frozen
support. Later, the Commission proposed and sought comment on specific service obligations for non-contiguous
carriers electing to continue to receive frozen support amounts. April 2014 Connect America FNPRM, 29 FCC Rcd
at 7117-7121. The obligations have not yet been decided.

54

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

from those carriers that would deploy new, robust broadband to consumers in price cap areas.357 As of
December 11, 2015, the Bureau authorized approximately $34 million in rural broadband experiment
support to provide broadband in nearly 5,200 census blocks in 12 states.358
129.
As part of the Commission’s efforts to ensure access to robust and affordable mobile
voice and broadband service, the Commission established the Mobility Fund. The Mobility Fund Phase I
auction—the first reverse auction as a mechanism for distributing universal service support— was
completed on September 27, 2012 with 33 winning bidders eligible to receive a total of up to
approximately $300 million in one-time support to provide 3G or better mobile voice and broadband
services to areas where those services did not exist.359 On July 1, 2015, Mobility Fund Phase I support
recipients filed the second of their annual reports on use of that support with 16 support recipients
reporting that they had already extended 3G or 4G coverage to 46.59 percent of the total road miles to be
covered with Mobility Fund Phase I support.360 On February 28, 2014, the Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau and Wireline Competition Bureau announced completion of the Tribal Mobility Fund Phase I
auction, with five winning bidders eligible to receive a total of up to approximately $50 million in one361
time support to provide 3G or better mobile voice and broadband services to Tribal lands.
Since July
2014, the Bureaus have authorized support to all five winning bidders and initial disbursements have been
made totaling $16.6 million.362
130.
E-rate Modernization. Congress also requires the Commission to evaluate the
availability of advanced telecommunications capability to schools and classrooms. Our actions over the
past year implementing the 2014 E-rate Modernization Order and Second E-rate Modernization Order, in
which the Commission took major steps to modernize the schools and libraries universal service support
mechanism, better known as the E-rate program,363 is helping to improve broadband deployment and
Internet speeds to schools and, by making available funding for Wi-Fi networks within schools, to the
classrooms as well. As part of the modernization, we expanded the number of schools that could receive
357

Connect America Fund, ETC Annual Reports and Certifications, Report and Order and Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, 29 FCC Rcd 8769 (2014).
358

Rural Broadband Experiment Support Authorized for Ten Winning Bids, et.al., WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 14-259,
Public Notice, 30 FCC Rcd 8283 (WCB 2015); Rural Broadband Experiment Support Authorized for Five Winning
Bids for First Step Internet, LLC and Northeast Rural Services, Inc., WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 14-259, Public Notice,
30 FCC Rcd 9886 (WCB 2015); Rural Broadband Experiment Support Authorized for Winning Bids Submitted by
Skybeam, LLC, Daktel Communications, LLC, Federated Telephone Cooperative, and Paul Bunyan Rural
Telephone Cooperative, WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 14-259, Public Notice, DA 15-1306 (WCB rel. Nov. 12, 2015);
Rural Broadband Experiment Support Authorized for Winning Bids Submitted by BARC Electric Cooperative,
Douglas Services, Inc., and Northeast Rural Services, Inc., WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 14-259, Public Notice, DA 151416 (WCB rel. Dec. 11, 2015).
359

USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 17771-825, paras. 295-497; Mobility Fund Phase I Auction
Closes; Winning Bidders Announced for Auction 901, AU Docket No. 12-25, Public Notice, 27 FCC Rcd 12031
(WTB 2012) (Mobility Fund Auction Public Notice).
360

Mobility Fund Phase I annual reports are available for viewing via the Commission’s Electronic Comment Filing
System (ECFS), http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/, by entering the docket number, WT No. 10-208.
361

Tribal Mobility Fund Phase I Auction Closes; Winning Bidders Announced for Auction 902, AU Docket No. 1353, Public Notice, 29 FCC Rcd 1974, 1975, para. 1 (WTB 2014).
362

Tribal Mobility Fund Phase I Support authorized public notices are available for support at the Commission’s
Auction 902 website, http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/902P.
363

Modernizing the E-Rate Program for Schools and Libraries, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, 29 FCC Rcd 8870 (2014) (E-rate Modernization Order); Modernizing the E-rate Program for Schools
and Libraries, WC Dockets No. 13-184, 10-90, Second Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, FCC 29
FCC Rcd 15538 (2014) (Second E-rate Modernization Order).

55

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

funding for Wi-Fi networks in schools and libraries across America while maximizing options for schools
and libraries to purchase high-speed broadband services.364 The Commission also raised the funding cap
on the E-rate program to make available an additional $1.5 billion in support while at the same time
putting in place important measures to encourage cost effective spending and to encourage deployment of
high capacity broadband networks to schools. The Commission, working in partnership with the
Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC), administrator of the USF,365 continues to implement
reforms of the E-rate Modernization Orders. Following modernization of the E-rate program to better
support fiber and Wi-Fi in schools and libraries, USAC has issued more than $2.8 billion in funding
commitments, including $1 billion for broadband connections of 100 Mbps and higher, and $1.1 billion
for Wi-Fi for Funding Year 2015.
131.
Lifeline and Broadband. The Commission is also taking a major step in improving
access to broadband for our nation’s most vulnerable populations. The Lifeline program provides
discounted voice telephony service to qualifying low-income consumers.366 On June 18, 2015, however,
the Commission adopted the 2015 Lifeline Further Notice, which proposes to support broadband service
through the Lifeline program while also proposing several important measures to reduce burdens on
carriers providing Lifeline service as well as minimizing burdens on ratepayers supporting the program.367
Additionally, building upon our recent modernization of the E-rate program, where we took major steps
to close the Wi-Fi gap within schools and libraries,368 and recognizing the valuable role that the Lifeline
program can play beyond the school day in the lives of elementary and secondary-school students living
in low-income households, the Commission sought comment on how the Lifeline program can address
the “homework gap” issue—the gap between those households with school-age children with home
broadband access to complete their school assignments and those low-income households with school-age
children without home broadband access.369
132.
Emerging Wireline Networks and Services. On August 6, 2015, the Commission adopted
a Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,370 adopting
policies to encourage the ongoing transition to next-generation communications networks while ensuring
that consumers are able to make informed choices, new retail services meet consumers’ fundamental
needs, and competition continues to thrive. The Order revises the Commission’s copper retirement rules
and service discontinuance rules to ensure that: (i) competitive carriers are adequately informed about
technology changes that impact them; (ii) the interests of end users impacted by upstream changes in
service by providers of wholesale inputs are adequately recognized as important to our service
discontinuance process; and (iii) competitive carriers do not lose the access that they need to continue to
provide the benefits of competition.371 The Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposed and sought
comment on specific criteria for the Commission to use in evaluating applications to discontinue legacy

364

Id. at 8894-939, paras. 63-167.

365

47 C.F.R. § 54.701.

366

See Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization et al., WC Docket Nos. 11-42 et al., Report and Order and
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 27 FCC Rcd 6656 (2012); 47 C.F.R. § 54.401.
367

2015 Lifeline Further Notice, 30 FCC Rcd 7818.

368

See E-rate Modernization Order, 29 FCC Rcd 8870; Second E-rate Modernization Order, 29 FCC Rcd 15538.

369

Lifeline Further Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 7831, para. 22.

370

Technology Transitions et al., Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, and Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, 30 FCC Rcd 9372 (2015) (Emerging Wireline Order).
371

Id. at 9375-77, paras. 5-6.

56

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

services pursuant to section 214 of the Act in order to safeguard the public interest through these
transitions.372
133.
Open Internet. On February 26, 2015, the Commission adopted the Open Internet
Order.373 The Order establishes three bright-line rules banning specific practices that invariably harm the
open Internet—blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization—and applied those rules to both fixed and
mobile broadband Internet access service.374 In addition, the Order puts in place a general conduct
standard to prevent a broadband service provider from unreasonably interfering with or disadvantaging
the ability of end users to access content, applications, devices, or services offered by edge providers.375
The Order also reclassifies broadband Internet access service as a telecommunications service subject to
certain provisions of Title II of the Communications Act.376 Title II guarantees ISPs access to vital
infrastructure such as utility poles, including a timeline with built-in remedies and a cost-based, regulated
rate.377 Access to pole and conduit directly enables new entrants to deploy broadband facilities.378
134.
Pole Attachment Rate Parity Order on Reconsideration. The 2011 Pole Attachment
Order took a fresh look at the term “cost” as it used in the formula used to determine the pole attachment
rental rates paid by telecommunications carriers (the telecom rate).379 In particular, it sought to bring the
telecom rate closer to parity with the different, and generally lower, rental rates that cable companies pay
to attach facilities (the cable rate).380 On June 8, 2011, cable operators and the National Cable Television
Cable Association (NCTA) petitioned the Commission to reconsider the new rate rules, arguing that the
rules only achieved the intended result if used in tandem with the Commission’s presumptions regarding
the number of attaching entities per pole.381 NCTA’s assertion took on new urgency when, in the Open
Internet Order, the Commission classified broadband Internet access service as a telecommunications
service.382 On November 17, 2015, the Commission adopted the Rate Parity Order on Reconsideration,
which delinks the assessment of costs from the Commission’s presumptive number of attachers, and links
372

Id. at 9378, para. 7.

