Modernizing the FCC Form 477 Data Program, 10827-10852 [2011-4393]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 39 (Monday, February 28, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10827-10852]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4393]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 1, 20, and 43

[WCB: WC Docket Nos. 07-38, 09-190, 10-132, 11-10; FCC 11-14]


Modernizing the FCC Form 477 Data Program

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission considers whether and how to 
reform the Form 477 data program, which serves as the Commission's 
primary tool for collecting broadband and local telephone data. The 
Commission

[[Page 10828]]

believes it is time to consider whether modifying the Form 477 will 
improve the Commission's ability to carry out its duties under the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), and is an important 
part of the Commission's larger initiative to modernize and streamline 
how the Commission collects, uses, and disseminates data.

DATES: Comments are due on or before March 30, 2011, and reply comments 
are due on or before April 14, 2011. Written comments on the Paperwork 
Reduction Act proposed or modified information collection requirements 
must be submitted by the public, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 
and other interested parties on or before April 29, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WC Docket No.11-10, 
by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for submitting 
comments.
     People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: (202) 
418-0530 or TTY: (202) 418-0432.

For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document. In addition to filing comments 
with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the Paperwork Reduction 
Act information collection requirements contained herein should be 
submitted to the Federal Communications Commission via e-mail to 
PRA@fcc.gov and to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of Management and Budget, 
via e-mail to Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov or via fax at 202-395-
5167.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeremy Miller at (202) 418-1507, 
Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry Analysis and Technology Division. 
For additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act 
information collection requirements contained in this document, send an 
e-mail to PRA@fcc.gov or contact Judith Boley Herman at 202-418-0214.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in WC Docket Nos. 07-38, 09-190, 10-132 
and 11-10, adopted and released on February 8, 2011. The complete text 
of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal 
business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 
12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The document may 
also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best 
Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, 
Washington, DC 20554, telephone (800) 378-3160 or (202) 863-2893, 
facsimile (202) 863-2898, or via the Internet at https://www.bcpiweb.com. It is also available on the Commission's Web site at 
https://www.fcc.gov.
    Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 
47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply 
comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this 
document. Comments may be filed using: (1) The Commission's Electronic 
Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government's eRulemaking 
Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of 
Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998.
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ 
or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Filers 
should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting 
comments.
    [cir] For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers 
appear in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one 
electronic copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking number 
referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, filers 
should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, 
and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit 
an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, 
filers should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the following 
words in the body of the message, ``get form.'' A sample form and 
directions will be sent in response.
    [cir] Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file 
an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or 
rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers 
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or 
rulemaking number.
    Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial 
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service 
mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. 
Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's 
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
    [cir] The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or 
messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 
Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing 
hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be 
held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be 
disposed of before entering the building.
    [cir] Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton 
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
    [cir] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail 
should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
    People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice) or 
(202) 418-0432 (TTY). Contact the FCC to request reasonable 
accommodations for filing comments (accessible format documents, sign 
language interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: fcc504@fcc.gov; phone: 
(202) 418-0530 or (202) 418-0432 (TTY).
    In addition, one copy of each pleading must be sent to each of the 
following:
    [cir] The Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and 
Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 
20554; Web site: https://www.bcpiweb.com; phone: 1-800-378-3160; and
    [cir] Jeremy Miller, Competition Policy Division, Industry Analysis 
and Technology Division, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 5-B145, Washington, 
DC 20554; e-mail: Jeremy.Miller@fcc.gov or telephone number (202) 418-
1507.
    Filings and comments are also available for public inspection and 
copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information 
Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC, 
20554. Copies may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating 
contractor, BCPI, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 
20554. Customers may contact BCPI through its Web site:  https://www.bcpiweb.com, by e-mail at fcc@bcpiweb.com, by telephone at (202) 
488-5300 or (800) 378-3160 (voice), (202) 488-5562 (TTY), or by 
facsimile at (202) 488-5563.

[[Page 10829]]

    Comments and reply comments must include a short and concise 
summary of the substantive arguments raised in the pleading. Comments 
and reply comments must also comply with Sec.  1.49 and all other 
applicable sections of the Commission's rules. We direct all interested 
parties to include the name of the filing party and the date of the 
filing on each page of their comments and reply comments. All parties 
are encouraged to utilize a table of contents, regardless of the length 
of their submission. We also strongly encourage parties to track the 
organization set forth in the NPRM in order to facilitate our internal 
review process.

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    This document proposes new or revised information collection 
requirements. The reporting requirements, if any, that might be adopted 
pursuant to this NPRM are too speculative at this time to request 
comment from the OMB or interested parties under section 3507(d) of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3507(d). Therefore, if the 
Commission determines that reporting is required, it will seek comment 
from the OMB and interested parties prior to any such requirements 
taking effect. Nevertheless, interested parties are encouraged to 
comment on whether any new or revised information collection is 
necessary, and if so, how the Commission might minimize the burden of 
any such collection. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business 
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, we will seek specific comment on how we 
might ``further reduce the information collection burden for small 
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.'' Nevertheless, 
interested parties are encouraged to comment on whether any new or 
revised information collection is necessary, and if so, how the 
Commission might minimize the burden of any such collection.