373

Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order, 30
FCC Rcd 5601 (2015) (2015 Open Internet Order). The Order is currently in effect, pending judicial review in the
D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals following legal challenge by a coalition of broadband service providers in U.S.
Telecom Ass’n v. FCC et al., docket No. 15-1063.
374

2015 Open Internet Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 5607-08, paras. 14-19.

375

Id. at 5608-09, paras. 20-22.

376

Id. at 5612-13, paras. 37-40.

377

See 47 U.S.C. § 224; 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1401-1424.

378

2015 Open Internet Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 5831, para. 478.

379

See Implementation of Section 224 of the Act; A National Broadband Plan for Our Future, WC Docket No.
07245, GN Docket No. 09-51, Report and Order 26 FCC Rcd 5240at 5250-84, paras. 19-96 (improved access to
utility poles); 5284-95, paras. 97-125 (improving the enforcement process), and 5295-5338, paras. 126-220 (pole
rental rates); 47 U.S.C. § 224(e) (basis for the telecom rate formula) (2011 Pole Attachment Order).
380

See 2011 Pole Attachment Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5316-21, paras. 172-81 (discussing harms associated with
disparity between cable and telecom rate formulas); 47 U.S.C. § 224(d) (basis for the cable rate formula).
381

Petition for Reconsideration or Clarification of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association,
COMPTEL, and tw telecom inc., WC Docket No. 07-245, GN Docket No. 09-51 (filed June 8, 2011) (NCTA
Petition). NCTA maintained that the revision to 47 C.F.R § 1.1409(i) (which defined cost in Urbanized Service
Areas as .66 x (Net Cost of a Bare Pole x Carrying Charge Rate) and in Non-Urbanized Service Areas as .44 x (Net
Cost of a Bare Pole x Carrying Charge Rate) only brought parity to cable and telecom rates when used in
conjunction with the Commission’s presumptions in 47 C.F.R. § 1.1417 (rebuttable presumption that poles in
urbanized areas have 5 attaching entities and that poles in non-urbanized areas have 3 attaching entities). Id. at 5.
382

2015 Open Internet Order, 30 FCC Rcd at para. 308.

57

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

it instead the real number of attachers on a pole.383 The Rate Parity Order on Reconsideration explains
that subjecting cable operators to higher pole attachment rates merely because they also provide
telecommunications services, such as broadband Internet access, could deter investment and undermine
the Commission’s broadband deployment policy.384 The Rate Parity Order on Reconsideration also
removes any rate imbalance that would disfavor investment where pole attachments are federally
regulated, and any disruption of investment in rural areas that might result from a large and sudden
increase in pole attachment rates.385
135.
Strengthening 911 and Other Critical Communications. In the course of 2015, the
Commission moved on several fronts to ensure that access to 911 services keeps pace with broadband
deployment. On August 6, 2015, the Commission required those residential voice service providers that
are facilities-based and fixed, yet are not line powered (in which case no loss of service occurs during
outages) to let new subscribers purchase at least 8 hours of backup, standby power that will enable
subscribers to call 911 during a commercial power outage.386 In another step to ensure that 911
governance keeps pace with evolving technology, the Commission in November 2014 adopted a Policy
Statement, and initiated a rulemaking proceeding, to require all entities that provide 911 to remain
accountable for reliable call completion as networks transition to IP.387 This item responded to a series of
“sunny day” 911 outages in 2014 that were caused by preventable software errors, rather than by disasters
or weather conditions.388 Also, because 911 calls are increasingly made from wireless—rather than
wireline—technologies, in January 2015 the Commission adopted a number of rules to ensure that
wireless 911 calls provide public safety answering points (PSAPs) with caller-location information that is
equivalent, if not better, than the location information of traditional wireline service.389 In recognition of
the critical role undersea cable plays in the nation’s global IP-based connectivity and key economic and
national security communications, the Commission initiated a rulemaking for cable licensees to report
undersea cable outage data in order to provide further network health assurance, and address the need to
extend its network assurance data collection efforts to the IP environment under an appropriate
framework. 390 Further, the Commission also analyzed and considered how to strengthen these and other
critical communications through CSRIC council efforts.391 These measures ensure that consumers will be

383

Implementation of Section 224 of the Act; A National Broadband Plan for Our Future, WC Docket No. 07-245;
GN Docket No. 09-51, Order on Reconsideration, FCC No. 15-151 (rel. Nov. 24, 2015) (Rate Parity Order on
Reconsideration). For purposes of calculating the telecom rate, the our rules define “cost,” as a percentage of fully
allocated costs; that percentage varies depending on the average number of attaching entities. Id. at 2, para 2.
384

Id. at 3, para. 4.

385

Id. at 11, 13, paras. 22, 27.

386

Ensuring Continuity of 911 Communications, PS Docket No. 14-174, Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 8677
(2015).
387

911 Governance and Accountability; Improving 911 Reliability, PS Docket Nos. 14-193 and 13-75, Policy
Statement and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 29 FCC Rcd 14208 (2014), available at
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-14-186A1.pdf.
388

See FCC Public Safety & Homeland Security Bureau, April 2014 Multistate 911 Outage: Cause and Impact, PS
Docket No. 14-72, PSHSB Case File Nos. 14-CCR-0001-0007 (Oct. 2014), available at
http://www.fcc.gov/document/april-2014-multistate-911-outage-report (Multistate 911 Outage Report).
389

Wireless E911 Location Accuracy Requirements, PS Docket No. 07-114, Fourth Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd
1259 (2015).
390

Improving Outage Reporting for Submarine Cables and Enhancing Submarine Cable Outage Data, GN Docket
No. 15-206, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 30 FCC Rcd 10492 (2015).
391

See generally Communications Security, Reliability and Interoperability Council IV, CYBERSECURITY RISK
MANAGEMENT AND BEST PRACTICES WORKING GROUP 4, Final Report, March 2015, available at
(continued….)

58

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

able to rely on safety and security features over IP broadband networks that they are accustomed to expect
from traditional voice telephone service, and thus address the “high quality” aspect of Congress’s
advanced telecommunications capability mandate.392
136.
Other Public and Private Sector Initiatives. There are other noteworthy public and
private sector initiatives helping to ensure access to broadband. In July 2015, HUD and the Obama
Administration announced the ConnectHome program, which is designed to bring high-speed broadband
to low-income housing in 27 cities and one Native American Tribal community.393 The pilot initiative
seeks to: (1) develop models to offer HUD-assisted residents free or discounted broadband service; (2)
provide free training on digital literacy skills; and (3) provide devices and technical support.394 On March
23, 2015, President Obama signed a Presidential Memorandum, Expanding Broadband Deployment and
Adoption by Addressing Regulatory Barriers and Encouraging Investment and Training. The
Memorandum created the Broadband Opportunity Council, chaired by the Departments of Commerce and
Agriculture.395 The Council reviewed all major Federal programs that provide support for broadband and
released a report on August 20, 2015 with the following recommendations: (1) modernize Federal
programs to expand program support for broadband investments; (2) empower communities with tools
and resources to attract broadband investment and promote meaningful use; (3) promote increased
broadband deployment and competition through expanded access to Federal assets; and (4) improve data
collection, analysis and research on broadband.396
137.
Private industry also continues to invest in next-generation fixed and mobile broadband
networks. As stated in previous Reports, this investment demonstrates the value of a robust broadband
network to meet consumers’ demands.397 CTIA’s Wireless Industry Survey reports wireless providers’

(Continued from previous page)
https://transition.fcc.gov/pshs/advisory/csric4/CSRIC_IV_WG4_Final_Report_031815.pdf; Communications
Security, Reliability and Interoperability Council V, Meeting, June 24, 2015, available at
https://www.fcc.gov/events/communications-security-reliability-and-interoperability-council-v-meeting (video);
Communications Security, Reliability and Interoperability Council IV, Working Group Three, Emergency Alert
System, EAS Security Subcommittee, Final Report (2014), available at
https://transition.fcc.gov/pshs/advisory/csric4/CSRIC_IV_WG3EAS_SECURITY_FINAL_REPORT_05302014.pdf.
392

See 47 U.S.C. § 1302(d)(1) (“The term ‘advanced telecommunications capability’ is defined, without regard to
any transmission media or technology, as high-speed, switched, broadband telecommunications capability that
enables users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications using any
technology.”).
393

See Connecting America, What High-Speed Internet Means in the 21st Century,
https://www.whitehouse.gov/connect-america (last visited Oct. 19, 2015).
394

See ConnectHome, http://connecthome.hud.gov/ (last visited Oct. 19, 2015).