Synopsis of the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

I. Introduction

    1. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), we seek comment on 
whether and how to reform the Form 477 data program to improve the 
Commission's ability to carry out its statutory duties, while 
streamlining and minimizing the overall costs of the program, including 
the burdens imposed on service providers. This NPRM is an important 
part of our larger Data Innovation Initiative to modernize and 
streamline how we collect, use, and disseminate data, and to ensure 
that all of the data we collect is useful for supporting informed 
policymaking, promoting competition, and protecting consumers. We are 
focused on giving careful consideration to the benefits and burdens of 
our data collections, and eliminating unnecessary collections where 
possible. For example, the Initiative already has identified over 
twenty data collections across the entire Commission that may be 
outdated and ripe for elimination, as well as a number of statutory 
reporting obligations that may have outlived their usefulness. 
Similarly, for each type of data discussed in this NPRM, we will 
consider the burdens and benefits of any proposed changes. Our goal is 
to ensure that the Commission has the data it needs, while minimizing 
the overall burdens of data collection.
    2. Established in 2000, Form 477 is the Commission's primary tool 
for collecting data about broadband and local telephone networks and 
services. The form requires providers of broadband service, local 
telephone service, interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) 
service, and mobile telephone service to report the number of 
subscribers they have in their respective service areas. But the 
Commission has in the past noted shortcomings of the data collected 
using Form 477, and after more than a decade of rapid innovation in the 
market for broadband and telephone services, and consistent with the 
Government Accountability Office's (GAO) recent finding that the 
Commission's broadband data collection fails to collect key data 
required to inform policy decisions and generally needs improvement, we 
believe it may be time to modify Form 477 to better serve the needs of 
the Commission, Congress, service providers, and consumers. In fact, 
since the last modification of Form 477, Congress directed the FCC to 
collect additional information to supplement its analysis of broadband 
deployment and availability. As we have noted before, Form 477 collects 
data that are ``a critical precursor'' to the Commission's ability to 
fulfill its statutory duties, and provides the Commission with ``a set 
of data of uniform quality and reliability'' superior to other publicly 
available information sources. Form 477 also enables us to fulfill our 
obligation to reduce government regulation wherever possible, by 
providing ``a factual basis to evaluate the nature and impact of our 
existing regulation and, in particular, to identify areas where 
competition has developed sufficiently to justify deregulation.''

II. Background

A. Form 477 Data Program

    3. Development of FCC Form 477. The Commission initiated the Form 
477 data program in May 2000 to ``materially improve its ability to 
develop, evaluate, and revise policy'' for broadband and telephone 
services, and ``to provide valuable benchmarks for Congress, the 
Commission, other policy makers, and consumers.'' The Commission 
designed the program as a standardized collection, with separate 
sections on subscriptions to broadband services, local telephone 
service competition, and mobile telephony services.
    4. In establishing the Form 477 framework for broadband data, the 
Commission anticipated that a ``regular and consistent survey of 
broadband deployment'' would substantially assist it in fulfilling its 
statutory duty under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act to 
report to Congress on broadband deployment and availability, and to 
encourage the deployment of broadband to all Americans. To that end, 
the initial Form 477 collected broadband subscribership data. 
Specifically, the form collected data from facilities-based providers 
on the numbers of connections to the Internet in service to consumers 
in each State, and whether such connections used the provider's own 
facilities, unbundled network elements (UNEs), special-access lines or 
other leased lines, or wireless channels. The Commission established 
200 kilobits per second (kbps) as the minimum transfer-speed threshold 
for the connections it would track, and required providers to identify 
the technology used to provide the connections, the percentage of 
connections offered to residential customers and small businesses, and 
each ZIP code in which the providers had at least one connection in 
service.
    5. The initial Form 477 likewise collected subscribership data for 
local telephone service, including data from incumbent local exchange 
carriers (LECs) and competitive LECs on the number of voice-grade 
equivalent lines and fixed wireless channels in service for the 
provision of local exchange or exchange access service to end-user 
customers and for resale. The original Form 477 required LECs to report 
the five-digit ZIP codes in which customers served, by reported lines 
and wireless channels. Mobile telephony providers were required to 
report their total subscribers by State, and the percentage

[[Page 10830]]

of customers billed directly by the reporting provider.
    6. The initial Form 477 program did not require small providers to 
file reports. Specifically, broadband service providers with fewer than 
250 connections in service in a State were not required to file the 
form. LECs with fewer than 10,000 voice-grade equivalent lines or 
wireless channels in service, and mobile telephony providers with fewer 
than 10,000 subscribers were similarly not required to file.
    7. Revisions to Form 477. The Commission has twice modified Form 
477. First, in 2004, the Commission revised the Form 477 program to 
require submissions from all facilities-based providers of broadband 
connections, in order to capture a more comprehensive picture of 
broadband deployment in rural areas. Further, the Commission required 
filers to report the percentage of their connections that fell into 
five speed tiers. The Commission also required all wired and fixed 
wireless providers to report the technologies used to provide service 
in the ZIP codes in which at least one connection was in service. The 
Commission acknowledged that mobile broadband service differs in some 
respects from fixed broadband service, and required filers reporting 
mobile wireless broadband subscribers to list the ZIP codes that ``best 
represent the filers' mobile wireless broadband coverage areas.''
    8. The Commission next refined the Form 477 data program in 2008, 
establishing the framework that is currently in place. The Commission 
decided to collect more granular subscription and speed data, and to 
improve the quality of data on mobile wireless broadband services. All 
wireline and terrestrial-fixed wireless broadband service providers 
must now report the numbers of subscribers at the census-tract level, 
broken down by technology and more disaggregated speed tiers; and the 
percentage of subscribers that are residential. Incumbent LECs must 
continue to report the percentage of their service areas where DSL 
connections are available to residential premises, and cable system 
operators must do the same with regard to cable modem service 
availability. Providers of terrestrial mobile wireless broadband 
services must continue to submit their broadband subscriber totals on a 
State-by-State basis, rather than at the census-tract level, and must 
report on the census tracts that ``best represent'' their broadband 
service footprint for each speed tier in which they offer service.
    9. The 2008 Broadband Data Gathering Order and Further NPRM, 73 FR 
37911, July 2, 2008, also required providers of interconnected VoIP 
services to report the number of subscribers in each State, the number 
of subscribers who purchase the service in conjunction with the 
purchase of a broadband connection and, of those, the types of 
connections purchased. Interconnected VoIP providers also must report 
the percentage of subscribers who can use the service over any 
broadband connection.
    10. 2008 Further NPRM. The Commission sought comment in 2008 on 
further revisions to Form 477, including whether and how to institute a 
national broadband availability mapping program. The Commission 
tentatively concluded that it ``should collect information that 
providers use to respond to prospective customers to determine on an 
address-by-address basis whether service is available.'' The Commission 
sought comment on standardized collection formats; whether it should 
collect information on pricing and actual speeds of broadband services; 
how generally to maintain the confidentiality of broadband data; 
whether the Commission should conduct and publish periodic consumer 
surveys on broadband services; and whether it should require LECs and 
interconnected VoIP providers to report the number of subscribers in 
geographic units below the State level, either by ZIP code or census 
tract.