395

Delivering on Broadband Opportunity (Sept. 21, 2015) https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/09/21/new-stepsdeliver-high-speed-broadband-across-united-states
396

Broadband Opportunity Report and Recommendations (Aug. 20, 2015),
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/broadband_opportunity_council_report_final.pdf
397

2015 Broadband Progress Report, 30 FCC Rcd 1375, 1383, para. 15; 2012 Eighth Broadband Progress Report,
27 FCC Rcd at 10401-02, para. 136.

59

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

capital investment of more than $32 billion in 2014 and over $430 billion since 1985.398 Another industry
report estimates that providers in the U.S. invested $78 billion in network infrastructure in 2014. 399
138.
Verizon continues to invest in its FiOS network, which passes almost 20 million
households, an increase since the Commission’s last broadband progress Inquiry,400 and innovate, recently
testing next-generation 10 Gbps speeds over its all-fiber network.401 Moreover, as noted in our Emerging
Wireline Order, AT&T has invested to expand its wireline IP broadband network to 57 million customer
locations and extend fiber to 725,000 business locations.402 CenturyLink has also invested in the launch
of 1 Gbps broadband service to 16 cities.403 In addition, nTelos is investing $175 million to roll out LTE
across its footprint.404 Harnessing public and private efforts brings the promise of broader access to
advanced telecommunications capability.
139.
The Commission and the private sector must continue these efforts to achieve universal
broadband deployment and availability. Recent Broadband Progress Reports, including this Report, show
that progress has been made in promoting competition and removing barriers to infrastructure
investment.405 This work is ongoing. In today’s Report, we find that there is still work to be done to
accelerate broadband deployment by removing barriers to investment and spurring competition so that
advanced telecommunications capability can be available to all Americans. That is the Commission’s
statutory mandate and our overarching policy goal.
VII.

ORDERING CLAUSE

140.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 706 of the Telecommunications
Act of 1996, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 1302, 1303, this Report IS ADOPTED.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
398

CTIA, Annual Year-End 2014 Top-Line Survey Results, at 11, http://www.ctia.org/docs/default-source/FactsStats/ctia_survey_ye_2014_graphics.pdf?sfvrsn=2 (last visited Oct. 19, 2015). CTIA also states that carriers have
spent more than $94 billion on spectrum auctioned by the Commission. CTIA Comment at 5.
399

USTelecom Comments at 2, citing See Broadband Investment Gains Continued in 2014, USTelecom Research
Brief (Jul. 24, 2015), http://www.ustelecom.org/sites/default/files/documents/Investment-2014-Research-Brief-July2015.pdf.
400

Verizon Comments at 6.

401

Id.

402

Technology Transitions et al., Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, and Further Notice of Proposed, 30
FCC Rcd 9372, 9373-74, para. 2 (2015) (Emerging Wireline Order).
403

Id.

404

AT&T Comments at 8, citing Press Release, nTelos Announces “4G for All” Network Expansion Plan, First LTE
Launch of 2015, Fierce Wireless (Feb. 2, 2015),
http://www.fiercewireless.com/search/site/pressreleases%20ntelos%20announces%204g%20all%20network%20exp
ansion%20plan%20first%20lte%20launch%202015
405

2015 Broadband Progress Report, 30 FCC Rcd at 1452-55, paras. 133-140; 2012 Eighth Broadband Progress
Report, 27 FCC Rcd at 10400-403, paras. 135-138 (discussing negative findings with regard to broadband
deployment).

60

 Federal Communications Commission
APPENDIX A
Commenters
Commenter
ADTRAN, Inc.
AT&T
California Public Utilities Commission
Christopher Morgan
Competitive Carriers Association
CTIA – The Wireless Association
David Stewart
Deere & Co.
Eugene Liu
Fiber to the Home Council Americas
Fred Goodwin
Microcom
Mobile Future
National Cable & Telecommunications Association
Nebraska Public Service Commission
NTCA, WTA, ERTA and NECA
O3b Limited
Public Knowledge
The Free State Foundation
United States Cellular Corporation
United States Telecom Association
Verizon
ViaSat, Inc.
Windstream
Wireless Internet Service Providers Association

Abbreviation
ADTRAN
AT&T
California PUC
Christopher Morgan
CCA
CTIA
David Stewart
Deere & Co.
Eugene Liu
FTTH Council
Fred Goodwin
Microcom
Mobile Future
NCTA
Nebraska PSC
The Rural Associations
O3b
Public Knowledge
The Free State Foundation
US Cellular
US Telecom
Verizon
ViaSat
Windstream
WISPA

Reply Commenters
Commenter
ADTRAN
Competitive Carriers Association
COMPTEL
PCIA – The Wireless Infrastructure Association
Public Knowledge
Telecommunications Industry Association
T-Mobile USA, Inc.
United States Cellular Corporation
ViaSat, Inc.
Wireless Internet Service Providers Association

Abbreviation
ADTRAN
CCA
COMPTEL
PCIA
Public Knowledge
TIA
T-Mobile
US Cellular
ViaSat
WISPA

61

FCC 16-6

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

APPENDIX B
Table Index
Tables
Table 1:
Table 2:
Table 3:
Table 4:
Table 5:
Table 6:
Table 7:
Table 8:
Table 9:
Table 10:
Table 11:

Americans Without Access to Fixed Advanced Telecommunications Capability
Tribal Lands Without Access to Fixed Advanced Telecommunications
Capability
U.S. Territories Without Access to Fixed Advanced Telecommunications
Capability
Americans Without Access to Mobile Broadband Services
Americans Without Access to Fixed Advanced Telecommunications Capability
and Mobile Broadband Services
Estimated Percentage of Americans With Multiple Options for Fixed Advanced
Telecommunications Capability
Percentage of Americans Without Access to Fixed Advanced
Telecommunications Capability (2012-2014)
Comparison of Demographic Data Between Areas With and Without Access
To Fixed Advanced Telecommunications Capability
Average Percentage of Population Without Access to Fixed Services by Speed
Tier and by Demographic Variable
Overall Adoption Rate for Fixed Advanced Telecommunications Capability
(2012-2014)
Average Overall County Adoption Rate by Speed Tier and by County
Demographic Variable

62

Para.
79
80
81
83
84
86
88
90
91
100
102

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

APPENDIX C
Data Sources and Definitions
Data Sources
1.
Deployment Data - Form 477 Data. The fixed and mobile deployment estimates for
2014 are based upon Form 477 deployment data as of December 31, 2014. The fixed estimates are based
upon deployment data for providers of consumer services for the following fixed broadband services:
Asymmetric xDSL, ADSL2, VDSL, Symmetric xDSL, Other Copper Wireline, Cable Modem, Cable
Modem- Docsis 1, 1.1 and 2dem-Docsis 3.0, Optical Carrier/Fiber to the End User, Satellite, Terrestrial
Fixed Wireless, Electric Power Line and All other. For mobile estimates, we include Terrestrial Mobile
Wireless – LTE.1
2.
SBI Data. SBI data as of December 31, 2012 and December 31, 2013 are used to present
deployment estimates for fixed services in 2012 and 2013. The estimates are based upon deployment data
for the following services: Asymmetric xDSL, Symmetric xDSL, Other Wireline (all copper-wire based
technologies other than xDSL), Cable Modem—DOCSIS 3.0, Cable Modem—Other, optical carrier
(fiber to the home or FTTH), Terrestrial Fixed Wireless (provisioned/equipped over licensed spectrum or
over spectrum used on an unlicensed basis), Electric Power Line, and All Other.
3.
Adoption Data – Form 477 Data. The fixed adoption rates rely on Form 477 subscription
data for residential services as of December 31, 2014, December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012. We
include the following fixed broadband services: Asymmetric xDSL (1), Symmetric xDSL (2), Other
Wireline (all copper-wire based technologies other than xDSL), Cable Modem, optical carrier (fiber to the
home or FTTH), Satellite, Terrestrial Fixed Wireless (provisioned/equipped over licensed spectrum or
over spectrum used on an unlicensed basis), Electric Power Line, and All Other.2
4.
Demographic Data. We rely primarily upon 2014 GeoLytics data for population and
household count for the fifty states and the District of Columbia. For the U.S. Territories, we rely on the
July 2013 CIA World Fact Book for population and household count. We rely on the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, Labor Force Data, by county for estimates of the unemployment rate for December 2014. We
rely on the American Community Survey (ACS) Five-Year Estimates 2010–2014 for income and poverty
measures. These data are based upon surveys conducted from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2014.
The ACS collects survey information continuously nearly every day of the year and then aggregates the
results over five years. The data collection is spread evenly across the entire period represented so as not
to over-represent any particular month or year within the period. These multiyear estimates describe the
population and characteristics of an area for the full five-year period, not for any specific day, period, or
year within the multiyear time period. The ACS surveys were based upon the 50 states, the District of
Columbia and Puerto Rico, and does not include American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, or
the U.S. Virgin Islands. Thus, our demographic analysis excludes the U.S. Territories for which we do
not have data. We rely upon the 2010 census for land area and American Indian Area Alaska Native Area
Hawaiian Home Land Class Code (AIANHHCC) affiliation.
Definitions
5.
Fixed Adoption Rate. We measure adoption of services at or above the speed benchmark.
We rely on Form 477 Data aggregated up to the census tract level. The adoption rate is the ratio of
1

FCC, Instructions for Local Telephone Competition and Broadband Reporting (FCC Form 477),
http://transition.fcc.gov/Forms/Form477/477inst.pdf at 30-31, Tables 1, and 3.
2

FCC, Instructions for Local Telephone Competition and Broadband Reporting (FCC Form 477),
http://transition.fcc.gov/Forms/Form477/477inst.pdf at 30, Table 2.

63

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

residential connections to fixed broadband at or above the specified level of speed divided by the total
number of households in the area with access to advertised broadband services at or above the specified
level of speed. Although our deployment data is a the census block level, we aggregate the Form 477
deployment data up to the census tract level because the Form 477 subscription data for broadband
services is collected at the census tract level.. We calculate adoption rates for four geographic areas: the
census tract, the county, the state, and the United States as a whole.
6.
Fixed Deployment Estimates. We measure deployment of services at or above the
specified speed based on Form 477 Data for 2014. The deployment rate is the ratio of the population with
access to fixed broadband service at or above the specified speed to the total population. We calculate
deployment rates for four geographic areas: the census tract, county, the state, and the United States as a
whole.
7.
Income Measures. ACS Five-Year Estimates 2010-2014. We report three income
measures: mean per capita income, median household income, and the poverty rate (the proportion of
households living below the poverty level).3 Mean per capita income and median household income in
the past twelve months are measured in 2014 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars. The survey also reports the
proportion of households living below the poverty threshold for the households for which income data are
available.
8.
Land Area. The land area is based upon the 2010 Census boundaries and measured in
square miles of land.
9.

Non-Urban Area. A census tract that is not part of the “urban core.”

10.
Population Density. Population density of an area is the total population residing in the
area divided by the square miles of land in the area.
11.
Rural Area. The designation of a census block as rural is based upon the 2010 Census.
The term ‘‘rural’’ encompasses all population, housing, and territory not included within an urban area.4
12.
Tribal Lands. Our assessment of Tribal lands is conducted by examining the census
blocks that have been identified by the Census Bureau as federally recognized Tribal lands for the 2010
Census. These areas fall into one of the following categories of AIANHHCC: (1) Joint Use Areas; (2)
Legal federally recognized American Indian area consisting of reservation and associated off-reservation
trust land; (3) Legal federally recognized American Indian area consisting of reservation only; (4) Legal
federally recognized American Indian area consisting of off-reservation trust land only; (5) Statistical
American Indian area defined for a federally recognized Tribe that does not have reservation or offreservation trust land, specifically a Tribal designated statistical area (TDSA) or Oklahoma Tribal
Statistical Area (OTSA);5 (6) Alaskan Native village statistical area; and (7) Hawaiian Home Lands
established by the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1921. Two categories of federally recognized
areas were not designated by any census block with a population (off-reservation trust land portion of an
American Indian area with both a reservation and off-reservation trust land; and the reservation portion of
an American Indian area with both a reservation and off-reservation trust land). We exclude staterecognized areas from the analysis of Tribal lands. We note that the Tribal Statistical Areas are largely in
Oklahoma, but they also include areas in California, New York, and Washington.
13.
For purposes of this Report, we aggregate federally recognized Tribal lands into 4
groups: Tribal Lands in the Lower 48 States (areas 1 through 4 defined above); Tribal Statistical Areas
3

U.S. Census, American Community Survey, Puerto Rico Community Survey, 2013 Subject Definitions (2013) 8087 (discussing Income Measures in the Past 12 Months and adjustments to the data for inflation); 104-107
(discussing poverty measures).
4

See 2011 Census Bureau Notice, 76 Fed. Reg. at 53039.

5

The statistical areas are largely in Oklahoma, but also include areas in California, New York, and Washington.

64

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

(area 5 defined above); Alaskan Villages (area 6 defined above) and Hawaiian Home Lands (area 7
defined above). Because a census tract can be composed of Tribal lands and non-Tribal lands, a census
tract is designated as one of the four Tribal land groupings if the land area of the Tribal lands comprises at
least 50 percent of the land area within the census tract. The Tribal lands grouping is determined by the
Tribal lands that account for the largest proportion of the census tract. We exclude Hawaiian Home Lands
from our demographic analysis because this process results in only two census tracts designated as a
Hawaiian Home Land and are too few observations for the statistical analysis.
14.
Urban Area. Our identification of areas without access to broadband services is based
upon availability within a census block. The designation of a census block as urban is based upon the
2010 Census. The term ‘‘urban’’ encompasses all population, housing, and territory included within an
urban area.6
15.
Urban Core. Our demographic analysis of unserved areas and our analysis of adoption
rates is based upon census tract data. We designate census tracts as either Urban Core or Non-Urban
Core. A census tract is designated as “Urban Core” if it has a land area less than three square miles and a
population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile.7 A census tract is designated as Non-Urban
Core is it not Urban Core.

6

See 2011 Census Bureau Notice, 76 Fed. Reg. at 53039.

7

See id.

65

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

APPENDIX D
Americans Without Access to Fixed Advanced Telecommunications Capability by State and U.S.
Territory

United States

All Areas
Urban Areas
Rural Areas
Pop. Without % of Pop. Pop. Without % of Pop. Pop. Without % of Pop.
Access
Access
Access
33,981,660
10%
10,551,623
4%
23,430,037
39%
31,353,263

10%

9,001,161

3%

22,352,102

38%

Alabama

985,263

20%

169,154

6%

816,109

41%

Alaska

194,375

26%

26,389

5%

167,986

67%

Arizona

898,724

13%

487,930

8%

410,794

63%

Arkansas

744,572

25%

128,125

7%

616,447

48%

2,017,166

5%

920,182

2%

1,096,984

61%

539,327

10%

180,754

4%

358,573

53%

Connecticut

47,464

1%

42,220

1%

5,244

1%

Delaware

29,789

3%

13,355

2%

16,434

10%

District of
Columbia

10,539

2%

10,539

2%

.

.

Florida

1,297,648

7%

795,839

4%

501,809

29%

Georgia

932,484

9%

306,414

4%

626,070

25%

Hawaii

26,201

2%

2,001

0%

24,200

22%

Idaho

301,118

18%

47,922

4%

253,196

55%

Illinois

1,188,012

9%

419,780

4%

768,232

56%

Indiana

1,131,373

17%

220,696

5%

910,677

52%

Iowa

451,148

15%

76,830

4%

374,318

37%

Kansas

436,249

15%

123,315

5%

312,934

49%

Kentucky

699,360

16%

73,542

3%

625,818

34%

Louisiana

881,763

19%

282,361

8%

599,402

50%

Maine

162,563

12%

20,362

4%

142,201

17%

Maryland

262,002

4%

166,879

3%

95,123

13%

Massachusetts

183,103

3%

129,783

2%

53,320

10%

1,153,387

12%

245,299

3%

908,088

37%

Minnesota

641,787

12%

59,140

1%

582,647

43%

Mississippi

1,034,047

34%

129,674

9%

904,373

60%

Missouri

1,257,622

20%

204,409

5%

1,053,213

61%

Montana

317,581

31%

54,888

9%

262,693

61%

Nebraska

304,018

16%

94,847

6%

209,171

51%

Nevada

249,722

8%

151,168

5%

98,554

65%

99,129

7%

22,094

3%

77,035

15%

States and District
of Columbia

California
Colorado

Michigan

New Hampshire

66

 Federal Communications Commission

New Jersey

FCC 16-6

All Areas
Urban Areas
Rural Areas
Pop. Without % of Pop. Pop. Without % of Pop. Pop. Without % of Pop.
Access
Access
Access
285,478
3%
188,462
2%
97,016
21%

New Mexico

431,125

20%

156,432

9%

274,693

61%

New York

430,202

2%

40,455

0%

389,747

17%

North Carolina

738,306

7%

77,082

1%

661,224

20%

97,315

14%

11,294

2%

86,021

37%

983,927

8%

202,958

2%

780,969

31%

1,066,854

27%

247,333

9%

819,521

66%

Oregon

416,102

10%

150,759

5%

265,343

37%

Pennsylvania

803,645

6%

270,708

3%

532,937

20%

Rhode Island

17,996

2%

15,757

2%

2,239

2%

852,483

18%

247,842

8%

604,641

38%

92,406

11%

9,962

2%

82,444

26%

834,545

13%

106,128

2%

728,417

34%

2,976,879

11%

1,216,234

5%

1,760,645

46%

Utah

180,004

6%

77,530

3%

102,474

39%

Vermont

106,615

17%

5,223

2%

101,392

27%

Virginia

925,477

11%

186,349

3%

739,128

38%

Washington

200,320

3%

48,339

1%

151,981

14%

West Virginia

554,124

30%

92,104

10%

462,020

48%

Wisconsin

744,002

13%

33,517

1%

710,485

43%

Wyoming

137,922

23%

10,802

3%

127,120

63%

2,628,397

66%

1,550,462

54%

1,077,935

98%

54,504

100%

41,307

100%

13,197

100%

159,377

99%

107,044

99%

52,333

100%

51,455

100%

33,906

100%

17,549

100%

Puerto Rico

2,259,097

62%

1,325,683

50%

933,414

98%

U.S. Virgin
Islands

103,964

100%

42,522

100%

61,442

100%

North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma

South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas

U.S. Territories
American Samoa
Guam
Northern Mariana
Islands

67

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

APPENDIX E
Americans Without Access to Fixed Advanced Telecommunications Capability by County
https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/broadband-progress-reports/2016-broadband-progress-report