B. Other Developments Relating to Data Collection

    11. Since the adoption of the 2008 Broadband Data Gathering Order 
and Further NPRM, 73 FR 37911, July 2, 2008, a number of legislative 
and regulatory developments have affected the obligations of the 
Commission and other government agencies to collect data related to 
telephone and broadband services.
1. Broadband Data Improvement Act
    12. On October 10, 2008, Congress enacted the Broadband Data 
Improvement Act (BDIA), expressly finding that ``[i]mproving Federal 
data on the deployment and adoption of broadband service will assist in 
the development of broadband technology across all regions of the 
nation.'' The BDIA imposed several new obligations on the Commission 
and other Federal agencies.
a. Revisions to Section 706 Reporting Requirements
    13. The BDIA amended Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 
1996 to improve the quality and quantity of data the Commission 
collects on the deployment and adoption of broadband services. First, 
the BDIA requires the Commission to publish its Section 706 reports 
``annually'' instead of ``regularly,'' as previously required. Second, 
the BDIA requires the Commission to compile ``demographic information 
for unserved areas'' as part of the annual Section 706 inquiry. 
Specifically, the BDIA requires that the Commission ``compile a list of 
geographical areas not served by any provider of advanced 
telecommunications capability.'' If Census Bureau data are available, 
the Commission must ``determine, for each such unserved area--(1) The 
population; (2) the population density; and (3) the average per capita 
income.''
    14. The BDIA also requires the Commission to perform an 
international comparison in its annual broadband deployment report 
conducted pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act. 
Specifically, Section 1303 of Title 47 now 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.''
b. The GAO's Report on Broadband Metrics and Standards
    15. In addition, the BDIA required the GAO's Comptroller General to 
conduct a study and issue a report on broadband metrics and standards 
by October 10, 2009. That report evaluated the ``broadband metrics that 
may be used by industry and the Federal Government [including the 
Commission] to provide users with more accurate information about the 
cost and capability of their broadband connection[s], and to better 
compare the deployment and penetration of broadband in the United 
States with other countries.''
    16. The GAO found that current measures of broadband performance 
``have limitations,'' that ``views were mixed on potential 
alternatives, and ongoing [broadband data collection] efforts need 
improvement.'' Further, stakeholders reported to the GAO that the data 
collected by the FCC Form 477 ``[do] not include information on 
availability, price, or actual delivered speeds, which limits the 
ability to make comparisons across the country and inform policy or 
investment decisions.''
2. Recovery Act
    17. In February 2009, Congress enacted the American Recovery and

[[Page 10831]]

Reinvestment Act (ARRA), which directed the Commission to develop a 
national broadband plan to ensure that all people of the United States 
have access to broadband. The ARRA also directed the National 
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to develop and 
maintain a comprehensive nationwide and publicly available map of 
broadband service capability and availability.
a. National Broadband Plan
    18. Section 6001(k) of the ARRA instructed the Commission to submit 
to Congress a national broadband plan that would analyze mechanisms for 
ensuring broadband access by all people of the United States, provide a 
detailed strategy for achieving affordability and maximum usage, and 
include a plan for use of broadband to advance national purposes such 
as education, health care, energy, and public safety. The resulting 
National Broadband Plan, published on March 16, 2010, noted the 
necessity for ``continuous collection and analysis of detailed data on 
competitive behavior,'' and stressed the need for the Commission to 
conduct ``more thorough data collection to monitor and benchmark 
competitive behavior.'' In particular, recommendation 4.2 of the Plan 
suggested that the Commission ``revise Form 477 to collect data 
relevant to broadband availability, adoption and competition.''
b. NTIA's Broadband Inventory Map
    19. In order to comply with requirements under the BDIA and the 
ARRA, NTIA in July 2009 established a State Broadband Data and 
Development Grant Program (SBDD). Through this program, NTIA has 
awarded grants, funded through 2015, to certain State-designated 
entities to fund the collection of data from broadband providers. The 
data collected by NTIA as part of the SBDD program will help populate a 
national broadband inventory map, which will be made public in February 
of this year. In accordance with the ARRA, this map will allow 
consumers to determine broadband ``availability'' through a Web site 
that is ``interactive and searchable.''
3. The Commission's Data Innovation Initiative
    20. On June 29, 2010, the Commission launched the Data Innovation 
Initiative, designed to modernize and streamline how the Commission 
collects, uses, and disseminates data. As part of the Initiative, the 
Wireline Competition, Wireless Telecommunications, and Media Bureaus 
released public notices seeking input on which existing data 
collections should be eliminated or improved, and which new ones should 
be added. Review of the resulting record, along with staff work in the 
three Bureaus, has identified over twenty data collections that may be 
outdated and ripe for elimination, as well as a number of statutory 
reporting obligations that may have outlived their usefulness. We will 
initiate proceedings to consider elimination of those data collections 
that are completely within our purview. Recognizing that data 
collection is essential to fulfill the Commission's central statutory 
obligations, including advancing universal service, protecting 
consumers, promoting competition, and ensuring public safety, we also 
look forward to working with Congress to eliminate any outdated 
statutory reporting obligations that they choose to relieve us of.
4. 2010 Biennial Review
    21. The Commission also is conducting its 2010 biennial review of 
telecommunications regulations, pursuant to Section 11 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended. This section requires the 
Commission (1) to review biennially its regulations ``that apply to the 
operations or activities of any provider of telecommunications 
service,'' and (2) to ``determine whether any such regulation is no 
longer necessary in the public interest as the result of meaningful 
economic competition between providers of such service.'' The 
Commission is directed to repeal or modify any regulations that it 
finds are no longer in the public interest.