68

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

APPENDIX F
Impact of the Inclusion of Satellite Services on Deployment and Overall Adoption Rates for
Fixed 4 Mbps/1 Mbps and 10 Mbps/1 Mbps Services
1.
In this report, we include an analysis of satellite services as part our analysis of
deployment and adoption.1 Our primary deployment estimates are based upon the Form 477 data as of
December 31, 2014. For this time period, deployment data at 25 Mbps/3 Mbps was not reported by
satellite service providers; thus satellite services do not factor into our deployment estimates for fixed
advanced telecommunications capability. However, we also report deployment estimates for 4 Mbps/1
Mbps and 10 Mbps/1 Mbps, speeds at which satellite services are offered to residential consumers.2
Table 1 reports how the estimates of the population without access to fixed 4 Mbps/1 Mbps broadband
services and fixed 10 Mbps/1 Mbps broadband services are affected by the inclusion of satellite services.
2.
The inclusion of satellite services in our analysis significantly decreases the number of
Americans without access to fixed 4 Mbps/1 Mbps and 10 Mbps/1 Mbps services. Overall, the number of
Americans without access to fixed 4 Mbps/1 Mbps broadband services declines from approximately 16.1
million to approximately 1.4 million in the U.S. as a whole; and the number of Americans without access
to fixed 10 Mbps/1 Mbps broadband services declines from 19.9 million to 1.4 million. The number of
Americans without access to these services is unaffected in the U.S. Territories, while the number of
Americans without access to these services residing on Tribal lands fall to zero.
Table 1
Americans Without Fixed 4 Mbps/1 Mbps and 10 Mbps/1 Mbps Services
4 Mbps/1 Mbps
Including Satellite
Services3

10 Mbps/1 Mbps

Excluding Satellite
Services

Including Satellite
Services4

Excluding Satellite
Services

United States

1,376,047

16,080,909

1,419,962

19,899,559

Rural Areas

732,387

11,539,608

776,295

14,749,138

Urban Areas

643,660

4,541,301

643,667

5,150,421

0

776,272

0

1,126,897

Rural Areas

0

622,623

0

924,765

Urban Areas

0

153,649

0

202,132

1,376,047

1,376,047

1,419,962

1,419,962

Rural Areas

732,387

732,387

776,295

776,295

Urban Areas

643,660

643,660

643,667

643,667

Tribal Lands

U.S. Territories

3.
Table 2 below shows the impact of the inclusion of satellite services in the overall
adoption rates for 4 Mbps/1 Mbps and 10 Mbps/1 Mbps. The adoption rates in this year’s report are not
equivalent to adoption rates reported in prior years because those adoption rates excluded satellite
1

Satellite services have not been included in the deployment statistics or the analysis of adoptions since the Seventh
Broadband Progress Report. See Seventh Broadband Progress Report, para. 26.
2

See para. 91, Table 9 (Average Percentage of Population Without Access to Fixed Services by Speed Tier and by
Demographic Variable).
3

The numbers in this column do not take into account limitations imposed by the currently deployed satellite
capacity.
4

Id.

69

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

services. For example, the adoption rate for fixed 4 Mbps/1 Mbps services is the number of residential
subscribers to a service with a speed threshold of at least 4 Mbps/1 Mbps in the area divided by the
number of households with access to services with a speed of at least 4 Mbps/1 Mbps services. Satellite
services meet the 4 Mbps/1 Mbps speed threshold; thus, the denominator of the adoption rate increases, to
the extent that satellite services are available in the area, and the numerator of the adoption rate increases,
to the extent that consumers in the area subscribe to satellite services. The inclusion of satellite services
increases the number of American households with access to fixed 4 Mbps/1 Mbps from approximately
116.2 million households to 121.5 million households. However, the inclusion of satellite services in the
numerator of the adoption rate increases the number of subscribers to a fixed 4 Mbps/1 Mbps services
from 67.2 million to only 68.4 million. Hence, the inclusion of satellite services results in a smaller
overall adoption rate than would have the case if satellite services had been excluded from the analysis.
The inclusion of satellite services in the analysis of fixed advanced telecommunications capability is not
affected because satellite services were unavailable at 25 Mbps/3 Mbps for the time period analyzed in
this Report.
4.
For the U.S. as a whole, the inclusion of satellite services reduces the overall adoption
rate for fixed 4 Mbps/1 Mbps broadband services from 58 percent to 56 percent and reduces the overall
adoption rate for fixed 10 Mbps/1 Mbps service from 54 percent to 52 percent. The impact on the overall
adoption rate is greatest for Tribal lands where the adoption rate for 4 Mbps/1 Mbps declines from 42
percent to 38 percent. A similar impact occurs on the overall adoption rates for Non-Urban Core areas on
Tribal Lands.
Table 2
Impact of Satellite Services on Overall Adoption Rates for
Fixed 4 Mbps/1 Mbps and 10 Mbps/1 Mbps Broadband Services
4 Mbps/1 Mbps

10 Mbps/1 Mbps

Including
Excluding
Including
Excluding
Satellite Services Satellite Services Satellite Services Satellite Services
56%

58%

52%

54%

Non-Urban Core Areas

49%

51%

45%

48%

Urban Core Areas

62%

63%

58%

59%

38%

42%

30%

37%

Non-Urban Core Areas

33%

37%

25%

33%

Urban Core Areas

53%

53%

44%

44%

18%

18%

15%

15%

Non-Urban Core Areas

13%

13%

10%

10%

Urban Core Areas

23%

23%

19%

19%

United States

Tribal Lands

U.S. Territories

5.
The statistics reported in Table 2 must be interpreted with care. At first, the adoption
rates reported in Table 2 appear counterintuitive, i.e., the inclusion of the availability of satellite
broadband reduces the adoption rate for both 4 Mbps/1 Mbps and 10 Mbps/1 Mbps services. This
reduction in the overall adoption rate is, however, an arithmetic necessity, since the adoption rate is the
ratio of the number of residential subscribers to all services meeting the given speed threshold divided by
all households with access to any service capable of meeting the given speed threshold. Satellite
broadband is a relatively new service with a small number of customers compared to the all terrestrial

70

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

broadband customers. 5 Thus, the addition of satellite services will have only a small effect on the total
number of broadband subscribers in the numerator of the adoption ratio. It is intrinsic to satellite
technology that transponder beam coverage can encompass very large geographic area, and as reported
above, the inclusion of satellite services increases coverage for 4 Mbps/1 Mbps service from 116.2
million households to 121.5 million households. Thus, the inclusion of satellite services added to
terrestrial coverage in the denominator of the adoption ratio necessarily causes the adoption ratio to fall
given the relatively small addition of satellite broadband customers now included in the numerator.

5

Considering all residential customers in the Form 477 data, as of December 31, 2014, there are 1.467 million
subscribers to a satellite service compared to 87.385 million subscribers to fixed terrestrial subscribers. December
31, 2014 FCC Form 477 Subscriber data. See also, FCC Internet Access Services: Status as of December 31, 2013,
Table 6.

71

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

APPENDIX G
Tribal Lands Without Access to Fixed Advanced Telecommunications Capability by State
Pop. Without Access

% of Pop.

1,573,925

41%

588,324

58%

188

67%

1,375

100%

162,382

95%

California

29,052

51%

Colorado

11,875

87%

119

36%

1,762

51%

27,666

95%

126

13%

4,955

100%

725

95%

1,310

52%

2

2%

Michigan

4,265

13%

Minnesota

12,047

33%

Mississippi

2,895

38%

Montana

40,944

65%

Nebraska

6,393

85%

Nevada

7,563

72%

108,604

80%

New York

5,472

41%

North Carolina

8,910

99%

North Dakota

19,295

80%

Oklahoma

36,739

42%

5,517

64%

19,261

32%

615

32%

Utah

24,919

78%

Washington

17,104

13%

Wisconsin

13,042

33%

Wyoming

13,202

48%

856,596

34%

California

54

2%

New York

1,168

46%

All Tribal Lands
Tribal Lands in the Lower 48 States and an Alaskan Reservation
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona

Connecticut
Florida
Idaho
Iowa
Kansas
Louisiana
Maine
Massachusetts

New Mexico

Oregon
South Dakota
Texas

Tribal Statistical Areas

72

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

Pop. Without Access
Oklahoma
Washington
Alaskan Villages
Hawaiian Home Lands

73

% of Pop.

855,350

34%

24

0%

128,638

49%

367

1%

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

APPENDIX H
Overall Adoption Rates for Fixed Advanced Telecommunications Capability by State and U.S.
Territory
25 Mbps/3 Mbps
United States

37%

Alabama

25%

Alaska

3%

Arizona

45%

Arkansas

24%

California

43%

Colorado

52%

Connecticut

43%

Delaware

*

District of Columbia

*

Florida

37%

Georgia

35%
*

Hawaii
Idaho

25%

Illinois

40%

Indiana

30%
6%

Iowa

26%

Kansas
Kentucky

8%

Louisiana

36%

Maine

13%

Maryland

59%

Massachusetts

68%

Michigan

40%

Minnesota

42%

Mississippi

26%

Missouri

27%

Montana

*

Nebraska

34%
*

Nevada
New Hampshire

56%

New Jersey

58%

New Mexico

30%

New York

39%

North Carolina

16%

74

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

25 Mbps/3 Mbps
North Dakota

45%

Ohio

11%

Oklahoma

34%

Oregon

49%

Pennsylvania

46%

Rhode Island

*

South Carolina

23%

South Dakota

40%

Tennessee

40%

Texas

26%

Utah

41%

Vermont

51%

Virginia

53%

Washington

52%

West Virginia

46%

Wisconsin

24%

Wyoming

46%

U.S. Territories

4%

American Samoa

NA
*

Guam

NA.

Northern Mariana Islands

0%

Puerto Rico

*

U.S. Virgin Islands
* Data Withheld to maintain confidentiality.
NA – Not Available.

75

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

STATEMENT OF
CHAIRMAN TOM WHEELER
Re:

Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All
Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such
Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as Amended
by the Broadband Data Improvement Act, GN Docket No. 15-191.

Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not
to his own facts.” Today, we release the facts about broadband deployment in the United States – the
2016 Broadband Progress Report. This analysis fulfills our statutory mandate to assess and report
annually on whether advanced telecommunications are being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable
and timely fashion. So what are the facts when it comes to broadband in America?
Fact #1: In the most recent year measured, our nation made significant progress in broadband
deployment. The number of Americans lacking access to fixed broadband at the FCC’s benchmark speed
of 25 Mbps for downloads, 3 Mbps for uploads dropped from 55 million to 34 million. That’s a nearly 40
percent reduction in the number of unserved Americans in only one year.
Fact #2: Despite recent gains, we are still fall short of the statutory goal of universal access to
fixed high-speed broadband. Approximately 34 million Americans still lack access to fixed broadband at
25/3.
Fact #3: The urban-rural digital divide persists and is significant. Thirty-nine percent of
Americans living in rural areas and lack access to 25 Mbps/3 Mbps, compared to 4 percent of urban
Americans. On Tribal Lands in rural America, 68 percent lack access.
Fact #4: Our schools and libraries still face a connectivity gap. Forty-one percent of schools
have not met the Commission’s short-term goal of 100 Mbps per 1,000 students/staff. And a much
smaller percentage have met the longer-term goal of 1 Gbps/1,000 users.
Fact #5: Americans rely more and more on mobile broadband service. This is particularly true of
low income and minority consumers. Americans use their smart phones and tablets to access the Internet
on the go so much that the concept of “advanced telecommunications” as Congress defined it must
include access to both fixed and mobile broadband.
Congress directed the Commission to gather the facts on broadband deployment, it also ordered
us to make a determination based on those facts. Specifically, based on our findings, the Commission
must determine whether “advanced telecommunications capability” – broadband – is being deployed to
all Americans in a “reasonable and timely fashion.” If the answer is negative, the law requires the FCC to
“take immediate action” to speed deployment.
When Americans increasingly rely on broadband for job opportunities, healthcare, education,
public safety, and civic participation, but nearly 34 million Americans couldn’t get high-speed fixed
broadband even if they wanted it; when rural Americans are nearly ten times more likely than their urban
peers to be bypassed by online opportunities; when 47 percent of our students don’t have sufficient
bandwidth at school to use the latest digital learning tools, we cannot say that we are meeting the standard
Congress set forth. We have a moral and statutory obligation to do better.
Consistent with this obligation, the Commission continues to take actions to close the digital
divide in Rural America and on Tribal lands by incenting deployment of broadband in those areas, and
bringing high-speed broadband to rural and Tribal schools and libraries. We are also adopting policies to
promote broadband adoption and competition in the provision of broadband services.
Regarding the finding that advanced telecommunications capability requires access to both fixed
and mobile broadband, we are not ready to establish a speed benchmark for mobile services as we have
for fixed broadband service. Mobile speeds are inherently less consistent than fixed, and we will ask for
76

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

more comment, and possibly consider new data, before we set a quality benchmark for an Internet access
service where speeds are by nature less precise than fixed service speeds.
Moving forward, the Commission is fully committed to the goal of broadband for all, and we will
take all reasonable measures to ensure that Americans have access to the networks that are increasingly
essential for full participation in today’s society and economy.
Thank you to our International, Public Safety and Homeland Security, Wireless
Telecommunications and Wireline Competition Bureaus for their work on its item as well as our Office of
Engineering and Technology and Office General Counsel. This was a broad-based effort that drew on the
expertise of many within our Bureaus and Offices.

77

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER MIGNON L. CLYBURN
Re:

Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All
Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such
Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as Amended
by the Broadband Data Improvement Act, GN Docket No. 15-191.

I am pleased that this year’s Broadband Progress Report recognizes that both mobile and fixed
broadband are needed to meet the ever growing demands of today’s always-on consuming society. The
two services complement each other so seamlessly that we often forget how much we rely on each.
Indeed, I would challenge anyone fortunate enough to subscribe to both services, to forgo either for a
week, and see how challenging it is to keep on top of the daily demands of work, school, home, health,
commerce, to – well – just about everything.
There is a lot of good news contained in this report. It shows impressive strides towards meeting
our goal of ensuring that all Americans have access to advanced telecommunications capability. I am
proud to have been part of many of the landmark Commission decisions that helped to close these gaps,
including the FCC’s historic reforms of the universal service fund to focus on deploying broadbandcapable networks in rural areas. What is also clear, however, is that there is more work left to do, and we
cannot afford to declare victory until every corner of our nation has fixed and mobile broadband-capable
networks.
There are two areas in particular where I believe additional Commission action is needed so that
we are able to once and for all close some chronic technology divides.
First, the Commission needs to adopt a permanent mobility fund, as envisioned by the unanimous
decision in the 2011 USF/ICC Transformation Order. The Report’s finding that mobile is necessary for
advanced telecommunications capability heightens the need to move swiftly on the mobility fund so we
can close any remaining gaps in mobile broadband coverage. While I applaud the levels of private sector
investment, there are places that still lack coverage, and other areas that only have service because of the
ongoing support from the universal service fund. A permanent mobility fund should be expressly
targeted to reach these areas. Existing legacy support for wireless providers is not necessarily the most
efficient use of universal service. Indeed, the Commission estimated in 2014 that wireless providers
continue to receive approximately $590 million annually in legacy support but, currently, there is no
obligation that this support be used to deploy broadband or to connect those unserved areas. This must
change.
Second, we need to ensure that once deployed, the service is affordable. It is crystal clear that too
many of our citizens, particularly those who are low-income, many with disabilities, and those living in
rural and on Tribal lands, remain on the wrong side of the connectivity divide. In many of these places,
ensuring that the service is affordable for consumers who are struggling remains a challenge. The
Commission sought comment on modernizing the Lifeline program last year, and I am hopeful that we
will move quickly to ensure that broadband is part of that matrix.
I want to thank the Chairman for his willingness to accommodate my office’s edits, and I look
forward to working with my colleagues to adopt a permanent mobility fund and finalize Lifeline reform
with dispatch.

78

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER JESSICA ROSENWORCEL
Re:

Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All
Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such
Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as Amended
by the Broadband Data Improvement Act, GN Docket No. 15-191.

I believe the future belongs to the connected. That’s because a broadband connection is more
than a technology—it’s a platform for opportunity. No matter who you are or where you live in this
country, you need access to modern communications to have a fair shot at 21st century success. That’s a
fact.
There are also a lot of facts in today’s Report, which is our most comprehensive picture of where
we stand in bringing broadband to all Americans. Much of the news is good. This is due in no small
measure to the enormous investment that communications providers are making to deploy broadband
across the country. At the same time, this Report demonstrates that we have communities that lack the
connectivity they need today and require for the future. This is especially true in rural and Tribal areas.
So we have work to do.
I also believe the future belongs to the bold. Enough with dreaming small. It’s time to dream
big. This is the country that put a man on the moon. We invented the Internet. We can do audacious
things—if we set big goals.
So I believe we need big broadband goals. I am pleased that six years ago the Commission had
the foresight to change our downstream broadband speed threshold from 200 kilobits to 4 Megabits. I am
glad that last year we upped the ante and changed that threshold to 25 Megabits. I support the continued
use of this standard today. But I think we need to go big and be bold. I think our new threshold should
be 100 Megabits—and Gigabit speed should be in our sights. I believe anything short of goals like this
shortchanges our children, our future, and our digital economy.
This may not be easy, but we can do it. That’s because the history of innovation is brimming
with examples of the great depths of American know-how. It’s time to put that know-how to work and
bring really big broadband everywhere.