III. Purposes for Which the Commission Must Obtain Data

    22. The Commission must collect timely and reliable information to 
carry out its statutory duties. In the eleven years that have passed 
since the Commission established the Form 477 data program, commenters 
in a number of proceedings have suggested that the broadband and 
telephone subscription data we currently collect are insufficient to 
allow the Commission to fulfill its statutory responsibilities. 
Telecommunications markets are now in a period of transition to a world 
in which fixed and mobile broadband networks give consumers access to 
not only voice communications capability but a myriad of other 
applications and services. Commission data shows that there are now 
more than 274 million mobile telephony subscriptions in the United 
States, and interconnected VoIP subscriptions increased by more than 
20% during 2009 while traditional PSTN switched access lines decreased 
by 6%.
    23. The National Broadband Plan recommended that the Commission 
closely observe this transition from legacy circuit-switched networks 
to all IP, broadband networks to ensure that legacy regulations and 
services do not impede the transition to a modern and efficient use of 
resources, that businesses can plan for and adjust to new standards, 
and, perhaps most importantly, that consumers do not lose access to 
statutorily required ``adequate facilities at reasonable charges.'' 
Commenters in the National Broadband Plan suggested that the Commission 
collect data, or seek comment on the need to collect data, on a variety 
of issues related to this transition, including public safety, service 
quality, customer satisfaction, and price. Below, we identify a number 
of important purposes for which the Commission and commenters have 
noted that we may require more robust data, and seek comment on the 
data needed to fulfill those purposes.

A. Ensuring Universal Service

    24. Section 254 of the Act, which governs administration of 
universal service programs, requires the Commission to base its 
universal service policies on certain principles, including that 
``[q]uality services'' be ``available at just, reasonable, and 
affordable rates,'' and that ``[c]onsumers in all regions of the 
Nation, including low-income consumers and those in rural, insular, and 
high cost areas, should have access to telecommunications and 
information services * * * that are reasonably comparable to those 
services provided in urban areas and that are available at rates that 
are reasonably comparable to rates charged for similar services in 
urban areas.'' A key goal set forth in the National Broadband Plan is 
to reform the Universal Service Fund (USF) to ``accelerate the 
deployment of broadband to unserved areas,'' and the Commission's 
unanimously adopted Joint Statement on Broadband calls for the USF to 
be reformed ``to increase accountability and efficiency, encourage 
targeted investment in broadband infrastructure, and emphasize the 
importance of broadband to the future of these programs.''
    25. We seek comment on the data needed to ensure universal service. 
Numerous stakeholders have asserted that the Commission must collect 
deployment, price, and service quality data to effectively fulfill its 
obligations under Section 254 and to modernize the USF to focus on 
broadband. For example, Verizon has stated that the

[[Page 10832]]

Commission must have reliable data to identify areas that are truly 
unserved by broadband to implement USF reform. The National Broadband 
Plan noted that ``[a]cross the four USF programs, there is a lack of 
adequate data to make critical policy decisions regarding how to better 
utilize funding to promote universal service objectives.'' The 
Commission itself has noted the importance of having reliable data to 
measure the performance of the USF and to protect against waste, fraud, 
and abuse. Would data on deployment, price, service quality, and 
subscription be required to assess whether the performance goals 
proposed for the USF high-cost program and Connect America Fund in the 
NPRM released today are being achieved? Would voice and broadband 
pricing data be necessary to develop possible rate benchmarks for voice 
and/or broadband service in order to determine if services are 
``affordable'' and ``reasonably comparable to rates in urban areas''? 
Would determining whether particular areas of the country--including 
rural, insular, and high-cost areas--should be exempt from aspects of 
the USF reform program or afforded different treatment require 
deployment, subscription, price and service quality data?

B. Ensuring Public Safety

    26. The Communications Act charges the Commission with ensuring 
that ``wire and radio communications service with adequate facilities 
at reasonable charges'' are available for the purpose of, inter alia, 
``promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and 
radio communications.'' Congress has further tasked the Commission with 
a key role in guaranteeing that Americans have access to emergency 
services via 911. The Commission must be able to monitor the 
performance of both legacy circuit-switched networks and broadband 
networks to ensure that consumers can access emergency services as 
service providers transition from one technology to the other. As noted 
in the National Broadband Plan, ``[a] more reliable [broadband] network 
would also benefit homeland security, public safety, businesses and 
consumers, who are increasingly dependent on their broadband 
communications, including their mobile phones.''
    27. We seek comment on what data the Commission needs to fulfill 
these goals. Would mobile service deployment data, for example, allow 
the Commission to identify areas where consumers lack access to 911 
service, such as rural highways or remote worksites? Would service 
quality data enable the Commission to identify networks that limit 
consumers' access to emergency services as a result of excessive 
downtime? Could customer complaint data likewise serve as an indicator 
that networks are insufficiently reliable to ensure that consumers can 
depend on them in an emergency?