79

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

CONCURRING STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER AJIT PAI
Re:

Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All
Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such
Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as Amended
by the Broadband Data Improvement Act, GN Docket No. 15-191.

Congress created the FCC “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.”1 In the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress reiterated that charge, requiring the FCC to “encourage” the
deployment of advanced telecommunications capability—broadband—to all Americans and to “take
immediate action to accelerate deployment” if the country falls behind.2 In other words, section 706 is
focused on bringing high-speed Internet access to places where a business case for deployment doesn’t
already exist. It’s all about rural America.
In the first broadband deployment report of the Obama Administration, the FCC declared that
broadband was not being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion, finding that 14–
24 million Americans could not access it.3 As required by federal law, the Commission vowed
“immediate action to accelerate deployment.”4 The Commission has since repeated that vow again5 and
again6 and again.7
Today, the agency declares once more that broadband is still not being deployed to all Americans
in a reasonable and timely fashion.8 It finds that “approximately 34 million Americans lack service,
nearly the population of Canada.”9 That’s at least 10 million more Americans than were being left behind
at the beginning of this Administration.
1

Communications Act § 1.

2

Telecommunications Act § 706(a)–(b).

3

Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a
Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, as Amended by the Broadband Data Improvement Act; A National Broadband
Plan for Our Future, GN Docket Nos. 09-137, 09-51, Sixth Broadband Deployment Report, 25 FCC Rcd 9556,
9574, para. 28 (2010).
4

Id. at 9575, para. 29; Telecommunications Act § 706(b).

5

Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a
Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, as Amended by the Broadband Data Improvement Act, GN Docket No. 10-159,
Seventh Broadband Progress Report and Order on Reconsideration, 26 FCC Rcd 8008, 8040, para. 64 (2011).
6

Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a
Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, as Amended by the Broadband Data Improvement Act, GN Docket No. 11-121,
Eighth Broadband Progress Report, 27 FCC Rcd 10342, 10403, para. 139 (2012).
7

Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a
Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, as Amended by the Broadband Data Improvement Act, GN Docket No. 14-126,
2015 Broadband Progress Report and Notice of Inquiry on Immediate Action to Accelerate Deployment, 30 FCC
Rcd 1375, 1455, para. 141 (2015).
8

Order at para. 1.

9

Order at para. 120.

80

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

These figures confirm that this Administration’s policies to encourage and accelerate broadband
deployment over the last seven years just haven’t worked. The digital divide between rural and urban
America hasn’t been closed. And so the FCC today gives this Administration a failing grade.
You might think that for all the money the Administration has spent, there would be real progress.
But the FCC doesn’t think so. And in many ways, I agree.
I agree that it’s a failure to spend $28.1 billion on the FCC’s high-cost program since 2009 and
yet still find a “stark contrast in service between urban and rural America.”10
I agree that it’s a failure to spend $8.2 billion on so-called “stimulus” spending that favors
overbuilding (and, all too often, politically connected cronyism) and consequently leaves “Americans
who live in rural areas [] ten times more likely to be unserved than their urban counterparts.”11
I agree that it’s a failure to agree to commit $9.4 billion through the Connect America Fund and
$350 million through the Mobility Fund to deploy services that don’t meet the FCC’s 25 Mbps standard
for broadband.12 After these funds go out the door, we will still have to say then what we say today:
“Americans living in rural areas and Tribal lands disproportionately lack access.”13
I agree that it’s a failure that the FCC has spent $10.9 billion on the Lifeline program and doubled
the size of the program, yet it hasn’t made a dent in telephone adoption, the supposed purpose of all those
subsidies.
I agree that it’s a failure that the FCC has spent $14.6 billion on the E-Rate program, yet it still
finds that 91% of schools don’t meet our own long-run connectivity target and 41% of schools don’t even
meet the short-term goal.14
And I agree that it’s a failure that the FCC has spent a record $838 million just administering the
Universal Service Fund, yet it still can’t say that the Fund is administered without substantial waste,
fraud, and abuse.15
In short, American taxpayers aren’t getting the bang they deserve for their hard-earned bucks.
And the FCC is living up to Ralph Waldo Emerson’s dictum that “Money often costs too much.”
One problem has been the Commission’s inconsistent approach to supporting broadband
deployment in rural America. What does it say when the FCC reconsiders its historic Universal Service
Transformation Order seven separate times? When the agency decides first to adopt “benchmarks” for
10

Order at para. 121.

11

Order at para. 121; see also Tony Romm, Wired to Fail, Politico, http://politi.co/1VupCji (July 28, 2015). The
Administration received $4.7 billion for the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s
Broadband Technology Opportunities Program and $3.5 billion for the Rural Utility Service’s Broadband Initiatives
Program.
12

Specifically, $114 million in Connect America Fund Phase I Round 1, $324 million in Connect America Fund
Phase I Round 2, and $9.005 billion in Connect America Fund Phase II Offers of Model-Based Support as well as
$300 million in Mobility Fund Phase I and $50 million in Tribal Mobility Fund Phase I.
13

Order at para. 121.

14

Order at para. 123.

15

See USAC, 2010 Second Quarter Filing M03 January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2009 – CASH BASIS;
USAC, 2011 Second Quarter Filing M03 January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010 – CASH BASIS; USAC,
2012 Second Quarter Filing M03 January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011 – CASH BASIS; USAC, 2013
Second Quarter Filing M03 January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012 – CASH BASIS USAC; 2014 Second
Quarter Filing M03 January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2013 – CASH BASIS; 2015 Second Quarter Filing M03
January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014 – CASH BASIS; 2016 First Quarter Filing M03 January 1, 2015 to
September 30, 2015 – CASH BASIS.

81

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

rural capital and operating expenses,16 then to rework them,17 then to eliminate them,18 and finally to
resurrect them (they’re now called “specific budgets”)?19 When the U.S. Department of Agriculture feels
compelled to tell the FCC that the regulatory uncertainty it’s created is devastating rural broadband
deployment?20
That inconsistency extends to the Commission’s inability to meet its own deadlines. The Connect
America Fund’s second phase was supposed to start in 2013,21 not August 2015. The Commission
promised to adopt a competitive bidding mechanism for that phase by December 2012,22 but we still don’t
have one. The Mobility Fund’s second phase was due four years ago,23 but it has been completely
immobile. The Remote Areas Fund hasn’t commenced.24 And last year, every member of this
Commission promised Chairman John Thune of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation that we’d adopt a stand-alone broadband mechanism before 2015 was over. (I put my plan
on the table last June.) It’s now 2016, and there is no plan. There is no sign of any plan. There is no plan
of any sign. But there is talk.
What is worse, the Commission has actively worked to make broadband deployment more
difficult. The agency has required carriers to seek government permission before discontinuing almost
every network feature no matter how little-used or old-fashioned.25 It has dragged out the copper
retirement process.26 It has suspended the Clinton-era deregulatory framework for enterprise broadband
services and appears on track for full-scale rate regulation of low-bandwidth services later this year.27
And it has raised the cost of stringing fiber along poles (only to reverse that decision six months later).28
16

Connect America Fund et al., WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 07-135, 05-337, 03-109, CC Docket Nos. 01-92, 96-45,
GN Docket No. 0951, WT Docket No. 10-208, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 26
FCC Rcd 17663, 17742, para. 210 (2011) (Universal Service Transformation Order).
17

Connect America Fund; High-Cost Universal Service Support, WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 05-337, Sixth Order on
Reconsideration and Memorandum Opinion and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 2572, 2581, para. 23 (2013).
18

Connect America Fund et al., WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 14-58, 07-135, WT Docket No. 10-208, CC Docket No.
01-92, Report and Order, Declaratory Ruling, Order, Memorandum Opinion and Order, Seventh Order on
Reconsideration, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 29 FCC Rcd 7051, 7097, para. 131 (2014).
19

Remarks of FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler as Prepared for Delivery, NTCA Fall Conference, Boston,
Massachusetts at 5 (Sept. 21, 2015).
20

See Letter from John Charles Padalino, Acting Administrator, Rural Utility Service, to Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, FCC, WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 07-135, 05-337, GN Docket No. 09-51, CC Docket Nos. 01-92, 96-45, WT
Docket No. 10-208, at 2 (Feb. 15, 2013).
21

Universal Service Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 17674, para. 25.

22

Id.

23

Id. at 17675, para. 28.

24

Id. at 17675, para. 30.

25

Ensuring Customer Premises Equipment Backup Power for Continuity of Communications et al., PS Docket No.
14-174, GN Docket No. 13-5, RM-11358, WC Docket No. 05-25, RM-10593, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and
Declaratory Ruling, 29 FCC Rcd 14968, 15018, para. 118 (2014).
26

Technology Transitions et al., GN Docket No. 13-5, RM-11358, WC Docket No. 05-25, RM-10593, Report and
Order, Order on Reconsideration, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 30 FCC Rcd 9372, 9390, 9421,
paras. 29, 90 (2015).
27

Special Access for Price Cap Local Exchange Carriers et al., WC Docket No. 05-25, RM-10593, Report and
Order, 27 FCC Rcd 10557, 10558, para. 1 (2012).
28

Implementation of Section 224 of the Act; A National Broadband Plan for Our Future, WC Docket No. 07-245,
GN Docket No. 09-51, Order on Reconsideration, FCC 15-151 at para. 21 (Nov. 24, 2015).

82

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

In short, the Commission has purposely ignored the iron rule that every dollar wasted maintaining last
century’s fading technology is by definition a dollar that cannot go to next-generation networks. And so
communities that offer the lowest profit margins—inhabited by low-income Americans, rural Americans,
and others—must wait that much longer for digital opportunity.
Indeed, the Administration has overseen the first-ever reduction in year-over-year investment by
major broadband providers that happened outside a recession—and it occurred in the months following
the FCC’s rubber-stamp of President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet.29 Countless small broadband
providers have also reduced investment in the communities they serve because of the FCC’s decision to
treat the Internet like a 19th century railroad or 20th century water company.30 As one small wireless
provider testified to Congress earlier this month: “Before the [Title II Order] was adopted, it was our
intention to triple our customer base” and “cover a three-county area. However, we have pulled back on
those plans, scaling back our deployment to three, smaller communities that abut our existing network.”31
This Administration has also overseen the first-ever decline in home broadband adoption since
the advent of the commercial Internet. According to the Pew Research Center, “home broadband
adoption seems to have plateaued,” with an estimated 9,686,903 Americans having given up home
broadband connections between 2013 and 2015.32 That means over the last six years, only 4% of
Americans have decided to adopt broadband at home. Compare that with the 57% of Americans that
signed up for broadband during the last Administration—a yearly average of 7%, or almost twice the
adoption growth during this entire Administration.33 Indeed, as the National Broadband Plan found at the
dawn of this Administration, “[f]ueled 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 [in 2009].”34 It’s unfortunate
that this incredible pace of progress fizzled thereafter.
And so we come to the fundamental question: Has the section 706 test been met? Perhaps
surprisingly to some, including myself, I agree with the majority’s end result: After seven years, $63.6
billion spent, and plenty of talk, this Administration’s policies have failed to deliver “advanced
telecommunications capability”—broadband—to the American people in a reasonable and timely fashion.
The standard set forth by Congress is not being met. Rural America is being left behind.
As expected, the Commission’s answer to this disappointing news is yet another vow of
“immediate action to accelerate deployment.”35 But after far too many years and far too many broken
promises, we have learned that the past is prologue.
What our country needs is a real broadband deployment agenda—a proactive, concrete,
bipartisan, dedicated effort to deliver digital opportunity to every American who wants it.

29

Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, GN Docket No. 14-28, Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory
Ruling, and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 5601 (2015).
30

See Statement of Commissioner Ajit Pai on New Evidence that President Obama’s Plan to Regulate the Internet
Harms Small Businesses and Rural Broadband Deployment (May 7, 2015), available at http://go.usa.gov/cEbnh.
31

Written Testimony of L. Elizabeth Bowles, Legislative Committee Chair, Wireless Internet Service Providers
Association and President, Aristotle, Inc. before the House Energy & Commerce Committee Subcommittee on
Communications and Technology at 3 (Jan. 12, 2016), available at http://go.usa.gov/cEbP3.
32

John B. Horrigan & Maeve Duggan, Pew Research Center, Home Broadband 2015 at 2 (Dec. 21, 2015), available
at http://pewrsr.ch/1PbbJC9.
33

Id. at 3.

34

National Broadband Plan at xi.

35

Order at para. 119.

83

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

Among other things, that means returning to the bipartisan consensus that the Internet should be
unfettered by federal or state regulation so that entrepreneurs within the network and on the edge can
innovate without permission.
That means embracing the IP Transition and letting carriers sunset the increasingly obsolete
public switched telephone network in favor of next-generation technologies like fiber.
That means modernizing our rate-of-return policies so that rural residents can have the same
choice for stand-alone broadband typically found in cities.
That means creating a roadmap for state and local governments so that every company that wants
to deploy fiber, from Google Fiber to Kansas’ RG Fiber, doesn’t have to cut through regulatory thickets
every single time in every single location.
That means reducing the red tape for deploying wireless infrastructure on federal lands, where
approval currently takes twice as long as on private lands, disproportionately hurting rural wireless
consumers.
That means reopening the spectrum pipeline to get more of the airwaves out of the federal
government’s hands and into the commercial marketplace.
That means rejuvenating the 5 GHz proceeding so that wireless broadband providers and
consumers nationwide can put another 195 MHz spectrum to unlicensed use.
That means teeing up 12,500 MHz of spectrum in frequencies above 24 GHz to allow the United
States to be a leader in developing 5G technologies.
And that means actually eliminating other regulatory barriers to infrastructure investment—such
as high pole attachment rates—so that companies can deploy the small cells, the towers, the fiber, and the
new services that consumers are demanding.
In short, that means promoting competition. That means getting rid of outdated rules and
regulatory uncertainty. And that means giving everyone—large companies and small, entrepreneurs and
consumers—the confidence that the government will no longer stand as the gatekeeper when it comes to
broadband and the services and applications that depend on it.
To bring the bounty of broadband to all in our nation who want it, our country needs to choose a
different path. As the National Broadband Plan put it half a decade ago, “It is time again to reduce talk to
practical results.”36 It is time for a new beginning.

36

National Broadband Plan at 338.

84

 Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-6

DISSENTING STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL O’RIELLY
Re:

Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All
Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such
Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as Amended
by the Broadband Data Improvement Act, GN Docket No. 15-191.

I strongly oppose the notion that broadband is not being deployed in a reasonable and timely
fashion, as outlined in the law. Regardless of whether the standard is 25/3, 10/1, or some other
combination of technologies and metrics designed to abuse section 706 and generate regulation, the report
continues to show steady progress in connecting unserved Americans. In fact, even at the artificially high
and prematurely adopted 25/3 standard, called “table stakes” by some, the number of unserved Americans
has dropped from approximately 55 million (17 percent of the population) to approximately 34 million
Americans (10 percent of the population) in just one year. The report even concedes that the data are
“notably better” than last year. But apparently no amount of progress will ever be good enough for a
Commission that is bent on regulating broadband at all cost.
Indeed, the fact that so much progress has been made puts the FCC in an awkward spot. Last
January, the Commission expressed concern that the number of unserved Americans had dropped by only
three percentage points. Given that it has dropped by another seven, the FCC had to sound a new alarm.
Now the Commission is “not satisfied” that the number of unserved is “nearly the population of
Canada”—as if that is a useful measure of broadband deployment in the United States. If the number
drops to 24 million next year, will we be reminded that that is the population of Australia? The mock
outrage and phony comparisons only serve to highlight that the actual data in the report don’t matter and
the politically-driven findings are a sham.
To divert attention from the substantial progress made on fixed broadband, the report includes a
lengthy discussion on mobile broadband. As I predicted, the Commission now finds that the availability
of advanced telecommunications capability requires access to both fixed and mobile service. The idea
that we would need to see close to 100 percent availability of each service in order to reach a positive
finding is ludicrous. This siloed way of thinking is outdated and simply does not comport with usage
trends. The report is quite certain that fixed and mobile broadband aren’t substitutes, which is a
completely erroneous conclusion, given that it hasn’t even defined mobile broadband service yet. But it
also runs completely counter to the generational preferences and views on substitutability noted in this
very report. This is just another avenue to preordain next year’s negative finding.
In addition, I have serious concerns with the analysis regarding broadband deployment to schools.
The connectivity goals established for the E-Rate program were just that—goals. They were not intended
to be used as benchmarks to be measured and acted on here. I have already heard reports that schools are
making purchasing decisions based on the goals—driving up demand on the consumer-supported
universal service fund—regardless of whether their actual usage warrants purchasing additional capacity.
By pretending the E-Rate goals are benchmarks, as done here, the Commission gives schools a further
push to overspend, wasting scarce universal service dollars without actually helping the children.
I also continue to object to the inclusion of privacy and security as barriers to deployment. The
Commission has no authority to regulate in these areas, and should not be examining them here. I remain
concerned that this line of thinking ultimately could result in the FCC creating duplicative and potentially
conflicting burdens on broadband providers, leading to cost increases for consumers.
In sum, the task before us is to consider whether deployment in the United States is reasonable and
timely, and the objective, empirical answer to that is a resounding yes. In fact, it is more than reasonable
considering the unnecessary burdens that the Commission has continued to heap upon broadband
providers in the meantime. While there is more work to be done—particularly in the rural and remote
areas of the country that I’ve been spending a great deal of time on—I do not agree with the analysis or
negative finding and I must dissent.
85