C. Promoting Telephone and Broadband Competition

    28. Promoting competition is a core purpose of the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996, as amended, and as the National 
Broadband Plan noted, ``[c]ompetition is crucial for promoting consumer 
welfare and spurring innovation and investment in broadband access 
networks,'' and ``provides consumers the benefits of choice, better 
service and lower prices.'' Others have noted the importance of 
competition to consumer welfare. In addition, vibrant competition in a 
market can reduce or eliminate the need for regulation. For example, 
competition, properly demonstrated, can be the basis for forbearance 
from regulations under Section 10 of the Act. As the Commission 
previously has found in the context of its Section 10 analysis, 
``competition is the most effective means of ensuring that * * * 
charges, practices, classifications, and regulations * * * are just and 
reasonable, and not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory.'' The 
Commission also is required to annually present its findings regarding 
the state of competition in the mobile services marketplace pursuant to 
Congress's instruction in Section 332(c)(1)(C) of the Act.
    29. Despite the importance of assessing competition in order to 
fulfill the Commission's statutory responsibilities, the Commission 
does not always have sufficient information about voice and broadband 
services sufficient to assess competition accurately. For example, the 
Commission has recognized that a lack of comprehensive data on 
telephone and broadband services has, in certain situations, 
compromised the rigor of its analysis in proceedings seeking the 
transfer of Title III licenses and Section 214 authorizations. 
Similarly, in a decision regarding whether to grant forbearance from 
network unbundling and other regulations pursuant to Section 10 of the 
Act, the Commission was unable to make a definitive finding regarding 
market share in the telephony market when the primary cable operator 
did not voluntarily file reliable data.
    30. The National Broadband Plan also noted that statements from a 
number of commenters--including officials from the Department of 
Justice and the Federal Trade Commission--demonstrate that ``additional 
data are needed to more rigorously evaluate broadband competition.'' 
The Plan concluded that to ensure that the right policies are put in 
place so that the broadband ecosystem benefits from meaningful 
competition as it evolves, it is ``important to have an ongoing, data-
driven evaluation of the state of competition.'' The National Broadband 
Plan therefore recommended that the Commission ``revise Form 477 to 
collect data relevant to broadband availability, adoption and 
competition.'' Numerous commenters have made similar observations and 
recommendations.
    31. It is important to note that although more robust deployment 
and subscription data may give the Commission a view of the potential 
for competition in an area, the National Broadband Plan and a number of 
commenters have explained that such data alone would not necessarily 
reveal the actual extent of competition or the level of benefit that 
consumers enjoy from any competition that exists, and that price and 
service quality data could fill these gaps. We seek comment on the need 
for price and service quality data as well as deployment and 
subscription data to satisfy relevant statutory goals.

D. Promoting Broadband Deployment and Availability

    32. As discussed above, Section 706(b) of the Telecommunications 
Act of 1996, as amended, directs the Commission to annually ``initiate 
a notice of inquiry concerning the availability of advanced 
telecommunications capability to all Americans'' and ``determine 
whether advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed to all 
Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.'' The Commission has 
noted that information about broadband deployment and availability 
throughout the nation is essential to fulfill its obligations under 
Section 706, including the requirement to compile information about 
demographic information for unserved areas.
    33. We seek comment on whether the Commission has data sufficient 
to effectively fulfill this purpose. The Commission has observed that 
the data it has collected to date have allowed only limited assessments 
of broadband deployment and availability. For example, the Commission 
has used information about the existence of at least one subscriber in 
a ZIP code or census tract as a proxy for both deployment and 
availability. But the

[[Page 10833]]

Commission and commenters have noted that subscription data, 
particularly when collected above the household level, is an imperfect 
proxy for network deployment or capability. For example, deployment is 
overstated when households subscribe in one part of an area (such as a 
census tract) but service is not offered to households in other parts 
of the same area, while deployment is understated if no household in an 
area has chosen to subscribe to any service offering provided by a 
network, and capability is understated if no household has opted for 
the highest speed offering.
    34. We also note that the Commission has long identified broadband 
availability as a broader concept than broadband deployment. A number 
of commenters have suggested that the Commission collect other types of 
data beyond the Form 477 subscribership data to fulfill its obligations 
under Section 706, including information on where infrastructure has 
been deployed, the price of broadband services, and service quality. 
Would the use of such data sources in conjunction with subscription 
data provide additional insights into broadband adoption in the United 
States? If infrastructure data were collected, how could the Commission 
ensure that sensitive information on critical infrastructure is 
appropriately shielded and protected?

E. Other Statutory Obligations

    35. We seek comment on other statutory obligations and Commission 
efforts that may require the Commission to reform the 477 data program. 
In addition, we seek comment on whether the subscription data currently 
collected via Form 477 and the Commission's other data collection 
programs are sufficient for such obligations, or whether the Commission 
should collect additional types of data. Commenters who advocate the 
collection of additional data should explain how collecting specific 
types of data would result in concrete benefits for consumers, service 
providers, and other stakeholders, and explain whether the benefits 
would outweigh the burdens.

IV. Revisions to the FCC Form 477 Data Program

    36. In the preceding section, we discussed specific statutory 
obligations of the Commission that, to be performed effectively, may 
require the collection of better data. We turn now to discussion of 
what specific data may be necessary to discharge these statutory 
responsibilities, and whether and (where relevant) how we should 
collect each type of data using Form 477. After reviewing input from 
outside parties, we believe that there are five categories of data that 
may be necessary to meet the Congressional mandates described in the 
prior section: deployment, pricing, and service quality and customer 
satisfaction data, which provide measures of supply; subscription data, 
which provides a measure of consumer demand; and ownership and contact 
information, which serves multiple statutory purposes. While collecting 
other categories of data, such as the location of last- and middle-mile 
infrastructure, could prove useful to the Commission, Form 477 may not 
be the most appropriate tool for collecting such data. We seek comment 
on whether there are other types of data necessary for the Commission 
to complete its mandates that should be collected using Form 477.
    37. We recognize that data collections place burdens--and 
potentially significant burdens--on those required to file, and we 
actively seek to balance the benefits of data collected against those 
burdens. We seek comment on whether each of the types of data noted 
below is necessary for the Commission to fulfill its statutory 
mandates. Those who suggest that the Commission does not need 
particular data should specify how the Commission can meet its 
obligations without such data. For data that the Commission should 
collect, we seek comment on whether the Commission should gather the 
data through an OMB-approved data collection or whether there are other 
sources. For example, are there commercial data sources that would 
allow the Commission to meet its obligations? Alternatively, would it 
be practical for Commission staff to collect data from public sources 
(e.g., from service providers' Web sites)? Those advocating the use of 
commercial or publicly available data should discuss any limitations 
associated with such sources, the resources the Commission would need 
to devote to the collection method proposed (e.g., direct costs, staff 
time), and the impact such a collection method would have on other 
Commission efforts. Where a data collection is necessary, we seek 
comment on ways that the Commission can minimize the burden for filers, 
for example, in the design of the collection or in tools the Commission 
can provide. Commenters who cite the burden of an OMB-approved 
collection should quantify the burden they expect and explain their 
quantification methodology. We seek comment on issues specific to 
reducing the burden of each collection as they are discussed in the 
following sections.

A. General Considerations

1. Streamlining Collection
    38. To reduce production burdens, commenters urge the Commission to 
ensure that the FCC Form 477 collection process is as ``streamlined as 
possible,'' and we agree that streamlining the process where 
appropriate must be a top priority for the Commission. For example, 
providers request that the Form 477 interface be redesigned to allow 
parties to file data on multiple States as a single file. We seek 
comment on these proposals, and on other steps the Commission can take 
to streamline the Form 477 data program.
    39. Reporting entities already maintain subscriber databases that 
include address-level information; thus, providing subscribership 
information at the address level could simplify reporting. At the same 
time, collection of address-level deployment and availability 
information would allow the Commission to make policy decisions based 
on a more granular and accurate understanding of the marketplace. We 
note that some providers have explicitly requested that they be allowed 
to submit subscribership data at the address level to reduce their 
reporting burden. We seek comment whether it would be less burdensome 
for providers to submit address-level data with respect to the 
deployment and availability of services. We also seek comment on other 
ways that the Commission can ease the burden on small- and medium-sized 
providers.
    40. In addition, we seek comment on the extent to which 
technological tools can reduce the burden of producing information. For 
example, the Commission now makes available a Census Block Conversions 
application programming interface (API) that returns a U.S. Census 
Bureau Census Block number given a passed latitude and longitude. The 
API also returns the State and county name associated with a block. 
Among other benefits, we expect that this API will assist providers in 
assigning subscribers to census-defined geographic areas. What other 
tools are available to reduce the burdens providers face in complying 
with our data reporting programs? Are there other tools that the 
Commission itself should develop?
2. Use of Third-Party and Publicly Available Data
    41. We seek comment on whether and how the Commission can obtain 
reliable data from third parties and publicly

[[Page 10834]]

available sources. The Commission in 2007 sought comment on the 
``availability of commercial sources of broadband deployment data or 
data-processing programs that could augment or otherwise add value to 
our use of Form 477 data, or reduce the associated costs and other 
burdens imposed on reporting providers.'' The Commission declined to 
use any such sources in the 2008 Broadband Data Gathering Order and 
Further NPRM, 73 FR 37911, July 2, 2008. We note that the Commission 
currently relies on some third-party data that may be considered 
authoritative, and seek comment on what other data could be obtained by 
the Commission from third parties. We also seek comment on whether 
there are new sources of data that could serve Commission goals.
    42. We note that there are limitations associated with third-party 
data sources. Commercial data sources rarely rely on a census of all 
data sources of a particular type and more often rely on sampling. The 
bias associated with sampling, or the use of proprietary methods to 
create or extrapolate from a sample, could limit the applicability of 
commercial data. Further, commercial data often include restrictions to 
data rights that could limit the Commission's ability to publish 
underlying data or resulting analysis. We seek comment on these 
potential shortcomings of commercial data, whether there are ways to 
mitigate them, and the balance between these limitations and the burden 
that could be avoided by the use of commercial data. The Commission 
could also cull some information from public sources, such as company 
Web sites. We note that such data may be unreliable or insufficiently 
detailed, and seek comment on the extent to which the Commission can 
base policy on such data. To the extent commenters advocate for the use 
of commercial or third-party data for a specific collection, we ask 
that they quantify the resources the Commission would have to devote to 
procure or process those data. How should the Commission balance the 
costs of purchasing data or collecting data itself from public sources 
against the burdens that Form 477 data collection may impose on service 
providers?
3. Who Must Report
    43. Four classes of entities currently file FCC Form 477: 
facilities-based providers of broadband connections to end user 
locations; providers of wired or fixed wireless local exchange 
telephone service; providers of interconnected VoIP service; and 
providers of mobile telephony services. Some entities may fill out only 
certain portions of the form.
    44. Some of the proposals identified below would have the 
Commission collect from all providers of voice and broadband services 
data that may have in the past been collected only from a subset of 
providers. For example, some of the service quality data some have 
suggested we should collect from all broadband providers formerly were 
collected only from price cap carriers. We seek comment on whether 
there are classes of providers that should be exempted from reporting 
elements of any proposed data collection. For example, small broadband 
providers may find it relatively more burdensome to comply with certain 
data reporting obligations than larger carriers. Any proposals to 
exempt certain providers should include the legal and policy grounds 
and the policy implications for such an exemption.
    45. We also seek comment on whether additional classes of entities 
should be required to file FCC Form 477. For example, should we revise 
our definition of ``interconnected VoIP'' for the purposes of this 
collection to include services that permit users to receive calls that 
originate on the public switched telephone network or to terminate 
calls to the public switched telephone network? Proposals to require 
additional classes of entities to file should discuss the Commission's 
authority to do so.
4. Frequency of Reporting
    46. The Commission previously has decided that it can best balance 
its need for timely information with its desire to minimize the 
reporting burden on respondents by requiring providers to report data 
on a semi-annual basis. One commenter has asked the Commission to 
require quarterly collections ``to keep pace with rapidly evolving 
Internet technology and allow regulators to plan and adjust policies.'' 
Another commenter asks that the Commission synchronize the filing 
deadlines for FCC Form 477 with those for the NTIA's SBDD. We seek 
comment on whether FCC Form 477 should be filed more or less 
frequently.

B. Specific Categories of Data

    47. Commenters have identified five categories of data that may 
help the Commission more effectively carry out its statutory 
obligations: deployment, price, subscription, service quality and 
customer satisfaction, and ownership and contact information. We seek 
comment on whether and how the Commission should collect such data, and 
the Commission's authority to do so.
    48. Those commenting on how to collect data should be as specific 
as possible. Establishing detailed data reporting requirements is an 
inherently difficult task. Particular elements of a dataset may be 
simple to describe conceptually, but difficult to specify as a 
practical matter. Conversely, a data element may be easily specified, 
but difficult to explain in plain language. To the extent commenters 
propose that we collect specific data elements, we ask that commenters 
both discuss the concept and provide an actual specification of each 
data element. To the extent particular proposals are offered, are there 
different data elements that might better achieve our goals, including 
minimizing production burdens on filers and processing burdens on the 
Commission?
1. Deployment
    49. As discussed above, numerous stakeholders have urged the 
Commission to obtain data that would allow it to understand where 
providers have deployed networks capable of delivering a given service. 
We seek comment on whether deployment data are necessary to fulfill 
several of the purposes discussed above: ensuring universal service by 
tracking the expansion of broadband networks, identifying areas that 
lack access to fixed or mobile broadband and assisting the Commission 
in targeting support to areas that most need it; monitoring telephone 
and broadband competition by providing insight into the service areas 
of potential competitors regardless of the technology used; and 
promoting broadband deployment and availability by providing reliable 
information about broadband deployment nationwide. In this section, we 
seek comment on how the Commission might obtain deployment data for 
voice and broadband services.
a. Voice Network Deployment
(i) Fixed
    50. The Commission currently does not collect data on fixed voice 
network deployment. And although the national telephone subscription 
rate has remained high over the last decade, a number of commenters 
have informed the Commission that residents in some areas of the 
country--particularly rural, insular, high-cost, and Tribal areas--do 
not have access to basic fixed telephone service. Other commenters 
assert that State carrier of last resort obligations are sufficient to 
ensure that fixed voice networks are ubiquitously deployed. We

[[Page 10835]]

seek comment on whether the Commission should collect fixed voice 
network deployment data. If such a collection is warranted, should it 
be limited to areas in which network deployment has historically been a 
concern, such as rural, insular, high-cost, and Tribal areas? What 
geographic area (e.g., census block or address-level) would be 
appropriate for reporting such data?
(ii) Mobile
    51. The Commission currently licenses a dataset from a commercial 
source, American Roamer, for data on mobile network deployment. 
American Roamer provides coverage boundary maps for mobile voice and 
broadband networks based on information provided to them by mobile 
wireless network operators. The Commission previously has noted that 
analysis based on this data ``likely overstates the coverage actually 
experienced by consumers, because American Roamer reports advertised 
coverage as reported to it by many mobile wireless service providers, 
each of which uses a different definition of coverage. The data do not 
expressly account for factors such as signal strength, bit rate, or in-
building coverage, and they may convey a false sense of consistency 
across geographic areas and service providers. Nonetheless, the 
analysis is useful because it provides a quantitative baseline that can 
be compared across network types, technologies, and carriers, over 
time.''
    52. We seek comment on whether it is appropriate to continue 
relying on American Roamer's mobile telephony deployment data. Are 
alternative datasets available, and if so, how do they compare to the 
data available to and currently purchased by the Commission? Are such 
datasets available only as off-the-shelf products, or would it be 
possible to acquire datasets tailored to the Commission's 
specifications? For such datasets, what are the likely costs, and how 
timely is the data? Should the Commission require carriers to submit 
mobile telephony deployment data, notwithstanding the availability of 
some data from third parties? If so, what data submissions should be 
required? Should the Commission collect data that are based on a 
standardized definition of coverage or a range of signal strengths that 
would reflect a likely consumer experience? We also seek comment on 
whether the Commission should collect data on the spectrum bands used 
for mobile voice network deployment in specific geographic areas, which 
would help the Commission to fulfill its spectrum management 
responsibilities under Title III of the Act. How burdensome would the 
collection of mobile telephony deployment data be for providers? What 
are the benefits of obtaining such information?
b. Broadband Network Deployment
(i) SBDD Data
    53. The national broadband inventory map under development by the 
NTIA is an important step toward collecting more robust data about 
broadband deployment and availability. The GAO's report noted that 
stakeholders ``generally agreed'' that this national broadband map 
``would address some gaps and provide detailed data on availability, 
subscribership, and actual delivered speeds,'' but there were concerns 
that the data collection mechanism used--which depends on voluntary 
reporting by providers to State entities whose methods may vary from 
State to State--could ``result in inconsistent data and limit the 
effectiveness of the effort.''
    54. Broadband deployment data collected via Form 477 could address 
these consistency concerns and provide an ongoing source of data at the 
conclusion of the SBDD program. Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile, and NCTA 
suggest that the Commission consider the extent to which it is 
necessary to collect broadband deployment data through Form 477 once 
NTIA's national broadband inventory map is online and the data become 
available to the Commission. We seek comment on this suggestion. On 
what data would the Commission rely at the conclusion of the SBDD 
program, and how would the Commission reliably analyze trends in 
broadband deployment if there are gaps in data collected by the SBDD 
program?
(ii) Data Collection by the Commission
    55. We seek comment on a number of issues raised by commenters who 
recommend that the Commission collect data on broadband network 
deployment.
    56. Geographic Area. Parties have proposed varying levels of 
geographic specificity the Commission should require when collecting 
deployment information. Currently, the Commission collects subscription 
data--which it uses as a proxy for deployment--for fixed broadband 
providers at the census tract level. In the 2008 Broadband Data 
Gathering Order and Further NPRM, 73 FR 37911, July 2, 2008, the 
Commission tentatively concluded that it should measure deployment on 
an address-by-address basis, which would provide the most granular and 
accurate information. A number of commenters in prior proceedings, 
particularly State regulatory agencies, have expressed support for 
collection of broadband deployment data at the address level. These 
commenters note that address-by-address data would yield the most 
useful data for the Commission about where broadband is deployed. Some 
smaller providers also state that reporting at the subscriber address 
level would ease the burden of reporting. Other commenters, however, 
have suggested that reporting address-level deployment information 
would be unduly burdensome for providers, particularly for small- and 
medium-sized providers that do not maintain such data. We seek comment 
on the benefits and burdens of requiring address-level deployment data. 
In addition, we seek comment on how to account for areas where networks 
are deployed, but there are no homes or businesses with addresses 
(e.g., uninhabited highways with mobile network coverage). At least one 
State (California) already requires address-level reporting for the 
construction of its broadband map. We seek comment on this and similar 
State agency initiatives and request any empirical evidence of the 
burdens and impact of compliance.
    57. Some commenters in prior proceedings have suggested that the 
Commission collect deployment data at the census block level. The 
California Public Utility Commission (PUC) notes that reporting by 
census block would yield an average of 22 households, whereas a census 
tract yields an average of 1,628 households. Census block-level 
reporting could provide a balance between being more granular than 
census tract-level reporting and avoiding any privacy issues associated 
with address-by-address reporting. Commenters have also noted that the 
utilization of a Census geography facilitates the application and 
analysis of Census demographic data, such as income, race, age, and 
household size and composition. We seek comment on whether the burdens 
imposed by collecting census block-level data are significantly greater 
than those associated with collecting census tract-level data. Would 
the burdens imposed by collecting census block-level data be 
substantially greater than requiring address-level reporting? Are there 
particular benefits to using census-block level reporting? What were 
the costs and benefits of initiatives that have used census block-level 
reporting? What alternative reporting methods could the Commission use 
to ease the burden on carriers that might find census block-level data 
to be unduly burdensome,

[[Page 10836]]

while still collecting comparable and useful data?
    58. NTIA's broadband mapping effort sought deployment data for a 
smaller geographic area than a census block for census blocks larger 
than two square miles. We seek comment on the benefits and costs of 
this approach. What unit of measurement should the Commission utilize 
for larger census blocks if the Commission does not use address-by-
address reporting?
    59. Speed. The National Broadband Plan noted the importance of 
speed data to consumers and policymakers, and stakeholders generally 
acknowledge its usefulness. The Commission currently collects 
information about advertised broadband speeds in its Form 477 
collection. The National Broadband Plan noted, however, that consumers 
and policymakers would benefit from data on actual speeds. The 
Commission has sought information about how best to measure actual 
broadband speeds. Recognizing the difficulty of measuring actual 
speeds, a number of stakeholders have nonetheless urged the Commission 
to require providers to report actual speeds. Some have suggested that 
the Commission require providers to report a statistical sampling of 
average speeds. Others have suggested requiring providers to report 
data contention ratios (the ratio of the potential maximum demand to 
the actual bandwidth available). Broadband providers and their industry 
associations have argued that actual speeds are affected by a wide 
variety of factors, many beyond the providers' control, and that 
measuring speed will be ``almost impossible.'' We seek comment on 
whether the Commission should collect data on contention ratios or some 
other measure of network congestion. We further seek comment on whether 
the Commission should continue to collect data only on advertised 
speeds, or whether, for example, providers should provide information 
about actual speeds by geographic area, or speeds that extend beyond 
the access network (e.g., end-to-end speeds that reflect an end user's 
typical Internet performance). We also seek comment on how to best 
measure the actual speeds of services that can be provided over a 
network. The Commission has undertaken a program to measure such speeds 
directly for a sample of end users of fixed broadband, and is 
considering a similar program for mobile broadband. We seek comment on 
whether an approach like this one, a similar approach with more 
measurements, or some other method is appropriate. Comments on 
measurements of actual speed should identify the part or parts of the 
network where speed should be measured. What starting and ending points 
are most relevant for consumers, providers, and the Commission?
    60. The Commission currently collects speed data in eight tiers of 
advertised download speeds and nine tiers of advertised upload speeds, 
leading to 72 possible combinations. The SBDD established nine tiers of 
advertised download speeds and 11 tiers of advertised upload speeds, 
for 99 possible combinations. We seek comment on whether the FCC and 
NTIA should conform their speed tiers. Further, while there is value in 
having speed data broken out at a granular level, relevant speeds are 
likely to evolve over time, and having 72 or 99 speed-tier combinations 
may be unnecessarily complex. However, we note that there are benefits 
to maintaining some continuity in this area to enable tracking data on 
particular speed-tier combinations over time. Further, measuring the 
same speed tiers for both business and residential customers may not be 
appropriate, as they often have different needs for speed. When 
collecting speed data, should the Commission reduce the number of speed 
tiers reported by providers? Should we add a tier specifically tied to 
any speed benchmark that may be required to receive USF or Connect 
America Fund (CAF) funding? Should any future increase in that 
potential benchmark result in the addition of a speed tier for that new 
speed? An alternative approach would be to define tiers by pairs of 
upstream and downstream speeds. Such an approach would greatly reduce 
the number of tiers but would lock-in pairings of downstream and 
upstream speeds. We seek comment on these approaches, including comment 
on the number of speed tiers and breakpoints.
    61. Mobile Issues. Mobile broadband presents additional challenges 
with respect to geography. We seek comment on whether a mobile service 
should be treated differently from a fixed service for reporting 
purposes. For mobile service, a billing address can provide a 
subscriber's home location but does not reflect the entire coverage 
area where a mobile broadband network is available; nor would a billing 
address necessarily be reflective of the primary usage area of the 
subscriber, particularly in the case of family plans and for 
businesses. As discussed above, American Roamer produces mobile voice 
and broadband coverage maps, which the Commission has used to estimate 
mobile broadband deployment at the census bloc